Breaking: Justice Scalia has died

[Faun]

And I guess Jon that you think the supreme court should always have a republican advantage just like your other friends here do

Wrong. We should have judges, not law makers on the bench. Regardless of their politics, which shouldn't be evident, judges are supposed to decide law based on what is written, not what they want the written words to mean.

true but there could be more than 1 meaning to what our forefathers wrote,,,,and this is a far different world or country than what it was then

It isn't rocket science. The argument isn't over what they meant, they often wrote about it. And we have history to guide us. The argument is how far we can stretch the meaning. Changes in law should be done by lawmakers, not judges.

They are not changing laws. They are banning laws they deem unconstitutional or letting laws remain they find to be in line with the Constitution.

 

[Flopper]

It seems most Republican feel the right course is to delay any confirmation until a new president is in the white house and if that new president is a democrat then the Senate should just sit on any nomination for as long as it takes to get a true conservative nominee like Scalia. The problem with this thinking is the court as it stands today, without Scalia is a much more liberal court and there is certainly no guarantee that the next president is going to be a republican or the next Senate will have a republican majority.

That is easy to say on day 2 of a vacancy. Whereas there are likely dozens of vacancies in lower courts that few "man on the street" types have heard of (Eastern District of Washington State or whatever), having a vacancy on the Supreme Court is visible.

The Constitution (which Republicans hug and swear they live by every moment of every day) says two things about Supreme Court nominees:

The President nominates the person to sit on the court.
The Senate approves or rejects them.

Its strange (not really) how the republicans choose to not uphold the Constitution all of the sudden....

Anyway, for most ordinary Americans, it's this simple...you do your duty. If the Senate rejects the nominee, they reject it. But this is the process. Absolutely nothing states that the Senate has to confirm whomever the President nominates...but they have to consider it and hold a vote outside of a filibuster.

Again, this is the process.

If we get into the late Spring with the GOP refusing to do their duties, pressure is going to mount. It will become a campaign issue and when Hillary starts beating the GOP over the head with it day after day...you'll see the GOP change their tune.

I think this does open the possibility of some negotiation between McConnell and Obama. Republicans might settle for a middle of road nominee if it looks like the next president is likely to be a democrat or vice versa.

If I'm the President, I don't return the phone call if they are not debating your nominee. If they are actively debating the nominee, holding hearings, etc.... thats one thing. You roll the dice and you take your chances. The Senate is not there to do the bidding of the POTUS. But if they are not debating it and now, all of the sudden, they are in the mood to deal...I let the phone ring, walk out to the Rose Garden and crank up the heat on Mitchell and the boys by calling again on the Senate to do their job.

Until the late 1930's, no one seem to be concerned about the court being partisan. A president might nominee someone that they felt would render a favorable ruling for the railroads, banks, or the union, or whatever but not because they were a liberal or conservative or any particular political ideology.

Over the last 40 years, the public perception of justices is that they are just politicians wearing black robes. The criteria for nomination is whether the nominee will carry the party line. Objectivity, knowledge of law, and intelligence are all secondary.

I think some of the more craven among us look at it as that. I've seen rulings go both ways over my time on this celestial rock that make me shake my head. I've said hundreds of times, I don't see how you can be forced to buy insurance yet, the ACA sits (thank goodness) as the law of the land. How they tie free-speech to money is a feat of the imagination...but there it sits. Do I agree with a lot of rulings? No. Do I think "my side" got an honest hering? Yes.

Yes, there are judges that turn on their masters and render surprising verdicts. However, from the Pew 2012 study on partisan polarization, each side is getting much better at grooming future nominees. Grooming starts decades before they are every placed on the president's short list. These candidates are often affiliated with networks of conservative or liberal lawyers that have replaced more neutral groups like bar associations. And they are drawn more than ever from federal appeals courts, where their views can be closely monitored. The goal of course to find potential nominees that will vote along ideological lines ignoring arguments and statues contrary to those lines.

Once we accept that it's ok for the highest court in the land to render verdicts based not on law, evidence, and arguments but on political, religious, and economic ideology, what does that say about our judicial system.

I think you're a victim (too strong a word, I know) of the "doctrine of clean hands" in some ways. It basically states (in the way I'm using it) that there was a time when we had impartiality and the rule of law was the only thing ever considered. I contend that there was never a time when we had total purity of the law. Hell, in 1804, the Executive and the Congress tripled the size of the nation without a single syllable about being able to do so in the Constitution.... That was 15 years after the thing was ratified. Judges have been "inventing" statues and standing for the life of the nation. I think that you're stating that Scalia or Alito or Ginsburg or my gal Sotomayor sit around and think, "I want to make sure we have a school lunch program so how can I tie it to a clause in the Constitution?" I doubt that happens. I think a case will come up and you have some Justices who look at starving children who have one time a day to get a balance meal because their parents are not doing the job and say, "Well, that's tough TImmy...nothing in the Constitution says you're entitled to a good meal" and other Justices who look at starving children who have one time a day to get a blanced meal beause theeir parents are not doing the job and say, "Well, it's not your fault Timmy and seek to promote the greater good"; much like having the 28-30 states that the LA Purchase allowed for helped the greater good.

If you're worried about what it says about our nation that some justices feel kids should get balacned meals or that Texas shouldn't be able to allow Blue Bell Ice Cream to poison customers or that men and women who live 50 miles from the nearest police station should be able to keep weapons for personal protection...I think you're worried about the wrong things.

Having strictly political justices would be a nightmare. I don't think the President would want that and I don't think the Senate would allow that. This is the type of argument that RWNJs would make.

I don't find much to disagree with in your post.

A news commentator made an interesting observation this morning. Obama may find it difficult to find a qualified candidate that would accept the nomination. Whoever Obama nominates is going to be attacked by the conservative media as no nominee ever has and with little chance of appointment. He or she would probably come out the fight as damaged goods.

If there is such a person, I think Obama should nominate a very middle of road candidate who is well respected by both sides. Since the Senate has made it clear that there're not going to give anyone Obama nominates a fair hearing why throw republicans a liberal judge to feast on.

 

[Faun]

enjoy it while you have it blues won't be for long

That's big talk from the party that got obliterated in an historic blow out election.

Return with me to the thrilling days of yesteryear as 5 of the last 6 presidential elections had the majority of Americans voting DEM

LOL I see you remain in denial. Democrats were destroyed, not just at the national level but at all levels local, county, and state included.

I recall many on the right boasting about that after the 2010 election. Then Democrats won in 2012.

Good luck trying to get a justice confirmed in the Senate

If 2016 is anything like 2012, the left will get an even more Liberal replacement justice than had Republicans worked with Obama now to find a moderate justice.

Democrats didn't win in 2012. Lets review, even with Obama on the ballot lying his ass off Democrats were only able to scrape back 6 of the 56 seats they lost in the blow out 2010 election. That's not a win. Obama squeaked out a win against basically an Obama light GOP candidate but only with the help if his lies and biased debate moderators. Then once people figured out he lied his ass off the people put an epic beating on Democrats again in 2014 handing control of the Senate to the GOP. Dem's saw it coming, they screamed at Obama until he went on national tv and took personal responsibility for his Obamacare lies but it didn't help, Dem's got their asses handed to them again.

I remember how smug the Democratic party was after their wins in 2008 but even I never imagined they would fall from grace only 2 years later, destroying themselves by shoving Obamacare down our throats over our objection. Obamacare the gift that keeps on giving.

Unbelievably retarded.

Let's review, shall we?

Senate ....... Democrats gain two seats, win the Senate
House ........ Democrats win 8 seats, lose the House
Executive ... Democrats win the presidency.

That's what you call, "Dem's got their asses handed to them again."

 

[Synthaholic]

The problem with a tie is that it doesn't settle whatever was at issue.

I'm thinking that most of the backward conservatives here want a tie, because it's like kissing your sister.

 

[Synthaholic]

You're right the court receives about 10,000 petitions for a hearing of which they select about a hundred. A tie is very unfair because when you're case is selected for a hearing, you expect that the case is going to be finally resolved after years in the court system. And after the waiting and the costs of taking the case to the Supreme Court for a final decision, there is none.

a tie is not unfair

it opinion of the lower court remains thats all

btw just because it is an even number does not necessarily mean a tie

perhaps an even number of jurists would end all or nothingness that has become expected of the court

So the GOP is playing politics with the courts. SHOCKED....SHOCKED!

Their platform should be one line:

PARTY OVER COUNTRY ALWAYS!

a big part of the country does not want a leftist on the court

the prezbo if he wants the seat filled

needs to pick one the senate will consent to

it is that simple

Did obama win re election by 5 million votes??

did obama lose 5 million votes between election one and two

No. He lost 3.5M while GOP picked up 900,000.

 

[Faun]

The Republicans clearly do not have to confirm an Obama nominee and it would be nuts for them to do so. The Supreme Court is never a big voting issue - especially with the Democrats - and there is really very little in it for the GOP. Your going to hear a lot of arguments from the left about how the republicans really risk a lot by not confirming someone -- just like they did with immigration reform where they tried to sell the nonsense that the republicans had to cave because they could never win again with out the Hispanic vote. the country isn't going to care that there are 8 on the supreme court and that 4-4 ties go with the lower court decision and lack precedental value. It just isn't.

on the other hand approving ANY Obama nominee means TRump is the presidential nominee. Game over.

No one is suggesting they approve "ANY" Obama nominee. Many are finding fault with the Republicans who are saying they won't approve any Obama nominee.

They are basically gambling with the Supreme Court to get a conservative to replace Scalia. They could work with Obama now on a replacement and get a moderate, just as Democrats did with Reagan in 1988 to confirm Kennedy. But that's not good enough for them. They are going for all or nothing. They are banking on winning the presidency and the Senate so they can install a conservative.

It could work out that way for them.

Or it could back fire on them and Democrats could win the presidency and the Senate and install a Liberal, making the court 5-3 Liberal with 1 swing vote.

 

[JimH52]

But your obstructionist Leader has already said he will block anyone that the President nominates. PARTY OVER COUNTRY!

That's exactly backwards. It's the country they are looking out for. The libs want further changes, not the right.

Look ice the republican party from the getgo has had a policy of OBSTRUCT OBSTRUCT OBSTRUCT You think America is dumb ?

Obstructing destruction isn't a bad thing. That's why they won so big in 2014,so no, America is not that dumb.

Ah, but 2016 is a National election. Time for the GOP to lose....again!

You side stepped the point.

With Trump your eventual winner and with the damage he has done, the GOP is doomed. Demographics alone will kill the GOP in November.

 

[BluesLegend]

That's big talk from the party that got obliterated in an historic blow out election.

Return with me to the thrilling days of yesteryear as 5 of the last 6 presidential elections had the majority of Americans voting DEM

LOL I see you remain in denial. Democrats were destroyed, not just at the national level but at all levels local, county, and state included.

I recall many on the right boasting about that after the 2010 election. Then Democrats won in 2012.

Good luck trying to get a justice confirmed in the Senate

If 2016 is anything like 2012, the left will get an even more Liberal replacement justice than had Republicans worked with Obama now to find a moderate justice.

Democrats didn't win in 2012. Lets review, even with Obama on the ballot lying his ass off Democrats were only able to scrape back 6 of the 56 seats they lost in the blow out 2010 election. That's not a win. Obama squeaked out a win against basically an Obama light GOP candidate but only with the help if his lies and biased debate moderators. Then once people figured out he lied his ass off the people put an epic beating on Democrats again in 2014 handing control of the Senate to the GOP. Dem's saw it coming, they screamed at Obama until he went on national tv and took personal responsibility for his Obamacare lies but it didn't help, Dem's got their asses handed to them again.

I remember how smug the Democratic party was after their wins in 2008 but even I never imagined they would fall from grace only 2 years later, destroying themselves by shoving Obamacare down our throats over our objection. Obamacare the gift that keeps on giving.

Unbelievably retarded.

Let's review, shall we?

Senate ....... Democrats gain two seats, win the Senate
House ........ Democrats win 8 seats, lose the House
Executive ... Democrats win the presidency.

That's what you call, "Dem's got their asses handed to them again."

With Obama on the ballot lying his ass off I don't call that a win, maybe if you are desperate and grasping at straws and still hurting from the epic beating you suffered in 2010. Then voters gave Dem's a 2nd historic bitch slap beating in 2014 confirming the anti-democrat sentiment in the country, giving control of the Senate to the GOP. The trend is Democrats can go to hell.

 

[JimH52]

a tie is not unfair

it opinion of the lower court remains thats all

btw just because it is an even number does not necessarily mean a tie

perhaps an even number of jurists would end all or nothingness that has become expected of the court

So the GOP is playing politics with the courts. SHOCKED....SHOCKED!

Their platform should be one line:

PARTY OVER COUNTRY ALWAYS!

a big part of the country does not want a leftist on the court

the prezbo if he wants the seat filled

needs to pick one the senate will consent to

it is that simple

Did obama win re election by 5 million votes??

did obama lose 5 million votes between election one and two

No. He lost 3.5M while GOP picked up 900,000.

November is NOT an off year election. The GOP will lose again.

 

[Faun]

Return with me to the thrilling days of yesteryear as 5 of the last 6 presidential elections had the majority of Americans voting DEM

LOL I see you remain in denial. Democrats were destroyed, not just at the national level but at all levels local, county, and state included.

I recall many on the right boasting about that after the 2010 election. Then Democrats won in 2012.

Good luck trying to get a justice confirmed in the Senate

If 2016 is anything like 2012, the left will get an even more Liberal replacement justice than had Republicans worked with Obama now to find a moderate justice.

Democrats didn't win in 2012. Lets review, even with Obama on the ballot lying his ass off Democrats were only able to scrape back 6 of the 56 seats they lost in the blow out 2010 election. That's not a win. Obama squeaked out a win against basically an Obama light GOP candidate but only with the help if his lies and biased debate moderators. Then once people figured out he lied his ass off the people put an epic beating on Democrats again in 2014 handing control of the Senate to the GOP. Dem's saw it coming, they screamed at Obama until he went on national tv and took personal responsibility for his Obamacare lies but it didn't help, Dem's got their asses handed to them again.

I remember how smug the Democratic party was after their wins in 2008 but even I never imagined they would fall from grace only 2 years later, destroying themselves by shoving Obamacare down our throats over our objection. Obamacare the gift that keeps on giving.

Unbelievably retarded.

Let's review, shall we?

Senate ....... Democrats gain two seats, win the Senate
House ........ Democrats win 8 seats, lose the House
Executive ... Democrats win the presidency.

That's what you call, "Dem's got their asses handed to them again."

With Obama on the ballot lying his ass off I don't call that a win, maybe if you are desperate and grasping at straws and still hurting from the epic beating you suffered in 2010. Then voters gave Dem's a 2nd historic bitch slap beating in 2014 confirming the anti-democrat sentiment in the country, giving control of the Senate to the GOP. The trend is Democrats can go to hell.

So epic, that Democrats won in 2012 despite your delusions to the contrary.

 

[Flopper]

Having only 8 justices will probably mean that some cases that should be heard by the court won't be. Some cases may end in a tie vote which is not fair to the plaintiff or defendant as the case was taken to the Supreme Court for a final decision. In a tie, the party that brought the case to he court can ask the court to hear the case a second time with a full bench. If the court agrees, then the other party would have to go through the process a second time.

the SC does not take the majority of appeals they select some

so i do not see the unfairness of tie

the lower courts opinion remains valid

i hear what you are saying

i was just wondering about the full count of justices becoming an even number

You're right the court receives about 10,000 petitions for a hearing of which they select about a hundred. A tie is very unfair because when you're case is selected for a hearing, you expect that the case is going to be finally resolved after years in the court system. And after the waiting and the costs of taking the case to the Supreme Court for a final decision, there is none.

a tie is not unfair

it opinion of the lower court remains thats all

btw just because it is an even number does not necessarily mean a tie

perhaps an even number of jurists would end all or nothingness that has become expected of the court

So the GOP is playing politics with the courts. SHOCKED....SHOCKED!

Their platform should be one line:

PARTY OVER COUNTRY ALWAYS!

a big part of the country does not want a leftist on the court

the prezbo if he wants the seat filled

needs to pick one the senate will consent to

it is that simple

Anyone Obama appoints is going to be branded a leftest judge. Republicans have lost the most conservative member of the court and they are not going to settle for anything short a very conservative judge. The only way the Senate would accept a moderate would be if they felt a Democrat was going to win the presidency. However, it that was the case Obama wouldn't nominate one. Although there could be some negotiations between McConnnell and Obama, I don't see this seat being filled for at least a year.

If a democrat is elected president, and we have a republican Senate next year, the seat may sit vacant for years. There have been so many rulings by the court that have gone against conservatives, republicans may just see a less effective court as a good thing.

 

[eddiew]

LOL I see you remain in denial. Democrats were destroyed, not just at the national level but at all levels local, county, and state included.

I recall many on the right boasting about that after the 2010 election. Then Democrats won in 2012.

Good luck trying to get a justice confirmed in the Senate

If 2016 is anything like 2012, the left will get an even more Liberal replacement justice than had Republicans worked with Obama now to find a moderate justice.

Democrats didn't win in 2012. Lets review, even with Obama on the ballot lying his ass off Democrats were only able to scrape back 6 of the 56 seats they lost in the blow out 2010 election. That's not a win. Obama squeaked out a win against basically an Obama light GOP candidate but only with the help if his lies and biased debate moderators. Then once people figured out he lied his ass off the people put an epic beating on Democrats again in 2014 handing control of the Senate to the GOP. Dem's saw it coming, they screamed at Obama until he went on national tv and took personal responsibility for his Obamacare lies but it didn't help, Dem's got their asses handed to them again.

I remember how smug the Democratic party was after their wins in 2008 but even I never imagined they would fall from grace only 2 years later, destroying themselves by shoving Obamacare down our throats over our objection. Obamacare the gift that keeps on giving.

Unbelievably retarded.

Let's review, shall we?

Senate ....... Democrats gain two seats, win the Senate
House ........ Democrats win 8 seats, lose the House
Executive ... Democrats win the presidency.

That's what you call, "Dem's got their asses handed to them again."

With Obama on the ballot lying his ass off I don't call that a win, maybe if you are desperate and grasping at straws and still hurting from the epic beating you suffered in 2010. Then voters gave Dem's a 2nd historic bitch slap beating in 2014 confirming the anti-democrat sentiment in the country, giving control of the Senate to the GOP. The trend is Democrats can go to hell.

So epic, that Democrats won in 2012 despite your delusions to the contrary.

and by only 5 million votes

 

[eddiew]

the SC does not take the majority of appeals they select some

so i do not see the unfairness of tie

the lower courts opinion remains valid

i hear what you are saying

i was just wondering about the full count of justices becoming an even number

You're right the court receives about 10,000 petitions for a hearing of which they select about a hundred. A tie is very unfair because when you're case is selected for a hearing, you expect that the case is going to be finally resolved after years in the court system. And after the waiting and the costs of taking the case to the Supreme Court for a final decision, there is none.

a tie is not unfair

it opinion of the lower court remains thats all

btw just because it is an even number does not necessarily mean a tie

perhaps an even number of jurists would end all or nothingness that has become expected of the court

So the GOP is playing politics with the courts. SHOCKED....SHOCKED!

Their platform should be one line:

PARTY OVER COUNTRY ALWAYS!

a big part of the country does not want a leftist on the court

the prezbo if he wants the seat filled

needs to pick one the senate will consent to

it is that simple

Anyone Obama appoints is going to be branded a leftest judge. Republicans have lost the most conservative member of the court and they are not going to settle for anything short a very conservative judge. The only way the Senate would accept a moderate would be if they felt a Democrat was going to win the presidency. However, it that was the case Obama wouldn't nominate one. Although there could be some negotiations between McConnnell and Obama, I don't see this seat being filled for at least a year.

If a democrat is elected president, and we have a republican Senate next year, the seat may sit vacant for years. There have been so many rulings by the court that have gone against conservatives, republicans may just see a less effective court as a good thing.

we need citizens united overturned

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

3, 2…1…Here Come the Cries That Obama Had Scalia Killed
It took only moments for Justice Scalia's death to trigger the worst of conservative thinking on Twitter and Breitbart and

 

[Faun]

3, 2…1…Here Come the Cries That Obama Had Scalia Killed
It took only moments for Justice Scalia's death to trigger the worst of conservative thinking on Twitter and Breitbart and

Hey, if Democrats managed to kill Andrew Breitbart and make it look like a heart attack (wink, wink) -- we could certainly do the same to Antonin Scalia.

 

[eddiew]

3, 2…1…Here Come the Cries That Obama Had Scalia Killed
It took only moments for Justice Scalia's death to trigger the worst of conservative thinking on Twitter and Breitbart and

Hey, if Democrats managed to kill Andrew Breitbart and make it look like a heart attack (wink, wink) -- we could certainly do the same to Antonin Scalia.

could thomas be next?? Please

 

[Faun]

3, 2…1…Here Come the Cries That Obama Had Scalia Killed
It took only moments for Justice Scalia's death to trigger the worst of conservative thinking on Twitter and Breitbart and

Hey, if Democrats managed to kill Andrew Breitbart and make it look like a heart attack (wink, wink) -- we could certainly do the same to Antonin Scalia.

could thomas be next?? Please

Do me a favor and never post to me while hoping for someone to die.

I'm no Scalia fan but I still posted my condolences to his family. I respect the man even though I disagree with his politics.

Thanks.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this stunt costs Republicans the Senate. Many people will be pissed if the Senate shirks its responsibility to advise and consent the president's nominees.

I guess the historic bitch slapping voters put on Democrats hasn't sunk in yet, the people are fed up with the left and rejected them in an historic blow out election.

You completely fail to understand the dynamics of the electorate, which seats were up for reelection, and how that affected the outcome. BTW, there was no historic bitch slapping. Despite losing many seats, Democratic candidates received 98.7 million votes to Republicans 94.1 million votes. It's way too early to even begin to try and guess which way things will go, but it is conceivable that Dems will win the White House, take back the Senate, and win back a substantial number of Congressional seats.

LOL you libs remain in denial. You have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a ass beating as bad as the Democrats took that's a bitch slapping. After getting their asses handed to them in an historic blow out loss in 2010, even with Obama lying his ass off in 2012 Democrats were only able to scrape back 6 of the 55 House seats the lost, then in 2014 when it was clear to voters Obama had lied his ass off voters again dished out a bitch slapping loss to Democrats giving the GOP control of the Senate. Voters threw Democrats to the ground, stomped on them, and kicked dirt in their faces.

2014 saw the lowest turnout since the 40's. Don't put much stock in it. You cons were super excited about 2012 as well but got throat fucked by the Dems. The Republicans are also playing defense with 70% of the Senate seats.

Riiiiiight and in 2006 when Dem's took control of congress with a similar turn out you libs claimed you had a mandate from the people and it was a repudiation of Bush. The old liberal double standard.

there is plenty of audio and video out there

with the democrats promising to bar ANY nominees bush forwards

so their complaining about the republicans doing so now

is a dead issue

what goes around comes around

 

[jon_berzerk]

a tie is not unfair

it opinion of the lower court remains thats all

btw just because it is an even number does not necessarily mean a tie

perhaps an even number of jurists would end all or nothingness that has become expected of the court

So the GOP is playing politics with the courts. SHOCKED....SHOCKED!

Their platform should be one line:

PARTY OVER COUNTRY ALWAYS!

a big part of the country does not want a leftist on the court

the prezbo if he wants the seat filled

needs to pick one the senate will consent to

it is that simple

So, you want the Senate to vote, up or down then? Yes, or no?

how can i offer an opinion of such a question when the president has not nominated anyone

unlike you I am not a party loyalist

and will wait to see what I want my senators to do

Republican Senators have already announced they have no intention of reviewing anyone Obama nominates. They have already declared they think the next president should handle this matter.

good as it should be cry

cry to chuck schumer if you dont like it

 

[jon_berzerk]

So the GOP is playing politics with the courts. SHOCKED....SHOCKED!

Their platform should be one line:

PARTY OVER COUNTRY ALWAYS!

a big part of the country does not want a leftist on the court

the prezbo if he wants the seat filled

needs to pick one the senate will consent to

it is that simple

So, you want the Senate to vote, up or down then? Yes, or no?

how can i offer an opinion of such a question when the president has not nominated anyone

unlike you I am not a party loyalist

and will wait to see what I want my senators to do

Republican Senators have already announced they have no intention of reviewing anyone Obama nominates. They have already declared they think the next president should handle this matter.

No intention??? Then say HELLO to President H Clinton

stop it

if you go by that standard

then it should have been hello President McCain