Justice Antonin Scalia, Known For Biting Dissents, Dies At 79

[gay_Aleks]

because of course, CFC-OT is absolutely 1:1 replica of America

like, totally.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes we do love our politics and our religions. They are even better when mixed over ice with a dash of strong liquor.

 

[Antilogic]

Amen.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I'm not very certain I like the notion (or, even, the joke! how cold and harsh and unfeeling I am) of the world's largest and most powerful nation being ran while drunk

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm not very certain I like the notion (or, even, the joke! how cold and harsh and unfeeling I am) of the world's largest and most powerful nation being ran while drunk

Most people don't. That is why we tend to vote middle of the road rather than extremists into high office. <crosses fingers>

 

[JollyRoger]

The Senate is in recess until February 22nd. Obama could make a recess appointment, unless the Senate leadership does some fake business this week.

 

[Light Cleric]

It's stupid because the proponents of strict constructionism/originalism/textualism want to replace one of the biggest originalists by reading into the document some indefinite, unspecified time period between when Reagan appointed his justice and Obama would appoint his that changes the clear meaning of the text.

This is not to say I don't agree that the court has become even more politicized, younger justices with shorter paper trails to get through confirmation are being appointed and living longer, thus making a more permanent impact on the shape of the court, and all that. I do. But leaving this seat open for that long for such craven political motives and with this much obvious hypocrisy? I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.

No, no, I'm not advocating leaving it vacant, that's just stupid.I think the two points got conflated and I thought they were separate issues. Although I will say, by the same token, Obama shouldn't just nominate anyone he wants and use this situation as an excuse to ram them through.

What I was saying is questioning lifetime appointments is hardly outrageous. If someone had actual hard data on life expectancy for the affluent in the late 1700s/early 1800s, that would probably be helpful because right now I don't even know what's being argued. It definitely wasn't 47 for those people but dying in the early-mid 60s seems to be the average for the justices of that period and that's certainly much shorter than what you'd expect of the average affluent person today.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The Senate is in recess until February 22nd. Obama could make a recess appointment, unless the Senate leadership does some fake business this week.

I mentioned that, but also, that Prez Obama has already stated he intends to follow the standard procedure and try to make the Senate do the same...

 

[JollyRoger]

Scalia acted unconstitutionally by living beyond the Founder's Original intent.

 

[Antilogic]

No, no, I'm not advocating leaving it vacant, that's just stupid.I think the two points got conflated and I thought they were separate issues. Although I will say, by the same token, Obama shouldn't just nominate anyone he wants and use this situation as an excuse to ram them through.

What I was saying is questioning lifetime appointments is hardly outrageous. If someone had actual hard data on life expectancy for the affluent in the late 1700s/early 1800s, that would probably be helpful because right now I don't even know what's being argued. It definitely wasn't 47 for those people but dying in the early-mid 60s seems to be the average for the justices of that period and that's certainly much shorter than what you'd expect of the average affluent person today.

Oh, I misunderstood you. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Scalia acted unconstitutionally by living beyond the Founder's Original intent.

And by dying when he did, he acted against the best interests of the conservative efforts to restore America to greatness.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What I was saying is questioning lifetime appointments is hardly outrageous. If someone had actual hard data on life expectancy for the affluent in the late 1700s/early 1800s, that would probably be helpful because right now I don't even know what's being argued. It definitely wasn't 47 for those people but dying in the early-mid 60s seems to be the average for the justices of that period and that's certainly much shorter than what you'd expect of the average affluent person today.

I think what people find "outrageous" (or hypocritical, or blatantly partisan, or shamelessly self-serving) goalpost moving, is that Republicans were not complaining about lifetime appointments when Justice Scalia was serving 30 years with no end in sight and clearly intending to "die on the shield" rather than let a Democrat replace him (as he ironically apparently did ultimately). Republicans were not bemoaning lifetime appointments when they nominated the relatively young Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. Nope, lifetime appointments only becomes an issue when its time for Prez Obama to appoint. That's the "outrage", or hypocrisy or whatever descriptor you want to use.

 

[abradley]

The interplay/tension of religion and politics in this country never ceases to fascinate...

Love this quote... "Yeah, in light of the Pres death during an election year, we think the VP should refrain from taking office for a year, and let the American people weigh in on who the next Pres will be."

Justice Scalia had the chance to retire when Prez W Bush was in office. He decided not to. Republicans don't get a "do-over" on that.

The vice President is elected into office and one of his duties is taking over the presidency if the president dies. This is to insure a smooth transition, rather than a battle over succession.

No needed for the Supreme Court, it can function as well with 8 or even 6 justices:

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court
There haven’t always been nine justices on the court.

The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.

 

[JollyRoger]

And by dying when he did, he acted against the best interests of the conservative efforts to restore America to greatness.

Certainly a pro-union and pro-choice act, given the likely 5-4 opinions that just became 4-4.

 

[gay_Aleks]

And by dying when he did, he acted against the best interests of the conservative efforts to restore America to greatness.

Scalia's spirit lives on in Trump.

 

[Antilogic]

The vice President is elected into office and one of his duties is taking over the presidency if the president dies. This is to insure a smooth transition, rather than a battle over succession.

No needed for the Supreme Court, it can function as well with 8 or even 6 justices:

In both cases, the Constitution specifies the action to be taken in case of a vacancy. The historic size of the court is a distraction.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No needed for the Supreme Court, it can function as well with 8 or even 6 justices:

Classy already raised this point (red-herring).

Does that mean that when times a Supreme Court judge had to recourse himself from a case, does that mean the Supreme court didn't function during that time? The Supreme Court has functioned in the past with only 8 judges, so i don't see why it can't in the future.

And Tim already deftly answered...

There's a difference between managing a case where a justice recuses themselves and operating the court with an empty seat for a year and a half. If you can't see that, find an optometrist.

I will add that what you, Republican voters, and Republicans in Congress are proposing is akin to getting a flat and putting on the donut, and then saying... "Well the kind of tire I want is on backorder and might come in in the next year or so... so lets drive on the donut for a year... its fine.

No its not fine. You replace your tire. See Tim's statement in bold above.

The vice President is elected into office and one of his duties is taking over the presidency if the president dies. This is to insure a smooth transition, rather than a battle over succession.

First, this is irrelevant. The Prez has the job of replacing Justices for the exact same reason, so that there is a smooth theoretically apolitical process in place rather than having an election battle over succession every time there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS.

Also, this is just another desperate, self-serving red-herring... The VP is only ceremonially "elected" ever since we adopted the 12th Amendment after the fiasco in 1804. You know good and well we don't really "elect" the VP and we haven't done so for 200 years. VP gets "elected" as a package with the Prez.

 

[abradley]

In both cases, the Constitution specifies the action to be taken in case of a vacancy. The historic size of the court is a distraction.

True, for the Supreme Court, the President nominates and the senate confirms or not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Appointment_and_confirmation The President of the United States appoints justices "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."[70] Most presidents nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a justice's decisions may end up being contrary to a president's expectations. Because the Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, a president may nominate anyone to serve, subject to Senate confirmation.

In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from the press and advocacy groups, which lobby senators to confirm or to reject a nominee depending on whether their track record aligns with the group's views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings and votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report. The committee's practice of personally interviewing nominees is relatively recent. The first nominee to appear before the committee was Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925, who sought to quell concerns about his links to Wall Street, and the modern practice of questioning began with John Marshall Harlan II in 1955.[71] Once the committee reports out the nomination, the full Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees, most recently Robert Bork in 1987.

Nevertheless, not every nominee has received a floor vote in the Senate. Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a nomination, a nominee may be filibustered once debate has begun in the full Senate. No nomination for associate justice has ever been filibustered, but President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. A president may also withdraw a nomination before the actual confirmation vote occurs, typically because it is clear that the Senate will reject the nominee, most recently Harriet Miers in 2006.

Once the Senate confirms a nomination, the president must prepare and sign a commission, to which the Seal of the Department of Justice must be affixed, before the new justice can take office.[72] The seniority of an associate justice is based on the commissioning date, not the confirmation or swearing-in date.[73]

Before 1981, the approval process of justices was usually rapid. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. Some believe this is because Congress sees justices as playing a more political role than in the past.[74]

Not sure how the voting will happen when it does, remember Harry Reid changed senate rules to fit his agenda. Will his changes come back to bite the libs.

"What goes around comes around.' or something like that.

 

[Antilogic]

Indeed, so the current sitting president should nominate a replacement.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Indeed, and the Senate should advise and confirm.