Scalia dead

bootlegger10

mrussel1 said:

This discussion has really devolved. Hard core partisans on the left and right take things over the line, particularly when it's anonymously online under handles rather than a real name. It's a damn shame across the board. Can we get back to the political ramifications on this?

Anyone disagree that this isn't a political gift to the democrats, particularly Hillary? Disaffected Bernie voters will be forced to vote Hillary because the alternative of a right wing judge, in a right wing Senate is too risky. And yes it's possible that Bernie wins the nomination, but I think the math is against him right now.

I don't think it devolved and I wouldn't say I am far right. If thinking there should be some minimum level of respect is far right than maybe I am. I wouldn't say the far right though gives any more or less respect than those on the far left though. Clearly the far left on this board have proven my assertion time and time again. I'm against the rulings that allow corporations and super PACs to dominate campaign financing, but I'm not going to ridicule the justices who interpreted the law and curse them and cheer when they are dead. I'm better than that. The law just needs to be changed to remove any gray area.

myoung321

Now maybe we can get a judge in now puts the actual Constitution of the United States ahead of his imaginary friend in the sky.

whofeelslikeadrank

Bentleyspop said:

If the GOP circus clowns are scaring you now imagine if one of them gets elected and gets the opportunity to chose a Supreme Court justice.

agreed

gimmesometruth27

JimmyV said:

Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.

Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.

did you see the debate last night? cruz got taken to school by the moderator on the topic of supreme court appointees in the final year of a presidency. i felt sorry for him actually.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento said:

JimmyV said:

Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.

Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.

Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.

That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.

So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.

you are ignoring the fact that to the gop, there is not a human being alive that obama could appoint that would measure up to the standards they are expecting to even consider a vote. they have moved the bar so high the last 8 years that they are going to say nobody is "up to muster."

get a grip. this is the reality we live in in this country under this congress.

congress wants a right wing extremist. even if obama nominated the most moderate candidate they would not get a vote. period. bet on it.

PJ_Soul

bootlegger10 said:

I am not surprised his death is being cheered on the Train. Some of you continue to have blinders on and just do not see how full of hate you are and completely intolerant of others opinions. The guy doesn't get to the supreme court and be respected by the most liberal judges on the court (even great friends with and travel companions) by being a bigot. He just interprets the constitution from his viewpoint and others view it differently. He still respected his peers on the court and they respected him, but on the Train it is the epitome of "My way or the highway" per usual. Cheering death for anyone you disagree with.

I do not cheer for death of people just because I disagree with them. I cheer for the death of people who I think are rotten human beings who cause harm to the world. Scalia applies.

PS - couldn't care less if you think being glad he's dead is bad taste. That guy was a motherfucker as far as I'm concerned and I am pleased as punch that his voice is gone from the US supreme court. Death was the only thing that would shut the fucker up.

gimmesometruth27

bootlegger10 said:

njnancy said:

bootlegger10 said:

I am not surprised his death is being cheered on the Train. Some of you continue to have blinders on and just do not see how full of hate you are and completely intolerant of others opinions. The guy doesn't get to the supreme court and be respected by the most liberal judges on the court (even great friends with and travel companions) by being a bigot. He just interprets the constitution from his viewpoint and others view it differently. He still respected his peers on the court and they respected him, but on the Train it is the epitome of "My way or the highway" per usual. Cheering death for anyone you disagree with.

There are several posts on here that expressed shock and gave props to his legacy, by people who did not agree with him on politics. Some have been happy that he is no longer on the court, but I didn't see ecstasy at the fact that he was dead - maybe in a case or two - but more so that he is not on the court any longer.

You may have missed these gems. Typical behavior for trying to suppress and ridicule anyone with a viewpoint different from theirs. We are seeing it clear as day in social media with just a few people being able to ridicule people into giving in.

“Good riddance”

“Can't lie - my first reaction is 'good riddance. I think he was a fool and an asshole”

“i
don't
care.”

“Shit happens.”

“Justice after all the good ones like Bowie dying.”

“the Strom Thurmond of the supreme court is dead... condolences to his family.
joy to the rest of the USA.”

“he is an intolerant bigot.”

you stated your opinion. i stated mine.

i don't care that he passed. replace him and move on.

if he was such a patriot and the rigid constitutionist that he claimed to be, he would agree with me.

gimmesometruth27

bootlegger10 said:

rgambs said:

bootlegger10 said:

rgambs said:

bootlegger10 said:

I am not surprised his death is being cheered on the Train. Some of you continue to have blinders on and just do not see how full of hate you are and completely intolerant of others opinions. The guy doesn't get to the supreme court and be respected by the most liberal judges on the court (even great friends with and travel companions) by being a bigot. He just interprets the constitution from his viewpoint and others view it differently. He still respected his peers on the court and they respected him, but on the Train it is the epitome of "My way or the highway" per usual. Cheering death for anyone you disagree with.

Oh gosh, drama queen post. "Cheering death for anyone you disagree with"
He hurt many many people with his decisions, and the only crop he sowed was pain. He didn't interpret the constitution from his viewpoint, he bent the constitution to match his agenda. I would rather he had retired than died, but his archaic, selfish views have no place in the highest court.

Not drama queen. Just true. I've noticed it time and time again on this board. It is "my way or the highway" around here for some. If Kagan were to die I wouldn't come out with good riddance posts or say the world is better off. We blast Congress for not working together but the rhetoric here is just as bad and I think people need to recognize it in themselves. Scalia's point is that if you don't like his interpretation of the law then have your elected representatives change them. He didn't want judicial activism.

Kagan doesn't base her career in denying rights to certain classes of people because of a hocus pocus myth she was taught as a child.

So because he has a different interpretation of the Constitution he deserves to be vilified and demeaned? Sure, disagree with his conclusions just like the liberals on the Court did, but they could at least still be friends with the guy and respect him. If they thought he was an intolerant bigot they probably wouldn't have their families vacation together. I doubt Kagan and Ginsberg are saying "good riddance".

You don't like his rulings. Vote and change the law. If his rulings are so unreasonable and heinous to society, it should be pretty easy to do. It is ironic that somehow the constitution written in the 1780's would support every liberal position that was brought to the court 220 years later. Simply incredible.*

* Highly unlikely and so powers were given to the legislative branch to draft new laws or make amendments.

give it 50 years. scalia's rulings will be judged by history to be as backwards as the dred scott decision and separate but equal.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

JimmyV said:

Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.

Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.

Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.

That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.

So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.

you are ignoring the fact that to the gop, there is not a human being alive that obama could appoint that would measure up to the standards they are expecting to even consider a vote. they have moved the bar so high the last 8 years that they are going to say nobody is "up to muster."

get a grip. this is the reality we live in in this country under this congress.

congress wants a right wing extremist. even if obama nominated the most moderate candidate they would not get a vote. period. bet on it.

Well, then, that's the beauty of our system. Still much better than letting extremists on either side simply have their way. Sad that some are cheering someone's death then saying they want someone equally as extreme but that shares their views. Funny that same folks moaning the right is what's wrong only wants their view represented.

Let's let the process play out, then you can all have something real to moan about which will fall into 1 of 2 categories -

1) Obama caved what a sell out
2) Republicans say no to everything

Even though the proper thing for the country is compromise and moderation which forces both sides to meet in the middle.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

JimmyV said:

Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.

Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.

Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.

That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.

So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.

you are ignoring the fact that to the gop, there is not a human being alive that obama could appoint that would measure up to the standards they are expecting to even consider a vote. they have moved the bar so high the last 8 years that they are going to say nobody is "up to muster."

get a grip. this is the reality we live in in this country under this congress.

congress wants a right wing extremist. even if obama nominated the most moderate candidate they would not get a vote. period. bet on it.

Well, then, that's the beauty of our system. Still much better than letting extremists on either side simply have their way. Sad that some are cheering someone's death then saying they want someone equally as extreme but that shares their views. Funny that same folks moaning the right is what's wrong only wants their view represented.

Let's let the process play out, then you can all have something real to moan about which will fall into 1 of 2 categories -

1) Obama caved what a sell out
2) Republicans say no to everything

Even though the proper thing for the country is compromise and moderation which forces both sides to meet in the middle.

i am telling you that there is no way in hell obama gets anybody approved. mitch mcconnell has already said so. the only way mcconnell would even allow for a debate on an appointee is through constant media shaming and public outcry. even then, it will just be a show hearing. everything obama has accomplished has been without republican support. you think they are going to go along with him now? he could appoint jesus freakin christ to the bench and the gop would cry that he is too liberal and unsuitable for the job.

gimmesometruth27

he could appoint saint ronald reagan and they would fillibuster simply because obama nominated him.

Free

gimmesometruth27 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

EdsonNascimento said:

JimmyV said:

Anyone who doesn't know Kennedy was nominated by Reagan soon will. He is about to become the textbook example of a Supreme Court Justice being confirmed during an election year. Nominated by Reagan in November 1987, confirmed by a Democraic congress in February 1988. No matter what the current GOP tries to argue on this point it has indeed happened before and not all that long ago.

Congress...DO. YOUR. JOB. You are there to legislate and to govern, not to pander to the angriest elements of your political party.

Congress is not the only one that plays a part and while you can use words like pander to make it sound pejorative, the fact is they are there to represent the people that elected them, not you and me (other than our respective reps of course). So if their constituents are angry extremists, that is their job.

That being said, we as a public are moderate on average, and if that is what gets nominated, it will eliminate much of what you are alluding to.

So, Obama has the first responsibility to put up a candidate that will pass muster. Congress then has their job to fete the nominatee and decline of it doesn't pass muster. 2 arms of govt that balance each other out to hopefully get the job done. If they decline the candidate, that's as much on The President as them.

you are ignoring the fact that to the gop, there is not a human being alive that obama could appoint that would measure up to the standards they are expecting to even consider a vote. they have moved the bar so high the last 8 years that they are going to say nobody is "up to muster."

get a grip. this is the reality we live in in this country under this congress.

congress wants a right wing extremist. even if obama nominated the most moderate candidate they would not get a vote. period. bet on it.

Well, then, that's the beauty of our system. Still much better than letting extremists on either side simply have their way. Sad that some are cheering someone's death then saying they want someone equally as extreme but that shares their views. Funny that same folks moaning the right is what's wrong only wants their view represented.

Let's let the process play out, then you can all have something real to moan about which will fall into 1 of 2 categories -

1) Obama caved what a sell out
2) Republicans say no to everything

Even though the proper thing for the country is compromise and moderation which forces both sides to meet in the middle.

i am telling you that there is no way in hell obama gets anybody approved. mitch mcconnell has already said so. the only way mcconnell would even allow for a debate on an appointee is through constant media shaming and public outcry. even then, it will just be a show hearing. everything obama has accomplished has been without republican support. you think they are going to go along with him now? he could appoint jesus freakin christ to the bench and the gop would cry that he is too liberal and unsuitable for the job.

Because Jesus himself, is too liberal for the GOP. Jesus is a socialist too.

lolobugg

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

hillary is an attorney. maybe obama could nominate her. she would be a much more effective supreme court justice. the appointment is for life. plus, if clinton is appointed we would not have to have 4 more years of a gop obstruction party that will not pass anything simply because it is something a clinton supports.

This is an excellent scenario. I would be all for it. Good thinking, gimme!

she would work better in the SCOTUS where her power could be checked by the other justices.
i would love to see a Bernie presidency with Elizabeth Warren as vice president and Hillary on the bench.

Who Princess

Doesn't much matter that Hillary is an attorney. Most justices have been federal judges.

Only one of many arguments against her that Congress would bring up.

rgambs

EdsonNascimento said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Spot on words from Senator Elizabeth Warren of my beloved Massachusetts this morning:

The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

Several things here:
1. No Obama justice will be confirmed under the current Senate
2. Obama should absolutely nominate someone
3. Obama, Hillary/Bernie will spend the entire fall bludgeoning the GOP on this issue. It's a no win for the Republicans, so long as Obama doesn't make an egregious mistake and nominate someone that polarizes the country. It has to be someone seen as moderate. Yes, this runs the risk of what happened with Kennedy (the Republicans thought he was more conservative), but at the end of the day, the new president can withdraw that nominee and pull who they want.

1. Wrong
2. Right
3. This is the point of the Republican rhetoric. A moderate will get confirmed or both sides risk the election. Obama will not be consulting Hillary or Sanders or the DNC, but nominating someone too liberal is the surest way to give this issue to the right in the next open election when there's the prospect of at least a couple retirements. So, there is a win for the republicans, and funny enough it's actually the nomination of a liberal justice.

A new justice will be confirmed by Summer's end. Not sure what withdrawal you hope for.

Hahaha do you really think so?
I'll bet you a 2010 Columbus poster that you are wrong.

Cliffy6745

Who Princess said:

Doesn't much matter that Hillary is an attorney. Most justices have been federal judges.

Only one of many arguments against her that Congress would bring up.

I was going to say this as well. She has no judicial experience

EdsonNascimento

rgambs said:

EdsonNascimento said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Spot on words from Senator Elizabeth Warren of my beloved Massachusetts this morning:

The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

Several things here:
1. No Obama justice will be confirmed under the current Senate
2. Obama should absolutely nominate someone
3. Obama, Hillary/Bernie will spend the entire fall bludgeoning the GOP on this issue. It's a no win for the Republicans, so long as Obama doesn't make an egregious mistake and nominate someone that polarizes the country. It has to be someone seen as moderate. Yes, this runs the risk of what happened with Kennedy (the Republicans thought he was more conservative), but at the end of the day, the new president can withdraw that nominee and pull who they want.

1. Wrong
2. Right
3. This is the point of the Republican rhetoric. A moderate will get confirmed or both sides risk the election. Obama will not be consulting Hillary or Sanders or the DNC, but nominating someone too liberal is the surest way to give this issue to the right in the next open election when there's the prospect of at least a couple retirements. So, there is a win for the republicans, and funny enough it's actually the nomination of a liberal justice.

A new justice will be confirmed by Summer's end. Not sure what withdrawal you hope for.

Hahaha do you really think so?
I'll bet you a 2010 Columbus poster that you are wrong.

You're on. I will dig something out of the collection that I will send you if by September 21, 2016 we do not have a confirmed justice. (Not that I need another poster, but for the fun of it).

EdsonNascimento

Cliffy6745 said:

Who Princess said:

Doesn't much matter that Hillary is an attorney. Most justices have been federal judges.

Only one of many arguments against her that Congress would bring up.

I was going to say this as well. She has no judicial experience

And like Hillary, who has sold her soul to have this chance would settle for Justice. I mean any woman that put up with what she did, including attacking women who claimed sexual assault by her husband, then with a straight face claims to empower women is all in. She's not settling for a job she shares with 8 equals. You don't make that kind of deal with your inner devil.

PJPOWER

Didn't Obama support the filibuster of Alito in 2006? Just sayin...

Enkidu

I read this today about a potential justice. Sounds like he could be a good choice.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/23/sri-srinivasan-judge-supreme-court-circuit-dc-obama-bush/2351543/

The religious affiliations of the justices is interesting too - right now it's 6 Catholics (5 since Scalia has died) and 3 Jews. Why not add a protestant? Or how about an agnostic? Here's a Huffington Post article on lack of religious diversity on the Supreme Court:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/supreme-courts-lack-of-re_b_5545989.html