Justice Antonin Scalia has died

[The Yak]

I'm fine. :tongue:

Far right wingers


You forgot the part about the UN.







Not at all. :nono:

I'm only ever quoted by people with whom I disagree.

 

[Johan]

RIP to him

You think he was principled ? think again

Now what's gonna happen ? 2 possibilities
1) Obama in a move to appease Republicans, picks a moderate conservative. Senate approves it. Supreme Court stays conservative.
2) Whoever Obama picks, Senate blocks it and the next President will have to pick someone. Then the election doesn't only concerns the executive branch of the Government but also the legal branch, making it the most importan USt election in decades.

Since 1) is highly improbable, let's look at what could happen otherwise.
- Rubio, Kasich, or Cruz will most probably pick a far right wing judge
- Bernie Sanders would pick a progressive judge
- Hillary could pick a moderate progressive, an independant or even, to appease conservatives, a moderate conservative.
- It is almost impossible to guess who Trump would pick. He could either picxk a hardcore conservative or a moderate liberal.

So, more than ever, Bernie 2016. It's the only way to be sure the country won't fall into an era of obscurantism, an american version of the dark age Europe experienced during the Middle Age, becoming a Christian version or Saudi Arabia or Iran

 

[D-rock]

While I think death is a harsh thing and wish him the best and redemption in the afterlife as I do for everybody, it has to be pointed out that Scalia might have been one of the most if not the most hypocritical Supreme Court justices ever, and definitely in our modern history.

He was really big on that textual origialism stuff...you know until it didn't suit him. Then he had no problem with that judicial activism. At least when liberal judges that he complained about do it they aren't being hypocritical about how they operate.

 

[Supafly]

I enjoyed this quote “The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement.

...

McConnell "speaking for the american people", now that is ballsy. I guess his sponsors haven't yet sent the memo which hardcore medieval lawman to pull for.

 

[Jagger69]

Hardly. "Paybacks are a bitch."

Aw, c'mon. Everyone deserves to rest in peace regardless of their earthly transgressions.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Aw, c'mon. Everyone deserves to rest in peace regardless of their earthly transgressions.

I applaud you for your compassion.
But I for one will remember him for being an ill tempered bully and for insulting the office he held for too long..
Been rooting for this for 10 years.

 

[Johan]

I enjoyed this quote “The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement.

From here http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...shift-supreme-court-balance.html?intcmp=hpbt1

He seems to forget the American people elected President Obama, and that a Supreme Court Justice has to be approved before being appointed. Both of these represent the American people having a voice.

When you are willing to keep a seat on the Supreme Court vacant for a year you have just run right past partisan politics, and gone straight to butt hurt.

Best case scenario : selective memory
Worst case scenario : Alzheimer

 

[xfire]

Scalia was a hardline conservative, really can't expect much compassion from the other side. So the conservatives have lost the Supreme Court, big deal, the only issues they really have anything to cry about are the typical boring social bullshit that they really need to get the fuck over anyway.

 

[D-rock]

I enjoyed this quote “The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement.

From here http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...shift-supreme-court-balance.html?intcmp=hpbt1

He seems to forget the American people elected President Obama, and that a Supreme Court Justice has to be approved before being appointed. Both of these represent the American people having a voice.

When you are willing to keep a seat on the Supreme Court vacant for a year you have just run right past partisan politics, and gone straight to butt hurt.

Here are some more McConnell quotes. It's hilarious considering what he just said. :1orglaugh

“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.” (States News Service, May 19, 2005)

"Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.' [...]Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history. Regretfully, that did not happen." [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]


"What we're talking about here is not the filibuster rule overall, but getting back to the practice of allowing judicial appointments for judge candidates who have a majority support in the Senate to have an up or down vote." [CBS News, The Osgood File, 4/25/05]


"...I don't want to get too technical here, but the point is, what Senator Frist is considering doing is not unprecedented. It was done by Senator Byrd when he was majority leader. What is unprecedented is the fact that the Senate, for the first time in 200 years, last Congress chose to filibuster judges for the purpose of defeating them. That had never been done before in the history of the Senate. That's what's new...What Senate Republicans are contemplating doing and what I think they should do is to get us back to the precedents that were established prior to the last Congress, in which judicial appointments were given an up-or-down - that is, a majority - vote." [Fox News Sunday, 3/27/05]


"Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate." [Los Angeles Times, "The Nation; Clock Ticks on Effort to Defuse Senate Battle," 5/23/05]

 

[BlkHawk]

Scalia was a hardline conservative, really can't expect much compassion from the other side. So the conservatives have lost the Supreme Court, big deal, the only issues they really have anything to cry about are the typical boring social bullshit that they really need to get the fuck over anyway.

I'd rep you if I could.

Here are some more McConnell quotes. It's hilarious considering what he just said. :1orglaugh

Once again I would rep you if I could. The butthurt is strong in McConnell.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I watched Rubio this morning peddle this argument that it's precedent that the president shouldn't appoint justices in his last year in office, that this has been the precedent for over 80 years. I'm not at all familiar with such precedent. First, it's unusual for a justice to die on the bench, Scalia was only the 3rd to die in the last 63 years. The whole argument makes no sense especially because you can't control when a justice will retire or die. We're just making up a new rule here folks

 

[sean miguel]

It's February 2008 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg has just croaked in her sleep. Harry Reid, the democrat senate majority leader, calls for President Bush to nominate a supreme court justice ASAP so as not to leave a vacancy.

Yeah, I thought so.

WWDD - What would democrats do?

Fuck Obama and what the democrats want. "Elections have consequences."

This will wait until next year, unless that turtle-looking-motherfucker mitch mcconnell pusses out.


Why couldn't it have been Roberts?

 

[Johan]

I watched Rubio this morning peddle this argument that it's precedent that the president shouldn't appoint justices in his last year in office, that this has been the precedent for over 80 years. I'm not at all familiar with such precedent. First, it's unusual for a justice to die on the bench, Scalia was only the 3rd to die in the last 63 years. The whole argument makes no sense especially because you can't control when a justice will retire or die. We're just making up a new rule here folks

Unprecendented situation call for new rules. But 'till the new rule is settled, we gotta deal with that unprecedented situation using older rules. Then only it will be time to create new rules to deal with such situations.

 

[D-rock]

I watched Rubio this morning peddle this argument that it's precedent that the president shouldn't appoint justices in his last year in office, that this has been the precedent for over 80 years. I'm not at all familiar with such precedent. First, it's unusual for a justice to die on the bench, Scalia was only the 3rd to die in the last 63 years. The whole argument makes no sense especially because you can't control when a justice will retire or die. We're just making up a new rule here folks

It's not even a president which makes it even worse. Kennedy became a justice in Reagan's last year in office, and there have been other election year nominations. It's like you said, they're just making stuff up.

 

[xfire]

Democrats would be bellyaching the same crybaby bullshit if a justice died in a Republicans last year in office. Republicans would say, "fuck you" and forge ahead. Democrats will do the same. If Republicans are successful in stalling an appointment they may end up regretting it, they're taking a huge gamble that a Republican will win in November, and that's certainly not a sure bet.

 

[John_8581]

The Court has got to have cases coming up in 2016 that need be addressed. Let's hope they don't become deadlocked at 4-4.

:wallet:


Ouch. That's a lot of money thrown away at lawyers to come back with a mistrial or a stay in a lower federal court.


The Ninth Circuit of Appeals (covering CA, AZ, WA, NV, OR, ID, MT, HI and AK) -- they're always a mess. :elaugh: and the Supreme Court is always bailing them out.

 

[xfire]

Ah-haha

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...action-by-recess-appointment-to-Supreme-Court

If Barack Obama works fast, he can bypass Mitch McConnell’s do-nothing threat and use a recess appointment to fill Antonin Scalia’s empty seat on the US Supreme Court. The Senate is in recess until February 22, which gives the President nine days to move.

A recess appointment to the Supreme Court is unusual, but not at all unprecedented: 12 justices have been appointed by recess appointment, out of 112 persons to sit on the court. The last time a recess appointment was used was by President Eisenhower in 1956, to fill a vacancy that came up just before the 1956 election. At that time, Eisenhower (a Republican) appointed William Brennan to the court, who was a Democrat.

This would certainly take the wind out of McConnell’s sails, and although the Senate could, theoretically, disconfirm a nominee, that would be unprecedented — and it’s possible that such a move might be able to be blocked by the minority Democrats in the Senate.

Move fast, Mr. President.

That would burn.

 

[knowone]

And tomorrow is a Natl Holiday what great timing!

 

[Johan]

Ah-haha

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...action-by-recess-appointment-to-Supreme-Court



That would burn.

He would never do that, he's too much of a pussy

 

[Jack Davenport]

I hope Zeebowlful gets cancer of the uterus and his bowels pour out of his pussy like Campbell's soup.

There will be no SCOTUS justices seated during the remainder of Obama's term.

This is one fight conservatives are united in. Fucking deal. Checks and balances fuck yeah!