SC Justice Scalia Has Died

[maxparrish]

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?

Apart from my intentional exaggeration, my point stems from my long-held belief that the unelected Supreme Court is the final absolute authority over secular law...in the same sense that the unelected Ayatollah and his council in Iran are the final legal authority in Iran. The ONLY restraint on the degree of their judicial tyranny is their own conscious and 'virtue', no other.

It is, of course, a deep flaw in our Constitutional system - a latent political despotism that has emerged and become rampet since FDR's shaking up of the Supreme Court tradition. (In fact, prior to the civil war, for 60 years, the courts made NO rulings on the constitutionality of Congresses laws).

Today the Court is divided and a handmaiden to political power, unmoored to any uniform or objective political philosophy. The group on the left have shown themselves to be a "bloc", a cadre of 4 uniform and relentless decision making on important issues. The group on the right have always been more flexible and (tragically) open minded BUT are an important check composed of 2 center-rightists (Roberts-Kennedy) and 2 rightists (Alito-Thomas).

One more leftists means that the new court (unlike the old) will never deviate from hard core liberal/progressive agenda. Challenges to imperial Presidents (if Democratic) will be quashed, etc. Issues on amnesty, abortion, Obamacare, Affirmative Action, will be moot - it will be a rubber stamp to advance the leftist agenda.

Of course, the left gang of 5 won't be as reckless as the Venezuelan justices...but they will be just as dogmatically partisan.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course, the left gang of 5 won't be as reckless as the Venezuelan justices...but they will be just as dogmatically partisan.

They will be as partisan as the conservative gang of 5 were. Of course, we didn't hear much of a peep from you than. Hmmm.

 

[Angry Floof]

View attachment 5720

Comically blatant hypocrisy aside, leave it to a conservative to use the stupid argument that "tradition/standard practice/what we've always done" is good reasoning for not doing something conservatives don't like (at the moment).

 

[fromderinside]

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

Neither point is true nor relevant. George is walking free because our prepresentatives voted to engage Iraq. As for Obama those taken out, assassinated, whatever, are known enemy combatants that just happen to be not be state sponsored. Such is a distinction lacking meaning.

On a slightly different tack a survey of Scalia's votes and quotes reflects the opinion of a man hell bent to retain prejudice as a valid option for lawful behavior.

Highlights From Justice Antonin Scalia’s Opinions http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region

 

[arkirk]

The thing that is so striking about Scalia is that there was nothing about him to bring a usual sympathetic response when he died. Instead it just has become more clear that he was just a place holder for the do-nothing, hate-the-poor Republicans. They didn't or perhaps couldn't take awhile to mourn his passing and take note of his accomplishments as a justice...because he was just a faux crotchety place holder for the right wingers making sure the supreme court didn't ever hurt their political situation. He was a do nothing and will not be missed probably on either side, though the Repugs loved to see him make an ass of himself and the judicial branch of government with his caustic personality. He helped bring about the era of Dubbiya and his wasteful inhumane wars. I won't be missing him. The Repugs are already trying to spin the opening into the election...wow I bet they lose the court in this go around and possibly one of the houses of congress.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

One more leftists means that the new court (unlike the old) will never deviate from hard core liberal/progressive agenda. Challenges to imperial Presidents (if Democratic) will be quashed, etc. Issues on amnesty, abortion, Obamacare, Affirmative Action, will be moot - it will be a rubber stamp to advance the leftist agenda.

You write that as if it's a bad thing.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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?

Maybe ask the terrorist nicely??

 

[maxparrish]

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.

The 'you too' fallacy? Irrelevant (as well as misleading).

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.

Oh please...unlike the clowns in Washington and writing for hyper-partisan blogs can't we be adults? Or did you miss that the Senate's term is also through the end of the year, or that nothing states that the senate must give is consent because the salivating left wing hysterics demand it? Are we soon to hear how the courts will fall apart, and the Republic will fall without a new liberal jurist?

If the Senate refuses to give its Constitutional consent then all will have to wait until their is a Senate that will. Its politics - within the law and completely candid.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

liberal/progressive agenda. .

News flash: all political groups have agendas. Not just the one you dislike.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

(In fact, prior to the civil war, for 60 years, the courts made NO rulings on the constitutionality of Congresses laws).

In 1796 Hylton v. United States. SCOTUS ruled the carriage tax constitutional. It was cited in 2012 as precedence for the Obamacare Mandate.

 

[untermensche]

Oh the desperation in these Republican hypocrites that are looking for any excuse for the Senate to not do it's duty.

That is what the Republican party has become.

The party that stands firmly in the way of any progress.

 

[maxparrish]

View attachment 5720

Comically blatant hypocrisy aside, leave it to a conservative to use the stupid argument that "tradition/standard practice/what we've always done" is good reasoning for not doing something conservatives don't like (at the moment).

There are comical aspects, mostly in reminding us of the paper on on how "politics makes you stupid". No doubt that not ten seconds after reports of Scalia's death there were also also Lonesome Rhodes hoot'en and holler'in on how the Constitution and the future of the Republic depends on a nomination and a vote in the Senate... ASAP!

The grandiloquent pretensions, the moral posturing alluding to some mythic tradition, here-to-fore unknown to the mass of humanity, is inevitable, but it need not be stupid. Grassley reminded us of an 80 year tradition that, apparently, was only broken once (Kennedy), but it has little bearing on the Senate prerogative to deny its consent (through any legal means), which is unquestioned.

So yes, it is nice to know that this has been a tradition of inaction, just as it would be nice to know if the tradition had been to do the opposite. But to engage on this basis is making a mountain over a molehill; we know the real motives of the actors so we don't have to pretend it to be otherwise.

In other words, I find Grassly's comment to be true but superfluous and 'the Kennedy exception' to be irrelevant.

 

[Arctish]

Ya know, if Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump win the nominations, all these Republicans saying we should wait for our next President to select candidates will be falling over themselves in their rush to appoint Obama's nominee, and praying to Jesus that Ruth Bader Ginsberg holds on for another 5 years.

 

[maxparrish]

(In fact, prior to the civil war, for 60 years, the courts made NO rulings on the constitutionality of Congresses laws).

In 1796 Hylton v. United States. SCOTUS ruled the carriage tax constitutional. It was cited in 2012 as precedence for the Obamacare Mandate.

Do the math. 1860 minus 60 years. The point remains, the idea of SC 'finding' Congressional laws unconstitutional was unheard of it that period...and almost unheard of prior to that.

 

[untermensche]

Comically blatant hypocrisy aside, leave it to a conservative to use the stupid argument that "tradition/standard practice/what we've always done" is good reasoning for not doing something conservatives don't like (at the moment).

There are comical aspects, mostly in reminding us of the paper on on how "politics makes you stupid". No doubt that not ten seconds after reports of Scalia's death there were also also Lonesome Rhodes hoot'en and holler'in on how the Constitution and the future of the Republic depends on a nomination and a vote in the Senate... ASAP!

The grandiloquent pretensions, the moral posturing alluding to some mythic tradition, here-to-fore unknown to the mass of humanity, is inevitable, but it need not be stupid. Grassley reminded us of an 80 year tradition that, apparently, was only broken once (Kennedy), but it has little bearing on the Senate prerogative to deny its consent (through any legal means), which is unquestioned.

So yes, it is nice to know that this has been a tradition of inaction, just as it would be nice to know if the tradition had been to do the opposite. But to engage on this basis is making a mountain over a molehill; we know the real motives of the actors so we don't have to pretend it to be otherwise.

In other words, I find Grassly's comment to be true but superfluous and 'the Kennedy exception' to be irrelevant.

You know the real intentions of Obama do you?

You mean he intends to do what he was elected to do?

Nominate people HE wants on the Court.

 

[fromderinside]

The grandiloquent pretensions, the moral posturing alluding to some mythic tradition, here-to-fore unknown to the mass of humanity, is inevitable, but it need not be stupid. Grassley reminded us of an 80 year tradition that, apparently, was only broken once (Kennedy), but it has little bearing on the Senate prerogative to deny its consent (through any legal means), which is unquestioned.

So yes, it is nice to know that this has been a tradition of inaction, just as it would be nice to know if the tradition had been to do the opposite. But to engage on this basis is making a mountain over a molehill; we know the real motives of the actors so we don't have to pretend it to be otherwise.

In other words, I find Grassly's comment to be true but superfluous and 'the Kennedy exception' to be irrelevant.

Such nice concern maxparrish. Still there are several issues before the USSC that, because of Justice Scalia's death could go wrong for the right. Voting patterns could remain as they are rather than biasing toward rural states, abortion could get more life, even blacks could get more rights. Far right wring of hands.

 

[Herrick]

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.

What are some examples?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Maxie:
In other words, I find Grassly's comment to be true but superfluous and 'the Kennedy exception' to be irrelevant.

Well, yeah, the exception would be irrelevant. We don't know if it's an exception because no other Justice seat became available in the last year of a President's term, or if it was an exception because God told Reagan to ignore the tradition.

I'm wondering what evidence there is that this IS a tradition? How many times has a SCOTUS seat been left vacant for a (or most of a) fucking year because the President didn't want to break the 'no lame duck nominations' tradition?

 

[untermensche]

It is the "might makes right" argument. The "we are allowed to behave like irrational children" argument.

Not considering an Obama nominee has no basis in reason.

This is how the government functions.

A Justice departs. The president nominates a replacement. The Senate considers the nominee's judicial qualifications.

Nowhere in reason does the Senate have a right to stop the process based on political whims.

They only have the power.

And the mentality of children who will throw the game to the floor as they are losing.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Maxie:
In other words, I find Grassly's comment to be true but superfluous and 'the Kennedy exception' to be irrelevant.

Well, yeah, the exception would be irrelevant. We don't know if it's an exception because no other Justice seat became available in the last year of a President's term, or if it was an exception because God told Reagan to ignore the tradition.

I'm wondering what evidence there is that this IS a tradition? How many times has a SCOTUS seat been left vacant for a (or most of a) fucking year because the President didn't want to break the 'no lame duck nominations' tradition?

It's an interesting question. The court can operate with 8 judges, though in a tie there is a tie breaker, but it seems like the law would be questionable. The Republicans can block any nomination of Obama so instead of waste time, they can say just nominate someone central or on the right. But it could backfire on the Republicans.