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

[konfab]

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.

True, Obama might troll them and nominate a neutral.

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.

Not this matter, since it isn't up to a judge.

I was making a comment on how they can have "liberal" judges and "conservative" judges. I suppose it comes down to whether you interpret the constitution based on today's principles or on the principles of the people who wrote it.
I am surprised this has not already been dealt with.

For example, in this country if some issue isn't completely covered by the constitution, it gets interpreted based on the principles of the constitution which are in turn based on human rights.

 

[w1z4rd]

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.

Pretty much. Im sure the Republicans will do exactly like they did the last time. Make a show of this. Reject some of the nominations (especially Obama's favorite) and eventually have to settle for one of them like they did the last time. AFAIK, whomever controls the senate is not really important when it comes to the oversight of the nominee, I think thats a congress thing. But I could be wrong, their system is confusing sometimes.

Two guarantees.

1)This will be dragged out as long as possible (I kinda feel sorry for the nominees, theyre about to go under lasers) - the Republicans accepting a nomination will probably be tied into a concession from the Dems elsewhere.
2) Eventually they will have to accept one of his nominations.

 

[RanzB]

True, Obama might troll them and nominate a neutral.

Most bets have his nominee as Sri Srinivasan.

I was making a comment on how they can have "liberal" judges and "conservative" judges. I suppose it comes down to whether you interpret the constitution based on today's principles or on the principles of the people who wrote it.
I am surprised this has not already been dealt with.

Dealt with how? They aren't chosen by actual labels of 'liberal' or 'conservative', they pick up those by their rulings and stances on topics. It's not like Obama has to nominate a Democrat/Liberal.

 

[RanzB]

Pretty much. Im sure the Republicans will do exactly like they did the last time. Make a show of this. Reject some of the nominations (especially Obama's favorite) and eventually have to settle for one of them like they did the last time. AFAIK, whomever controls the senate is not really important when it comes to the oversight of the nominee, I think thats a congress thing. But I could be wrong, their system is confusing sometimes.

Supreme Court nominees are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, not Congress.

1)This will be dragged out as long as possible (I kinda feel sorry for the nominees, theyre about to go under lasers) - the Republicans accepting a nomination will probably be tied into a concession from the Dems elsewhere.

As in a moderate/conservative leaning nominee.

2) Eventually they will have to accept one of his nominations.

Who knows with these morons. They could conceivably drag it out for a long time, but public opinion of them will drop, thereby hurting their chances in the general election.

 

[konfab]

Most bets have his nominee as Sri Srinivasan.




Dealt with how? They aren't chosen by actual labels of 'liberal' or 'conservative', they pick up those by their rulings and stances on topics. It's not like Obama has to nominate a Democrat/Liberal.

What I meant is a principle on how the constitution should be interpreted.

I gave the way this country does it as an example.

 

[RanzB]

What I meant is a principle on how the constitution should be interpreted.

I gave the way this country does it as an example.

Yeah but we see it everywhere when it comes to legal readings.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Interesting info about the technicalities:

His death leaves the Supreme Court with only eight justices for the rest of the term, and invalidates his votes on any decisions made but not yet carried down by the court. In the event of ties, the decision of the lower court being appealed from is affirmed, but no precedent is set.

When the Court divides 4-4 the lower court opinion is affirmed without creating any Supreme Court precedent.

 

[Arthur]

Was he the first Catholic SCJ?

No, the first Catholic Supreme was appointed in 1836.

If you include Scalia (now deceased), six of the current 9 justices are Catholic: Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts (Chief Justice), Alito and Sotomayor. The remaining three are Jewish.

 

[The_Assimilator]

I'm pretty sure the fact that Scalia survived as long as he did, disproves the existence of God.

 

[Arthur]

I'm pretty sure the fact that Scalia survived as long as he did, disproves the existence of God.

Hehe. You have a pretty low bias confirmation threshold index.

 

[RanzB]

Hehe. You have a pretty low bias confirmation threshold index.

Still waiting for you to provide examples of that 80-year old 'tradition' Arthur

Of course if it's another lie, we'll all understand

 

[JStrike]

I have to say, I'm not mourning Justice Scalia's demise that heavily.
He has been an impediment to progress for almost as long as I can remember

 

[Ninja'd]

If you include Scalia (now deceased), six of the current 9 justices are Catholic: Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts (Chief Justice), Alito and Sotomayor. The remaining three are Jewish.

No! Bad Ninja'd! Stop thinking everything is a conspiracy.

 

[RanzB]

Its a quick google.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/0...l-nominate-supreme-court-successor-to-scalia/

Lol! Well, if Republican Chuck Grassley says it, it must be true... And if it's true, please cite examples where appointments were blocked/not nominated because it was an election year, I mean I'm sure that's a quick google too

 

[RanzB]

Just googled because I was interested. I see you're your just trolling arthur for some reason...

Oh. Asking for sources to back up dubious claims is trolling now..

Who knew.

Anyway comment in the bottom of the article mention "Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy his last year in office (an election year) and the Democratic Senate confirmed him."

Reagan nominated Kennedy in the year before that, the Senate just confirmed him in the election year.

 

[Sl8er]

Hope I'm not going to get into trouble for this...but thought it was funny!



EDIT: And wish it were true.

 

[yebocan]

Hope I'm not going to get into trouble for this...but thought it was funny!

View attachment 342026

 

[OrbitalDawn]

12 “memorable” quotes from Antonin Scalia

 

[The_Assimilator]

Reagan nominated Kennedy in the year before that, the Senate just confirmed him in the election year.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987692/14-supreme-court-confirmations

There were two since 1936:

Frank Murphy, 1940
Anthony Kennedy, 1988

 

[Hamish McPanji]

12 “memorable” quotes from Antonin Scalia

What jiggery pokery are you trying to push here?