SC Justice Scalia Has Died

[crazyfingers]

It is inherently evil to ignore parts of the constitution to impose one's religious bogotry and evil onto others Max. Max, my opinion of you is just as my opinion of Scalia though fortunately you have zero power to inflict yourself onto others by law as that evil piece of shit Scalia had. Goodbye Max. i know you and have zero interest in engaging with you ever. Bye Max.

You've offered no evidence that Scalia ignored parts of the constitution so as to impose religious bigotry or evil...I doubt you've even read an entire Scalia opinion. And as your "view" of Scalia seems to be little broken record name calling of the dead jurist, I can understand why you can't (or won't) "engage ever".

Rest assured, you are entitled to leave us with your lofty argument of "me hate Scalia" as the totality of your "thought"...but you are not going get away without being called on it. Should you choose to vent more such rantings, I will continue to do so.

Bye Max = Scalia. Bye

 

[maxparrish]

----
Now Obama has a chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice.
----

It's not really a chance, it's a legal obligation.

It may be a constitutional obligation to nominate someone (and I am sure Obama will, probably with race/ethnic or gender baiting in mind.) But it is not an obligation for the Senate to give their consent. I am sure if the matter is that important to Obama, he will nominate someone like Scalia so it would sail through. But...as we know...its not THAT IMPORTANT.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's not really a chance, it's a legal obligation.

It may be a constitutional obligation to nominate someone (and I am sure Obama will, probably with race/ethnic or gender baiting in mind.) But it is not an obligation for the Senate to give their consent. I am sure if the matter is that important to Obama, he will nominate someone like Scalia so it would sail through. But...as we know...its not THAT IMPORTANT.

Getting someone onto the supreme court who is significantly unlike Scalia is pretty damn important, IMO.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Did Obama's assassination program ever come before the SCOTUS?

That's an evasion.

US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has voiced concerns that, without sufficient protections, the age of unmanned drones and ubiquitous surveillance will usher in an “Orwellian world.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/187956-scotus-sotomayor-drone-orwellian/

So do McCain speeches mean that someone who has actions, not words but actions, that show he believes in killing US citizens without any due process is qualified for the SCOTUS?

Or are you saying that because McCain would be a worse appointment than makes Obama's merely bad appointment into a good one?

Obama believes in killing US citizens without due process. Address that, if you dare.

 

[maxparrish]

It may be a constitutional obligation to nominate someone (and I am sure Obama will, probably with race/ethnic or gender baiting in mind.) But it is not an obligation for the Senate to give their consent. I am sure if the matter is that important to Obama, he will nominate someone like Scalia so it would sail through. But...as we know...its not THAT IMPORTANT.

Getting someone onto the supreme court who is significantly unlike Scalia is pretty damn important, IMO.

Then you're likely going to have to wait. Unless Obama is willing to replace the conservative with another conservative, in a lame duck election year is very unlikely that the Republican Senate is going to go forward.

In the meantime, as most here know, I consider it crucual to get someone like Scalia, Alito, or Thomas to replace him. Otherwise it is Venezuela 'redux'.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

That's an evasion.

US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has voiced concerns that, without sufficient protections, the age of unmanned drones and ubiquitous surveillance will usher in an “Orwellian world.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/187956-scotus-sotomayor-drone-orwellian/

So do McCain speeches mean that someone who has actions, not words but actions, that show he believes in killing US citizens without any due process is qualified for the SCOTUS?

Or are you saying that because McCain would be a worse appointment than makes Obama's merely bad appointment into a good one?

Obama believes in killing US citizens without due process. Address that, if you dare.

If one goes overseas, joins the terrorists and declares war on the US, he can be a target. So be it.

On the other hand.....
” This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.” – Antonin Scalia.

 

[untermensche]

That's an evasion.

US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has voiced concerns that, without sufficient protections, the age of unmanned drones and ubiquitous surveillance will usher in an “Orwellian world.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/187956-scotus-sotomayor-drone-orwellian/

So do McCain speeches mean that someone who has actions, not words but actions, that show he believes in killing US citizens without any due process is qualified for the SCOTUS?

Or are you saying that because McCain would be a worse appointment than makes Obama's merely bad appointment into a good one?

Obama believes in killing US citizens without due process. Address that, if you dare.

I don't defend the assassination program.

But Republicans love it and for them it would be a plus for Obama.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

That's an evasion.

US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has voiced concerns that, without sufficient protections, the age of unmanned drones and ubiquitous surveillance will usher in an “Orwellian world.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/187956-scotus-sotomayor-drone-orwellian/

So do McCain speeches mean that someone who has actions, not words but actions, that show he believes in killing US citizens without any due process is qualified for the SCOTUS?

Or are you saying that because McCain would be a worse appointment than makes Obama's merely bad appointment into a good one?

Obama believes in killing US citizens without due process. Address that, if you dare.

I don't defend the assassination program.

But Republicans love it and for them it would be a plus for Obama.

After just listening to the GOP debate, not a one of these guys would do anything but cheer if a US citizen turned terrorist Jihadi snuffed it at the tip of a hellfire missle launched froma drone.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's an evasion.

US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has voiced concerns that, without sufficient protections, the age of unmanned drones and ubiquitous surveillance will usher in an “Orwellian world.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/187956-scotus-sotomayor-drone-orwellian/

So do McCain speeches mean that someone who has actions, not words but actions, that show he believes in killing US citizens without any due process is qualified for the SCOTUS?

Or are you saying that because McCain would be a worse appointment than makes Obama's merely bad appointment into a good one?

Obama believes in killing US citizens without due process. Address that, if you dare.

I don't defend the assassination program.

But Republicans love it and for them it would be a plus for Obama.

Big deal that Republicans like it. I'm saying that Obama's support of the assassination program disqualifies him from being on the SCOTUS. Do you agree or disagree?

Sure, he's Obama, but he also defends an assassination program. You're going to have to choose, is Obama so good that even his support of the assassination program excusable?

That's an evasion.

US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has voiced concerns that, without sufficient protections, the age of unmanned drones and ubiquitous surveillance will usher in an “Orwellian world.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/187956-scotus-sotomayor-drone-orwellian/

So do McCain speeches mean that someone who has actions, not words but actions, that show he believes in killing US citizens without any due process is qualified for the SCOTUS?

Or are you saying that because McCain would be a worse appointment than makes Obama's merely bad appointment into a good one?

Obama believes in killing US citizens without due process. Address that, if you dare.

I don't defend the assassination program.

But Republicans love it and for them it would be a plus for Obama.

After just listening to the GOP debate, not a one of these guys would do anything but cheer if a US citizen turned terrorist Jihadi snuffed it at the tip of a hellfire missle launched froma drone.

And how about your position on this issue? Do you think it is forgivable because Republicans like it?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If some American goober heads to the Middle East or Asia, joins the radicals and declares war on America in the name of Islam, and acts on that, I have no qualms about stopping his war on America with a drone strike, if that is the best way to end his warring on America or its interests. Sorry to disappoint you. It's not like we can issue a court summons and goober boy will come to the US to argue his right to kill Americans or others in the name of radical Islam.

Bluntly my problem with hellfire missles here is that they cost too much. If one commits acts of terrorism or helps plan and execute them, then that person should be attacked, whether he or she is an American, an Iraqi, or a Somalian. When one commits to war, one must be willing to suffer the fortunes of war. Welcome to the real world.

 

[lpetrich]

Getting someone onto the supreme court who is significantly unlike Scalia is pretty damn important, IMO.

Then you're likely going to have to wait. Unless Obama is willing to replace the conservative with another conservative, in a lame duck election year is very unlikely that the Republican Senate is going to go forward.

As if he's likely to do that.

In the meantime, as most here know, I consider it crucual to get someone like Scalia, Alito, or Thomas to replace him. Otherwise it is Venezuela 'redux'.

So anyone to the left of the John Birch Society is a Commie?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

He was an evil piece of shit Max. I don't care if he invited li erals to lunch. His actions and "opinions" were evil.

It it inherently evil to try and follow the language of the Constitution, and that of statutory law? Or is it just "evil" to not warp the law to fit policies you like?

But he didn't. He would ignore the original intent and meaning when it went against his politics. At other times he just made shit up.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members

Here is the site of the Senate Judiciary committee.
I did not know Ted Cruz was a sitting member.

Several of these GOP schnooks have already sounded off about blocking any appointment by Obama to fill Scalia's seat. It will be interesting to see what the GOP members publically say about Obama's possibility of getting his choice of a nomination.

 

[untermensche]

I don't defend the assassination program.

But Republicans love it and for them it would be a plus for Obama.

Big deal that Republicans like it. I'm saying that Obama's support of the assassination program disqualifies him from being on the SCOTUS. Do you agree or disagree?

I wouldn't vote for him, but in the real world it hardly disqualifies him from anything. This is the US, the biggest criminals, like GW, are walking free.

It is unlikely Obama would want the work that goes with being a SC Justice.

He will be able to make millions just blabbing bullshit.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Do you think Obama would be a good MSNBC program host?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd like to see Obama be a Supreme Court Justice just to have him be the swing vote that decides Obamacare is legal. That shit would make right wingers' heads explode with nerd rage. It would be awesome.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I'd like to see Obama be a Supreme Court Justice just to have him be the swing vote that decides Obamacare is legal. That shit would make right wingers' heads explode with nerd rage. It would be awesome.

The problem here is that he'd be asked to recuse himself in so many possible cases. But Obama on the SC would be fun.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Obama should nominate Al Sharpton. That should cause enough Republicans to croak over the heart attacks. Then he can withdraw Sharpton, put in another name and get them in with a majority vote.

Incredible shit... 'the American people should have a voice in Scalia's replacement.' Yeah McConnell, that voice was heard in '12 you fucking asshole.

It may be a constitutional obligation to nominate someone (and I am sure Obama will, probably with race/ethnic or gender baiting in mind.) But it is not an obligation for the Senate to give their consent. I am sure if the matter is that important to Obama, he will nominate someone like Scalia so it would sail through. But...as we know...its not THAT IMPORTANT.

Yeah, nominate another Alito, a person who believes the in unconstitutional doctrine called the Unitary Executive. Or a Scalia clone, who couldn't help but want to keep consensual gay sex illegal.

 

[jonatha]

Fun with Wikipedia

As Rubio (and Cruz, sort of) noted in the last debate, the last successful nomination to SCOTUS in a Presidential election year prior to the election was 1940.

But the last unsuccessful one (two actually, although the second was contingent on the first) was 1968.

And the last time a *vacancy* occurred in a Presidential election year prior to the election was 1956, when Justice Minton resigned due to poor health. His successor (Brennan) was not nominated until after the election, but Minton resigned less than a month prior to the election.

I don't mind the Senate choosing to reject a candidate after he or she is nominated (although I can't imagine Obama would pick someone as clearly unqualified as Harriet Miers). To flatly state they won't even consider any nominee is simply dereliction.

 

[southernhybrid]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/13/us/how-long-does-it-take-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=10&pgtype=sectionfront

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has set off a partisan battle over whether the Senate will confirm a successor nominated by President Obama, whose term expires in 342 days. The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn in 25 days. But few presidents have successfully filled vacancies announced in their final full year.

Will they really allow 342 days to pass without even giving consideration to an Obama nominee?