Scalia dead at 79

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:33 pm

Let the political nastiness begin, since Obama is still in office. Republicans aren't going to sit back for this one.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:56 pm

It's disgusting how some people are salivating over the man's dead body before he's even cold.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 7:13 pm

Senate leader has said no replacement until new president elected.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 7:40 pm

I'm disgusting.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:58 pm

woodchip wrote:Senate leader has said no replacement until new president elected.

Oh the irony of the Senate majority leaders response. Scalia hasn't even reached his grave yet and he is probably rolling at one million RPM because of this bull★■◆●.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 9:40 pm

As much as I disagree with many of his decisions I always welcomed reading his dissents. However, I think his opinions, while valuable in speaking for a minority, were not quite on the pulse of the nation.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 9:51 pm

It’s a politician’s job to have their finger in the air, and feel the pulse of the nation…it’s a judges place to have their finger on the pulse of the law.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:05 am

Spidey wrote:It’s a judges place to have their finger on the pulse of the law.

The law serves the people and needs to be mutable. Adapt or die.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:25 am

Correct…and that is the job of law “makers” not the court.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:50 am

Spidey is correct

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:17 pm

Spidey wrote:Correct…and that is the job of law “makers” not the court.

Oversimplification. It's more complicated than that at the level of the Supreme Court.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:01 pm

The cases may be complicated, and the applicable law may be complicated, but the court must always rule on law, never public opinion, even at the highest level.

Of course a judge’s personal opinion affects the way that judge interprets any given law. So yea, there are plenty of complicated issues, but the underlying principle is simple.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:16 pm

Spidey wrote:The cases may be complicated, and the applicable law may be complicated, but the court must always rule on law, never public opinion, even at the highest level.

But that's not what actually happens. If that were so, then DC vs Parker would not have overturned US vs Heller. But you know, minutia...

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:26 am

Almost the entirety of law (the "State") is based on public opinion (will be referred to as "society" from now on).

Let's go waaay back, to the mid 1500's. Yeah, we're going that far back, to the days of King Henry VIII, who at one time decided that this new thing called 'law' should be held higher than himself, on par with God. Now, you may figure that a king should not allow something as petty as a little idea concocted by the the prosecutors rule himself, but that's what was done. And so, the prosecutors got together and asked what society wanted -- turning public opinion into english common law. Not killing another person because he did something that wasn't considered High Treason or Heresy was considered to be pretty uncouth. So there's society's opinion that was the groundwork for what got established as murder, with varying degrees.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:09 am

having just returned home, all I'd add to this thread is the following: Scalia was a great justice. I didn't agree with many of his rulings, but he was a man of some consistency, and capable of expounding his position intelligently. All who know him well(including Justice Ginsberg, who likely shares my aversion to his rulings and opinions) found him to be erudite, personable and kind. RIP, big guy.

That said, he might well be spinning at the extra-constitutional suggestion that we all just wait to have a 9 member SCOTUS because some folks don't agree with the duly elected President and wish him not to have the right to appoint his choice.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 2:13 pm

callmeslick wrote:That said, he might well be spinning at the extra-constitutional suggestion that we all just wait to have a 9 member SCOTUS because some folks don't agree with the duly elected President and wish him not to have the right to appoint his choice.

exactly. there is really no way that's going to happen.

Do they really think they can hold up each and every supreme court case just because they might not like the potential appointees? And if they're not held up, they've already been decided or deadlocked

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 3:29 pm

now, and this is actually creditable, Trump named two people he thinks will be suitable SCOTUS candidates. One, a woman, is known as a zealous supporter of 2nd amendment rights, but for very little else. The second, a fellow named Pryor, called Roe v Wade the worst decision in court history, and belittled the ruling by the SCOTUS in a death penalty case as 'irrelevant' or some such. OK, predictable right wing selections that should soothe most GOP voters, right? Au contraire, my friends....the South Carolina conservative attack machine is focused, solely, on a ruling Pryor made against a state judge in Alabama about display of the Ten Commandments in court. This, by their thinking, makes him a horrible judge, and Trump a closet liberal for daring to suggest his name. Wow, if parts of the GOP are THIS delusional and intolerant, there is no way that group gets together and about 4 SCOTUS judges will be selected by Hillary or Bernie.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 3:30 pm

The Republicans in the Senate may end up screwing themselves with their obstructionist attitudes about letting Obama fill Scalia's seat. They're starting to look like 2-year olds throwing a temper tantrum. Obama has already got several already vetted candidates and Republicans aren't even going to consider them. All I can say is to every Republican, be careful what you wish for, you may never get what you want. We just may elect either Hillary or Sanders as president instead and you'll be SOL.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... nell-obama

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 3:41 pm

Not to worry, Clinton is owned by corporate America, and Sanders probably couldn’t get anyone confirmed by either side.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 3:49 pm

on a lighter note:
http://www.theonion.com/article/obama-c ... :1:Default

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:12 am

Ferno wrote:
callmeslick wrote:That said, he might well be spinning at the extra-constitutional suggestion that we all just wait to have a 9 member SCOTUS because some folks don't agree with the duly elected President and wish him not to have the right to appoint his choice.
exactly. there is really no way that's going to happen.

Do they really think they can hold up each and every supreme court case just because they might not like the potential appointees? And if they're not held up, they've already been decided or deadlocked

The question is will the Senate have the political will to block Obama's nominee's for the next 8 months.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:22 am

callmeslick wrote:now, and this is actually creditable, Trump named two people he thinks will be suitable SCOTUS candidates. One, a woman, is known as a zealous supporter of 2nd amendment rights, but for very little else. The second, a fellow named Pryor, called Roe v Wade the worst decision in court history, and belittled the ruling by the SCOTUS in a death penalty case as 'irrelevant' or some such. OK, predictable right wing selections that should soothe most GOP voters, right? Au contraire, my friends....the South Carolina conservative attack machine is focused, solely, on a ruling Pryor made against a state judge in Alabama about display of the Ten Commandments in court. This, by their thinking, makes him a horrible judge, and Trump a closet liberal for daring to suggest his name. Wow, if parts of the GOP are THIS delusional and intolerant, there is no way that group gets together and about 4 SCOTUS judges will be selected by Hillary or Bernie.

You do know both Pryor and Sykes have been on the SCOTUS short list before and for Trump to mention them is just repeating republican orthodoxy.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:56 am

yes, I do.....that is why I was astounded at the conservative outrage over the Pryor pick, especially. Facebook is literally going nuts over the fact that Pryor is a 'liberal' selection.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 8:24 am

The machinations of both the left and the right is truly interesting to watch. I suspect if Jeb had mentioned them, there would be no hue and cry from the right.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:20 am

woodchip wrote:The question is will the Senate have the political will to block Obama's nominee's for the next 8 months.

So, the "Thurmond Rule" is only a legitimate rule that can be used by Republicans? McConnell is a BS hypocrite. Thank you John Oliver for digging up the exact same thing that happened when the situation was reversed, under then president, George W Bush.

http://news.yahoo.com/john-oliver-just- ... 00560.html

Mitch McConnell wrote:"Our democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called 'Thurmond Rule,' under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a presidential election year..." "This seeming obsession with this rule that doesn't exist is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are waiting to fill badly needed vacancies."

EDIT: Fascinating. The youtube video of John Oliver smacking down McConnell was pulled from the above site. Found a different version though.

[youtube]jPWHubdI8iQ[/youtube]

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:46 pm

Congressional hypocrisy…film at 11:00

Who does John thing he is speaking to, anybody over ten knows this is how the Congress behaves on a regular basis.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:36 pm

Spidey wrote:Congressional hypocrisy…film at 11:00

Who does John thing he is speaking to, anybody over ten knows this is how the Congress behaves on a regular basis.

So what else can we do but have comedians mock their blatant hypocrisy? Voting the bastards out doesn't seem to work.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 7:46 pm

Anyone else here think it'd be interesting to search each others' DBB and/or other public comments to find out whether they supported Schumer making the same comment about Bush nominees, about 18 months before Bush's term ended?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:49 pm

Schumer doesn't say "nobody." He says "no wingers." Not that our political parties won't almost always do the exact same thing as the other when positions are reversed. I think the thought that Obama shouldn't nominate someone because he only has a year left is absurd. It's just as absurd if it were President Romney. (and I'm sure there would be plenty of Dem's posturing like the GOP is now) Obama isn't a lame duck. There's no President in waiting.

I'd love for the GOP to drag out confirmation. It would do much to inject it as a campaign issue for Democrats spurring greater turnout. I think Republicans might be better off, ultimately, by confirming whatever moderate Obama serves up, taking it off the plate as an issue for Dem's to get riled up over during the elections, and try to get the Presidency so they can replace the liberal justices likely to retire soon.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:57 pm

Vander wrote:Schumer doesn't say "nobody." He says "no wingers."

He says "we should not confirm ANY BUSH NOMINEE" (emphasis his). He does go on to expand that he's worried about Bush nominating "wingers", but he's definitely taking the same sort of stance as McConnell.

Z.. · Post by **Z..** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:18 pm

Doesn't really matter what Schumer said because nothing happened in that year. You think, had Ginsberg died early in 08, that Bush would not have named someone? Or would've named a liberal? Are you crazy? Why does the GOP even begin to think that Obama shouldn't name someone? It's a duty afforded the duly elected president, which is twice for Obama, both times convincingly and without issue.

SCOTUS appointments are serious business, but it's appalling to see a group of nominees that all collectively think that the right to appoint that person should include their opinion. It doesn't. You're not the freaking president. The Democratic party has their share of dysfunction, but watching the trainwreck of the GOP is just plain sad.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:43 pm

I think Bush for sure would have named someone. And Senate dems would have tried to stall the nomination. And DBB left-leaners would have supported them, and DBB right-leaners would have supported Bush, using the exact same arguments that the other side is now using. So I'm just curious if there's anyone who's actually arguing out of principle rather than political opportunism -- anyone who will acknowledge that filibusters and stalling are legit tactics for either party to use, and that the circumstances here make compromise unlikely and probably a bad option for both parties, but Obama could potentially raise the stakes by nominating a well-qualified centrist and making Republicans choose between alienating their hard-core base or the center, and Republicans could potentially raise the stakes even higher by fast-tracking a centrist who Dems don't really want to support because they think they can get a more left-leaning justice during the next administration.

It's interesting political theater, to say the least. But I'm not sure there's any value to be gotten out of a conversation when both sides are predictably arguing the opposite of how they argued with Bush's lower-court nominations.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:40 am

Lothar wrote:he's definitely taking the same sort of stance as McConnell.

Disagree. McConnell is basically saying "the people" should have a say in the next justice, as if "the people" had not already elected a president. Schumer, on the other hand, is specifically critiquing previous confirmations to make the point that the actions by the justices did not match up with their confirmations. (they were more wingers than they led on) One might even consider the "extraordinary circumstances" Schumer suggests would be Bush nominating a moderate!

That being said, I would be shocked if a justice is confirmed before the election.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:35 am

for you Constitutionalists out there, the concept that the 'people' would be allowed anywhere near picking a SCOTUS justice is absurd.The people elect Presidents(well, they pick electors, who are supposedly kind of independant), not judges.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:25 am

Yes, we know how its done.

See, this is what I mean by Republican political ineptitude, they should have kept their mouths shut and simply went thru the process, using delay tactics that can be considered a normal selective process. (or at least seem like one)

A wink and a nod, with a discussion behind closed doors, then coming out with a statement like…”We are confident the president will make a good choice…blah blah blah…”

Then simply drag the process out as long as they can.

But I must say, I personally support the president’s right to choose a replacement, and believe any qualified selection should get approval.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:10 am

agree, Spidey, it was a dumb move when one of the coming topics for the election will be Obstructionism .

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:34 pm

Well the Repub. had to say something to look like they were anti Obama, lord knows they been sucking up to him (no repeal of obama care, budget that made even hard core libs smile). Maybe with Trump showing the way, the Repub. leadership is finally realizing the voters that swept them into office now don't like them very much. Too little too late I say.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:50 pm

woodchip wrote:Well the Repub. had to say something to look like they were anti Obama, lord knows they been sucking up to him (no repeal of obama care, budget that made even hard core libs smile). Maybe with Trump showing the way, the Repub. leadership is finally realizing the voters that swept them into office now don't like them very much. Too little too late I say.

so, to paraphrase, you are suggesting that to appease the Trump wing, the elected GOP members of Congress collectively decided to do something stupid?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:13 pm

Not reading very well again. I never said anything about the "Trump Wing". I was in fact refering to all those Republicans that voted to put and keep the GOP in power via the Senate and the House. You forget some of these are the ones supporting Cruz also. So far you are underestimating the raw dislike of party insiders by the electorate...which is why you see Hillary getting knocked down and Trump/Cruz at the top of their respective parties.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:58 pm

woodchip wrote:Well the Repub. had to say something to look like they were anti Obama, lord knows they been sucking up to him (no repeal of obama care, budget that made even hard core libs smile). Maybe with Trump showing the way, the Repub. leadership is finally realizing the voters that swept them into office now don't like them very much. Too little too late I say.

Since when have the Repubs sucked up to Obama? They helped write Obamacare for crying out loud. They've either had a change of heart since they now want it repealed, or they were happy with it at the time of passage because they intentionally loaded up Obamacare with time bombs, hoping it would self-implode before it became an election issue. Since Trump seems to think that repealing Obamcare is the solution, why doesn't he come up with something better and tell us about his grand plan before he thinks he's going to get elected? If his plan was better, which I seriously doubt, It might even help him.