scalia is dead

[liberty]

My first reaction to this news was "Now who is Mr. Justice Thomas going to look to, to tell him how to vote?"

What this news does is leave the Supreme Court virtually powerless for the next year and a half. No way the Senate will ratify any nominee made by President Obama, and it will take the next Senate at least six months to vet and ratify anyone the next President nominates. In the meantime, with the Court will often be tied at 4-4, meaning that the case is returned to the court from which it was appealed unchanged, so none of the important cases coming before the Court will be decided this term.

You do realize that legal system does not operate at lightning speed. A year or two for a few cases will not be missed.

[Long Run]

He was the most consequential judge of my life time. He forcefully articulated the judicial analysis of original intent for determining Constitutional issues, and also greatly influenced the interpretation of statutes. Before he came along, judges who disagreed with the "living" Constitution form of analysis kind of flailed, allowing the Court to impose one huge change in the law after another. He definitely could be funny and engaging, but he also got grumpy and was often unprofessional in his late years.

[Lord Jim]

He was the most consequential judge of my life time. He forcefully articulated the judicial analysis of original intent for determining Constitutional issues, and also greatly influenced the interpretation of statutes. Before he came along, judges who disagreed with the "living" Constitution form of analysis kind of flailed, allowing the Court to impose one huge change in the law after another. He definitely could be funny and engaging, but he also got grumpy and was often unprofessional in his late years.

This.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So he was a big court judge, so what? Nuts.

Not terribly bright there, Gobster. You don't see how a Democrat President (Obama) will relish the opportunity to name a (Liberal) judge, knowing that the (Conservative) congress will obfuscate and delay confirming the appointment until after January 2017 when Obama is gone (or at least until after the November election)?

Each side will use the others' various opinions and positions to their own advantage in winning first the nomination as the candidate for Presidency and then for the Presidency itself.

The kind of person to be elevated to the Supreme Court is exactly a highly political decision, reflecting as it does on how the left and right perceive the likely Constitutional interpretations that person will put forward. What was a 5-4 lean to the right, becomes a 5-4 lean to the left (or vice versa). The power to nominate and secure a position for one's own judges on the Supreme Court is immense and a critical element for the future.

Personally I think the "we'll oppose whoever" is a stupid response, feeding into negativity that powers Trump and Sanders. The Republicans would be so much better served with the "we'll will seriously consider any nomination from the President and during the confirmation process will ensure that he or she will be a creditable member of the Court". Then go all out to block without saying so.

As it stands, all this seems likely to achieve is that if they can defeat an Obama nomination, they will get a Clintone nomination to deal with in 2017.

PS given the age of the current body, Clintone may get a ton of chances, especially if a couple of the old farts fall on their swords to give her the opportunity - getting young communists liberals on the Court is an important objective for idealogues of the left, just as it would be in reverse for those of the right.

PPS of course, judges thought to be "left" or "right" have often turned out to be disappointments to their sponsors

[RayThom]

How else will we know who won the "too close to call" election in November without their politically biased opinion? The tension is palpable.

[Long Run]

The kind of person to be elevated to the Supreme Court is exactly a highly political decision, reflecting as it does on how the left and right perceive the likely Constitutional interpretations that person will put forward. What was a 5-4 lean to the right, becomes a 5-4 lean to the left (or vice versa).

Interestingly, this was Scalia's best point as to why his method of judicial interpretation is superior to a judge who believes it his/her duty to apply their view of right and wrong to interpretation. Summarizing his view: if a judge believes it is appropriate to apply their view of justice in interpreting the law, rather than using their legal skills to solely determine the intent of those who created the law, then all you have is a political decision for who should be on the court. Most liberals (and many conservatives) cannot understand that a jurist who opposed a certain interpretation was not opposed because that is what they want, but because they believed it was inappropriate for the court to make such a decision. This, of course, puts the conservative position on the defensive most of the time.

For example, on the abortion issue, you had four justices finding this was purely a legislative decision and that those who adopted the relevant provisions of the Constitution never had any intent to address the issue. The justices who believe that the Constitution must be more adaptable, had used those provisions in a much more expansive manner to impose their view on this issue. Now, the conservative judges would uphold a legislative decision to allow abortion (i.e., they would not extrapolate a "right to life" intent where none existed), but the liberal judges would strike down restrictive legislation; meaning that the liberals get two chances to win -- first at the ballot box, and then at court.

[rubato]

Scalia was a radical reactionary who insisted that the only way to interpret the constitution was to enshrine every backwards prejudice and hatred which he wished to believe was current at the time the times the sections of the document were written and ignore the effects which technological change have made in how we organize our society and ignore the follow-on effects of the legal and political emancipation of women.


He was an insecure mean little bigot.


https://www.google.com/search?q=antonin ... 8&oe=utf-8

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."

Obama will probably nominate another moderate like Kagan or Sotomayor and the Republicans will do as they have done for 8 years, and refuse to govern no matter how much it hurts the country.

But what will they do when a Democrat is elected president?

yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

yeah, the "living document" thing has had a change in definition from when I was a boy.

I was taught that it was a "living document" and so important because we, the People, had the right and ability to change it if enough of us agreed to do so.

a difficult task for us and our reps, but an achievable task if necessity demanded it. not easy enough to be changed on a whim.

well designed, I think.

a thing of elegant beauty, in it s own way.

the current living document theory is just BS. "it means what we say it means, and the People are too stupid to understand colonial English, so the actual script doesn t matter, we can fool them easy enough..., and anyway, fuck em, we are better than them."

that s kinda how I see it, but what do I know?

[Lord Jim]

judges thought to be "left" or "right" have often turned out to be disappointments to their sponsors

Not very often to the "right"...

Far more frequently in the opposite direction, ( see Warren, Earl; Ike frequently referred to appointing him to the High Court as his "greatest mistake")...

In fact, I'm hard put to think of a single example of a SC Justice who wound up being more "conservative" than was expected....

He was an insecure mean little bigot.

No, that would be you....

You can always count on good ol' rube to toss some vicious, ignorant, supercilious bigotry into the discussion...

it's what he does...

[Jarlaxle]

I see that Slick Hillie's already saying:

"Whoever Obama nominates, the Republicans will oppose them..."

Well of course they will...

And the Democrats will oppose any Republican choice...

This is why we have elections....

Someone on another board suggested that anyone Obama nominates should get a close-up lesson in what it means to be Borked. I'm not sure I disagree.

[Lord Jim]

It really is pretty clear...

There's no way that a President, (any President) in the twilight of his Presidency, with the election process in full swing to replace him, with the Senate controlled by the opposition party, is going to be able to successfully replace a central opposition figure on The Court...(see Fortas, Abe)...

Unless he picks a well respected compromise candidate, who's a bit long in the tooth and wont be there for 30 years...(like Orrin Hatch)

But Obama isn't going to make a choice like that; he's going to pick someone far more left, knowing full well they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of being confirmed, so the Dems can use it as an issue in the election...

Which is fair game, because my party will do the exact same thing...

There will not be a new Justice confirmed until there's a new President, and a new Senate...

That's the fact Jack...

[Econoline]

Barely an hour after the news broke Saturday of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) made it clear that he has no intention of letting President Barack Obama replace the conservative icon.

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

However...

Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year
So did every single Republican senator.

[Lord Jim]

Yes, well let's see what Obama has on offer....

I doubt it will be an Anthony Kennedy...

[Econoline]

Yes, well let's see what Obama has on offer....

I doubt it will be an Anthony Kennedy...

Well, if THAT--what you just said, Jim--were what Mitch McConnell said, I wouldn't have a problem with it, and that would have put the ball firmly in Obama's court (so to speak... ). But what he (and most Republicans) DID say was hypocritical, and directly contradicted his (and their) earlier words and actions.

[Lord Jim]

One of the great things about Scalia and Ginsberg, is that they knew how to disagree vigorously, ideologically, and philosophically with each other, while still remaining good friends....

This has become a lost art in Washington...

Our current political class could learn something from these two...

[wesw]

I do agree with econoline.

Obama should nominate a candidate, if he so chooses to do.

the senate should hold confirmation hearings.

and the senators should vote for or against that nominees for whatever reasons they feel are important.

there are a majority of republican senators.

they should all grow their respective sets, male or female sets, black sets, white sets, they should grow them and vote their consciences.

mc Connell being the consummate insider that he is, realizes that the majority repubs don t have a full set between them and need him to cover their chickenshit asses.

the dems are no better and likely worse

...thus we have trump and sanders

[Gob]

So he was a big court judge, so what? Nuts.

Not terribly bright there, Gobster. You don't see how a Democrat President (Obama) will relish the opportunity to name a (Liberal) judge, knowing that the (Conservative) congress will obfuscate and delay confirming the appointment until after January 2017 when Obama is gone (or at least until after the November election)?

Funny, I thought judges, (in the UK and Aus at least,) are supposed to be politically neutral.

[Jarlaxle]

Hardly. They are either elected by the voters or appointed by political hacks (often in what is not QUITE an openly corrupt process).

[Lord Jim]

Hey, the lefties ought to be thrilled with the idea of delaying this till next year....

That would mean that President Sanders would get to appoint Scalia's replacement with 60 or 70 "progressive" "revolutionary" Senators backing him up....

[Gob]

Hardly. They are either elected by the voters or appointed by political hacks (often in what is not QUITE an openly corrupt process).

Judges are not "elected" (what a strange concept!) in the UK and Aus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_ ... Commission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Australia