Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dead. The maneuvering begins!

BREAKING: Supreme Court Justice Scalia dies during hunting trip in MarfaWho gets to pick the next justice?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added "Supreme Court Justice Antonin" to topic title.

Obama.It's hard to say. But if Hillary looks to be a likely president, then Republicans will probably prefer to have Obama fill the slot.

The longest time ever from nomination final Senate action is 125 days, for Mr Justice Louis Brandeis. As of today, there are 269 days until election day. I'd like to think that the majority of the population would protest a delay of that length, but the irrational level of hatred of all things Obama that teabaggers voice, I wouldn't venture to guess one way or another.

Obama has actually already stated he will appoint a nominee. Of course, with the Republicans in control of the senate, that will complicate matters for whomever he chooses. But barring him choosing someone completely unqualified, it will be difficult for them to utterly block the individual from becoming part of the Supreme Court.

There's talk that Sri Srinivasan could be the nominee. He was confirmed to the U.S.C.A. for the D.C. Circuit three years ago by a vote of 97-0. Even this Senate would have a hard time stonewalling him for 269 days.

Replacing Scalia with an Obama appointee has the potential for markedly changing the court in a way Republicans could not possibly like. Republicans are arguing that waiting until the election would give the people a say, but of course, Democrats can point out that issue has been decided by Obama winning the last election.The current Supreme Court term ends in June or July, but the justices work on stuff for the next session which starts up in October. I think the better argument based on the work schedule is to get a Justice in now.

Also that it's not what (to take just two examples) Washington and Jefferson did when there were vacancies in election years.

They already tried peddling that theme at the debate. One of the Republican candidates said that it had been 80 years since a Supreme Court nominee was put forth by a lame duck president. Yet the moderator brought up the fact that Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy in his final year in office.Regardless, the precedent (as they call it) is irrelevant. When a vacancy exists in the court, it is the responsibility of the president to fill that void. The election time frame should have no bearing on that. The only reason it is even a talking point is that Scalia was the strongest conservative voice in the court and the Republicans know the scales will swing left if Obama picks the successor.

Also, it's not a precedent, it's just an accident. It so happens that since Oliver Wendell Holmes, only one Supreme Court Justice has died or retired in an election year, and that was Sherman Minton, who retired on October 15, 1956, when it really was too late to do anything about it. I know this seems like a pretty wild coincidence, but check it out here, tell me if I'm wrong. A string of statistical flukes which mean that a thing has never needed to be done for the last 80 years doesn't mean that now, when it does, we shouldn't do it.(Also, goddammit, a "lame duck" is an elected official whose successor has been elected but not yet sworn in. Until Election Day, Obama not only has the powers of the Presidency, but a mandate to use them.)

Yes. Also based on the possibility of several important cases going 4-4, leaving the lower court's decision(s) in place.But the Republicans don't care about what's best for the country. I put the chances of an Obama nominee being confirmed at a million to one. Unless he comes up with some super strategy.I think it's all about positioning for the next president.

If all goes according to the Constitution and precedent then Obama will nominate a candidate and the Senate will, eventually and with much noise, confirm. This will feel like a boon to most liberals, for whom Scalia was an especially annoying and effective hindrance, but Wikipedia tells me there have been 112 justices in the history of the Supreme Court, about to become 113. Our country is 227 years old, so on average a new justice is appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court about every 2 years, though more recently it's been closer to 2½. Here's the time between appointments for the last 25 justices going back to the Eisenhower administration: Average the time between appointments for the last 25 justices and you get 2.44 years. So though liberals may rejoice over the replacement by Scalia by a presumably more liberal justice, it might be short-lived. On average the last 10 presidents have each appointed 2.5 justices, so whoever is elected next is likely to appoint 2 to 3 justices. If a Democrat is elected then the court will swing wildly to the left, if a Republican then it will swing back to where it already currently is, perhaps even more so. Today's New York Times eulogizes Scalia and describes him as a man of towering conservative influence, but liberals should take no solace in his absence. His stern, steady and sometimes sarcastic legal voice, first heard in dissents, then increasingly in majority opinions, has left a long legacy of conservative legal opinions that will influence justice in this country for many years into the future, certainly at least through the next two or three presidencies. Scalia may be gone, but he will not soon be forgotten.--Percy

But that would mean using the Founding Fathers as an example, that is nothing the Republican party would... oh wait skip that.

While they might prefer Clintion, I would think it would be ironic if a Jewish socialist chose the next nominee.

Unfortunately. Over the last decade, he had become increasingly political, and his 'old fashion' opinions about blacks, women, and religion showed through.

I read the eulogy and I note the fairly faint praise. Example:

quote:

---

By the time he wrote his most important majority opinion, finding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, even the dissenters were engaged in trying to determine the original meaning of the Constitution, the approach he had championed.

---

That was primarily because in DC v Helller Scalia departed from original meaning and relied on history in pretty much the same way he had bashed others for doing. I suspect that fans of Scalia might find more flattering eulogies someplace other than the New York Times.