Scalia dead

whofeelslikeadrank

myoung321 said:

No different than the rest of the Conservatives throughout our history

Conservatives opposed the American Revolution
Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves
Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage
Conservatives opposed public school
Conservatives opposed fighting fascism in Europe
Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc.
Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals
Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act
Conservatives opposed the Farm Act
Conservatives opposed the Interstate Highway System
Conservatives oppose clean air and water
Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act
Conservatives opposed the G.I. Bill
Conservatives opposed Medicare
Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law
.....etc...etc..etc..

the list is endless......!!!!!

man, spot on

EdsonNascimento

rgambs said:

EdsonNascimento said:

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 said:

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).


Hahaha I was in a hurry so I didn't put any emojies, the Columbus '10 poster is absolutely horrible, you don't want it! How about a bootleg, I don't need the clutter any more than you do lol

Sounds good. Ha ha. Though maybe the winner should send the loser a poster to increase THEIR clutter.

Dirtie_Frank

Hmmmm

When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40Cxbi0hM

ldent42

Yea but Chuck's a tool.

tempo_n_groove

myoung321 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

No different than the rest of the Conservatives throughout our history

Conservatives opposed the American Revolution
Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves
Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage
Conservatives opposed public school
Conservatives opposed fighting fascism in Europe
Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc.
Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals
Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act
Conservatives opposed the Farm Act
Conservatives opposed the Interstate Highway System
Conservatives oppose clean air and water
Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act
Conservatives opposed the G.I. Bill
Conservatives opposed Medicare
Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law
.....etc...etc..etc..

the list is endless......!!!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the conservatives were the complete opposite of what they are now!!

Also Scalia was just slightly out of touch with the world,no?!?

njnancy

tempo_n_groove said:

myoung321 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

No different than the rest of the Conservatives throughout our history

Conservatives opposed the American Revolution
Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves
Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage
Conservatives opposed public school
Conservatives opposed fighting fascism in Europe
Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc.
Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals
Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act
Conservatives opposed the Farm Act
Conservatives opposed the Interstate Highway System
Conservatives oppose clean air and water
Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act
Conservatives opposed the G.I. Bill
Conservatives opposed Medicare
Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law
.....etc...etc..etc..

the list is endless......!!!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the conservatives were the complete opposite of what they are now!!

Also Scalia was just slightly out of touch with the world,no?!?

Republicans used to be more moderate and tolerant - ie - Lincoln and slavery. Then Southern Democrats - Dixiecrats - split with Democrats and went to Republicans and the moral majority and conservatism in social issues became a large part of the Republican party platform and Democrats became more socially liberal. Conservatism is an ideology in the Republican party.

Scalia was very comfortable in his view of the world. It's just that it was not in touch with the change in attitudes of most Americans. Hence - the cry to 'take our country back'. I always want someone to finish the sentence with who they are taking it back from.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Why does everyone hate the Mennonites? We need the contribution of a religion that felt that civilization was perfect between 1835 and 1855..

I honestly don't know. To me hating a Mennonite would be like hating a bunny rabbit. But then, I'm half Amish. What do I know?

Half Amish, half Oneida is my guess. I'm on to you. Coming to 'Merica... taking our jobs. I used to raise barns.. but no more. That job is gone. A-hole.

Raised no barn I ain't ne'er yet, but hell raised, ye bet!

mickeyrat

njnancy said:

tempo_n_groove said:

myoung321 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

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.

No different than the rest of the Conservatives throughout our history

Conservatives opposed the American Revolution
Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves
Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage
Conservatives opposed public school
Conservatives opposed fighting fascism in Europe
Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc.
Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals
Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act
Conservatives opposed the Farm Act
Conservatives opposed the Interstate Highway System
Conservatives oppose clean air and water
Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act
Conservatives opposed the G.I. Bill
Conservatives opposed Medicare
Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law
.....etc...etc..etc..

the list is endless......!!!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the conservatives were the complete opposite of what they are now!!

Also Scalia was just slightly out of touch with the world,no?!?

Republicans used to be more moderate and tolerant - ie - Lincoln and slavery. Then Southern Democrats - Dixiecrats - split with Democrats and went to Republicans and the moral majority and conservatism in social issues became a large part of the Republican party platform and Democrats became more socially liberal. Conservatism is an ideology in the Republican party.

Scalia was very comfortable in his view of the world. It's just that it was not in touch with the change in attitudes of most Americans. Hence - the cry to 'take our country back'. I always want someone to finish the sentence with who they are taking it back from.

Two ways that qiestion gets finished...
Take our country back...from whom

Take our country back ... to what

mrussel1

Dirtie_Frank said:

Hmmmm

When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40Cxbi0hM

I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue the Dems wouldn't take the same tactic. They would. The point I've been making it that it's strategically advantageous to Democrats right now, and in particular Hillary, should she make it through the primaries.

myoung321

gimmesometruth27 said:

if you want to look at it that way, how many people died, or were at the very least HARMED by scalia's opinions?

Citizens United alone screwed this country up... and according to Scalia HOBBY LOBBY is a person? His court writings will be laughed at by future generations.

PJPOWER

mrussel1 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Hmmmm

When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40Cxbi0hM

I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue the Dems wouldn't take the same tactic. They would. The point I've been making it that it's strategically advantageous to Democrats right now, and in particular Hillary, should she make it through the primaries.

They would and they have. Even the all mighty Obama did it to Alito in 2006, although "he vocally disapproved", his actions speak louder than his words.

myoung321

Dirtie_Frank said:

Hmmmm

When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40Cxbi0hM

3 things -

1) Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year
2) GW Bush Elected Alito and his was obviously confirmed.
3) Chief Justice Roberts - GW Bush and his was obviously confirmed.

rgambs

myoung321 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

if you want to look at it that way, how many people died, or were at the very least HARMED by scalia's opinions?

Citizens United alone screwed this country up... and according to Scalia HOBBY LOBBY is a person? His court writings will be laughed at by future generations.

He is known for his written statements being written in the style of oration, and trying to use embellishments to elevate things above the legal style.

Honestly, I always have him an A for effort but a D at best for execution, very amateurish.

cincybearcat

rgambs said:

myoung321 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

if you want to look at it that way, how many people died, or were at the very least HARMED by scalia's opinions?

Citizens United alone screwed this country up... and according to Scalia HOBBY LOBBY is a person? His court writings will be laughed at by future generations.

He is known for his written statements being written in the style of oration, and trying to use embellishments to elevate things above the legal style.

Honestly, I always have him an A for effort but a D at best for execution, very amateurish.

Oh please, calling a supreme court justice amateurish in nonsense unless written by another supreme court justice....which I'm guessing you are not?

Also - people tend to think his opines on cases was him deciding...he was a supreme court justice, he was deciding if the law allowed things or who had the decision making space for things.

I do think we need justices with an eye to maintaining the constitution, but I do think there are areas that require interpretation as society changes. So I don;t agree with Scalia on everything. But he was intelligent and based his decision on his view of the constitution. Just like the other judges that I would disagree with on their decisions.

chadwick

i was reading (until the page froze up & i had to exit the site) that scalia liked firearms & that the wild turkey (whatever the heck they are called, some wildlife) organization gifted him a $1,000.00 shotgun that he accepted no problem.

is this legal? anyone read this?

rgambs

cincybearcat said:

rgambs said:

myoung321 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

if you want to look at it that way, how many people died, or were at the very least HARMED by scalia's opinions?

Citizens United alone screwed this country up... and according to Scalia HOBBY LOBBY is a person? His court writings will be laughed at by future generations.

He is known for his written statements being written in the style of oration, and trying to use embellishments to elevate things above the legal style.

Honestly, I always have him an A for effort but a D at best for execution, very amateurish.

Oh please, calling a supreme court justice amateurish in nonsense unless written by another supreme court justice....which I'm guessing you are not?

Also - people tend to think his opines on cases was him deciding...he was a supreme court justice, he was deciding if the law allowed things or who had the decision making space for things.

I do think we need justices with an eye to maintaining the constitution, but I do think there are areas that require interpretation as society changes. So I don;t agree with Scalia on everything. But he was intelligent and based his decision on his view of the constitution. Just like the other judges that I would disagree with on their decisions.

I'm not commenting on his judicial expertise, I am commenting on his self-styled status of being a good writer. He tried, he failed the same as I have lol

Free

chadwick said:

i was reading (until the page froze up & i had to exit the site) that scalia liked firearms & that the wild turkey (whatever the heck they are called, some wildlife) organization gifted him a $1,000.00 shotgun that he accepted no problem.

is this legal? anyone read this?

Probably.

Did this organization supply him with a lifetime supply of whiskey too?

njnancy

cincybearcat said:

rgambs said:

myoung321 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

if you want to look at it that way, how many people died, or were at the very least HARMED by scalia's opinions?

Citizens United alone screwed this country up... and according to Scalia HOBBY LOBBY is a person? His court writings will be laughed at by future generations.

He is known for his written statements being written in the style of oration, and trying to use embellishments to elevate things above the legal style.

Honestly, I always have him an A for effort but a D at best for execution, very amateurish.

Oh please, calling a supreme court justice amateurish in nonsense unless written by another supreme court justice....which I'm guessing you are not?

Also - people tend to think his opines on cases was him deciding...he was a supreme court justice, he was deciding if the law allowed things or who had the decision making space for things.

I do think we need justices with an eye to maintaining the constitution, but I do think there are areas that require interpretation as society changes. So I don;t agree with Scalia on everything. But he was intelligent and based his decision on his view of the constitution. Just like the other judges that I would disagree with on their decisions.

Scalia, whatever one thinks of his views, was a brilliant man who wrote extremely engaging briefs when he dissented. He would include references to pop culture and was known to be very witty in a wry sense. When justices write their opinions it is as described above. They write in a stream of consciousness as they make decisions based upon constitutional law, court testimony and, inevitably, their own ideology. Some are better at keeping their own beliefs in check - ie Kennedy who is usually a swing voter and Roberts who voted to uphold Obamacare (drawing the ire of the Conservatives who feel he betrayed them). Justices are supposed to be strict Constitutionalists, but there comes a time when interpretation and adaptation to the passage of time and circumstance is needed.

And, though I am no apologist for Scalia, his vote alone was not responsible for certain decision, there were others who had to vote the same way in order to have a majority. I disagree with Scalia's view of the law but at least he gave complete reasons why he vote as he did AND asked questions during court hearings. Thomas hasn't asked a question since he became a justice. I find his seeming disinterest to be more disturbing.

chadwick said:

i was reading (until the page froze up & i had to exit the site) that scalia liked firearms & that the wild turkey (whatever the heck they are called, some wildlife) organization gifted him a $1,000.00 shotgun that he accepted no problem.

is this legal? anyone read this?

Depends on what type of organization it was. I haven't seen this story, will do some googling. Justices are not supposed to be allied with any causes (Thomas and his wife's involvement as a tea party activist caused concern) and will recuse themselves if they have had involvement with an issue in their lives before becoming a SCJ (Kagen recused herself from the Affirmative Action case presently in their docket because she had been involved in a lower court action). They also have historically not gone on the speaking circuit while holding a seat - this is one thing that Scalia did without apology and was part of his legacy that bothers some.

Bottom line - if you're a conservative, he was a hero
If you're a liberal, he was obstructive.
If you are versed in Constitutional Law, he was not a strict adherent when one needed to extrapolate, always sticking to ideology to make his decision.

A new interesting fact I became aware of this morning. President Obama could appoint someone to the Supreme Court without the Congress' approval since SCOTUS is not in session and it would be in keeping with his duty as President under the Constitution to maintain the full functioning of all 3 governmental bodies (judicial, legislative, executive).

Also, Roberts has voiced concern over the lack of appointments to the lower courts (Congress won't even bring them up for a vote). Will he express the need for action to be taken immediately with the highest court in our country not fully staffed and unable to fulfill their judicial duties?

And though Scalia was a polarizing figure, there is a wife, 9 children, grandchildren, colleagues, etc who are mourning his death. Maybe it is because I have lost a parent, brother and sister that I do not feel any sort of happiness at his death. However, as a political junkie and citizen, I find the implications on the presidential race & how it has turned the whole conversation on its head to be fascinating. And this opening is of utmost importance to everyone and will hopefully get Democrats off their asses in November to vote.

rgambs

It certainly is a wrinkle in the election season, it is going to be tough for the GOP to come out on top with this. It's the Dems game to lose really, and they will probably do their best to do just that lol

Dirtie_Frank

myoung321 said:

Dirtie_Frank said:

Hmmmm

When George W. Bush was still president, Schumer advocated almost the exact same approach McConnell is planning to pursue. During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” During the same speech, Schumer lamented that he hadn’t managed to block Bush’s prior Supreme Court nominations.

Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40Cxbi0hM

3 things -

1) Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year
2) GW Bush Elected Alito and his was obviously confirmed.
3) Chief Justice Roberts - GW Bush and his was obviously confirmed.

It is too early to say that the Senate will not confirm a Justice selected by the POTUS. Sure Cruz is falling in line with what Schumer did, but like you pointed out the Roberts was confirmed. I think it is just politics as usual, no matter what side does it.