• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

S.M.A. said:
Trump would win a general election against Sanders, IMHO. Sanders just has too many impractical ideas

Canadian Press

I dont know that he would. Trump would need the traditional swing states such as Florida and Ohio, so one would have to wait to see what his polling is there. There is no chance he can convince traditionally blue states to vote Republican (New York, California, etc).

Sanders is no less off the wall than Trump. If that election occurs they may god have mercy on our souls.
 
S.M.A. said:
Does anyone outside NH really care if Kasich is 2nd after Sanders and Trump?  ;D

CBC

I think the GOP establishment cares.  :nod:

But other than that I really can't say if there would be anyone else that gave two flying flips about anyone other than the big 4 of Trump, Cruz, Clinton and Sanders.
 
After Fiorina, Christie seems to be also thinking of calling it quits:

Associated Press

AP Source: Christie expected to end 2016 White House bid
[Associated Press]
JILL COLVIN
Associated Press
February 10, 2016

NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is expected to end his campaign for the Republican nomination for president after failing to break out from a field in which non-traditional candidates are making strides.

That's according to a two people familiar with his plans, who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publically.

(...SNIPPED)
 
One thing to keep in mind is that the Dem's have the odd quirk of the Superdelegate, which at the moment give Clinton a big advantage in this race.

Essentially they are 712 Federal and State representatives, VIP's, Members of the DNC and other unelected delegates that go to the national convention and are free to choose whomever they want to support. Going into the primary season, Clinton had the endorsement of 355 superdelegates to Sanders 14, with the remainder undecided (2 were committed to O'Malley before he dropped out of the race)

Now since these superdelegates are free to support whomever they want, they are also free to switch their support later if they so choose.

As a result of this, even though Sanders won by what would be a landslide in any US election, he only gained 15 of the possible 32 delegates. Clinton won 9 based on proportional distribution. The remaining 8 delegates are super delegates. 6 of them have declared for Clinton, and two remain undeclared.

So even though Sanders won the primary by a huge margin, it ended in a tie for the delegate count.

:facepalm: 

What's a Super Delegate, and Why Did Clinton Win Them?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-sanders-new-hampshire-victory-wasn-t-so-huge-n516066

Supporters of Bernie Sanders have much to be elated about after the Vermont senator thundered to a 22-point victory over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire Tuesday night.

But they may be bewildered when they look at the scoreboard.

After the New Hampshire contest, NBC News allocated 15 delegates to Sanders. But NBC also allocated 14 delegates to Hillary Clinton, who lost the primary by an almost historic margin.

Why are those two numbers so close even though Sanders walloped her in the state?

The answer has to do with a quirk unique to the Democratic Party called superdelegates. They are delegates to the party convention -- usually members of the DNC and other state and federal elected officials -- who are allowed to endorse their own pick regardless of how their home state votes.

And this cycle, at least at the moment, they are overwhelmingly behind Clinton's White House bid.

At the end of the New Hampshire tally Tuesday night, Sanders had amassed enough support from voters to earn 15 delegates, while Clinton grabbed just eight based on the ballot box.

But New Hampshire also has eight superdelegates. Six of them have endorsed Clinton, while two aren't committed to either candidate. That means that Clinton tacked an extra six delegates on to the end.

In Iowa, the superdelegate picture was much the same. Clinton won by the narrowest of margins, but she snagged the support of six extra superdelegates. Sanders, who so far has only a dozen or so superdelegate endorsements in total compared to hundreds for Clinton, got none of those bonus points out of Iowa. (While Clinton has been endorsed by hundreds of super delegates, NBC News is only including in its total delegate count those superdelegates whose home states have already voted in the primary.)

If you think that the superdelegate system gives Clinton a built-in advantage, at least at this moment in time, you're right.

The Cook Political Report estimated late last month that Clinton's early advantage with superdelegates meant that she effectively started the race eight points above Sanders in the race to get enough delegates to secure the nomination.

One thing worth keeping in mind: Superdelegates can switch their endorsements, so the numbers are not set in stone. But right now, when it comes to the scoreboard, Sanders will have to play aggressive offense to catch up.
 
Oh, and there is speculation that Jim Webb may announce an independent run for President tomorrow.

'Muricans know how to keep things interesting.
 
GOP Candidates want to revive waterboarding (or are at least willing to reconsider making it illegal).

GOP Presidential Candidates Bring Torture Back Into The Spotlight

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/09/466186345/gop-presidential-candidates-bring-torture-back-into-the-spotlight

The GOP presidential hopefuls are trading attacks on the use of water boarding and other such harsh interrogation techniques. Donald Trump vows he would revive those techniques as president and has attacked Sen. Ted Cruz for opposing that idea. Many critics and studies, however, conclude that harsh techniques do not work.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

We're going to hear next how the issue of torture is playing out in the presidential race. Ahead of today's New Hampshire primary, the GOP contenders have been weighing in on the use of waterboarding by U.S. officials on alleged terrorists. Some of the candidates endorse this practice, which many other people consider torture. We asked NPR national security correspondent David Welna examine some of the recent claims about waterboarding. Here's his report.

DAVID WELNA, BYLINE: In a debate on ABC News Saturday night, moderator David Muir reminded Ted Cruz of a moral judgment the Texas Republican senator once made. Torture, Cruz had said, is wrong. Unambiguously, period. So Muir had a question.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

DAVID MUIR: Senator Cruz, is waterboarding torture?

TED CRUZ: Well, under the definition of torture, no, it's not. Under the law, torture is excruciating pain that is equivalent to losing organs and systems. So under the definition of torture, it is not. It is enhanced interrogation, it is vigorous interrogation, but it does not meet the generally recognized definition of torture.

WELNA: Cruz appeared to be referring to a now-discredited 2002 Bush administration memo used as the legal basis for waterboarding. That memo is sharply at odds with the United Nations convention against torture ratified by the U.S. Senate under the first President Bush. The International Committee of the Red Cross also considers waterboarding torture. And the U.S. executed Japanese generals after World War II who'd been charged with using water torture against U.S. prisoners of war. At that same debate, Republican front runner Donald Trump vowed he'd bring back the practice of waterboarding and more. The following day, Trump was asked on CNN whether waterboarding actually works.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

DONALD TRUMP: I have no doubt that it does work in terms of information and other things. And maybe not always, but nothing works always. But I have no doubt that it works.

WELNA: Former CIA officials also defend the agency's waterboarding of at least three suspected terrorists. And, they claim, it saved lives. But a massive study of CIA interrogation done by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee reached the opposite conclusion. Waterboarding, the report's summary said, was, quote, "Not an effective means of obtaining accurate information or gaining detainee cooperation." The issue of waterboarding has been seized on by GOP candidates eager to show they're tough on terrorism, but fellow Arizona Republican John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war, went to the Senate floor this afternoon to denounce what he called their bluster about waterboarding.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

JOHN MCCAIN: These forms of torture not only failed their purpose to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the United States and our allies, but compromised our values, stained our national honor and did little practical good.

WELNA: McCain noted that Congress enacted legislation last year outlawing the use of torture by any government agency. Sen. Cruz was absent for that vote. So was another Republican running for president, Florida's Marco Rubio. In the debate on ABC News, Rubio refused to say whether he'd bring back waterboarding if elected president.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

MARCO RUBIO: We should not be discussing wide - in widespread way the exact tactics that we're going to use because it allows terrorists and others to practice how to evade us. But there's the bigger part - problem with all this. We're not interrogating anybody right now.

WELNA: That might come as a surprise to several high-profile terrorism suspects whom U.S. officials have interrogated during the Obama administration. It's true such detainees are no longer being taken to Guantanamo and that none are known to have been waterboarded. David Welna, NPR News.
 
US politics is all 31 flavours of fucked up.  If by some twist of the comedy god's wrist Trump becomes prez, I'm off to Cabella's to stock up, for the end of days is surely nigh.
 
Kat Stevens said:
US politics is all 31 flavours of fucked up.  If by some twist of the comedy god's wrist Trump becomes prez, I'm off to Cabella's to stock up, for the end of days is surely nigh.

See how much American Elections are becoming more like Canadian ones.......Trump sure has nice hair.    [:p
 
George Wallace said:
See how much American Elections are becoming more like Canadian ones.......Trump sure has nice hair.    [:p

Difference is, our nice haircut is just dumb, not dangerous.
 
Dumb is dangerous.

How many dumb people are you going to hire for or assign complex tasks to?

If so, how many do you expect to be competently or successfully completed?

Are you willing to live with that outcome?
 
Thucydides said:
Dumb is dangerous.

How many dumb people are you going to hire for or assign complex tasks to?

If so, how many do you expect to be competently or successfully completed?

Are you willing to live with that outcome?
Umm, you do know about the PER system, right?
Yes, his kind of dumb is dangerous, but not in the "hand me the football, this toaster doesn't work and China needs to be sent a message" kind of way.
 
As usual, everything we need to know is in the history books, in this case "Oswald Spengler; The Decline of the West".

Here is an excerpt from a longer web post which encapsulates Spengler's views, and can be used as a checksum to see why the electorate is so enraged. Sadly, Spengler also predicts the return of the "man on the white horse" as well.....

http://www.returnofkings.com/77942/how-a-german-historian-predicted-western-decline-100-years-ago

Political Epochs in Autumn and Winter

    1. Domination of Money (“Democracy”). Economic powers permeating the political forms and authorities. 1800-2000 AD.

    2. Victory of force-politics over money. Increasing primitiveness of political forms. Inward decline of the nations into a formless population, and constitution thereof as an Imperium of gradually-increasing crudity of despotism. 2000-2200 AD.

    3. Private and family policies of individual leaders. The world as spoil. Egypticism, Mandarinism, Byzantinism. Historyless stiffening and enfeeblement even of the imperial machinery, against young peoples eager for spoil, or alien conquerors. Primitive human conditions slowly thrust up into the highly-civilized mode of living. After 2200 AD.

The Future, Echoing Roman Civilization

In the Winter of Roman politics there was a shift from the Roman Republic to Caesarism, or government led by a charismatic strongman. Eventually, the idea of representation broke down and there was a shift to bloody “force politics.”

Of course, our current government is modeled on the Roman system. There are even similarities between the two dominant parties. In Rome, the two dominant parties were the Optimates and Populares, the Republicans and Democrats of their day. This form of representative government eventually stops working because the system of checks and balances interfere with each other, causing gridlock. Force politics (killing people) eventually comes along to break the gridlock. (As an aside, some historians say it’s possible we entered this era in 1963 with the assassination of JFK by the military-industrial complex.) Arguably, this predictive model is spot-on with the current situation in the Western world. So, if Spengler’s model is correct, we are awaiting the rise of a dictator to come along and smash the rotten edifice of democracy sometime this century.
 
cupper said:
GOP Candidates want to revive waterboarding (or are at least willing to reconsider making it illegal).

GOP Presidential Candidates Bring Torture Back Into The Spotlight

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/09/466186345/gop-presidential-candidates-bring-torture-back-into-the-spotlight

The FBI has come out to counter the current GOP narrative on bringing back torture methods enhanced interrogation techniques scraping fingernails against chalkboards.

Detainee Interrogation Chief: Waterboarding Doesn't Work

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466411509/detainee-interrogation-chief-waterboarding-doesnt-work?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160212

The director of the federal government team that interrogates key terrorism suspects has a message for people who want to see a return to waterboarding and other abusive strategies: They don't work.

Frazier Thompson, who leads the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, said research demonstrates that "rapport-based techniques elicit the most credible information."

In an interview at FBI headquarters this week, Thompson added: "I can tell you that everything that we do is humane, lawful and based on the best science available."

Thompson spoke as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is calling for a return to simulated drowning and other interrogation techniques that critics have likened to torture. The FBI said it was taking the unusual step of making the head of the High-Value Interrogation Group available to counteract the idea that it has operated in "clandestine and nefarious" fashion when it questions suspected terrorists.

President Obama created the interrogation group to bring together elite interrogators from the FBI, the Pentagon and other intelligence agencies in 2009. Fewer than 50 people work there permanently, but authorities said they have the ability to bring in part-timers as needed.

In the interview, Thompson said the group has deployed 34 times over the past six years, both overseas and on American soil. He declined to name specific cases, but public records and reporting suggest those units took part in the questioning of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the Boston bombing case; the Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad; accused U.S. embassy bomber Abu Anas al Libi; and the wife of an Islamic State leader charged this week in the death of American hostage Kayla Mueller.

Thompson, who's led the group for the past 10 months, is a longtime FBI agent. Among other things, he investigated the hijacking of Flight 93 after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He said he views the creation of a dedicated team of interrogators as something worth keeping.

"Just when you have to fight a certain legal battle, you're going to call a lawyer, when you have a significant arrest for law enforcement you have to make, you're going to call that SWAT team in — that's what I equate the HIG interrogators as. We're those specialized experts that aren't distracted by those normal day-to-day demands on your time, that other case agents have to worry about it," he said. "And we can practice and hone those skills of actually talking to someone else, getting that individual to open up, understanding their behavioral traits, what makes them tick, understanding what motivates them."

The group also conducts research and training sessions for local, federal and international law enforcement partners, where demand has been "overwhelming," Thompson said.

Over the past few years, critics have questioned whether the group has lived up to its promise. Very little about its operations has been made public. And lawmakers have not held any public oversight hearings about it.
 
cupper said:
The FBI has come out to counter the current GOP narrative on bringing back torture methods enhanced interrogation techniques scraping fingernails against chalkboards.

Detainee Interrogation Chief: Waterboarding Doesn't Work

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466411509/detainee-interrogation-chief-waterboarding-doesnt-work?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160212

Sounds like someone trying to sell his company attributes
 
Who'da thunk that there'd be an upside to a Trump insurgency, the antidote to Citizens United.

GOP mega-donors frozen in frustration
Big money stops flowing as donors question its effectiveness, worry about Trump.


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/gop-megadonors-fundraising-freeze-219228

Some of the biggest Republican donors, who collectively have contributed tens of millions of dollars to shape the presidential race, are tightening their purse strings out of frustration with their inability to boost their favored candidates, or to slow Donald Trump.

Rather than continuing to write huge checks to support the cluster of establishment candidates jockeying to emerge as the leading alternative to Trump, a billionaire real estate showman roundly despised by the GOP elite, these donors have mostly retreated to the sidelines. They’re watching anxiously, hoping that the field sorts itself out, according to interviews with a half dozen major donors or their representatives.

Many of the donors are urging the deep-pocketed groups they’ve already funded to begin spending against Trump, even as some recognize the potential for such spending to backfire, and are increasingly questioning the efficacy of big-money advertising campaigns more generally.

“It’s unbelievable. I mean Jeb Bush spent $42 million in New Hampshire ― what did he get for it?” said billionaire GOP mega-donor Stan Hubbard, a Minnesota media mogul. “It’s frustrating.”

Hubbard and his family initially supported Scott Walker’s now-aborted campaign for the GOP nomination, donating more than $105,000 to the various committees supporting the Wisconsin governor. He was seen as a leading contender to unite the party’s conservative and business-centrist factions, but he never caught on, despite $24 million in super PAC support.

After Walker dropped out, the Hubbards played the GOP presidential field a bit, donating nearly $40,000 to committees supporting Bush, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson, as well as the since-aborted campaigns of Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie.

“That’s money down the drain,” Hubbard told POLITICO, adding that his latest hope to take down Trump is John Kasich. Hubbard and his wife each gave the maximum $2,700 contribution to the Ohio governor’s campaign for the nomination after he came in second in Tuesday’s New Hampshire’s primary. While Kasich finished well behind Trump, the showing was enough to attract interest from a handful of mega-donors who had previously supported other GOP candidates.

Home Depot founder Ken Langone, who previously had donated $250,000 to a super PAC supporting Christie, declared his support for Kasich and began calling other mega-donors, including Hubbard, to make the pitch.

“Guess what, Ken? You and I are on the same page,” Hubbard said he told Langone. “We just did the same thing ― sent money to Kasich.” But Hubbard said he planned to wait to see how Kasich did in the upcoming primaries before writing a check to his super PAC — and fundraising sources said that’s the way that many free agent GOP mega-donors are approaching the tumultuous primary.
“Most donors are sitting tight not knowing what to do,” said one top GOP fundraiser.

Rubio was close to coalescing support from the elite donor class, the fundraiser said, until his widely panned debate performance in New Hampshire primary and subsequent fifth-place finish in the state’s primary. “If he had finished second in New Hampshire or even a really close third, it would be a three-man race between Trump, Cruz and Rubio,” said the fundraiser. “If Rubio pulls it back together and gets on a minor roll in South Carolina, I think he can relatively quickly come back. Not because there’s such a deep loyalty to him from donors, but because they are so worried and desperately want someone to step forward to take on Trump.”

Several donors expressed frustration that the establishment candidates and the super PACs supporting them spent considerable time and money attacking one another ― and not Trump ― in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.

Perhaps as a result, many donors who supported candidates who have since dropped out appear inclined to wait until after the Feb. 20 South Carolina primary to pick a new horse.

Wisconsin roofing billionaire Diane Hendricks, who gave $5 million to a pro-Walker super PAC and is being hotly courted by supporters of both Rubio and Ted Cruz, intends to wait until the cluster of primaries and caucuses on March 1 ― Super Tuesday ― before backing another candidate, said sources familiar with her plans.

Wyoming mutual fund pioneer Foster Friess, who supported Rick Santorum, this week told POLITICO ― presumably with tongue planted in cheek ― “I am still in the fetal position in my bed where I probably will be for the next 30 days after Rick's decision to drop out.”

He added on a more serious note that he’s not interested in backing candidates or groups training their fire on GOP rivals. “I want to try to play a conciliatory role. For us to win in November, all of these warring factions must kiss and make up,” Friess said. “I have huge respect for the efforts all the candidates are extending, but only wish they would direct their attacks toward the goofy Democrat ideas rather than a circular firing squad.”

Arkansas poultry magnate Ronnie Cameron, who donated $3 million to a super PAC supporting former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s since-aborted presidential campaign, said he had no immediate plans to give to any of them. “Maybe after South Carolina,” Cameron told POLITICO, though he added he “may not do anything else” with super PACs for the rest of the cycle.

GOP mega-donor John Jordan, who decided to support Rubio after Walker ― his first choice ― dropped out, predicted that one of the remaining establishment candidates would emerge from the pack on March 15, when a handful of delegate-rich states hold primaries.

“One of them will do better than the other, and it will be impossible for the relative loser to make the case to donors that he should continue," he told the Associated Press. Pointing specifically to Bush and Rubio ― the former governor and current senator, respectively, from Florida, which is among the March 15 states ― he said "donors will simply move to whoever wins that state, and it will happen nearly instantly.”

But some donors worry that, by then, Trump might be unbeatable.

They’re looking for one of the existing deep-pocketed outside groups to take action sooner to halt Trump’s rise, with several donors specifically citing the political operation helmed by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch.

At its winter gathering of major donors a couple weeks ago in Indian Wells, Calif., operatives floated the possibility of launching an anti-Trump campaign, according to sources who attended. They said donors were mostly receptive. The Koch network, which intends to spend $889 million on policy and political advocacy in the run-up to the 2016 election, hasn’t previously ventured aggressively into GOP primaries, and sources familiar with the network say there is an intensive debate about the timing and details of a possible anti-Trump campaign.

The Minnesota mega-donor Hubbard, who has donated hundreds of thousands to the Koch network over the years (including at least $50,000 last year), but did not attend the winter meeting, said he planned to call Koch operatives to make the case that they should intervene.

“It’s time to start educating,” he said. “It’s obvious that there is no way that we’re going to be able to make Mexico pay for a wall and all this other nonsense. I don’t think anybody’s done an effective job of pointing that out. Hopefully, we’ll have somebody like Americans for Prosperity and the Kochs who will step up to the plate and do it,” he said.

But, he warned, there’s a risk to it. “It could help Trump. It helps him say 'The establishment is against me. They’re out to get poor me. I’m the victim.' ”
 
Just breaking in the news, Justice Antonin Scalia passed away over night while on vacation in Texas.

This will have some interesting impacts on the presidential race on the GOP side.

Biggest question is will the GOP lead senate drag out the nomination process until after the election to see if a conservative ends up in the White House.

Added cross post from Divided America thread:

cupper said:
Replacing Antonin Scalia Will Be No Simple Task

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/13/466686993/replacing-antonin-scalia-will-be-no-simple-task?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160213
 
cupper said:
Biggest question is will the GOP lead senate drag out the nomination process until after the election to see if a conservative ends up in the White House.

You mean will they do the same thing a Democrat Senate did to President Bush in 2008?  Probably.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/nominations-staredown-in-the-senate-008839
 
Rocky Mountains said:
You mean will they do the same thing a Democrat Senate did to President Bush in 2008?  Probably.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/nominations-staredown-in-the-senate-008839

Not quite the same, as they were judicial appointment to lower courts, but I suppose it will be in the same spirit of civil discourse and cross aisle cooperation.  ;D

Vacant seats on the lower courts don't have the impact that having a vacancy seat on the Supreme Court has.

What happens to this Term’s close cases? (Updated)

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-terms-close-cases/

The passing of Justice Scalia of course affects the cases now before the Court.  Votes that the Justice cast in cases that have not been publicly decided are void.  Of course, if Justice Scalia’s vote was not necessary to the outcome – for example, if he was in the dissent or if the majority included more than five Justices – then the case will still be decided, only by an eight-member Court.

If Justice Scalia was part of a five-Justice majority in a case – for example, the Friedrichs case, in which the Court was expected to limit mandatory union contributions – the Court is now divided four to four.  In those cases, there is no majority for a decision and the lower court’s ruling stands, as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case.  Because it is very unlikely that a replacement will be appointed this Term, we should expect to see a number of such cases in which the lower court’s decision is “affirmed by an equally divided Court.”

The most immediate and important implications involve that union case.  A conservative ruling in that case is now unlikely to issue.  Other significant cases in which the Court may now be equally divided include Evenwel v. Abbott (on the meaning of the “one person, one vote” guarantee), the cases challenging the accommodation for religious organizations under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, and the challenge to the Obama administration’s immigration policy.

The Court is also of course hearing a significant abortion case, involving multiple restrictions adopted by Texas.  In my estimation, the Court was likely to strike those provisions down.  If so, the Court would still rule – deciding the case with eight Justices.

Conversely, the Court was likely to limit affirmative action in public higher education in the Fisher case.  But because only three of the liberal Justices are participating (Justice Kagan is recused), conservatives would retain a narrow majority.

There is also recent precedent for the Court to attempt to avoid issuing a number of equally divided rulings.  In Chief Justice Roberts’s first Term, the Court in similar circumstances decided a number of significant cases by instead issuing relatively unimportant, often procedural decisions.  It is unclear if the Justices will take the same approach in any of this Term’s major, closely divided cases.

Tie votes will lead to reargument, not affirmance

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/tie-votes-will-lead-to-reargument-not-affirmance/#more-238323

I previously wrote that cases in which the Supreme Court is divided four to four after Justice Scalia’s death would be “affirmed by an equally divided Court.”  I now believe that is wrong.  There is historical precedent for this circumstance that points to the Court ordering the cases reargued once a new Justice is confirmed.

Whether that precedent will be followed is not perfectly clear, because it is uncertain when a new Justice will replace Justice Scalia.  It could be as long as a year from now – well into the Court’s next Term.  But it is also possible there will be a new Justice when the Court returns from its upcoming summer recess.  Because the Court follows tradition when possible, I think the most likely outcome by far is that the Court will order the affected cases reargued next Term.

The most on-point precedent involves Justice Robert Jackson, who died suddenly of a heart attack at the very beginning of the Court’s 1954 Term (on October 9, 1954).  Jackson’s replacement, John Marshall Harlan II, was confirmed later that Term (on March 17, 1955).  So for cases argued in the 1954 Term before March 17, there is a direct parallel to the present circumstances.  The Court had only eight Justices, due to the death of a member of the Court.

I located three cases in which the Court heard reargument after Harlan joined the Court: Indian Towing Co. v. United States (decided five to four); United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles (decided six to three); and Ellis v. Dixon (decided five to four).  Interestingly, in Indian Towing (which is an important ruling), the Court initially affirmed by an equally divided Court (on April 11, 1955, after Harlan had joined the Court) but then granted rehearing and heard reargument.  I do not know why that procedure was followed.

There is one counter-example from the same Term:  Ryan Stevedoring v. Pan-Atlantic S.S. Corp.  It was argued just before Harlan joined the Court (on March 3-4, 1955) and then was affirmed by an equally divided Court after he joined (on April 11, 1955).  It was not set down for reargument.

I do not have access to the papers in the cases, so I cannot explain why they were treated differently.  But Ryan Stevedoring looks to be an outlier.  It could be the Justices decided that the case, which involved indemnity under admiralty law, simply was not worth the time to reargue.

There are other examples that point in the direction of holding reargument.  There does not seem to be any reason that the Court would treat vacancies due to death differently from vacancies due to other reasons, when a new Justice arrives at the Court in the middle of the Term.  There have been recent examples of that.

Justice Thomas joined the Court on October 23, 1991.  The Court heard reargument in two cases in which he missed the initial argument:  Cippollone v. Liggett Group (decided by a fractured vote, depending on the issue); and Doggett v. United States (decided five to four, although interestingly with Thomas in dissent).

Justice Kennedy joined the Court on February 18, 1988.  The Court heard reargument in four cases in which he missed the initial argument:  Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. (decided five to four); K Mart Corp. v. Cartier (decided by a fractured vote, depending on the issue); Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. (decided five to four); and Ross v. Oklahoma (decided five to four).

The practice of holding reargument is important for three kinds of cases that are now pending.  First, in cases in which the more liberal side won in the court of appeals (for example, the Friedrichs union fees case), that side will be deprived of an affirmance by an equally divided Court.  It could well lose if Justice Scalia is succeeded by another conservative.  Second, in cases in which the liberal side lost below and would have lost through an affirmance by an equally divided Court (perhaps the government in the immigration case), it will have the opportunity to proceed before a full Court when a new appointment is made.  Third, in the contraception mandate case, in which an affirmance by an equally divided Court could have led to confusion because the lower court opinions were divided, there is a greater prospect that the Supreme Court will produce a single, clear decision.
 
While the death of a Supreme Court justice is indeed a wild card, this article looks more at the way election "memes" are created. This is going to be an ongoing issue regardless of the outcome of the death of Justice Scalia (and from what I've seen from various blog postings, there is no legal opportunity for Obama to fill the position, and even if an appointment was made without the Senate, the new Justice would only be temporarily in office until Jan 2018. Instapundit has many articles on the subject):

http://thewilderness.me/culture-club/

Culture Club: How Media Makes a Meme

On January 20th, 2017, President-Elect Bernie Sanders will step up to podium, place his hand on the Communist Manifesto and then deliver his Inaugural address into a banana. The swathes of Hollywood celebrities behind him will cheer and the rest of us will be trading our bank accounts for hidden lockboxes under our floorboards, all the time wondering how a batshit crazy 75-year-old socialist dinosaur became our Republic’s 45th President. How did it come to this?

When symbolic Democratic party chief Elizabeth Warren declared she would not be seeking the presidency in 2016, despite repeated imploring from her most ideologically committed fans and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself), it appeared that the far-Left Hollywood and Washington politicotainment talk-show circuit (increasingly indistinguishable from one another and still ever-loyal to the romance of the Barack Obama Story seven years in) would be left out on the prairie with no smoke signals to direct them and their future.

Barack Obama’s devastating mid-term election losses have left his party with few charismatic, youthful rising stars to carry on his legacy, and as much as Hillary Clinton has always been the natural heir for the corporate/establishment class of Democratic donors, she’s never stirred the passions of the base the way Obama did in 2008, either in terms of her politics or her Leftist sub-culture branding. Every clumsy attempt at youth-culture relevance — whether it’s glossy-eyed Katy Perry selfies or set-yourself-afire-lame “Chillin in Cedar Rapids” Vines — merely hammers the point home: the millennial Democratic base that drives the media conversation cringes at Hillary’s almost-human inauthenticity.

When she appears on The Ellen Show and their dancing surrogates attempt to teach her The Whip and the Nae Nae or the wobble, while simultaneously dodging the sparks flying out of her rusty old joints, her younger voters shrink in their seats and pull their sweaters over their heads in mortification.

No matter how hard she tries, Clinton is not Barack Obama Redux, not capable of carrying on his mantle of hip urban cool. More to the point, she isn’t even the sort of unknown quantity they can at least try to scotch-tape that label onto regardless of whether it fits. Nobody on the political Left is either. The tables have turned on them and (with the exception of one indiscriminate orange headed fartclown on the opposite side of the race) they find themselves on the elderly end of a generational shift in candidates.

Even if the 2016 GOP is doomed to be an electoral Artax, sinking into Donald Trump’s personal swamp of sadness, young candidates like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will be most likely be back in four years, possibly accompanied by more seasoned youthful candidates like Mia Love, Tim Scott or Ben Sasse.

The monopoly the so-called “party of youth” has clung to since the days of Camelot is coming to an end. Bill Clinton looks and sounds feeble, barely unable to lift a saxophone to his mouth on a late night talk show. There is a gray hair on Obama’s head for every disenfranchised far left entertainer (Maaat Daaymon) or unemployed college graduate who still can’t find a job and is drowning in their student debt or ducking their Obamacare premiums. And the cavalry isn’t coming anytime soon for the Democrats: their most exciting fresh face just got elected to the Senate from Massachusetts at the dewy young age of 64.

But a culture-driven media knows that while they are unable to sell a candidate, they can still sell the message…no matter how unelectable, deranged, geriatric or preposterous the person they attach that branding to might be.  The only way to sell a radical ideology to an engaged youth electorate is to change the narrative as best they can without engaging more culturally relevant candidates like a Marco Rubio or Rand Paul, who are just as comfortable talking Public Enemy and Pink Floyd as they are foreign policy, and appeal on a personal level as a human being, not just a preachy elder.

Rubio for example, in the weeks leading up to the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, ran ads during the NFL playoffs featuring him tossing around a football and answering personal questions. Elle magazine & Vanity Fair ran features on his stylish, if awkward Beatle boots. Both the ads and the features are invasions into Obama’s territory, and the Cultural Left is all too aware of it. Rand Paul is at home on MTV talking about Ferguson and sentencing reform, and even Ted Cruz can bullshit with Jimmy Fallon on a humorous level that social right & MSNBC audiences rarely see.

It’s the Democrats this time around who find challenges in simple things like confronting a flight of stairs and spinning the release of medical reports. Instead of the questions of age, vigor and senility that came with Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Bob Dole and John McCain, we are now flooded with admiring comparisons to our cool goofy grandpa and grandma who try to eat the TV remote control or mistakenly put the cat in the microwave. Hillary Clinton must become the nation’s new Betty White — or, more specifically, what feminist media did to Ruth Bader Ginsburg by capitalizing off of tumblr posts and declaring her a cultural hip-hop queen, dubbing her the “Notorious RBG”.

Never mind that Notorious RBG goes Notorious REM during every State of the Union speech and has to be checked for a pulse.

Silkscreened t-shirts and graffiti of Ginsburg’s Skeksis smirk serve as a warning to opposing ideologies and conservatives that popular culture belongs to them, and it will not be surrendered easily to more diverse and younger group of GOP candidates.

Enter the media phenomena that has become Bernie Sanders.

sexy bernie

To understand the heavy lifting media is undertaking in attempting to make Bernie Sanders a plausible candidate for president, you have to understand who exactly Bernie Sanders is to begin with.

Sanders is a kookily proud outsider and self-declared Democratic Socialist who joined the House of Representatives in 1988 and the Senate in 2005. In the quarter-plus century he’s served in federal office, only 3 bills he’s sponsored have ever made it into law. Otherwise, he was that guy you would occasionally see yelling about rapine capital or the unnecessary proliferation of deodorant brands to an empty chamber of Congress on C-Span during midday break sessions. And this has been Bernie’s professional life for the past 35 years. Get up. Go to Congress. Fight with Lamp. Declare victory.

But Barack Obama’s election on charismatic socialist-lite soundbites packaged like a can of Pepsi commercial moved the needle further away from the moderate middle of the political Left that saw consecutive defeats by George W. Bush. And as culture-media has embraced the anti-capitalist rhetoric of astroturfed protest movements like Occupy, Climate March, and Black Lives Matter, the political left is ripe for a populist moment, even if the only available standard-bearer is the shabby retiree arguing with you over the last sack of quinoa/lentil mixed-blend grains at Whole Foods.

If a suitable ambassador for that message won’t present themselves, culture media will create one. Sanders doesn’t know his Reddit from his Snapchat but he doesn’t need to.

As Bernie Sanders waited backstage of the Ellen show, a program producer was seen doing everything in her power stopping short of using a cattle prod to get Bernie to lighten up and dance (this was Ellen DeGeneres’ ongoing schtick for guests). He clearly wasn’t having any of it, and after he was introduced, he managed a few side steps and hand waves before reverting immediately back into “NO TOUCH” mode.

These tiny moments are parlayed into memes and gifs of “Bernie as old-man-hippie hipster” that thrive on social media, and are then picked up by a sympathetic cultural mainstream media desperately trying to either relive or re-engineer the 1960s. The “social upheaval narrative” is just too alluring to pass up for them, especially when their own generation finds itself without a truly great social cause of its own. The lost decade of the Obama era is ending in a little less than a year and the far-Left quadrant of the media knows their pop-culture rockstar is hitting the exits with restively populist agitation brewing on both sides of the political aisle. College campuses and Hollywood have gone #FullCommunism with the silent approval of a President more interested on who the Best Actor Oscar goes to than how many heads ISIS is cutting off this week. Wall Street’s corporate darling Hillary Clinton, thinking the White House was hers for the taking, has once again found a jaded Left-wing commentariat desperate for Somebody To Love putting her on notice that this is not the party, nor the media she and her husband left behind.

It’s not Hillary getting the Taylor Swift treatment in large arenas. Our culture-media isn’t promoting listicles for Hillary. On the other hand, via Twitter & Mashable, we can easily check up on “12 Babies Feeling the Bern.”

Bernie Sanders has become the proverbial Spaceballs’ Yogurt of the 2016 election season, with the must-have cool merchandise. Bernie The Underwear. Bernie The T-Shirt. Bernie The Throw Pillow. Bernie The Flamethrower! It’s really quite fun watching a man diametrically opposed to free-market capitalism standing by and allowing so many to make money off his likeness, including in such things as punk rock t-shirts.

At the same time Twitter fan accounts are passing around photoshopped images of Sanders cuddling a kitten, everyone from Michael Moore to The Huffington Post is suddenly stripping socialism of the stigma that comes with embracing an ideology responsible for indescribable amounts of death and poverty across the world.

If you think you’ve seen all of this before, well, it gets even more familiar.

Just this past week, a group of noted illustrators came together for an art show at HVW8 Gallery in Los Angeles for a show titled “The Art of a Political Revolution: Artists for Bernie Sanders” which included commissions from none other than “Obama Hope” poster creator Shepard Fairey among others, someone whom one would think might have learned from their last endeavor of placing the hope of a nation into a politician who ran on “Fairness.”

Bern_JR1Who or what Bernie Sanders is, is meaningless. If he wins or loses Iowa, or the nomination — that’s meaningless. The accomplishment comes in finally culturally destigmatizing the evil “S-word” and making it just another part of acceptable American political ideology. A mere eight years ago, Barack Obama knew what he could and could not say to get elected, regardless of his private beliefs. Today, the geriatric rockstar of the Left possesses no such filter. Culture-media is using Bernie’s rants and rally crowds to pave the way for a near future when someone younger and more charismatic can sell democratic socialism without the heavy lifting (looking at you, Kanye West). For all the man-of-the-people declarations Sanders makes, his most vocal supporters are anything but. His rallies are littered with Hollywood celebrities and mainstream musicians peppered in with college students, and tweeted about sparsely from embedded reporters content to report his crowd size and not the cost of his ideas or his criticisms of the current Obama White House.

On the Showtime premiere of The Circus, the Halperin/Heilemann primary-season vanity project, they grill candidates on their plans for the presidency, poke elitist fun at the lunatic antics of Donald Trump rally-goers, and then turn and plead with Sanders to do “The Monster,” a character he acts out with his granddaughters in a way of showing the softer side of a man who has embraced the romance and governing principles of the Soviet Union.

None of this is accidental.

If comedy and talk shows can embed Bernie Sanders into the national consciousness as our lovably off-beat “cool socialist grandpa,” as Larry David portrayed so effortlessly on Saturday Night Live (an impression Sanders felt almost obligated to embrace), the messenger becomes meaningless. His movement doesn’t become about politics, nor does it become about his age or lack of hearing. It becomes about repurposing culture (an arena where still Democrats rack up a near 100% win percentage) to sell the idea of a socialist republic where personal property rights and independent liberty become an afterthought.  As painful a sight as it is to see a media that sold Obama as the essence of youthful charismatic hope reduced to selling what’s left of their integrity out to make the most uncool and aged candidates palatable, it works if there’s no pushback to it.

All this is very purposeful and done with the explicit goal of keeping more younger and culturally attuned GOP candidates out of the mainstream, relegated to having to answer for anti-Beyonce heresies of Mike Huckabee and gaudy outdated Gordon Gecko antics Donald Trump.

Bernie Sanders may well flame out as primary season ignites, crushed by the juggernaut infrastructure of the Clinton machine. Odds are we won’t actually ever experience the sight of his inaugural address into a banana. But that was never really the point.

The question really is whether Bernie’s new army of eager young democratic socialists — brainwashed into a their collective private culture club at the behest of the Buzzfeeds, NBCs and Mashables and MTVs of the popular media — can hold their nose long enough to push that button for Wall Street’s own favorite daughter Hillary Clinton. If they do, then the Democratic Party’s eight-year flirtation with socialist populism is legislatively over, the Warren wing is isolated back to the “fringe Left,” and Obama’s era of forcing permanent social justice onto the masses abruptly ends. The Democrats become the Clinton Party again, for however long she maintains power. If the Bernie-bots sit at home in November, it endangers an already-fractured Obama coalition she is absolutely dependent upon for a win. That leads almost assuredly to a GOP victory no matter who the candidate is.

And then comes 2020, and the country will find a 79 year old Bernie Sanders attempting to dance on Ellen again.
 
Back
Top