What Are The Implications Of Scalia's Death

Yes, you are Wrong...As usual.

A simple majority is needed to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. But, if the Senate Republicans decide to filibuster, which they likely would, a super-majority of 60 votes would be needed.

 

Yes, you rely on that tired tactic much too heavily.

You mean "The Thurmond Myth"?

Yes, yes I think you do.
http://www.afj.org/blog/judicial-confirmations-in-2016-the-myth-of-the-thurmond-rule
http://10-9.blogspot.com/2012/04/the-myth-of-thurmond-rule.html?m=0
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/gop-cynicism-on-the-supreme-court-reaches-a-new-low.html

 

If : is not an argument .

 

Ahhh....The pot calling the kettle black.

You make an "if" argument with this statement.

"If" at least 4 RINOS are willing to vote for a liberal in SCOTUS...


I would also include
"If the supposed Thurmond Rule was real, or at a minimum credible."
Which it is not.

 

From what i gather- there will be no replacement for Scalia before the election...because some existing judges are almost petrified, some will be replaced with younger, hotter judges after new pres is sworn in as well.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/scalia-death-2016-implications

Heard that C Thomas actually spoke while at work recently...and it wasn't about a hair in his coke...No respect for that guy, wonder how he ever made it to that position. Politics be politicking.

 

The RINO's are not an if but a fact .

 

Mmmm...A DINOs are also a fact too.

The problem is that these terms are more epithets used to describe members who do not tow the Party Line, rather than any actual Party splinter groups. Thus the names of the RINOs and DINOs keeps changing from vote to vote, and source to source.

Thus, without any clearly defined RINOs or DINOs, you are back to "if" and not "fact."

 

I can't seam to get to the site above right now but on the surface that doesn't make much sense. Supreme and Federal appeals court judges are appointed for life so don't have to worry about being replaced as long as they haven't committed offenses sufficient to get them impeached.

 

From TPM, Rick Hasen:
"When the next President of the United States assumes office on January 20, 2017, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be nearly 84, Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy will be over 80, and Justice Stephen Breyer will be 78. Although many Justices have served on the Court into their 80s and beyond, the chances for all of these Justices remaining through the next 4 or 8 years of the 45th President are slim. Indeed, the next president will likely make multiple appointments to the Court."

 

Indeed but why would that mean that "some existing judges are almost petrified"? Are you thinking they are afraid of being nominated? There might be something in that. Their jobs are not at risk nor will they likely be replaced unless they retire, quit, or die, none of which are closely related to a new president.

 

When asked what they would do if Obama proposed a (liberal of course) successor to Scalia, 9 Republican senators said : wait and see, and thus refused to say that they would vote no to an other liberal for Scotus, while they know very well that an other liberal will mean that the Obama policy will continue for several years, even if a republican is elected president .

It is obvious that these 11 people are RINOS who are collaborating with the enemy .

 

All of this is almost irrelevant compared to the turnover that will happen in the next term or so. I don't expect the next justice to be much different than what has been appointed by Bush (s), Clinton, or Obama.

 

Or it could mean they are not ideologues and are waiting to see the qualifications of the person nominated. I have little use for any politician, right, left or center, that places party loyalty above loyalty to their country and the Constitution.

 

Sorry LWD, for my poor choice of words. Meant the word -petrified- as in :
"the process by which organic material is converted into a fossil through the replacement of the original material and the filling of the original pore spaces with minerals."

 

Mmmm...Let's see.

10 Rinos
http://universalfreepress.com/2015/ten-rino-senators-who-voted-to-confirm-loretta-lynch-as-first-anti-constitution-attorney-general/

Nope...Make that 20 Rinos
http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/04/dishonor-roll-the-20-rinos-who-voted-for-loretta-lynch/

18 Rinos
http://www.rinotracker.us/eighteen-rino-senators-who-voted-for-the-bloated-obama-boehner-budget/

27 Rinos
http://joemiller.us/2015/12/the-27-senate-rino-traitors-including-lisa-murkowski-who-voted-for-the-anti-american-obama-ryan-omnibus-bill/


It appears that this is quite an overused term, who's definition changes with every Congressional vote.

 

That's the way I read it. I still don't understand why the word in any of it's connotations should be applied to current judges.

 

You are correct...I never should have used the word petrified.
Will go with elderly, - going by the article- they may be replaced because of that health concern, after new pres is sworn.

 

They can't be replaced unless they want to be. They can't be forced to retire due to health concerns. Even if they are incapacitated due to illness or age as long as they are alive it takes a significant effort to replace them and one that is not difficult to either block or at least delay. The age of the federal judge doesn't really matter as long as they are willing and able to serve.

 

So, they have no boss, and can't be replaced without their compliance- Wow
Surely they are influenced...Gotta go back to C Thomas. That guy holds one of the most prestigious offices in the world, and (sorry) he is a real creep. And has no boss.
How do i apply

 

Pretty close to accurate. They can be impeached if there is evidence that they committed felonies and I suspect their are mechanisms in place to replace them if they are brain dead but still have a heart beat. One of the reasons their selection process is viewed as so important. Once they are there it's not easy to get them out.