Because things weren't nutty enough in Congress.

I don't celebrate death because undoubtedly somebody will miss him. But I will celebrate the silence of this windbag.

[Edited 2016-02-13 14:29:25]

This is going to be he HUGE.

3 supreme court nominations for a president is a very very big deal. This might be his longest lasting and most impactful legacy.

Conservatives are going to lose their minds.

[Edited 2016-02-13 14:29:34]

Same here, It looks like the Supreme Court could not wait for the next election. I hope Obama gets right on it, this should be interesting. I cannot wait.

And this election cycle just got crazier.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 2): Same here, It looks like the Supreme Court could not wait for the next election. I hope Obama gets right on it, this should be interesting. I cannot wait.

Highly doubtful. Scalia believed the law means what it says - and you don't like it, change the law. Obama is not likely to propose someone as radical as that.

I will offer my condolences to his friends and loved ones. I didn't like all of his judgments, but you knew what he was thinking. His passing was quite unexpected, and will have far reaching consequences. However for now let everything else take pause.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): Highly doubtful. Scalia believed the law means what it says - and you don't like it, change the law. Obama is not likely to propose someone as radical as that.

Well yes. Losing Scalia is a big blow to the Republicans and they are no doubt going to try and stall until after the elections.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): Highly doubtful. Scalia believed the law means what it says - and you don't like it, change the law. Obama is not likely to propose someone as radical as that.

I would hope he nominates someone who is more liberal than Scalia was for sure. We need fairness, not ideology on this court. Dare we hope for a reversal on Citizens United instead of Roe versus Wade?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): Scalia believed the law means what it says -

Scalia believed that the Constitution means what it says. He had no problem ruling against any law that did not meet his Constitutional standards.

As for the man, I didn't like his decisions or positions, but (as someone in their 70's) I hate to see someone so young die. RIP.

In terms of his replacement, this is a challenge for the Conservatives in the Senate. If they set a standard of delaying the replacement joining the Court for a year (minimum) they will be living with that standard for years to come - probably to their detriment.

I have no doubt that Obama has his list already prepared - that preplanning is a core duty of the Office.

Quoting polot (Reply 6): Well yes. Losing Scalia is a big blow to the Republicans and they are no doubt going to try and stall until after the elections.

I'm trying to figure out how the timeline will play into the process. Assuming Obama puts up a nominee relatively quickly, obviously they have to go through the whole confirmation and senate approval process, and ultimately the president needs to sign off on the Senate's approval before a justice officially takes the seat.

Is it even possible for congress to delay things to such an extent that an Obama nominee could then be rejected by a republican president, if one of them takes the presidency next year?

I'm sure there are conservatives on the hill in an absolute panic trying to figure out how to do this, but it seems like an awfully long time to leave a seat vacant on the highest court.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4): Scalia believed the law means what it says

Scalia believed the law means what Scalia said the law means. Just like any other justice. He was not above contradicting himself or established jurisprudence when it suited him or his ideology. Just like any other justice.

Quoting polot (Reply 6): Losing Scalia is a big blow to the Republicans and they are no doubt going to try and stall until after the elections.

Can they stall until the elections?

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 7): I would hope he nominates someone who is more liberal than Scalia was for sure. We need fairness, not ideology on this court. Dare we hope for a reversal on Citizens United instead of Roe versus Wade?

Believing in the rule of law is an ideology?

As for Citizens United, it uncovers a gap in the law, including Constitutional law. Companies are legal entities with rights and responsibilities (if they weren't how could companies enter into contracts, or be sued, or pay taxes?) In French, a company is known as a "Personne Morale" i.e. a virtual person, as opposed to a "Personne Physique" - a physical person of flesh and blood. There is law in place that tells exactly what the difference is. If people are upset at Citizens United, then how about getting Congress to write laws (or a Constitutional Amendment, if required) that specifies how the two are different. That was Scalia's message - in the absence of law, you can't restrict rights by pulling out of your ass an interpretation that simply is not there.

Quoting waterpolodan (Reply 9): Is it even possible for congress to delay things to such an extent that an Obama nominee could then be rejected by a republican president, if one of them takes the presidency next year? I'm sure there are conservatives on the hill in an absolute panic trying to figure out how to do this, but it seems like an awfully long time to leave a seat vacant on the highest court.

It will be filled before the next election

He will likely nominate an Asian male or female that is liberal

It would be political suicide to try and stop


It is luck and timing more than anything...and the conservatives just lost their court

Could have happened to the liberal wing during Bush...just timing

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11): Believing in the rule of law is an ideology? We all know that Conservatives appoint Conservatives and the same for Liberals, so we all know that ideologies are a giant part of the game. As for Citizens United, it uncovers a gap in the law, including Constitutional law. Companies are legal entities with rights and responsibilities (if they weren't how could companies enter into contracts, or be sued, or pay taxes?) In French, a company is known as a "Personne Morale" i.e. a virtual person, as opposed to a "Personne Physique" - a physical person of flesh and blood. There is law in place that tells exactly what the difference is. If people are upset at Citizens United, then how about getting Congress to write laws (or a Constitutional Amendment, if required) that specifies how the two are different. That was Scalia's message - in the absence of law, you can't restrict rights by pulling out of your ass an interpretation that simply is not there.

Citizens United is a classic example of Ideologies ruining the court. This is the worst piece of garbage passed in many a year. It has corrupted, tainted our electoral system and government almost beyond compare. I suggest you follow the money stream and then preach how good this is for Democracy. Oligarchy not Democracy is the result and you well know it, but your Ideology gets in the way of clear thinking. A problem common to the right side these days as Trump and Sanders and Clinton have said over and over and over.

[Edited 2016-02-13 16:00:14]

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 12): It is luck and timing more than anything...and the conservatives just lost their court

And to the Victor goes the spoils as they say and we have lived with lo these many years. I say Hallelujah.

Rest in peace, Justice Scalia! I vehemently disagreed with most of his views but respect his passion for what he did. He also had the funniest rulings.

I actually thought the court was balanced. You had three staunch conservatives, four liberal justices who usually vote in lock step, and the remaining two sometimes acting as a swing vote (Kennedy and Roberts). Losing a conservative in this mix and having Obama appoint a justice basically ensures a rubber stamp liberal court. It would not surprise me if the confirmation process was delayed or stalled. unless Obama actually produced a moderate nominee, which I do not believe he is capable of doing. This is going to get really interesting.

Quoting nonrevman (Reply 16): unless Obama actually produced a moderate nominee, which I do not believe he is capable of doing

Moderate to who? Your party has gone batshit crazy far right, so that even a moderate like Obama himself is labelled a far leftist. Anyone short of "no abortions, ever!" and "guns for anyone!" and "Muslims have no rights!" will be labelled a far-leftist by this band of kooks. Sure, the senate can stall until the next Republican president, but I don't think America can wait 40 years for the USSC to be down a justice.

As for Scalia, I won't gloat too much, but I will say I am glad the world has one less racist asshat in it.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 17): Sure, the senate can stall until the next Republican president, but I don't think America can wait 40 years for the USSC to be down a justice.

Also, the court will continue to function with the 8 remaining judges. Which, as he noted, now consists of 2 staunch conservatives, four liberal justices who usually vote in lock step, and the remaining two sometimes acting as a swing vote (Kennedy and Roberts).

That is not an ideal spot for the Republicans to be sitting in, and they have to be careful with any attempts with stalling sothat they don't fuel the Democrats in the election (who will paint the Republicans as the party of no/obstructionist and try and galvanize their base).

Since we're talking about replacements, it's good to note that America's most liberal member of the Supreme Court was put on the bench by a Republican. Well, I think Earl Warren was pretty liberal, anyway. It's impossible to tell how the justices will evolve over time. I'd still rather have Obama put another generally liberal justice though...just to be safe.

Quoting polot (Reply 18):

Agreed. Republicans have nothing to gain by stalling a nomination. Scalia rarely cast a "swing vote," which means we'd see quite a few 5-3 decisions if they left it vacant. Now having said that, it would surprise me in the slightest if the suicide caucus opposed confirmation simply because that's what they've been doing for the past seven years.

[Edited 2016-02-13 15:44:27]

Quoting polot (Reply 18): That is not an ideal spot for the Republicans to be sitting in, and they have to be careful with any attempts with stalling sothat they don't fuel the Democrats in the election (who will paint the Republicans as the party of no/obstructionist and try and galvanize their base).

Trust me they are already labeled as Obstructionists. They have proved that over and over. Eight years with a Black President has brought out a certain type of lunacy for all to see. A fervor shall we say to be polite but realistic.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 13): Citizens United is a classic example of Ideologies ruining the court. This is the worst piece of garbage passed in many a year. It has corrupted, tainted our electoral system and government almost beyond compare. I suggest you follow the money stream and then preach how good this is for Democracy. Oligarchy not Democracy is the result and you well know it, but your Ideology gets in the way of clear thinking. A problem common to the right side these days as Trump and Sander and Clinton have said over and over and over.

Then...CHANGE THE LAW.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 17): Moderate to who? Your party has gone batshit crazy far right, so that even a moderate like Obama himself is labelled a far leftist.

The Republicans are the big tent today. We have everything from moderates to the far right. Look at the Democrats - your frontrunner is an open socialist who has in the past expressed his disdain for private enterprise, and in debates his rival is trying to out-promise the moon with him.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 5):

The man was obese and smoked. His passing at 79 is not unexpected - it's an accomplishment!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22): Then...CHANGE THE LAW.

With a corrupted congress? A Republican do nothing congress. ? How? Open Rebellion? Are we not a nation of law? Laws that are the Responsibility of Congress? That is why I am thankful we may have a chance to change the Supreme
Court at last.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23): The man was obese and smoked. His passing at 79 is not unexpected - it's an accomplishment!

It is terrible to think that way, but it is reality these days. Imagine if the boat floated the other way? And we had a Conservative President and a Liberal Justice died. I am sure they would be magnanimous and appoint another Liberal to the bench.      

[Edited 2016-02-13 16:18:10]

http://www.freep.com/story/news/poli...ma-supreme-court-nominee/80351274/



It has started. Just like little children, It is my ball and I am going home with it. What did we call them as children ? Sore losers? Spoil sports?

[Edited 2016-02-13 16:16:28]   

[Edited 2016-02-13 16:19:28]

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 25): It is terrible to think that way, but it is reality these days.

All I'm saying is we should be surprised he made it one year past the official US life expectancy for males.   The guy has 9 kids though - it's certainly a blow to them.

I never wished the man dead, but I'm glad he's off the court.

I do realize that, but I am taking a lesson from the Republicans and slightly exaggerating what is said, no matter how trivial.  

[Edited 2016-02-13 16:43:51]

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 28): I never wished the man dead, but I'm glad he's off the court.

Unfortunately as we have found out with Judges and Politicians, usually that is the only way they will go away.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 26): It has started. Just like little children, It is my ball and I am going home with it. What did we call them as children ? Sore losers? Spoil sports?

Chill, Dems did the same sort of crap when they held Congress and a Republican was president.

That said, I agree that we should not wait a year to appoint a replacement. But I have my doubts whether Obama will send somebody decent, and if he does not send someone qualified to be a judge, then the appointment should not happen. The road goes both ways - the President should send someone moderate enough to be considered.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 30): Unfortunately as we have found out with Judges and Politicians, usually that is the only way they will go away.

Not true. In most cases, Supreme Court judges retire with some advance notice, leaving time to seamlessly transition. Apart from William Rehnquist who died in office 11 years ago, the last justice to die in office was Judge Robert H. Jackson who died in 1954.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31): Chill, Dems did the same sort of crap when they held Congress and a Republican was president. That said, I agree that we should not wait a year to appoint a replacement. But I have my doubts whether Obama will send somebody decent, and if he does not send someone qualified to be a judge, then the appointment should not happen. The road goes both ways - the President should send someone moderate enough to be considered.

A voice of moderation is always good to hear. I ask the question though, by whose standards? Remember Anita Hill ?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 32): Not true. In most cases, Supreme Court judges retire with some advance notice, leaving time to seamlessly transition. Apart from William Rehnquist who died in office 11 years ago, the last justice to die in office was Judge Robert H. Jackson who died in 1954.

I must confess to lumping politicians and some judges together without research. I must confess to be so politicized that I am acting like a politician these days. Watching the system screw us over for so many. many years does that

From the Onion : Justice Scalia Dead Following 30-Year Battle With Social Progress

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31): The road goes both ways - the President should send someone moderate enough to be considered.

Several prominent Republicans are already saying they won't confirm/support the confirmation of an Obama nominee, they don't care about the qualities of the candidate.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31): Chill, Dems did the same sort of crap when they held Congress and a Republican was president.

Is that how Reagan got to appoint 3 justices (4 if we count Rehnquist's elevation to CJOSC)?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...an-left-without-replacement-213629


Interesting times ahead for sure. A few cases affected shortly.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 7): Dare we hope for a reversal on Citizens United instead of Roe versus Wade?

Depends on who gets onto the Court.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11): That was Scalia's message - in the absence of law, you can't restrict rights by pulling out of your ass an interpretation that simply is not there.

Which is why is voted for the wealthy companies and individuals buying politicians by the truck load?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22): Then...CHANGE THE LAW.

All we need is a Court that is not obsessively Conservative.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22): The Republicans are the big tent today.

Really??? Is that why the Radicalized Ta Party killed all those moderate, responsible GOP Moderates in the Primaries - getting them out of Congress and getting the Radicalized Right in?

Ronald Reagan wouldn't be allowed in the Party these days.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22): Look at the Democrats -

There are moderate and conservative Democrats. Now there was an exodus of Conservative Southern Democrats when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Law. LBJ said at the time that he was giving the South to the GOP for 50 years. It's been longer than that and the Racists are still in office, with the GOP still happy to have them.

Quoting luckyone (Thread starter): I don't celebrate death because undoubtedly somebody will miss him. But I will celebrate the silence of this windbag.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 12): It is luck and timing more than anything

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 14): I say Hallelujah.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 17): I am glad the world has one less racist asshat in it.

How horrible that you're all finding some happiness in this! You should be ashamed of yourselves.

And luckyone, before you even try backtracking on your statement above, it reads just like when someone says, "I'm not a racist, BUT.." and then says something incredibly racist, like they're excusing themselves for doing it.

If, God forbid, it had been someone with legal opinions like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg instead and the above statements came out here, there would (rightfully) be howls of horror.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 39): How horrible that you're all finding some happiness in this! You should be ashamed of yourselves

Just the reality of life and politics. The system has to have nine Justices and as life and reality show, it is all about politics, power and ideology. The King is Dead, long live the King.

[Edited 2016-02-13 17:45:13]

The nominee might as well be Jesus H Christ himself and he will not be confirmned.

This event has huge pitfalls for the GOP. Get the popcorn ready.

I am glad he is off the court. I dont think it human to wish anybodies elses death. I would have been happier if Scalia would have won the lottery and decided it was not worth it anymore

My condolences to his family

Does anyone know who might likely be nominated? I couldn't name one judge at any level of the court system other than the current supreme court roster. Is that something that is discussed among current judges in the system on a regular basis or is that a bit of a taboo?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31):

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan

The rumor mill is already circulating around this probable Obama favorite from the D.C. Circuit Court

There are very few people who I have never met and yet genuinely hate. One thing I have noticed about these people is that they almost always have a righteous sense of religion and believe that their religion commands them to harm others.

Antonin Scalia was one of these people.

Perhaps it was his view that two adults having consensual sex was tantamount to murder, just because he didn't like how they were doing it: ""Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings, but I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible—murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals—and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct[.]" He seemed to believe that murder and cruelty to animals were only wrong because "people disapprove of them," rather than because they rob another being of a fundamental right.

Of course, I can't ask a man to have any understanding of the feelings of another when he can say things like: "it would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the 'life partner' of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee." Because, in his warped, twisted, narrow little mind, homosexuals cannot experience love for each-other.

Or then there was the bit where he again tried to throw people like me in prison just for trying to live a normal adult life with: "Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to [Texas'] prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex." We find this exact argument in Loving v. Virginia in which anti-misceginests argued that everyone was equally permitted to marry someone of their own race and equally banned from marrying someone of another.

And then there is this gem: "Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms?" Yes, he believed in a despotic government that monitored and regulated the private intimacy of her own citizens. I can think of no greater perversion of government than such a scheme.

And then he tried to stop me from getting married and once I did, he tried to annul it. When he was unable to destroy the marriage of two men he'd never met, he broke down into tantrums and even claimed that the First Amendment favors religion over no religion and even that states have the right to establish their own religion.

But my hatred for him goes far beyond gay rights. Antonin Scalia seemed to have a special place in his heart for anyone who wasn't a white, heterosexual, suit-wearing Republican. In fact, he believed that a man should be executed even if he had proven his innocence. Now if you find something wrong with the sentence I just wrote, so do I, but bear with me here:
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent..."

Now, he was correct that the Court has never found that, but there is a callousness in his words here, an utter disregard for human life, the life of an innocent wrongly accused and wrongly convicted. I wonder if his reptilian hindbrain might have thought differently about that if he had been wrongly accused and convicted of a capital offense. But, as I said, he was never troubled by empathy for the plights of his fellow humans.

Justice Scalia's absolute abhorrence of all humanity not in lock-step with his religious beliefs extended to just about every minority group. Races, religions, genders, and of course sexual orientations. Justice Scalia dedicated his life to his own supremacy, to his hatred of other people, and used his considerable intellect and gift for rhetoric to display a stunning lack of insight into his own life, circumstances, and the opportunities that allowed him to rise to power. He dedicated his life to ensuring that other people who he did not know were made as miserable as possible.

And now he has gone to a place where he can do no more harm.

I am relieved, but moreover, I am ecstatic. I have no sympathy for him. This is one time I regret my lack of belief in Hell, because right now I really wish there was one.

[Edited 2016-02-13 17:53:36]

[Edited 2016-02-13 18:07:23]

[Edited 2016-02-13 18:07:46]

Quoting Aesma (Reply 35): Several prominent Republicans are already saying they won't confirm/support the confirmation of an Obama nominee, they don't care about the qualities of the candidate.

And I think that such statements are stupid on their part. Who knows who will be proposed - it may well be somebody decent. Though with Obama, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 38): Which is why is voted for the wealthy companies and individuals buying politicians by the truck load?

If that's what the law says (or there is absense of law to the contrary) then yes. I don't like it any more than you do, but if we are to be a nation governed by the rule of law, that is the only acceptable outcome.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 38): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22): Then...CHANGE THE LAW. All we need is a Court that is not obsessively Conservative.

You mean someone who will say the law says what you want it to say, rather than what it actually says. Then we are no longer a nation ruled by law - and dictatorship is just a breath away. Indeed we have already gone a long way down that road - Scalia was one of the few who tried to insist that the entire legal concept of a democratic system be adhered to.

Scalia's system = Legislature passes laws, Executive enforces the law, Judiciary resolves disputes where there is conflict according to the law.

Your system (as far as I can tell) = Legislature passes laws, Executive enforces the law if it feels like it, and makes up new laws (aka regulations) on its own, and Judiciary makes up new laws, or ignores them if it feels like it.

Sorry, but I don't like your way.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 38): Really??? Is that why the Radicalized Ta Party killed all those moderate, responsible GOP Moderates in the Primaries - getting them out of Congress and getting the Radicalized Right in?

At last count, Congressmen associated with the Tea Party movement number about 48 - about 11% of the entire House and about a quarter of the total GOP House delegation. They are decidedly in the minority. The Democrats seem to have gone much further left - they literally eviscerated their moderate wing in 2010, and never recovered as far as I can tell.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 12): He will likely nominate an Asian male

      
....I'm gonna call it now:
I'm betting he nominates Goodwin Liu to replace Scalia.

Quoting N867DA (Reply 15): He also had the funniest rulings.

Ah yes, stifling individual rights is hilarious.  

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 17): Your party has gone batshit crazy far right, so that even a moderate like Obama himself is labelled a far leftist. Anyone short of "no abortions, ever!" and "guns for anyone!" and "Muslims have no rights!" will be labelled a far-leftist by this band of kooks.

^This

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 17): but I don't think America can wait 40 years for the USSC to be down a justice.

May have to.

There's nothing in the Constitution that requires 9 justices... Congress has the ability to change/limit the amount of justices on the Court if it chose to.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 21): Eight years with a Black President has brought out a certain type of lunacy for all to see.

Gonna be interesting to see just how much worse they behave under a woman.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 46): I'm betting he nominates Goodwin Liu to replace Scalia.

He couldn't get confirmed before, for a lower position, whereas :

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 43): http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan

could, unanimously. It would be hard for so many senators to now say he isn't fit for the job.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 47): Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 43): http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan could, unanimously. It would be hard for so many senators to now say he isn't fit for the job.

I don't know his full background, and I think that I would prefer someone with a bit more experience on the bench than just 2 years (I would prefer someone with 10+), but otherwise he seems like a decent choice.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 47): It would be hard for so many senators to now say he isn't fit for the job.

You think THAT'S going to stop Senatorial Republicans from doing exactly that? Seriously?