SC Justice Scalia Has Died

[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.

The problem here is that he'd be asked to recuse himself in so many possible cases.

Ya, but what if he says ... no?

Do they have to recuse themselves or is it just considered professional and polite? While I agree with the rationale behind recusing oneself from certain cases where there's a conflict of interest, it would be funny if he just decided to not do it for the sake of being a dick.

 

[bleubird]

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®ion=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than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn in 25 days.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?

They have an 8X365 days of obstruction of Obama.Whats a few more days?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

This was proved in what court exactly?

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.

So because Bush is walking free, Obama's support of the assassination program is forgivable and doesn't disqualify him from the court?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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®ion=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?

I hope so. For the sake of the makeup of the court, it doesn't particularly matter if it's Obama or Clinton who makes the appointment and it's down one conservative vote until the slot is filled anyways. Clinton being able to have one of the main focuses of her campaign be playing on the hatred of Congress by talking about the GOP obstructionism would really help the down vote to get more Dems into Congress.

A couple of the main contenders for the spot were recently unanimously approved for their current jobs, so Obama is likely going to nominate one of them and then Clinton gets the talking point of how they're flip flopping in their support for this eminently qualified jurist whom they liked just a little while ago and are now not doing the job they were elected for for purely partisan reasons. It's great for her campaign.

 

[Toni]

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®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=10&pgtype=sectionfront




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

I hope so. For the sake of the makeup of the court, it doesn't particularly matter if it's Obama or Clinton who makes the appointment and it's down one conservative vote until the slot is filled anyways. Clinton being able to have one of the main focuses of her campaign be playing on the hatred of Congress by talking about the GOP obstructionism would really help the down vote to get more Dems into Congress.

A couple of the main contenders for the spot were recently unanimously approved for their current jobs, so Obama is likely going to nominate one of them and then Clinton gets the talking point of how they're flip flopping in their support for this eminently qualified jurist whom they liked just a little while ago and are now not doing the job they were elected for for purely partisan reasons. It's great for her campaign.

The downside is that for a significant portion of those who support the Republicans, the fact that the Republicans refuse to confirm a nominee--and declare their intention immediately! is simply a show of their righteous strength. This has been their strategy since Obama took office. They have cast him as a radical leftist, when he's a centrist and in a completely contradictory move, they've also cast him as an radical Muslim Islamist and so by denying him..anything, they are preserving The (Christian!) American Way.

Sadly, good ole Ronnie was altogether too convincing a warm, fuzzy, soothing grandfather who assured us all that America! was always right! And had the right! And had the right on our side. And right became thus ever intertwined in the minds of (some--too many!) Americans with right wing. Made easier by the relentless attacks on public education and now, higher education. It's easier to control those who submit to being told what to think and the surest way to do that is to be certain they don't know how to think for themselves.

 

[credoconsolans]

View attachment 5715

Love this!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Which Supreme Court Justices never actually do.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem here is that he'd be asked to recuse himself in so many possible cases.

Which Supreme Court Justices never actually do.

https://www.quora.com/Has-a-Supreme...hat-was-the-story-Why-was-the-Justice-recused

So, for example, in 2008, Justice Samuel Alito, Jr. recused himself in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker[1] because he owned somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 in Exxon stock. Considering that the decision had the potential to alter the amount Exxon had to pay out by $2 billion, this was certainly the appropriate thing to do. Most of the time, recusal is routine and unremarkable. There's sometimes a bit of debate when it occurs as to whether or not blind trust would be an improvement, but by and large, no real comment results.

There are other reasons for recusal. Elena Kagan actually recused herself from 20 cases right off the bat. She'd been Solicitor General prior to her appointment as Justice, and therefore she'd prepared the government's side of the cases. Her participation in those trials would have therefore been inappropriate, so she sat them out. Former Chief Justice Rehnquist routinely recused himself whenever James Brosnahan, Esq., argued cases before the Supreme Court as Brosnahan had testified at Rehnquist's confirmation hearing and had advised against Rehnquist's appointment to the bench.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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'.

Why do you think it's either someone like Scalia, Alito or Thomas, or Venezuela redux?
That seems extremely improbable. How would it be like Venezuela?

 

[crazyfingers]

It's about time that truly evil mad died. I only wish that it had been a very painful death. To bad there is no hell for him to go to.

Shame on you. The man had his opinions and the country saw fit to appoint him as a Supreme Court Justice. Who the fuck are you?

Shame on Scalia for being such an evil shit. Sorry but I'm glad he's dead.

 

[fromderinside]

Time to document maxparrish. Time to document!

I'm pretty sure that a living document isn't correctly interpreted by original intent of people three hundred years ago who had no idea about today's world. Analogy: World was created in seven days by astute ancients to world came into being about 13.7 billion years ago by evidence of modern science. Some things just aren't universal, like law, in man's world.

Document what? As you don't seem to have much of a grip on Scalia's judicial philosophy (which is not original intent but original textual understanding) 'documentation' on your misunderstanding is a fool's errand.

Besides, if the age of a law makes it invalid, then why do liberals and Conservative jurists bother with constitutional law at all?

Why not just claim that any law over 30 years old is "not today's world" and should, therefore, be ignored?

Actually original intent is original textual understanding. By document I clearly suggest you document Scalia's, as you put it, "His opinions were insightful, enjoyable, and mostly correct - his intelligence was top notch." Others read Scalia as inventive according to some narrative in his biased legal mind, having little to do with original textual anything. Actually decisions should flow across history trending toward present circumstances. You know, kind of like how society and language mature.

Just as it is impossible to get seven days out of current science for creation it is similarly impossible to get arms bearing rights out of a professional volunteer army from the original idea of a conscript army bringing their own arms. National functions change. So should national rules.

 

[Angry Floof]

The leading conspiracy theory about Antonin Scalia's death: Obama did it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Let's try this again.

My opposition to Obama sitting on the SCOTUS has to do with his execution of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Obama feels that he can dispense with even the pretense of due process in executing US citizens located in a country the US is not at war with.

Anybody disagreeing with me, please do so without mentioning the Republicans. Don't mention the party in general or any particular individuals. No Republicans.

 

[Terrell]

Let's try this again.

My opposition to Obama sitting on the SCOTUS has to do with his execution of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Obama feels that he can dispense with even the pretense of due process in executing US citizens located in a country the US is not at war with.

Anybody disagreeing with me, please do so without mentioning the Republicans. Don't mention the party in general or any particular individuals. No Republicans.

If an alleged terrorist, in a foreign country, is not willing to turn himself in and stand trial; what would you do differently?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Let's try this again.

My opposition to Obama sitting on the SCOTUS has to do with his execution of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Obama feels that he can dispense with even the pretense of due process in executing US citizens located in a country the US is not at war with.

Anybody disagreeing with me, please do so without mentioning the Republicans. Don't mention the party in general or any particular individuals. No Republicans.

Can we mention libertarians?

 

[fromderinside]

Let's try this again.

My opposition to Obama sitting on the SCOTUS has to do with his execution of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Obama feels that he can dispense with even the pretense of due process in executing US citizens located in a country the US is not at war with.

Anybody disagreeing with me, please do so without mentioning the Republicans. Don't mention the party in general or any particular individuals. No Republicans.

 Luddites will always rail against any action or intitiative disagreeing with their sacred cows whether they be eliminating terrorists by military incision or preserving their usually deceptively achieved advantages in the courts*

*^{_{no republicans}}

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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'.

Why do you think it's either someone like Scalia, Alito or Thomas, or Venezuela redux?
That seems extremely improbable. How would it be like Venezuela?

Pretty much the same reason why the Electoral College couldn't wait beyond a the December 18th deadline, despite the fact it had happened beyond that deadline in a prior election (1960). IE, it is a bullshit arbitrary decision that benefits from maxparrish's partisan philosophy.

Nothing states that a President's term is 3 years and 1 month, but rather it is 4 year. Now, so it was past the actual election, then one could ponder maybe it should wait. However, Obama isn't actually a lame duck yet... I mean except for the partisan bullshit by one side of the argument, who thinks we should wait because we need to wait for the people to decide... except they did decide for Obama for 4 year term... when he won in '12.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[fromderinside]

So now those from the right are calling increased partisanship tradition?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Let's try this again.

My opposition to Obama sitting on the SCOTUS has to do with his execution of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Obama feels that he can dispense with even the pretense of due process in executing US citizens located in a country the US is not at war with.

Anybody disagreeing with me, please do so without mentioning the Republicans. Don't mention the party in general or any particular individuals. No Republicans.

Obama is the commander in chief of the armed forces. We are essentially at war with Islamic terrorists. It is his task to
deal with that a war these terrorists have openly declared on the United states among others. Some of thee are Americans, who have not only not been secretive about their aims, but in some cases have openly declared their aims.

When you do that, and it comes to the attention of military intelligence, and an American is known to not only have joined the millitants, and have activley pursued terrorist activities, they are targetable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/19/u...est&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection&_r=0
Calif., the inflammatory videos and bomb-making instructions of Anwar al-Awlaki, easily accessible on the Internet, have turned up as a powerful influence.