0
PhreeZone

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

Recommended Posts

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-79-has-died-officials-say-n518156

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, known for his fiery comments on and off the bench, has died, Texas' governor says. He was 79.

"Justice Antonin Scalia was a man of God, a patriot, and an unwavering defender of the written Constitution and the Rule of Law. He was the solid rock who turned away so many attempts to depart from and distort the Constitution," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement. "We mourn his passing, and we pray that his successor on the Supreme Court will take his place as a champion for the written Constitution and the Rule of Law."

Scalia was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 under President Ronald Reagan, who named him as associate justice. A lawyer by trade, he entered public service in the 1970s as general counsel for President Richard Nixon and as the assistant attorney general.





This has the potential to really change the balance of the Supreme Court since Obama will now get the opportunity to appoint one more justice before he leaves office. Granted this means a lot of time in Congress will now need to be spent vetting a candidate before appointment. It will be sad if congress stalls on this for the remaining 10 months of any presidents term to prevent something like this from moving forward.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least Roberts will be able to go back to voting conservative on the important things. Maybe his old friends will forgive him for allowing Obama care to live.

I can see the fight lasting a long time. It will probably be good news for the Democrats in the general election, because the nomination fight will stir up the base. The Republican base already cares deeply about the SC.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PhreeZone


This has the potential to really change the balance of the Supreme Court since Obama will now get the opportunity to appoint one more justice before he leaves office. Granted this means a lot of time in Congress will now need to be spent vetting a candidate before appointment. It will be sad if congress stalls on this for the remaining 10 months of any presidents term to prevent something like this from moving forward.



I have complete confidence the extremist fringe in the GOP will attempt just that.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This has the potential to really change the balance of the Supreme Court since Obama will now get the opportunity to appoint one more justice before he leaves office. Granted this means a lot of time in Congress will now need to be spent vetting a candidate before appointment. It will be sad if congress stalls on this for the remaining 10 months of any presidents term to prevent something like this from moving forward.



First...it won't be the Congress, it will be the Senate and only the Senate that has the Constitutional authority to confirm the next SCOTUS Justice. If McConnell and the rest of the Republican majority have any spine, they "Bork" every nominee Obama sends up and OBTW, they can. It's real easy. Senate Judiciary Committee does not even have to have hearings, just vote out an unfavorable, send it to the floor and vote against confirmation on every Obama nominee and wait for the next President. Even if it is Hillary or Bernie, cross that bridge in the future. Any SCOTUS rulings ending in a 4-4 tie from a case sent up from a Federal Circuit Court reverts to the Circuit Court's decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boomerdog

Quote

This has the potential to really change the balance of the Supreme Court since Obama will now get the opportunity to appoint one more justice before he leaves office. Granted this means a lot of time in Congress will now need to be spent vetting a candidate before appointment. It will be sad if congress stalls on this for the remaining 10 months of any presidents term to prevent something like this from moving forward.



First...it won't be the Congress, it will be the Senate and only the Senate that has the Constitutional authority to confirm the next SCOTUS Justice. If McConnell and the rest of the Republican majority have any spine, they "Bork" every nominee Obama sends up and OBTW, they can. It's real easy. Senate Judiciary Committee does not even have to have hearings, just vote out an unfavorable, send it to the floor and vote against confirmation on every Obama nominee and wait for the next President. Even if it is Hillary or Bernie, cross that bridge in the future. Any SCOTUS rulings ending in a 4-4 tie from a case sent up from a Federal Circuit Court reverts to the Circuit Court's decision.



Well, if Thomas follows Scalia's lead as he always has done in the past, it will be 4-3.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryoder

***
This has the potential to really change the balance of the Supreme Court since Obama will now get the opportunity to appoint one more justice before he leaves office. Granted this means a lot of time in Congress will now need to be spent vetting a candidate before appointment. It will be sad if congress stalls on this for the remaining 10 months of any presidents term to prevent something like this from moving forward.



I have complete confidence the extremist fringe in the GOP will attempt just that.

I hope so, there needs to be balance.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God works in mysterious ways.

Thank you, Lord!!!!

I wonder who Speaker's Corner's favorite POTUS has in the queue for nomination to replace a fallen member of SCOTUS?

:ph34r::ph34r::ph34r::ph34r::ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

The fact that the paid for politicians will likely game the rules is what we get for allowing money to infest how politicians operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend


Well, if Thomas follows Scalia's lead as he always has done in the past, it will be 4-3.



:D:D:D

Fark: "Scalia dies on Texas hunting trip. Dick Cheney's current whereabouts unknown."
:D
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boomerdog

I'm going to enjoy the Left go apoplectic is McConnell refuses to give any Obama SCOTUS appointee a confirmation vote on the Senate Floor. Time a few lib justices got "Borked" as well. Payback can be a real bitch can't it?!?!?!?



What you won't enjoy is having it become an issue in the general election. That will help the Democratic turnout. There are more R senators up for re-election than Ds this time. And at the top, the demographics already give them an advantage. The fight over a nomination is a potential disaster for the Rs.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mitch McConnell:
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/269389-mcconnell-dont-replace-scalia-until-after-election

So the American people had no voice in the election the current president, but they will have a voice in the election of the next one?:S

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boomerdog

First...it won't be the Congress, it will be the Senate and only the Senate that has the Constitutional authority to confirm the next SCOTUS Justice.



Umm, you know that the Senate is part of Congress, right?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jakee

***First...it won't be the Congress, it will be the Senate and only the Senate that has the Constitutional authority to confirm the next SCOTUS Justice.



Umm, you know that the Senate is part of Congress, right?

Technically correct, but the term "Congressman" is often used to refer only to members of the House of Representatives, so I often see "Congress" used to refer to only the House.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_Congress
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Mitch McConnell:
>“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next
>Supreme Court Justice," he said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should
>not be filled until we have a new President.”

Someone else who thinks the Constitution is an annoying triviality to be ignored when it gets in the way of what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What you won't enjoy is having it become an issue in the general election. That will help the Democratic turnout. There are more R senators up for re-election than Ds this time. And at the top, the demographics already give them an advantage. The fight over a nomination is a potential disaster for the Rs.



And you know this how? Because...?

"I know that it's true because I made it up myself." Yep..you sure as hell did make it up all by yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Umm, you know that the Senate is part of Congress, right?



But of course! What happens here in both press reports and the American lexicon is that the House of Representatives is often written of, spoken of, or reported as The Congress when in all actuality the Congress is as you've aptly pointed out the House of Representatives AND the Senate. And as I'm sure you are aware, the Constitution ascribes to them different enumerated powers that one has and the other does not. The House of Representatives does not confirm through the advise and consent clause, Presidential appointees, that (to include Supreme Court nominations) belongs exclusively to the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anything from "House of Cards" is believable then it is possible that BHO could have had him taken out so that he could fill the replacement.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RonD1120

If anything from "House of Cards" is believable then it is possible that BHO could have had him taken out so that he could fill the replacement.

Or perhaps God took a look at the people running for President and decided to give Obama one more chance to do something long term to keep the country on the right track.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Time a few lib justices got "Borked" as well.

Bork's nomination failed because he advocated a truly scary view of the Constitution. His published law writings and his court judgements made it very clear that he advocated a heavy hand in government censorship, not only against anything he considered to be "pornographic" but also against anything that could be "socially disruptive". He wrote that the main function of the government was to maintain social order. His opposition to abortion was founded in a belief that the "right to privacy" was a fiction. One can only imagine his view of the NSA and government surveillance programs if that would be founded on the notion that you have absolutely no right to privacy in even your most intimate affairs. This point of view was related to his view of the 10th amendment, which he considered to be devoid of meaning because it was "too vague". He wrote that the 14th amendment applied only to the Civil War and no longer had any meaning or effect. Probably most important to you, he staunchly supported an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that related only to the establishment of militias by the states, and he totally rejected any notion that it applied to individual rights.

He also took a view of Presidential authority that almost made the President a King. He recognized almost no limit on the ability of the President to rule by executive decree. This was reflected in his role in the "Saturday Night Massacre"; as Solicitor General under Richard Nixon, Bork acted on Nixon's order to fire Archibald Cox, the special investigator appointed by Congress to investigate the Watergate break-in. This action was a direct violation of the law Congress had passed in establishing the office of special investigator, and in fact Nixon had earlier in the day demanded that the Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, do the firing, but Richardson refused and instead resigned in protest. Nixon then demanded that the Deputy Attorney General, William Ruckelshaus, fire Cox, but Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned when Nixon pressed the issue. Only then did the job fall to Bork, who complied. In Bork's world, the President can do as he or she pleases, Congress cannot investigate, and if they try the President can derail any investigation by firing any investigators Congress appoints.

Strict government censorship, no privacy from intrusive government control of your life, no individual right to bear arms, and unchecked Presidential powers: is this the America you really want to live in?

Bork was nominated because of his anti-abortion history. He is a perfect example of the danger of single-issue politics. Regan either failed to investigate the totality of Bork's policies before nominating him, or he was willing to compromise free speech and second amendment rights (among others) to overturn Roe v Wade.

I really don't understand why Conservatives continue to lionize someone who advocated for such an odious view of America.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for that detailed piece.

Quote

I really don't understand why Conservatives continue to lionize someone who advocated for such an odious view of America.



Maybe as a reward for being Nixon's most loyal soldier?
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0