Justice Antonin Scalia Dead at 79

[bashfulpixie]

Sorry for his family.  Not sorry to see him off the bench.  But this makes the next presidential election that much more crucial, especially since it sounds like Congress are going to throw yet another temper tantrum and drag their feet.  Cannot have a conservative in the White House.

[Whoosh]

2 hours ago, infooverload said:

Does anyone know how long the process can get dragged out? Any idea of candidates, who may be on the short list.

It can get dragged out indefinitely.  I am going to share an article I read about a month ago on just that.

http://magicvalley.com/news/opinion/columns/other-view-why-the-next-supreme-court-vacancy-will-favor/article_d56b5765-1113-574d-bcad-d407328cd397.html

[Runningfromreality]

Just now, Kira said:

This isn't just about differing views. His rulings made life difficult for some people, especially minorities. 

I know that, too. Just a thought and perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. Also, he gets held up as this evil figurehead, but he didn't do all of this himself. There are 9 justices on the Supreme Court, and it takes 5 to make a decision. 

[47of74]

Just makes me fucking sick how the Republicans didn't even let Scalia's body hit the ground before they started in on their garbage about how they weren't going to let the President do his job and just obstruct for the next year. 

[mamallama]

I cannot express how ragy I am getting over this.  They do not give a single fuck about the Constitution.

5 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

Just makes me fucking sick how the Republicans didn't even let Scalia's body hit the ground before they started in on their garbage about how they weren't going to let the President do his job and just obstruct for the next year. 

 

[47of74]

The following is a list of People the President could reanimate (if necessary) and nominate to the Supreme Court and the GOP would still complain and block the their nominations...

1.  Adolf Hitler
2.  Roland Freisler
3.  Josef Altstötter
4.  Karl Engert
5.  Günther Joël
6.  Herbert Klemm
7.  Ernst Lautz
8.  Wolfgang Mettgenberg
9.  Rudolf Oeschey
10.  Oswald Rothaug
11.  Curt Rothenberger
12.  Franz Schlegelberger
13.  Wilhelm von Ammon
14.  Carl Westphal
15.  Robert Bork
16.  Franz Gürtner
17.  Otto Georg Thierack
18.  Hans Globke
19.  Satan
20.  Antonin Scalia (yeah he could bring him back and nominate him again and the GOP would still block him).
21.  Stephen Johnson Field
22.  Roger Taney
23.  James Clark McReynolds
24.  Melville Fuller
25.  Tomás de Torquemada
26.  Mark Ciavarella
27.  Carol Feinman
28.  Michael Cicconetti
29.  Paul Hawkes
30.  James McReynolds
31.  All the Republicans currently on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
32.  Chris Christie
33.  Jesus Christ
34.  Vasiliy Ulrikh
35.  Ken Starr
36.  Pontius Pilate
37.  Josef Stalin

[HarryPotterFan]

^^Can you imagine if Obama nominated Jesus though? The republicans would have a fit over a socialist nominee.

[47of74]

Just now, HarryPotterFan said:

^^Can you imagine if Obama nominated Jesus though? The republicans would have a fit over a socialist nominee.

I remember back in 2004 there was this internet spoof attack ad of Jesus running as a Democrat for President.

Yeah they'd be all over him for his rather socialist positions on things.

[Whoosh]

CNN is reporting that Obama will nominate a replacement.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/

[bashfulpixie]

Good.  That means he's doing his job, and hopefully will show the country how inept the GOP is.

[meda]

RIP. He was very intelligent and an excellent writer. His decisions and opinions were always interesting, even if I disagreed with pretty much all of them. Interestingly enough, he was absolutely correct (IMO) on several 4th amendment decisions upholding limits on police powers. He was an ideologue, but he was not a right wing political operative. 

Having said that, his decisions did make life more difficult for many people who were not white, wealthy, or male. As someone who would have been directly affected by the Court's probable  5-4 ruling in  Friedrichs, I sit here tonight with the distinct feeling of having dodged a bullet.

[ShepherdontheRock]

Speculation about Sri Srinivasan replacing Scalia going around.

Anyone here know much about the kind of justice he'd be?

[notfundy]

Just watched Obama's televised statement. Very low key, honoured Scalia's work and service. Obama said he will nominate someone and expects Congress to do its job by giving the nominee a fair hearing and vote.

Says it's his constitutional duty. Which it is.

That said the GOP will block this whole process. They have been saying this all day.

I hope mainstream Americans will see the GOP as unwilling to do the hard work of governing and vote accordingly.

Who will Trump appoint? Judge Judy?

[47of74]

7 minutes ago, notfundy said:

Who will Trump appoint? Judge Judy?

Yeah.  Or his girlfriend of the week.  Back in 2005 El Schrubo wanted to appoint Harriet Meiers to the High Court and neither party was too happy with that.  Der Trumpenführer strikes me as being cut from the same intellectual cloth as Bush.

[Howl]

Oh, bleeeech.  Huckabee is talking about how much fun it was when he invited Scalia to came to Arkansas to go duck hunting with the Huck himself.  And how wonderful it was that Scalia was a 'strict' constitutionalist.  The Huck is praying hard that Scalia's replacement will be just as hardcore. 

[47of74]

2 minutes ago, Howl said:

Oh, bleeeech.  Huckabee is talking about how much fun it was when he invited Scalia to came to Arkansas to go duck hunting with the Huck himself. 

Yeah they'll probably all be grandstanding in the next day or so.

[pnwgypsy]

58 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

CNN is reporting that Obama will nominate a replacement.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/

 

36 minutes ago, bashfulpixie said:

Good.  That means he's doing his job, and hopefully will show the country how inept the GOP is.

Republicans saying Obama is overstepping his authority in 3......2.......1.....

[Whoosh]

31 minutes ago, meda said:

Having said that, his decisions did make life more difficult for many people who were not white, wealthy, or male. As someone who would have been directly affected by the Court's probable  5-4 ruling in  Friedrichs, I sit here tonight with the distinct feeling of having dodged a bullet.

NPR has some interesting information on what might happen with cases that have already undergone internal vote but the results have not yet been made public.  As far as I know we have not had a Justice die suddenly while still serving on the bench since the 1950s.  Rehnquist did die while still seated, but that was a different situation.

"A corollary question involves the fate of cases already argued in the current term that have not yet been decided? According to Thomas Goldstein, publisher of the authoritative SCOTUSblog and a member of the Supreme Court bar, any case where the justices have taken an internal vote but not publicly decided the case will be void.

"Of course," adds Goldstein, "if Justice Scalia's vote was not necessary to the outcome, for example if he was in dissent or if the majority included more than five justices, then the case will still be decided, only by an eight-member court."

In other words, if the court decides something 5-3 or 6-2 or 7-1 or unanimously, being short-handed does not matter. But in all cases of a tie, the absence of a deciding vote will matter a great deal."

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/13/466686993/replacing-antonin-scalia-will-be-no-simple-task

ETA @meda - I know the case has been heard, but I don't know if it has undergone internal vote or not.  For any cases that end up in a 4-4 tie, the decision of the lower courts will stand 

 

[JenniferJuniper]

Obama's got a whole 11 months to go yet.  

Poor Clarence Thomas.  Who's going to tell him what to think now?

[nomoxian]

I'd be lying if I said this news didn't make me happy.

[mamallama]

49 minutes ago, notfundy said:

Just watched Obama's televised statement. Very low key, honoured Scalia's work and service. Obama said he will nominate someone and expects Congress to do its job by giving the nominee a fair hearing and vote.

Says it's his constitutional duty. Which it is.

That said the GOP will block this whole process. They have been saying this all day.

I hope mainstream Americans will see the GOP as unwilling to do the hard work of governing and vote accordingly.

Who will Trump appoint? Judge Judy?

Waaa, you stole my joke.  I was all set to come here and post it.  Guess we'll have to leave it at GMTA.

[nokidsmom]

Mr. No. shouted out the news from downstairs.  I didn't agree with his opinions but my condolences go out to his friends and family.  

What gets me is that as soon as this man is dead, there's immediate hoopla over blocking the process for his successor.  Good lord, this man just died, this sort of rhetoric so soon strikes me as very distasteful.  I understand this issue has to be settled eventually but why does it have to get so damn political so fast?

[47of74]

7 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

What gets me is that as soon as this man is dead, there's immediate hoopla over blocking the process for his successor.  Good lord, this man just died, this sort of rhetoric so soon strikes me as very distasteful.  I understand this issue has to be settled eventually but why does it have to get so damn political so fast?

I was inclined and still am to be nice and respectful of the good judge and pray for his eternal soul and his family as well.  I am also so inclined to hope that he has gone on to eternal rest and that light perpetual shine upon him.  And yes I disagree with the majority of what he has done over the years.

I think the Democrats are making a good faith effort to say that this is not the time for partisan politics and to act as such.  The Republicans are the ones who didn't even wait until rigor mortis had set in before getting all stupid.

Goddamn I wish Keith Olbermann was still doing Countdown on MSNBC.  Mitch McJerkoff, Canadian Bacon Cruz, and that whole crowd would be getting their rightful on air commenpance come Monday evening.  Hell it would probably even rate a Special Comment.

 

 

[samira_catlover]

FWIW, I don't particularly like Scalia, as a person or as a SCOTUS justice.  Nonetheless, may he rest in peace, and may his beloved ones have comfort and healing in their path.

Am rather concerned about how this might play out: with eight on SCOTUS (barring anybody recusing for cause) what's going to happen if the court splits 4:4 on a decision? Any legal eagles here who can give Informed Opinion on what will happen? Do they rehear a case later on with a full court, or does someone have tiebreaker power?

CAN SCOTUS delay, hmmm, INTERESTING cases till they get back up for nine members, to avoid a 4:4 split?

The timing does bite.  (Someone scold that poor man for choosing to die at an inconvenient time!) But good heavens, FWIW, Obama, for better or worse, IS the lawful US president till 20 January 2017, and it's the President's JOB to nominate for SCOTUS, with Senate approval or censure.

Even assuming a bare month for nomination and confirmation (assuming we wait for the elections AND actually installing a new President), are we supposed to be minus a judge for a good year or more, because politicians (poli----many; ticks--blood sucking vermin) stall on doing their jobs to evaluate and confirm/deny?

 

 

[Whoosh]

8 minutes ago, samira_catlover said:

Any legal eagles here who can give Informed Opinion on what will happen?

From what I understand a tie means the case is void.  That means that the decisions from any lower courts that have ruled on the issue would stand.  So, say this had happened when marriage equality was being decided, we would have states where same sex marriage is legal and states where it is not.  In order to get the issue in front of the Court again, I am not sure how that would work - but it is not all that easy to get the court to rehear an issue they have already either heard or rejected unless something is new.  I would hope that would work different, but I am not sure.

8 minutes ago, samira_catlover said:

CAN SCOTUS delay, hmmm, INTERESTING cases till they get back up for nine members, to avoid a 4:4 split?

SCOTUS can refuse to hear any case they want.  I honestly have no idea how they would deal with an 8 Justice bench but I think there would be a lot of pissing and moaning from others regardless of what they chose to do.

I posted an opinion piece earlier that was written in January saying we could be short on justices for a while