US Politics: Scalia Dead at 79

[Iskaral Pust]

I agree that it helps Clinton over Sanders.

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Lokisnow,

So, we are giving up on nominating eminint legal minds and going straight to nominating partisians for partisanship sake?  Geeze, without Robert's vote the ACA would be dead.

The supreme court has been the most partisan institution in Washington my entire life.

 

Whether democrat or republican, one must appoint a reliable partisan to a partisan position. 

 

If one advocates that society ought to ignore partisanship in supreme court appointments, said person is either: 

A) hopelessly naive and/or ignorant of the reality of the position of supreme court justice

or

B ) trying to deceive their opponents with the hope of persuading their opponents into comitting a profound error

[all swedes are racist]

So this may be a dumb question, but how many of the class 3 senate seats up for election have any hope of changing party hands? I mean, even republicans block or filibuster any appointee until after the election, could democrats possibly flip say NH, OH, IL, WI or even FL? 

ETA: guess getting those first four (and if they don't lose fucking Nevada or something) assumes a good bet they win the WH, so FL or whatever could be unecessary

[DireWolfSpirit]

Interestingly, quite a few articles over the question- Can a President nominate himself for appointment to the SCOTUS?

Near as I've noticed, he/she can indeed.

Yes, He Can — Nominate Himself to the Supreme Court?

Above the Law › 2010/02 › barack-oba...

Feb 19, 2010 - Law Prof Says President Could Nominate Himself [ABA Journal] Jeffrey Rosen: Barack Obama Could ...

Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama? - Washington Post

Washington Post › Opinions

Feb 21, 2010 - A photograph with the essay showing President Obama talking to Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy, was credited incorrectly. ... They are also the qualities that make him well suited for another steady job on the federal payroll: Barack Obama, Supreme Court justice.

Can a President Nominate Himself (or Herself) to the Supreme Court ...

Democratic Underground › ...

Dec 1, 2013 - 15 posts - ‎8 authors

In theory, a President could nominate Vladimir Putin to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, one would ...

Can a US President nominate him/herself for the US Supreme ...

Quora › Can-a-U-S-President-nominate-h...

...could be one such barrier, that a President who nominates himself to be a Justice would not .... U.S. Supreme Court.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, DireWolfSpirit said:

Interestingly, quite a few articles over the question- Can a President nominate himself for appointment to the SCOTUS?

Near as I've noticed, he/she can indeed.

Yes, He Can — Nominate Himself to the Supreme Court?

Above the Law › 2010/02 › barack-oba...

Feb 19, 2010 - Law Prof Says President Could Nominate Himself [ABA Journal] Jeffrey Rosen: Barack Obama Could ...

Supreme Court Justice Barack Obama? - Washington Post

Washington Post › Opinions

Feb 21, 2010 - A photograph with the essay showing President Obama talking to Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy, was credited incorrectly. ... They are also the qualities that make him well suited for another steady job on the federal payroll: Barack Obama, Supreme Court justice.

Can a President Nominate Himself (or Herself) to the Supreme Court ...

Democratic Underground › ...

Dec 1, 2013 - 15 posts - ‎8 authors

In theory, a President could nominate Vladimir Putin to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, one would ...

Can a US President nominate him/herself for the US Supreme ...

Quora › Can-a-U-S-President-nominate-h...

...could be one such barrier, that a President who nominates himself to be a Justice would not .... U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes, because it would be hillarious. 

The GOP is raging over Obama, and they are so cheerful to get finally rid of him after the election. So the prospect of Obama serving likesay 30 years or more on the supreme court is pretty funny.

I am not that super educated in US history, but didn't become President Taft a Judge on the Supreme court later in his life?

The Democrats probably would not nominate him, unless he wants to. Because they will want him to campaign for them in the foreseeable future. And openly campaigning for a party would seem an odd thing to do for judge on the supreme court.

[GrimTuesday]

Just now, Notone said:

Yes, because it would be hillarious. 

The GOP is raging over Obama, and they are so cheerful to get finally rid of him after the election. So the prospect of Obama serving likesay 30 years or more on the supreme court is pretty funny.

I am not that super educated in US history, but didn't become President Taft a Judge on the Supreme court later in his life?

The Democrats probably would not nominate him, unless he wants to. Because they will want him to campaign for them in the foreseeable future. And openly campaigning for a party would seem an odd thing to do for judge on the supreme court.

 

Yeah, being a Supreme Court Justice was basically Taft's dream job. Some people have said it was Taft's wife, along with Teddy who made him run for president. Taft actually hated being President, and gained a bunch of weight during his time in office because he was so stressed and unhappy, and once he was a justice he lost a bunch of weight and was way happier.

 

I couldn't imagine the shitstorm we would have to endure with Obama being nominated for Supreme Court.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lokisnow,

By your logic Bush screwed up in nominating Roberts based upon his ACA opinion.  Do you really want to nominate solely based upon the vehamance of the person's partisanship?  That's a terribly way to select a Justice.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Yes, Obama could nominate himself. He'd have to resign the Presidency on being sworn in, so you'd end up with President Joe Biden for a few months.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, GrimTuesday said:

 

Yeah, being a Supreme Court Justice was basically Taft's dream job. Some people have said it was Taft's wife, along with Teddy who made him run for president. Taft actually hated being President, and gained a bunch of weight during his time in office because he was so stressed and unhappy, and once he was a justice he lost a bunch of weight and was way happier.

 

I couldn't imagine the shitstorm we would have to endure with Obama being nominated for Supreme Court.

Well, I guess, I couldn't stop laughing. And didn't Obama teach constitutional law in Chicago for a while? Professor is a bit too much, but lecturer seems an adequate describtion of what he actually did. So it is really not totally unconceivable that he would do that.

And while you are scared of the shitstorm, I would pretty much enjoy the prospect of Palin, Beck, Cruz and basically the entire Fox News network going on a complete meltdown. But like I said, my guess is, the Democrats would prefer to keep Obama as parade horse for campaigns. 

[lokisnow]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

But Bork was replaced with Kennedy, who is a much more liberal justice. All the Senate needs to do is demand somebody conservative enough. By the way, McConnell has already made his position on the matter clear (the emphasis is mine):

 

that's disinginuous of mcconnell, the people had a say in 2012 of who they wanted to nominate supreme court justices. Mcconnell is rather mistaken if he thinks the constitution says that the president only has appointment powers for three years and one month each term. If republicans refuse to confirm, win the election, and nominate someone to the court, they don't come out of comittee for a vote until early March 2017 at best, and don't get confirmed until early April 2017, so a 14 month gap, and most of the next terms of supreme court cases will be without the possibility of a conservative majority.  Additionally, if the republicans force an unprecedented 14 month gap on the next justice appointment, democrats would be well within their rights to filibuster any nominations for at least 14 months in retaliation. 

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Lokisnow,

By your logic Bush screwed up in nominating Roberts based upon his ACA opinion.  Do you really want to nominate solely based upon the vehamance of the person's partisanship?  That's a terribly way to select a Justice.

Roberts was a reliable partisan in every respect going into his appointment. he didn't vote party line in ACA but that was arguably because he's been extremely successful on advancing nonstop conservative jurisprudence successes for the 99% of the time that the media does not pay any attention to the supreme court. He's been an extremely successful justice overall, and it's arguable that the ACA opinion was done to provide further cover for all the sneaky and thorough conservative attacks on our country he is rubberstamping through his court.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I'd be tickled in Pres. Obama nominated himself.

[GrimTuesday]

Just now, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Yes, Obama could nominate himself. He'd have to resign the Presidency on being sworn in, so you'd end up with President Joe Biden for a few months.

President Joe Biden would be magical, gotta love Crazy Uncle Joe.

1 minute ago, Notone said:

Well, I guess, I couldn't stop laughing. And didn't Obama teach constitutional law in Chicago for a while? Professor is a bit too much, but lecturer seems an adequate describtion of what he actually did. So it is really not totally unconceivable that he would do that.

And while you are scared of the shitstorm, I would pretty much enjoy the prospect of Palin, Beck, Cruz and basically the entire Fox News network going on a complete meltdown. But like I said, my guess is, the Democrats would prefer to keep Obama as parade horse for campaigns. 

 

I'm not scared of the shitstorm, I just know I'll end up with a massive headache because I know I wouldn't be able to stop paying attention to the stupidity.

Obama certainly does have a better use than sitting on the Supreme Court. There are plenty of bright liberal minds who would make excellent Justices, but none of those carry the clout that Obama does.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

Additionally, if the republicans force an unprecedented 14 month gap on the next justice appointment, democrats would be well within their rights to filibuster any nominations for at least 14 months in retaliation. 

That'd be nice, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, Democrats don't play that way. It would also be fun to see Harry Reid threaten to filibuster everything that comes through the Senate until McConnell accepts the nomination, but I doubt that would work. The Republicans don't want government to work anyway, so they are probably fine closing down the Senate. 

[GrimTuesday]

27 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

That'd be nice, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, Democrats don't play that way. It would also be fun to see Harry Reid threaten to filibuster everything that comes through the Senate until McConnell accepts the nomination, but I doubt that would work. The Republicans don't want government to work anyway, so they are probably fine closing down the Senate. 

 

Reminds me of a quote by P.J. O'Rourke, “The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.”

[Rockroi]

Scalia was a giant on the court and will go down along with Holmes, Cordozo, Harland and Marshall as one of the most powerful Associate justices of all time.  His decisions were well thought out, incredibly intelligent and always always hard to argue against.  While you could disagree with him, you always had to knowledge that his position was always backed up.  

As a liberal, I agreed with Scalia sparingly on the decisions he is known best for- trying to uphold anti-sodomy laws, his anti-choice dissents and his stand against gay marriage and affirmative action.  

However, Scalia also voted to uphold flag burning as protected speech(Texas v. Johnson); he wrote the decision to avoid censoring video games (Brown v. EMA); he wrote a withering dissent against establishing a DNA registry (Maryland v. King); he ruled against the police using thermo-imaging devices without a warrant (Kyllo v. US); he wrote that police could not abuse the "knocker rule" and go onto a suspect's property without a warrant (Florida v. Jardines); he ruled against traffic stops without reasonable suspicion (Rodriguez v. US); and that warrant-less searches were "per se unreasonable" (Arizona v. Grant); he upheld the accused's right to confront his accusers even if they were merely evidence gatherers (Crawford v. Washington; Melendez-Diaz v. Mass, a truly landmark case that said drug tests were not self-authenticating). He destroyed unfair sentences (Blakkely). 

Yes, his homophobia was a blotch on him; a relic of 1970s thinking in a 1980s universe; and no, he never did women any favors, especially on abortion. 

But on several bedrock principals that we would all have to admit were liberal in their tone- rights of the accused, censorship, rights of the incarcerated, Scalia was surprisingly enlightened. 

 

In deciding the fate of the Independent Counsel Act; Scalia was the only dissenter.  After the Bill Clinton Fiasco years later… everyone would probably have agreed that Scalia had been right.  Scalia wrote: "Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf."

Say what youy will about Scalia, but he was a giant.  And unlike others who will try to trick you and play jurisprudence slight-of-hand, with Antonin Scalia you always knew who he was and what he was and that, at all times, he was a wolf who came at you as a wolf... 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/antonin-scalia-dead_us_56bfa5f7e4b0b40245c6f0d9?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

 

 Holy shit, that came out of left field. I hadn't even heard he was having health issues.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Rockroi said:

Scalia was a giant on the court and will go down along with Holmes, Cordozo, Harland and Marshall as one of the most powerful Associate justices of all time.  His decisions were well thought out, incredibly intelligent and always always hard to argue against.  While you could disagree with him, you always had to knowledge that his position was always backed up.  

As a liberal, I agreed with Scalia sparingly on the decisions he is known best for- trying to uphold anti-sodomy laws, his anti-choice dissents and his stand against gay marriage and affirmative action.  

However, Scalia also voted to uphold flag burning as protected speech(Texas v. Johnson); he wrote the decision to avoid censoring video games (Brown v. EMA); he wrote a withering dissent against establishing a DNA registry (Maryland v. King); he ruled against the police using thermo-imaging devices without a warrant (Kyllo v. US); he wrote that police could not abuse the "knocker rule" and go onto a suspect's property without a warrant (Florida v. Jardines); he ruled against traffic stops without reasonable suspicion (Rodriguez v. US); and that warrant-less searches were "per se unreasonable" (Arizona v. Grant); he upheld the accused's right to confront his accusers even if they were merely evidence gatherers (Crawford v. Washington; Melendez-Diaz v. Mass, a truly landmark case that said drug tests were not self-authenticating). He destroyed unfair sentences (Blakkely). 

Yes, his homophobia was a blotch on him; a relic of 1970s thinking in a 1980s universe; and no, he never did women any favors, especially on abortion. 

But on several bedrock principals that we would all have to admit were liberal in their tone- rights of the accused, censorship, rights of the incarcerated, Scalia was surprisingly enlightened. 

 

In deciding the fate of the Independent Counsel Act; Scalia was the only dissenter.  After the Bill Clinton Fiasco years later… everyone would probably have agreed that Scalia had been right.  Scalia wrote: "Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf."

Say what youy will about Scalia, but he was a giant.  And unlike others who will try to trick you and play jurisprudence slight-of-hand, with Antonin Scalia you always knew who he was and what he was and that, at all times, he was a wolf who came at you as a wolf... 

Scalia was a man who would disregard his own previous decisions when it let him indulge his prejudice. Fuck the man.

[Spring Bass]

Good riddance. I'm not going to pretend I'm sorry to see him dead and/or gone from the Supreme Court, although his family has my condolences. 

In any case, this is going to make things interesting. Expect frantic partisan efforts to step up to try and use this for the elections, which favor Democrats in the Senate and for the White House. If Democrats win both, then there's a good chance they'll not only be able to appoint a replacement for Scalia (shifting the Court to a progressive direction), but maybe also having power of appointment when Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kennedy retire or die (although the Senate elections in 2018 aren't nearly as promising). Do that, and Roe is safe for another generation, major conservative victories might be set back, and god willing we'll finally have some Supreme Court pushback on the seemingly never-ending expansion of mandatory arbitration's erosion of Americans' legal rights. 

In the mean-time, this is good for public sector unions, bad for women in the 5th Circuit Court's jurisdiction (unless Kennedy joins the more liberal four justices), still very bad for affirmative action, and good for the environment. With 4-4 Court splits, it usually reverts down to the lower court's decisions. 

[lokisnow]

Scalia was a giant on the court and will go down along with Holmes, Cordozo, Harland and Marshall as one of the most powerful Associate justices of all time.  His decisions were well thought out, incredibly intelligent and always always hard to argue against.  While you could disagree with him, you always had to knowledge that his position was always backed up.  

As a liberal, I agreed with Scalia sparingly on the decisions he is known best for- trying to uphold anti-sodomy laws, his anti-choice dissents and his stand against gay marriage and affirmative action.  

However, Scalia also voted to uphold flag burning as protected speech(Texas v. Johnson); he wrote the decision to avoid censoring video games (Brown v. EMA); he wrote a withering dissent against establishing a DNA registry (Maryland v. King); he ruled against the police using thermo-imaging devices without a warrant (Kyllo v. US); he wrote that police could not abuse the "knocker rule" and go onto a suspect's property without a warrant (Florida v. Jardines); he ruled against traffic stops without reasonable suspicion (Rodriguez v. US); and that warrant-less searches were "per se unreasonable" (Arizona v. Grant); he upheld the accused's right to confront his accusers even if they were merely evidence gatherers (Crawford v. Washington; Melendez-Diaz v. Mass, a truly landmark case that said drug tests were not self-authenticating). He destroyed unfair sentences (Blakkely). 

Yes, his homophobia was a blotch on him; a relic of 1970s thinking in a 1980s universe; and no, he never did women any favors, especially on abortion. 

But on several bedrock principals that we would all have to admit were liberal in their tone- rights of the accused, censorship, rights of the incarcerated, Scalia was surprisingly enlightened. 

 

In deciding the fate of the Independent Counsel Act; Scalia was the only dissenter.  After the Bill Clinton Fiasco years later… everyone would probably have agreed that Scalia had been right.  Scalia wrote: "Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf."

Say what youy will about Scalia, but he was a giant.  And unlike others who will try to trick you and play jurisprudence slight-of-hand, with Antonin Scalia you always knew who he was and what he was and that, at all times, he was a wolf who came at you as a wolf... 

Scalia was a man who would disregard his own previous decisions when it let him indulge his prejudice. Fuck the man.

But shryke he wrote "funny" lines sometimes, which obviously means he's consistent, so this can't be true.

Scalia was drinking buddies with Rumsfeld and Cheney on nixons profoundly corrupt staff, they knew he was a reliable partisan and proceeded to groom him rather lasciviously for the court. Amazing how patronage works. When the time was right, they plopped him onto the bench, all according to plan. patronage complete,Scalia was loyal to his benefactors ever since.

If Clinton is elected she'll inevitably pick Sri for the seat, I'm rather looking forward to warren borking him for being a closet conservative.

[Crazydog7]

And already the usual suspects lead by old Mitch are lining up saying Obama can't nominate a justice for the court in his last year in office.  I mean sure Saint Regan did it.....but that was completely different.  For all of their fetishizing of the Constitution I don't think anyone in the GOP has actually read the document.  The people deserve a choice in the nominee?  Are these guys going to step aside and say "have at it" in the event of a Clinton or Sanders presidency? Somehow I doubt it.