Justice Antonin Scalia dies

[mrsleeve]

he hasn't even nominated anyone and you're already judging them.

it's like that onion story - Obama to nominate "gay transsexual immigrant" or something like that.

It's too bad because even though I didn't agree with some of his rulings, at least Scalia had principles that seem to be lost on most of the GOP. Instead of respecting the dead man and his legacy it's been turned into a political football, and once again, the GOP is proving they can't actually govern.

This has nothing to do with the mans legacy, ( I happen to agree with) or his principals. Who nominates judges again????? With some of the most controversial candidates put up possible (that still stand a good chance of getting confirmed) that I can think of there by turning this into a football again.....

Its not the GOP or congress anyone else that is going to make an appointment its going to be the current POTUS. Given his track record for appointing candidates that have become more about appointing some one more "diverse" than the last, and with less and less actual legal experience with each successive appointment. With such a long tenure on the bench, the legacy this POTUS is going to leave on the court is going to be a big one, and turn the balance of the court on its head from a more traditional US constitutional view of the law, to a more Alinsky-esq social justice view point....

Look at the last confirmed judge to the SCOTUS Never was a judge, was only a practicing atterny for a couple of years in the early 90's and spent the rest of her career in academia. Even wrote a published article in one of the big legal circulations about how the 1st amendment should be curtailed in the name of "hate speech" . Yup just what we need another on the highest court in the land, with similar views. The comments were based on the reality of this administrations past 2 SCOTUS nominations, and how they were trotted out before the peasants and lauded over for their break from traditional appointees. You cant refute this, and to think this administration is going to break form this practice is foolish, but they may shock us.... but dont hold your breath

[BraveUlysses]

This has nothing to do with the mans legacy, ( I happen to agree with) or his principals. Who nominates judges again????? With some of the most controversial candidates put up possible (that still stand a good chance of getting confirmed) that I can think of there by turning this into a football again.....

Its not the GOP or congress anyone else that is going to make an appointment its going to be the current POTUS. Given his track record for appointing candidates that have become more about appointing some one more "diverse" than the last, and with less and less actual legal experience with each successive appointment. With such a long tenure on the bench, the legacy this POTUS is going to leave on the court is going to be a big one, and turn the balance of the court on its head from a more traditional US constitutional view of the law, to a more Alinsky-esq social justice view point....

Look at the last confirmed judge to the SCOTUS Never was a judge, was only a practicing atterny for a couple of years in the early 90's and spent the rest of her career in academia. Even wrote a published article in one of the big legal circulations about how the 1st amendment should be curtailed in the name of "hate speech" . Yup just what we need another on the highest court in the land, with similar views

And yet, it seems that Scalia himself was interested to see her become a SC justice:

http://wtkr.com/2016/02/15/scalia-once-lobbied-obama-advisor-to-have-elena-kagan-nominated-to-the-supreme-court/

[mrsleeve]

Could that have been because they shared a friendship??? Or just wishful thinking at the time that comment was made at a party.... No different than some of my self proclaimed "proud left Democrat" friends, just because we dont agree on politics does not mean we cant work together or be friends .

Interesting none the less,

[BraveUlysses]

Could that have been because they shared a friendship??? Or just wishful thinking at the time that comment was made at a party.... No different than some of my self proclaimed "proud left Democrat" friends, just because we dont agree on politics does not mean we cant work together or be friends .

Interesting none the less,

If you think that Scalia is at all conservative why do you think he would think so lightly of the position to suggest an unqualified friend fill the spot?

[mrsleeve]

SCOTUS judges are smart, he knew this administration was going to appoint very liberal leaning judge no matter what (on the retirement of Souter.... Maybe he wanted his friend, and someone he knew (since Kagan was a Clerk for marshal in the late 80's) and was already familiar with coupled with a similar background to be appointed..... You know make the best of an undesirable situation.

You dont have under-qualified people in your work place, occupying positions on the "recommendations" of friends or family that are already in positions of influence with the organization???

[BraveUlysses]

No, I work for a big company and it's pretty hard to pull off nepotism here.

Like I said though, since we're only talking about 9 people get to do this job at any given time, if you really think Scalia was a true conservative person, he would suggest an unqualified liberal justice?

It's just food for thought, that's all.

[kronus]

not when your workplace is the Supreme Court, holy shit

[2761377]

No, I work for a big company and it's pretty hard to pull off nepotism here.

Like I said though, since we're only talking about 9 people get to do this job at any given time, if you really think Scalia was a true conservative person, he would suggest an unqualified liberal justice?

It's just food for thought, that's all.

He was relic of a bygone era. When the people who ran this country allowed that their political opposition were actually of good faith Americans.

unlike today where policy disagreements make the other party evil. which trend started with the Left.

[roguetoaster]

He was relic of a bygone era. When the people who ran this country allowed that their political opposition were actually of good faith Americans.

unlike today where policy disagreements make the other party evil. which trend started with the Left.

I was like yep, 100% agree until you laid blame on some people who are mostly long gone!

It's bullshit dredging of past bullshit that just keeps the manure spreader turning.

Just let it go and move forward like proper Americans! Or at least find an enemy both sides can really agree on and kill 'em. Yay, consensus building!

[BraveUlysses]

unlike today where policy disagreements make the other party evil. which trend started with the Left.

The irony of this comment isn't lost on me.

[Kershaw]

Obama has named his nominee. Merrick Garland of the DC circuit. A very centrist judge by most accounts. The GOP has said they will refuse to meet with any nominee Obama appoints and several top republican members have endorsed Garland in the last few years, so it'll be interesting to see what they do. I would not be surprised at further obstruction just because of obstruction's sake. Would definitely highlight the hypocrisy though. They either go back on their stances from a few years ago or go back on what they said just recently. Obama has put them in a tight spot, haha.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/us/politics/obama-supreme-court-nominee.html?_r=0

[gwb72tii]

"The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States," Reid said on the Senate floor at that time.

"Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote," Reid said. "It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's very different than saying every nominee receives a vote."

http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2016/02/25/democrats-are-hypocrites-regarding-supreme-court-vacancy-n2123889/page/full

[nando]

that's right, it doesn't say they have to do their jobs right? They can just sit there, collect their paychecks, and block all votes indefinitely.

[Wschnitz]

that's right, it doesn't say they have to do their jobs right? They can just sit there, collect their paychecks, and block all votes indefinitely.

They already do that tho, status quo.

I don't see how they can give any reason to blocking this dude, I see lots of super right news sites bringing up "OH BUT HE VOTED TO REHEAR DC VS HELLER!!!" when His far right counterpart Randolph voted with him on it loooollll.

Cant vote anyone moderate and center, has to be a right wing redneck in a position that is supposed to be neutral...