Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

RIP.

One more thing for the Senate and President to butt heads over. Not to in any way reduce the sadness of anyone's death, but this guy was nominated by Reagan. Whether they be liberal or conservative, there are aspects of our form of government that would perplex someone unfamiliar with it. Giving people, typically old fogeys until their death or inability to think straight anymore, great power to shape the law in our country is one of them.
 
Last edited:
Man. Just when I thought there couldn't be more at stake.

RIP for a good man who believed in the Constitution.
 
Rest in Peace! Now our fearless leader gets to make another mistake!
 
Obama is speaking about this right now, he will not wait for the next President. I'm sure he has a name in mind right now.
 
An Obama nomination right now is the best thing for us little Americans. In order for him to appoint someone acceptable this person will have to be moderate enough to pass a republican controlled senate. And, too much grandstanding by the republicans on this could cost them senate seats leading to someone too far left under the next guy (possibly Obama himself if the Dems win it all).

An Obama nominee is quite possibly a win win for the people these clowns all claim to represent. After all, I t is the job of the president to appoint and the senate to confirm the SCOTUS period. Would anyone who suggests that the president should wait and the senate should stall explain to me where in the constitution it states that in the case of an election year the POTUS should hold out for the next guy to do the job. You know, just in case "my" team wins.

The constitution, while fluid, is not a document of convenience to be held high when it suits your needs and ignored when it doesn't. All of these people have taken an oath to uphold the constitution if they refuse this duty they should themselves be impeached, censured, or removed from office.
 
hank4elk said:
...didn't he say corperations are people....
Click to expand...

Yep, Heller was good, but Citizens United was bad. The worst of all, though, was Bush v. Gore. All legal scholars know that was BS.

I put Scalia in with Stein, Kissinger, Buckley and others of that ilk: Intelligence and gravitas, but not much wisdom or judgement and more often wrong than right.

Now, putting on my tin-foil hat, I hope there's an independent autopsy. I guess no one saw this coming and he was physically fit. This will throw the R's into such a get-out-the-vote tizzy it may be hard for the D's to overcome. Their brand is crisis.

That said, I know the pain of personal loss and feel for his loved ones. I did not know him but I hear he was an amiable and cordial man. All the best to his remainder.
 
Big Sky Dreamin said:
An Obama nomination right now is the best thing for us little Americans. In order for him to appoint someone acceptable this person will have to be moderate enough to pass a republican controlled senate. And, too much grandstanding by the republicans on this could cost them senate seats leading to someone too far left under the next guy (possibly Obama himself if the Dems win it all).

An Obama nominee is quite possibly a win win for the people these clowns all claim to represent. After all, I t is the job of the president to appoint and the senate to confirm the SCOTUS period. Would anyone who suggests that the president should wait and the senate should stall explain to me where in the constitution it states that in the case of an election year the POTUS should hold out for the next guy to do the job. You know, just in case "my" team wins.

The constitution, while fluid, is not a document of convenience to be held high when it suits your needs and ignored when it doesn't. All of these people have taken an oath to uphold the constitution if they refuse this duty they should themselves be impeached, censured, or removed from office.
Click to expand...

There was a time when the Senate only rejected a nominee to Federal position (judge, ambassador, blah blah) if there was a very serious lack of credentials. Political affiliation was not a factor nor was conservative vs. liberal vs. moderate. The litmus test was qualifications were suitable for the role.

That cozy relationship blew up when LBJ was trying to get Associate Justice Abe Fortas (liberal) confirmed for promotion to Chief Justice. The Senate (conservative) riled up and for the first time requested a nominee to appear in person for questioning.

Since then, several nominees have failed to successfully navigate from nominee to Justice.
 
LopeHunter said:
There was a time when the Senate only rejected a nominee to Federal position (judge, ambassador, blah blah) if there was a very serious lack of credentials. Political affiliation was not a factor nor was conservative vs. liberal vs. moderate. The litmus test was qualifications were suitable for the role.

That cozy relationship blew up when LBJ was trying to get Associate Justice Abe Fortas (liberal) confirmed for promotion to Chief Justice. The Senate (conservative) riled up and for the first time requested a nominee to appear in person for questioning.

Since then, several nominees have failed to successfully navigate from nominee to Justice.
Click to expand...

I knew the first paragraph, but not the second. Thanks for sharing. It's funny this whole thing started over a move from Associate Justice to Chief Justice since the Associate Justice is already on the Court. There may be some docket stuff the Chief controls, but gee, it's not worth tossing your first paragraph into the dumpster. :rolleyes: I wonder what LBJ was thinking? I also didn't know the President had that move. I thought the Supremes dealt with the Chief assignment in-house. Learn something new every day. Again, thanks for sharing.
 
I was no lover of many of his legal theories but he was a good writer. Here's a funny story- when he spoke in Bozeman in 2010 (?) my family eagerly attended. Pretty neat opportunity. However my one year old daughter made a noise not long into the talk and he said "my son is a priest. Which means that he must minister to crying babies and other distractions. However, I do not, so please remove the baby." I left with our daughter and my wife stayed to listen. And consequently have the distinction of having been thrown out of the hall by the U.S. Supreme Court's most virulent proponent of originalism. Instead I sat in the hall and read her a story from my pocket constitution. RIP Nino Scalia
 
Nunyacreek said:
I was no lover of many of his legal theories but he was a good writer. Here's a funny story- when he spoke in Bozeman in 2010 (?) my family eagerly attended. Pretty neat opportunity. However my one year old daughter made a noise not long into the talk and he said "my son is a priest. Which means that he must minister to crying babies and other distractions. However, I do not, so please remove the baby." I left with our daughter and my wife stayed to listen. And consequently have the distinction of having been thrown out of the hall by the U.S. Supreme Court's most virulent proponent of originalism. Instead I sat in the hall and read her a story from my pocket constitution. RIP Nino Scalia
Click to expand...

I'm glad the seat has been vacated.

Justice Scalia Should Resign Seat On Supreme Court After Blatant Racist Comments In Court!
December 14, 2015 by Mark
The ignorance of the conservative movement is on full display. We hear about how much they “love” the Constitution, yet they are very willing to throw out that document anytime it gets in their way. They love to talk about “religious liberty” yet they want to shut down the Mosques in our country.

They love to talk about their “immigrant” upbringing, yet they want to deny immigration to every group except European Christians. Yes, their ignorance is on full display. Only problem is that their ignorance is based in racism.

That was made evident by a Supreme Court Justice just last week. Here is a little background on this issue. What has been described as a mediocre student in the State of Texas is suing the University of Texas because she couldn’t get into the university of her dreams.

But, in full fashion, she isn’t claiming that her grades kept her out of the University of Texas, no, she is claiming that Affirmative Action is keeping her out of the university.

The University of Texas has an admission policy that automatically accepts the top 10% of Texas High School Students. It will then use other factors in helping to determine who gets in. Yes, one of those factors is race. That is the point of contention in this case.

It went before the Supreme Court last week, and things got interesting at the very least. One of the Justices who really hates Affirmative Action pointed out his “concerns” during opening arguments.

Justice Scalia said:

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school, where they do well.”

He cited a brief that, he said, “pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools” where they do not feel they’re being pushed in classes “that are too fast for them.”

He then made things even worse. Scalia also said he questioned the premise that the university “should admit as many blacks as possible…. Maybe it ought to have fewer.”

That “brief” Scalia is citing may have been the so-called mismatch theory, which contends some minority students are harmed if they are admitted to a college or law school when their test scores are considerably below their classmates. But even proponents of this theory, which remains highly controversial and much disputed, do not argue that black students in general do not do well at top universities.

Several Civil Rights lawyers were there to hear the arguments. They sat in stunned silence during Scalia’s remarks.m to make this statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Desk Pop
Hawaii Supreme Court 2A Ruling
Replies
10
Views
654
HONEYBADGER
H
B
Bianchi v Brown (Frosh) Fourth Circuit AWB Case, SCOTUS Appeal Filed
Replies
1
Views
209
bucdoego
B
belshawelk
Oregon gets something correct
Replies
6
Views
641
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
EKYHunter
  • Locked
Supreme Court Decision
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
5K
Big Fin
Big Fin
Dave N
Going to be a lot of boating accidents!
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
howl
H

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,224
Messages
1,951,600
Members
35,085
Latest member
dwaller4449

Share this page

Back
Top