Cheif Justice Scalia?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:20:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  Cheif Justice Scalia?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Will we have a new chief justice by end of March?
#1
Yes, Scalia
 
#2
Yes, Thomas
 
#3
Yes, somebody else
 
#4
No, the old man hangs on.
 
#5
No, the issue will drag out.
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 40

Author Topic: Cheif Justice Scalia?  (Read 5799 times)
Peter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,030


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2004, 06:59:31 PM »

I've been talking to some people with medical qualifications; From the article they reckon that Rehnquist simply won't survive much longer than about a year, and may well be too ill to officiate at the inauguration; In this instance, the honour falls to Justice Stevens as the ranking Justice.

Any attempt to put Scalia or Thomas in as CJ will be filibustered for a month of Sundays. Kennedy is the likely nominee for the job, unless Bush does a deal to get a conservative Associate Justice in exchange for Breyer or Ginsbury or Souter to be Chief Justice. Though I understand that Souter may step down during this term anyway.
Logged
Dave from Michigan
9iron768
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 03, 2004, 07:07:44 PM »

Is there any way to stop the filibuster without 60 votes
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 03, 2004, 07:15:10 PM »

Is there any way to stop the filibuster without 60 votes

Yes.  The Senate could change their rules on how many votes are needed for cloture.  It's not like it's in the Constitution.  However, they would need 60 votes for cloture on the rule change ;-).
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2004, 07:17:20 PM »

Is there any way to stop the filibuster without 60 votes

In theory, a rule revision might be possible.  When you have a majority of the entire membership, you can play around with some things.  You need to get someone in there that are very good at this type of thing.  There aren't too many parliamentarians out there, and a lot fewer that can really pull something this off.

Ah, but when it's done, it's a thing of beauty.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2004, 07:18:57 PM »

Is there any way to stop the filibuster without 60 votes

Yes.  The Senate could change their rules on how many votes are needed for cloture.  It's not like it's in the Constitution.  However, they would need 60 votes for cloture on the rule change ;-).

Ah, you could adpt a rule that permits a majority to suspend any adopted rule; it depends how the rules are witten.
Logged
Dave from Michigan
9iron768
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2004, 07:20:59 PM »

Is there any way to stop the filibuster without 60 votes

In theory, a rule revision might be possible.  When you have a majority of the entire membership, you can play around with some things.  You need to get someone in there that are very good at this type of thing.  There aren't too many parliamentarians out there, and a lot fewer that can really pull something this off.

Ah, but when it's done, it's a thing of beauty.

Yes this is what I was thinking of  I read somthing on this it sounds very complex but possible.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2004, 07:28:39 PM »

Is there any way to stop the filibuster without 60 votes

In theory, a rule revision might be possible.  When you have a majority of the entire membership, you can play around with some things.  You need to get someone in there that are very good at this type of thing.  There aren't too many parliamentarians out there, and a lot fewer that can really pull something this off.

Ah, but when it's done, it's a thing of beauty.

Yes this is what I was thinking of  I read somthing on this it sounds very complex but possible.

You have to get to the right person, generally someone with an exceptionally understanding of history, the ability to understand rules and precedents, the ability to think outsode of the box, and the morals of a boa constrictor.  ;-)
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2004, 12:53:21 AM »

When they adopt the rules at the beginning of the Congress the 3/5 cloture rule could be revised or eliminated.  However, what goes around comes around.  The GOP will not be able to hold onto the Senate for ever.  If the Senate reduces the margin, it will stay reduced and keep the GOP from being able to filibuster when they return to the minority.  I can't see the GOP beng so reckless as to eliminate the filibuster.  Lowering the margin is possible tho.  At one time it took a 2/3 majority to cut off debate. 

4/7 = 58
5/9 = 56
6/11 =55
Logged
Rococo4
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2004, 01:32:29 AM »
« Edited: November 04, 2004, 01:34:06 AM by Rococo4 »

(in regards to who should be chief justice)

It will be Thomas.   Think about it.  Bush will make the Dems either let him go through and make their white base mad (because Thomas is "too conservative"), or they will have to fight his confirmation and upset some of their black voters.  we would win either way.

it would be a brilliant move.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2004, 06:59:53 AM »

When they adopt the rules at the beginning of the Congress the 3/5 cloture rule could be revised or eliminated.  However, what goes around comes around.  The GOP will not be able to hold onto the Senate for ever.  If the Senate reduces the margin, it will stay reduced and keep the GOP from being able to filibuster when they return to the minority.  I can't see the GOP beng so reckless as to eliminate the filibuster.  Lowering the margin is possible tho.  At one time it took a 2/3 majority to cut off debate. 

4/7 = 58
5/9 = 56
6/11 =55
If I remember correctly the Senate, unlike the House, doesn't vote on its rules every two years, but only when one side is pushing for a change (wrote a paper on this once). Anyways, it would be impossible to force cloture on a vote to abolish cloture. You'd never get the 60 votes needed.
Logged
dougrhess
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 442


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2004, 08:26:15 AM »

Don't forget that Spector is head of the committee that will vote on a new Justice and new Chief Justice.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2004, 08:45:57 AM »

When they adopt the rules at the beginning of the Congress the 3/5 cloture rule could be revised or eliminated.  However, what goes around comes around.  The GOP will not be able to hold onto the Senate for ever.  If the Senate reduces the margin, it will stay reduced and keep the GOP from being able to filibuster when they return to the minority.  I can't see the GOP beng so reckless as to eliminate the filibuster.  Lowering the margin is possible tho.  At one time it took a 2/3 majority to cut off debate. 

4/7 = 58
5/9 = 56
6/11 =55

Well, If the GOP can do it, it would be possible for the Dems to do it as well.  The mere threat to do it may be enough to convince the Dems not to filibuster in ths case.
Logged
Light Touch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 342


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2004, 04:56:40 PM »

My order of probability:

1.  Kennedy
2.  O'Connor
3.  Thomas
4.  Scalia
5.  everyone else

Kennedy is the logical choice, except that he's not a woman or black.  I think Bush will *want* to give it to O'Connor or Thomas.  O'Connor's health is an issue, but I've heard talk that she may stick around until she draws her last breath.  Thomas has the old issues.  Saying Scalia's name just scares everyone (though he's one of my favorites, particularly how he writes his colorful dissents).
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 05, 2004, 05:00:24 PM »

The constitutionalist judges who are getting old should retire before 2009 so that young, like-minded people can replace them.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 15 queries.