{"id":20721,"date":"2016-03-20T05:09:06","date_gmt":"2016-03-20T12:09:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=20721"},"modified":"2016-03-20T05:09:06","modified_gmt":"2016-03-20T12:09:06","slug":"squatchs-open-thread-19032016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2016\/03\/20\/squatchs-open-thread-19032016\/","title":{"rendered":"Squatch’s Open Thread 19\/03\/2016"},"content":{"rendered":"

Somehow, I have managed to pick up a sore throat and likely a cold . . . again.  My chiropractor had one and that is the only person I can think of to whom I have been close.  Arrggghhhh!  I am still awaiting my laptop so that I can join Nameless in frustration with learning Windows 10.  I have W7 on my desk top and like it but that will have to change sooner or later.  Because I have a bug, I won't be going to see my mother tomorrow.<\/span><\/p>\n

Short Takes<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

CBC<\/span><\/a><\/strong> <\/strong>— <\/span>Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's recent trip to the U.S. appears to have made quite an impression on our American friends — perhaps too good an impression, judging by these videos of two New York men literally begging him to run for president.  …<\/p>\n

\"Fortunately<\/p>\n

In another video, Trudeau declines the invitation to run for president on the grounds that he's not U.S.-born.<\/p>\n

The American men were quick to counter by pointing out that Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz was born in Calgary. <\/p>\n

"I have tremendous confidence in the American people," Trudeau told the men, but they weren't convinced. <\/p>\n

Just a little bit of humour to start your read.  Since Trudeau's visit to Washington just over a week ago, I have seen various positive posts about Trudeau, one even asking him to run for President of North America.  I think a modern Trudeaumania has been born.  From <\/span>Wikipedia<\/strong><\/span><\/a>: <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Trudeaumania<\/b> was the nickname<\/a> given in early 1968 to the excitement generated by Pierre Trudeau<\/a>'s entry into the leadership race of the Liberal Party of Canada<\/a>. Trudeaumania continued during the subsequent federal election campaign and during Trudeau's early years as Prime Minister of Canada<\/a>. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I remember it well!<\/span><\/p>\n

National Law Journal<\/strong><\/span><\/a> — h\/t Barbara K, Care2<\/strong><\/span> — A group of more than 350 legal scholars on Monday called upon senators to fulfill their constitutional obligation to consider a U.S. Supreme Court nominee submitted by President Barack Obama.<\/p>\n

In a letter sent to Senate leaders<\/a><\/strong>, 356 professors and scholars said that leaving an eight-justice court in place would have dire consequences. They asserted that allowing Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat to remain unfilled until after the presidential election could cripple the court and set bad precedent.<\/p>\n

“This preemptive abdication of duty is contrary to the process the framers envisioned in Article II, and threatens to diminish the integrity of our democratic institutions and the functioning of our constitutional government,” reads the letter, addressed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky; Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada; Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa; and ranking Judiciary Committee member Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.<\/p>\n

Reached for comment, a spokesman for McConnell wrote in an email, “The Leader’s position is well-known.”<\/p>\n

Alliance for Justice, a liberal organization focused on the federal judiciary, circulated the letter.<\/p>\n

\"Scalia<\/p>\n

The letter reads in part<\/strong><\/span><\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

As scholars deeply committed to the fair administration of justice, upholding the rule of law, and educating future generations of the legal profession, the undersigned professors of law urge you to fulfill your constitutional duty to give President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee a prompt and fair hearing and a timely vote.<\/p>\n

The Senate’s obligation in this circumstance is clear. Under Article II of the Constitution, the president “shall appoint . . . judges to the Supreme Court,” and the Senate’s role is to provide “advice and consent.” Yet before the president has even made a nomination to fill the current vacancy, a number of senators have announced that they will not perform their constitutional duty. Instead, they plan to withhold advice and consent until the next president is sworn in nearly a year from now. This preemptive abdication of duty is contrary to the process the framers envisioned in Article II, and threatens to diminish the integrity of our democratic institutions and the functioning of our constitutional government.<\/p>\n

President Obama was elected to a four-year term in 2012. According to the Constitution, that term has more than 300 days remaining. There is no exception to the Constitution holding that the president lacks the authority or duty to appoint justices to the Supreme Court because he is in the last year of his presidency. In fact, six justices have been confirmed in presidential-election years since 1900, including Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and Republican-appointee Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed by a Democratically-controlled Senate during President Ronald Reagan’s last year in office. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"6<\/a><\/p>\n

Here is a petition from the Alliance for Justice to <\/span>Tell Senators to #Do Your Job<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Rachel Maddow spoke with Nan Aron, president of the AFJ, back in mid February on the conundrum.<\/span><\/p>\n