Justice Antonin Scalia Dead at 79

[samira_catlover]

3 hours ago, HarryPotterFan said:

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

Jesus is not a US citizen. Calm down, ok, hon? 

Besides, He's Jewish, and you KNOW just how poorly that might fly, despite Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Brandeis, Cardozo, Frankfurter, Goldburg, Fortas....

*NEVER MIND!* in her best Rosanne Roseannadanna voice*

[Imagine20]

Not a Scalia fan, but it's sad he's dead. I'm never happy when someone dies and I did find it sad that nobody came to check on him when he didn't come down for breakfast and the planned hunting trip. I feel for his loved ones. 

A tie in the court would be just that. It would be up to each circuit to decide the law for themselves. 

As for Sri Srinivasan, he's the personification of what conservatives dislike: Indian immigrant, somewhat liberal leaning, and not Christian. He was also confirmed unanimously for the DC Circuit in 2013 with Cruz and Rubio both in the Senate. They'd have to back spin that one if he's nominated and they want to block it.

I wonder what will happen with Thomas now that Scalia is gone. In law school, that was always the joke: "Scalia dissented, and of course Thomas concurred." Will he follow along with another conservative justice or will he start thinking for himself? 

[zebra #13]

The meanest man in America spent the day shooting small winged things with very rich people, went back to his room and died.  I'm not sad.  And no one who loved  him gives a damn what I think, or people like me think.

I think he got a better death than he had earned.  When I think of all the grand, loving and giving humans I've known who spent months/years in pain before release. . . .

I thank him for the gift of clear seeing he's given us all as we enter this election year.  Going to be interesting watching a certain crew using the death of a "strict constructionist" to block the founding fathers' intention that the elected President gets to, and indeed, is *ordered* to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

And one interesting aside: If this had happened in February of 2000, and the Democrats had acted as the Republicans have vowed they will act, we'd have had a different man being sworn in January 20, 2001.  Wonder if Gore would have listened to the warning about 9/11?  On the other hand, if W hadn't been such a horror show, we prolly would not have O, so. . . .

Remember what a very good excellent fine idear shutting down the gubment seemed to this crew?  Until, of course, they got blamed for it.  Going to be an interesting year.

[FundiesInParis]

Scalia was undoubtedly a very intelligent man, despite me not agreeing with a good 98% of his views. And I enjoyed reading his colorful dissents.

I'm more frustrated that his death has become a huge political football, it really shows how petty the Republican Party has become.

[onlyme]

It's Obama I'm feeling sorry for. I am kind of dreading all the fighting I think is coming. 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

13 hours ago, samira_catlover said:

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?

Yeah, I completely disagree with the pundits arguing no nomination should be made because it's an election year.  I'd feel the same no matter who was in office.  Delaying the nomination or blockading the process is not good business.  In fact, for those "strict Constitutionalists" - I'd have to ask - do you really think the Founding Fathers intended the President to be considered a lame duck for a full 25 percent of his term of office?

I saw a quote somewhere yesterday about the shortest and longest processes from nomination to confirmation - I think the longest was 4 months.  Conservatives should be careful - they'll lose any moral high ground (that they might have had) if they obstruct this process.

[Maggie Mae]

Congress can change the number of justices on the Supreme Court as well. I wonder if they remember that fact. 

It's majority republicans right now, and I know my male republican congress people can barely function. Don Young is a senile old man, and the other guy is propped up by the Koch brothers. 

Whatever happens, it will be entertaining. Scalia was always entertaining. Even in death. It's like he planned it.

[notfundy]

Last night in the debate, Cruz  (in a discussion of whether or not it was "too soon"  to make Scalia's death political) said something like "consider that his children woke up this morning without their father".   Uh, Ted, many of his children are in their 40s and 50s.   

I will say it once again to anyone who will listen:  If the Republicans do indeed block "anyone Obama nominates" (which they will) this should energize the Democratic base as well as the reasonable, moderate independents, thus ensuring that a Democrat is elected to the presidency.    

Due to that increased energy and number of folks voting, there is a good chance Dems will take back the Senate as well as the White House....I can't wait to see Russ Feingold back in Washington.  He's leading by a LOT against do-nothing millionaire businessman Ron Johnson in Wisconsin.  

Obama is fairly moderate and practical (to the chagrin of progressives, actually).  So when the NEW President gets into office, he or she will be  (a)  really, really pissed at the Republicans for blocking Obama's constitutional right to nominate a SCOTUS justice and (b) likely to nominate someone that the Republicans hate even MORE than whoever Obama would have nominated and (c)likely to get the nomination through the Senate,  because Dems are back in control.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, REPUBLICANS.   I used to respect you (...still do, people like Kasich and Ryan, for example.   I don't like their policies but I think they are decent people).   But to hear the turtle-looking McConnell "warning" the President, "Don't you dare nominate anyone"  (reminds me of Jan Brewer disrespectfully wagging his finger in Obaba's face) I am disgusted.  

[livinginthelight]

As someone not particularly mourning his death, I was surprised and touched to read this article by David Axelrod. Apparently Justice Scalia had expressed a strong request for Elena Kagan to be nominated to the court, and they were good friends. My respect for him has risen after reading this article. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html

[nausicaa]

2 hours ago, livinginthelight said:

As someone not particularly mourning his death, I was surprised and touched to read this article by David Axelrod. Apparently Justice Scalia had expressed a strong request for Elena Kagan to be nominated to the court, and they were good friends. My respect for him has risen after reading this article. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html

If I recall correctly, he and the Notorious RBG were very good friends outside of work, if not almost besties. 

Wish I coulda sat in on some of those dinner conversations...

 

Added even though it's been said before: it is absolutely beyond ludicrous that some Republicans would say that Obama cannot or should not nominate a justice because it is close to the end of his term. He is the current President of our country and will be until January 2017. I'm actually shocked anyone even made that argument. 

[sawasdee]

Didn't like most of his opinions, but  a man who was intellectually rigorous, and obviously had a humanity about him that attracted friends from opposing views. That I can respect.

[lawlifelgbt]

I'm not glad he's dead, because RBG is my favorite justice and I know this makes her sad. But, I'm really glad that this means his way of thinking (and super long dissents, a lot of legal types resent all the extra reading his dissents create when one has to read cases), will not be a part of the Court any more.

Also, he came to speak at a university. I was there and I thought he was reasoned and intelligent, but also condescending and even mean to the questioners in the student Q & A. Granted, it was a mostly liberal audience, but still.

[Whoosh]

 

2 hours ago, notfundy said:

I will say it once again to anyone who will listen:  If the Republicans do indeed block "anyone Obama nominates" (which they will) this should energize the Democratic base as well as the reasonable, moderate independents, thus ensuring that a Democrat is elected to the presidency.

I think this point is huge and I can't imagine any reasonable person being foolish enough to ignore this when deciding how to respond to any nominations Obama makes.  Despite that, I fully expect most of the GOP to ignore this when deciding how to respond to any nominations Obama may make.

Also, I agree 100% with those who are pointing out that Scalia, despite his rigid and firmly held beliefs that I personally often found abhorrent, was very much able to set aside those beliefs both in terms of deciding who he had personal friendships with and in deciding who would make a qualified, competent SCOTUS Justice.  In my opinion, somehow over the past few decades the GOP has devolved into some bizarre charicature of a political party.  Rather than representing the type of ideals that Scalia exhibited, many in the GOP seem primarily driven by just flat out HATE towards those who are different or think differently than themselves.  It is beyond disturbing to me and not something I think Scalia would look favorably upon. 

Just to be clear, it is obvious that this hate-driven mode of operation is not unique to the GOP.  I really, really wish others would think hard before jumping on the hate bandwagon that is fracturing our country and resulting in chaos, instability and inability to make any type of progress in any direction.  There may be reasons why a person may chose to respond to the hate with hate, but it shouldn't be a default if you ask me.

ETA - @lawlifelgbt I believe that his extremely blunt and condescending, sarcastic nature was liberally directed at anyone he felt was being unreasonable - I don't think he reserved that side of himself for those on the left side of the aisle.

[SpoonfulOSugar]

This is interesting analysis:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/rubio-exaggerates-sayig-its-been-80-years-lame-duc/

[Lillybee]

3 hours ago, notfundy said:

Last night in the debate, Cruz  (in a discussion of whether or not it was "too soon"  to make Scalia's death political) said something like "consider that his children woke up this morning without their father".   Uh, Ted, many of his children are in their 40s and 50s.   

I will say it once again to anyone who will listen:  If the Republicans do indeed block "anyone Obama nominates" (which they will) this should energize the Democratic base as well as the reasonable, moderate independents, thus ensuring that a Democrat is elected to the presidency.    

Due to that increased energy and number of folks voting, there is a good chance Dems will take back the Senate as well as the White House....I can't wait to see Russ Feingold back in Washington.  He's leading by a LOT against do-nothing millionaire businessman Ron Johnson in Wisconsin.  

Obama is fairly moderate and practical (to the chagrin of progressives, actually).  So when the NEW President gets into office, he or she will be  (a)  really, really pissed at the Republicans for blocking Obama's constitutional right to nominate a SCOTUS justice and (b) likely to nominate someone that the Republicans hate even MORE than whoever Obama would have nominated and (c)likely to get the nomination through the Senate,  because Dems are back in control.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, REPUBLICANS.   I used to respect you (...still do, people like Kasich and Ryan, for example.   I don't like their policies but I think they are decent people).   But to hear the turtle-looking McConnell "warning" the President, "Don't you dare nominate anyone"  (reminds me of Jan Brewer disrespectfully wagging his finger in Obaba's face) I am disgusted.  

 

Holding up confirming anyone that Obama nominates may come back and bite the repubs in the ass when Hilary or Bernie gets elected; if one of them wins, they may nominate Obama.

[OnceUponATime]

*ignorant foreigner alert*

What exactly do your SCOTUS people do? (in layman's terms please)

From the sounds of things, they make [some] judgements based on their own personal beliefs*. I would kind of expect a high court judge to actually be reasonably impartial - ie they judge what the letter and intent of the law is/was and not bring their own personal opinion about the matter at hand into it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I expect the legal system (of which I'm assuming SCOTUS is head court of) to implement the law and make sure it is carried out correctly, and not create it (which I feel happens when judges start bringing their own belief systems into it).

*Maybe I'm completely of base here though in how SCOTUS works.

[Whoosh]

22 minutes ago, OnceUponATime said:

*ignorant foreigner alert*

What exactly do your SCOTUS people do? (in layman's terms please)

From the sounds of things, they make [some] judgements based on their own personal beliefs*. I would kind of expect a high court judge to actually be reasonably impartial - ie they judge what the letter and intent of the law is/was and not bring their own personal opinion about the matter at hand into it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I expect the legal system (of which I'm assuming SCOTUS is head court of) to implement the law and make sure it is carried out correctly, and not create it (which I feel happens when judges start bringing their own belief systems into it).

*Maybe I'm completely of base here though in how SCOTUS works.

This is just a quick and dirty response that doesn't attempt at all to give a comprehensive answer.  Just trying to give a quick overview from my perspective.

The USA has three branches of government that are supposed to both work together and to keep each other balanced.  In the Judicial branch of our government, SCOTUS is the highest court in the USA and the directive that creates the court is written in the Constitution and the roles and responsibilities of the Court are laid out in the Constitution as well.  However, the Constitution is far from precise and all-encompassing on a lot of issues to say the least.  Therefore, to some extent SCOTUS has been clarifying and defining what the exact role of SCOTUS is since the 1700s.  Interesting reality.

Some of the main things SCOTUS does include 1) deciding what the Constitution or a given law actually means and applying it to a specific situation or topic, 2) deciding if various laws are constitutional or unconstitutional, and 3) providing a definitive answer to a question when the lower courts are divided on an issue (such as marriage equality), 4) deciding what types of things should be State decisions vs when the Federal government can make a law or policy for all states.

So, it seems like it should be mainly a very objective, unbiased position where you simply apply the law.  However, the reality is quite different.  Take the Second Amendment.  People frequently talk about the Constitutional right to bear arms - but what does that mean?  It is based on the Second Amendment which says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So what does that mean?  SCOTUS decides what that means and when the original text is that open to varying interpretations, the reality is that personal bias and beliefs do come into play.

[diplomat]

17 hours ago, samira_catlover said:

what's going to happen if the court splits 4:4 on a decision?

17 hours ago, Whoosh said:

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.

Whenever the Supreme Court is evenly split (which occasionally happens when one justice has been recused), the lower court's ruling stands, as if the Supreme Court had never agreed to consider the case at all. 

23 minutes ago, OnceUponATime said:

What exactly do your SCOTUS people do? (in layman's terms please)

From the sounds of things, they make [some] judgements based on their own personal beliefs*. I would kind of expect a high court judge to actually be reasonably impartial - ie they judge what the letter and intent of the law is/was and not bring their own personal opinion about the matter at hand into it.

It is the stated job of the Supreme Court to "say what the law is." (They said so themselves, back in 1803, in a famous case called Marbury v. Madison.) But reasonable people disagree about what the law is and what it should be; some of that disagreement stems from the process by which judges interpret the law. For example, Justice Scalia believed that the Constitution should be interpreted by what its authors meant at the time, but of course those people (all privileged white men) are all dead now, so no one can ask them. Other judges think the Constitution is and should be "evolving" because, for example, some of the people who signed the Constitution had slaves, and no one thinks slavery is a good idea any more. I imagine it could be tempting for judges to look for ways to interpret the law consistently with their own personal opinion, but they're still limited by the language of the laws they're interpreting. Sometimes Congress makes clear whether it wants a new law to be retroactive, for example, and sometimes it doesn't; when the law is silent, and different courts across the country have reached different conclusions, the Supreme Court is asked to resolve the dispute. As a practical matter, the Supreme Court decides fewer than 100 cases every year, and they get to choose which cases they will decide.

edit: and I see that @Whoosh already provided a great explanation of "some of the main things SCOTUS does..."

[Whoosh]

6 minutes ago, diplomat said:

They said so themselves, back in 1803, in a famous case called Marbury v. Madison.)

  You mentioned The Case that Must Not Be Named.  *shudders*  

hahahahaha

[SpoonfulOSugar]

41 minutes ago, OnceUponATime said:

*ignorant foreigner alert*

What exactly do your SCOTUS people do? (in layman's terms please)

From the sounds of things, they make [some] judgements based on their own personal beliefs*. I would kind of expect a high court judge to actually be reasonably impartial - ie they judge what the letter and intent of the law is/was and not bring their own personal opinion about the matter at hand into it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I expect the legal system (of which I'm assuming SCOTUS is head court of) to implement the law and make sure it is carried out correctly, and not create it (which I feel happens when judges start bringing their own belief systems into it).

*Maybe I'm completely of base here though in how SCOTUS works.

Part of the interesting interplay between the branches of government is that the President nominates candidates for the SCOTUS, the Senate confirms, but then if there is an issue in the election (as with the US Presidential election in Florida in 2000), the Supreme Court can take a role.

One of the issues is whether prospective justices can be measured by a "litmus test" - could/would/should a nominee be rejected due to published opinions on hot button issues?  (Such as abortion)  I promise you, right now in offices across the US, "operatives" for all sorts of special interests are re-reading any/every published opinions of people they anticipate will be on the president's list of nominees.

[diplomat]

And here's one list of possible nominees and other information about how politics can and likely will affect things: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/how-the-politics-of-the-next-nomination-will-pay-out/#more-238336

[FloraKitty35]

Dear Democratic Candidates,

In the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, please take of advantage of yet another golden opportunity and don't fuck it up (like pretty much every other golden opportunity that comes your respective ways thanks to the GOP).   

[Emkay]

6 hours ago, notfundy said:

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR, REPUBLICANS.   I used to respect you (...still do, people like Kasich and Ryan, for example.   I don't like their policies but I think they are decent people).   But to hear the turtle-looking McConnell "warning" the President, "Don't you dare nominate anyone"  (reminds me of Jan Brewer disrespectfully wagging his finger in Obaba's face) I am disgusted.  

How familiar are you with John Kasich? He's my governor, and not only as a politician, but as a person in general, his character doesn't say much about him. I know people who have interacted with him in an official capacity and not. He treats people he finds beneath him with contempt. When John McCain says someone has a temper, it says quite a bit about a person.   There are many examples of his behavior from the time he was at Lehman Brothers up to his re-election campaign as governor in OH (check out at the video of the Plain Dealer/Cleveland.com interview of him and his opponent during the election) and throughout his current presidential campaign.

[GiggleOfGirls]

My parents are big fans of his so I grew up hearing all about how wonderful Scalia was. My opinions changed over the years of course, but for his own party to remember him by flouting the constitution. That's pretty low right there. 

Basically, I don't know whose bright idea it was to be all, "Hey, in honor of the most Constitutionally-minded Justice's death, I think we should unconstitutionally obstruct the POTUS from appointing his successor." but damn. 

[Howl]

For those of you interested in where Scalia was staying for his quail hunt adventure, it was the very luxe Cibolo Creek Ranch, about 15 miles north of the US/Mexico border.  Turns out it is only about 40 miles as the crow flies from where I was this weekend (Big Bend Ranch State Park) so it made me curious enough to look it up.

cibolocreekranch.com/

Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian, has a post about Justice Scalia's passing: 

facebook.com/Mrs-Betty-Bowers-Americas-Best-Christian-312383761871/

Many people who are convicted that Betty Bowers IS America's Best Christian have felt led to comment.