Supreme court justice Antonin Scalia dies: legal and political worlds react

[OrbitalDawn]

Antonin Scalia, the staunchly conservative supreme court justice, has died at the age of 79, prompting an immediate political struggle over the future direction of the United States, even as tributes were being paid to honor his service.

As the stars and stripes were lowered to half-staff outside the court, and the chief justice, John Roberts, confirmed Scalia’s death, political leaders on both sides of the partisan divide staked out their positions in the fierce fight to come over the nomination of his replacement.

President Obama praised Scalia as a “brilliant legal mind” who was “one of the towering legal figures of our time” and “one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the supreme court”.

But in a brief statement on Saturday night, he also responded to Republican threats to block Scalia’s replacement by warning they risked undermining a cornerstone of US democracy.

“I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibility to nominate a successor in due time,” he said, during a weekend trip to Palm Springs. Obama, who is in the final year of his presidency, said: “There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”

 

[BlindMelonChitlin]

Who's Antonin Scalia...

 

[Arthur]

There's an 80-year tradition that a Supreme Court justice will not be appointed in a Presidential election year.

Obama will of course submit his nomination. But we'll probably only see a replacement in 2017.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

There's an 80-year tradition that a Supreme Court justice will not be appointed in a Presidential election year.

Obama will of course submit his nomination. But we'll probably only see a replacement in 2017.

Was he the first Catholic SCJ?

 

[BlindMelonChitlin]

Looks like a mafia don

View attachment 341860

You mean he looks Italian?

 

[Hamish McPanji]

You mean he looks Italian?

He looks like the Hollywood portrayal of an old school Mafia don

 

[Dave]

There's an 80-year tradition that a Supreme Court justice will not be appointed in a Presidential election year.

Obama will of course submit his nomination. But we'll probably only see a replacement in 2017.

Sounds like Obama is hoping to break that tradition and get another of his appointees in before he leaves.

I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibility to nominate a successor in due time,” he said, during a weekend trip to Palm Springs. Obama, who is in the final year of his presidency, said: “There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.”

 

[BlindMelonChitlin]

He looks like the Hollywood portrayal of an old school Mafia don

That's what I mean lol

 

[icyrus]

There's an 80-year tradition that a Supreme Court justice will not be appointed in a Presidential election year.

Obama will of course submit his nomination. But we'll probably only see a replacement in 2017.

https://mobile.twitter.com/igorvolsky/status/698649536441352192/photo/1

 

[RanzB]

There's an 80-year tradition that a Supreme Court justice will not be appointed in a Presidential election year.

Obama will of course submit his nomination. But we'll probably only see a replacement in 2017.

Lol. "Tradition". Care to cite examples where appointments were blocked/not nominated because it was an election year, or do you get all your information from Ted Cruz?

 

[satanboy]

Why is this important to us?

 

[konfab]

Lol. "Tradition". Care to cite examples where appointments were blocked/not nominated because it was an election year, or do you get all your information from Ted Cruz?

Cruz was talking rubbish.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

Of course whether Obama's nomination will get though is a different story. The Republicans control both houses.

 

[RanzB]

Cruz was talking rubbish.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

Of course whether Obama's nomination will get though is a different story. The Republicans control both houses.

Thing is, a lot of those seats were vacant the year before the election year, but filled during an election year, so Republicans are using this as a ridiculous reason to call it tradition/precedent when it's nothing of the sort. They're full of ****.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Cruz was talking rubbish.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/

Of course whether Obama's nomination will get though is a different story. The Republicans control both houses.

Cruz is a liar, a cheat and a p***y. You can't trust the guy....mark my words

 

[konfab]

Thing is, a lot of those seats were vacant the year before the election year, but filled during an election year, so Republicans are using this as a ridiculous reason to call it tradition/precedent when it's nothing of the sort. They're full of ****.

What I don't get is it is probably clearly laid out in the constitution that the sitting president appoints judges with the approval of congress.

The same constitution that some of them seem so adamant to defend.

 

[RanzB]

What I don't get is it is probably clearly laid out in the constitution that the sitting president appoints judges with the approval of congress.

The same constitution that some of them seem so adamant to defend.

And most ironic is that Scalia loved himself some strict constitutional reading. Obama is absolutely in the right to nominate someone, but those knobs are obstructionists to the extreme.

And they'll have some morons parroting it being 'tradition' when it clearly BS.

 

[konfab]

And most ironic is that Scalia loved himself some strict constitutional reading. Obama is absolutely in the right to nominate someone, but those knobs are obstructionists to the extreme.

And they'll have some morons parroting it being 'tradition' when it clearly BS.

Well senate also has the right to be obstructionist as much as they want.

I just find it disturbing that the US constitution has room for so much interpretation.

 

[RanzB]

Well senate also has the right to be obstructionist as much as they want.

Sure, if that's what their primary objective is, they're welcome to it. But of course they'll present themselves as the opposite. It's just disgusting that they're coming out and saying they won't confirm a nominee without Obama even nominating anyone.

These aren't upstanding representatives of the people, they're stubborn children.

I just find it disturbing that the US constitution has room for so much interpretation.

There isn't room for interpretation in this matter. Which is why they're falling back on 'tradition' or 'precedent' as their go-to lies.

 

[w1z4rd]

This is really fortunate it happened with a democratic president. A lot can change now. He was one of the really bad one right wing guys.

 

[RanzB]

This is really fortunate it happened with a democratic president. A lot can change now. He was one of the really bad one right wing guys.

I made the point in the other thread, but if it happens, it'll cause a huge shift. Obama has already replaced two SC judges, but they were liberal-for-liberal replacements. No wonder the Republicans are shi,ting themselves. You can be sure that Scalia wasn't going to retire until there was a Republican in the White House.