I saw the headline on my mobile Slate app while waiting in a restaurant for my order to arrive and was all, "wooooow" really loud. Fortunately this place is loud.
Post by hopecounts on Feb 13, 2016 17:53:07 GMT -5
Hard to say. With a Republican controlled senate and Scalia being on the conservative side I doubt they will move any one he nominates to confirmation hearings. They will stall until after he is out of office in hopes that Trump/Cruz/etc wins and they nominate another conservative. Which is completely crappy.
Hard to say. With a Republican controlled senate and Scalia being on the conservative side I doubt they will move any one he nominates to confirmation hearings. They will stall until after he is out of office in hopes that Trump/Cruz/etc wins and they nominate another conservative. Which is completely crappy.
It would be very hard for them to justify being short a SCJ for 11 months. If it was 2 or 3 months, absolutely, but I really don't think they can kill this for a year.
Hard to say. With a Republican controlled senate and Scalia being on the conservative side I doubt they will move any one he nominates to confirmation hearings. They will stall until after he is out of office in hopes that Trump/Cruz/etc wins and they nominate another conservative. Which is completely crappy.
It would be very hard for them to justify being short a SCJ for 11 months. If it was 2 or 3 months, absolutely, but I really don't think they can kill this for a year.
I may be jaded but I don't trust them not to try. By tradition President's don't nominee in the last 6 months so that just have to stall until then and then point to that as reason for not moving forward.
Hard to say. With a Republican controlled senate and Scalia being on the conservative side I doubt they will move any one he nominates to confirmation hearings. They will stall until after he is out of office in hopes that Trump/Cruz/etc wins and they nominate another conservative. Which is completely crappy.
It would be very hard for them to justify being short a SCJ for 11 months. If it was 2 or 3 months, absolutely, but I really don't think they can kill this for a year.
H and I were just talking about this. They can't let it go on for too long with an even number of justices, right? Are there rules about that? Seems like it wouldn't bose well for some high-priority cases.
It would be very hard for them to justify being short a SCJ for 11 months. If it was 2 or 3 months, absolutely, but I really don't think they can kill this for a year.
H and I were just talking about this. They can't let it go on for too long with an even number of justices, right? Are there rules about that? Seems like it wouldn't bose well for some high-priority cases.
Just rules as to how cases are heard, if there is a 4-4 split the lower court ruling stands while the court is to have 9 members there are no rules as to how long a vacancy can stand. It's been up to 15 months at the longest.
It would be very hard for them to justify being short a SCJ for 11 months. If it was 2 or 3 months, absolutely, but I really don't think they can kill this for a year.
Are you smoking crack? They will totally stall.
Sure, I think that a group will try. But I think they will have a hard time justifying it to the American public, especially if Obama nominates a moderate liberal. If they did push this, it would be by far the longest nomination process for anSCJ. I think the longest to date is 140ish days.
H and I were just talking about this. They can't let it go on for too long with an even number of justices, right? Are there rules about that? Seems like it wouldn't bose well for some high-priority cases.
Just rules as to how cases are heard, if there is a 4-4 split the lower court ruling stands while the court is to have 9 members there are no rules as to how long a vacancy can stand. It's been up to 15 months at the longest.
Hard to say. With a Republican controlled senate and Scalia being on the conservative side I doubt they will move any one he nominates to confirmation hearings. They will stall until after he is out of office in hopes that Trump/Cruz/etc wins and they nominate another conservative. Which is completely crappy.
It would be very hard for them to justify being short a SCJ for 11 months. If it was 2 or 3 months, absolutely, but I really don't think they can kill this for a year.
Mitch McConnel has now officially said this nomination should wait for 'the people to decide' through this next election. It's starting.
It would be very hard for them to justify being short a SCJ for 11 months. If it was 2 or 3 months, absolutely, but I really don't think they can kill this for a year.
Mitch McConnel has now officially said this nomination should wait for 'the people to decide' through this next election. It's starting.
Because we weren't decisive enough in 2008 and 2012?
Breaking news on CNN is that Obama WILL nominate someone. (I mean duh, but McConnell was saying he shouldn't lol)
I never doubted he would nominate I just think the R's going to push McConnels line and stall any nomination in committee.
It will interesting if Sri gets the nom. I wonder how they will spin going from a unanimous confirmation to holding up his nom. (Not saying that they won't hold it up, just that the spin they will have to put on that will be interesting.
God this is going to be a crazy ass few months in politics.
Post by Jalapeñomel on Feb 13, 2016 19:48:20 GMT -5
I'm not familiar enough with the process, so forgive me for what is possibly a stupid question, but what would a stall look like? Do they just keep coming up with reasons why she/he wouldn't be appropriate?
I'm not familiar enough with the process, so forgive me for what is possibly a stupid question, but what would a stall look like? Do they just keep coming up with reasons why she/he wouldn't be appropriate?
They would just not have confirmation hearings. Nothing forces them to do so.