Supreme Court Justice Scalia Dies

a reply to: DBCowboy


Reading the responses, predictable as they are, I think this fight will reflect the same split that exists in the general population. Extreme. unyielding and it will carry over to the next presidency.

It may become THE focal issue in the presidential debates and sway the outcome.



My belief is the same percentiles that voted a majority for the Republicans in Congress in 2012 and a Republican majority in both houses in 2014, not mention a massive majority at the state level, will endorse any blocking action by the Republicans as they obviously have in the past.

It plays into both camps as less focus will be put on other issues.

The Presidential election is about to increase in intensity.

a reply to: Sremmos80

It is not the fault of the country or the president that this comes during his 'lame duck' status, how about we just ask congress to do their job?

Actually the country is, and Obama is responsible for his lame duck status.

BY popular vote people got tired of Obama doing whatever the hell he wanted.

Voted the right in to power to block him.

a reply to: Sremmos80

ted cruz is the leader of the senate judciary comittee i think that means hes incharge of approving the new nominations(w the rest of senate) but do you see some one running for president giving obama a pick when it would be cruzes pick if he were to win (god help us all) the next election for president? www.vox.com...

Ted Cruz ✔ @tedcruz Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement.

so the guy apparently at the tip of the spear for approving apointments is running for president and i see ted holding off in the hopes that he can appoint it on his terms as president.again not a ted cruz fan just looking at it from his point of view i dont see him giving this up . and on another question would he have to recuse him self from this decision? or would he as some one running for president be able to use his position to deny an appointment in hopes he could do it him self?

www.slate.com...

Senator Mitch McConnell 47 minutes ago WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Saturday on the passing of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: "Today our country lost an unwavering champion of a timeless document that unites each of us as Americans. Justice Scalia's fidelity to the Constitution was rivaled only by the love of his family: his wife Maureen his nine children, and his many grandchildren. Through the sheer force of his intellect and his legendary wit, this giant of American jurisprudence almost singlehandedly revived an approach to constitutional interpretation that prioritized the text and original meaning of the Constitution. Elaine and I send our deepest condolences to the entire Scalia family. “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.”

a reply to: IAMTAT

While I do have sympathy for his family, I will NOT miss his presence on the court.

Regardless of the reason for their vacancy, I will NOT mourn the loss of any justice who voted to give us the Citizens United decision.

All I can say is, "Good Riddance."

a reply to: neo96

Totally missed the point, I was talking about the timing of his death.

We shouldn't put a crucial part of our system on hold because we are in a pissing contest.

a reply to: Sremmos80

The timing of Scalia's death is suspect at best a machination at worst, and all the smackdowns the current Scotus has been giving Obama.

Now a 'fortuitous' turn of events Obama gets to change the equation.

a reply to: nwtrucker

This does add an element of permanence to everything, doesn't it.

I don't have faith in Obama doing the right thing, and yet, I don't have any faith that congress will do the right thing either.

... and now I remember why I post here so often in support of "the left" and against the hypocrites on "the right" that claim to love the Constitution, hate partisan politics, but then spit on the Constitution every time their wingnut agenda is threatened.

Constituion of the United States - Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The Constitution is clear. Appointment of Supreme Court judges is one of the express powers of the Presidency.

Those of you who are against our President doing so, or who support efforts by any means necessary to stall and forego his power to do so by the Senate, are making clear that you wish to subvert the Constitution based on your own partisan beliefs.

a reply to: neo96

It really isn't all that suspect, I imagine his job was stressful, and he wasn't exactly a spring chicken and we hardly know his daily habits that would affect his health. Like eating, conditions ect.

But still missing the point I am making entirely.
Why do we need to hold the nation hostage because those unqualified, by your own words, people in DC want to turn this into a political issue?

a reply to: Gryphon66



Never get's old.

The GOP conservative fanatics won’t let Obama pick the next county dog catcher let alone the next Supreme Court justice.

This is going to be a bitter dispute.

A Constitutional crises without a Supreme Court majority in the middle of a decisive presidential election.

a reply to: Gryphon66

. and now I remember why I post here so often in support of "the left" and against the hypocrites on "the right" that claim to love the Constitution, hate partisan politics, but then spit on the Constitution every time their wingnut agenda is threatened.

So why are you making stuff up?

No one in this thread said Obama didn't have the power.

We are just expressing our displeasure at who his choice will be.

Obama just announced HE WILL NOMINATE SOMEONE.

According to CNN

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nwtrucker

This does add an element of permanence to everything, doesn't it.

I don't have faith in Obama doing the right thing, and yet, I don't have any faith that congress will do the right thing either.

For the first time, I am actually scared. I think in one fail swoop, we just lost our country. Without a balance in the Supreme Court, we have nothing.

a reply to: Gryphon66

yeah but didn't you notice that line with permission and consent from senate......he cant just appoint who he wants with out a vote he would need to convert 4 republicans to vote with him for confirmation(like happined with the last one he got in) and biden could act as tie breaker,or he could get 5 or more to agree with him but it still requires the senate to approve it

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States

from your blurb note the consent and advice portion

originally posted by: Kitana

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: nwtrucker

This does add an element of permanence to everything, doesn't it.

I don't have faith in Obama doing the right thing, and yet, I don't have any faith that congress will do the right thing either.

For the first time, I am actually scared. I think in one fail swoop, we just lost our country. Without a balance in the Supreme Court, we have nothing.

I think you can relax. We never had a balance, it was an illusion.

The only difference now?

Politicians are beginning to stop pretending that they care about the Constitution or rule of law.

Eric Holder for the block.

originally posted by: dawnstar
this might be of interest to some....

www.scotusblog.com...

in the event that the justices can't achieve a majority decision one way or the other, the decision of the lower court will stand.

Good news for the 9th circus court of appeals.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

He would get minus 50 votes

a reply to: Kitana

What was the balance before hand?