Wrestling Forum banner

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Passes Away

5K views 108 replies 30 participants last post by  Nick Baker 
#1 ·
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/index.html

I find this kind of creepy because just a couple days ago I was watching Comedy Central and one of the "news anchors" was talking about a Supreme Court decision and they made a joke about how they will not be alive when it effects our grandchildren and then said heck they may not live through next season of Games of Thorns or even the credits. Now one HAS passed. Talk about bad timing....or good, depending on your view.
 
#3 ·
Well... I'm reminded of the Bill Maher line "death isn't always sad."

I won't go so far as to be happy, but I'm not really upset either.

Mainly my reaction to this is "well this next year in US politics is going to get even fucking crazier now." As if it wasn't enough with the mad bastards running in the election, now you've got a vacant Supreme Court seat that you just know Republicans in Congress are going to try and rip the fucking government apart and set it on fire to try and prevent Obama from filling before he leaves office.

Just goes to show. No matter how crazy things are, they can always get crazier.

Plus I'm kind of surprised it was Scalia who went first. I would have put money on Ginsberg, if I were an incredibly morbid betting man.
 
#11 · (Edited)
The GOP Senate is promising to obstruct for the next 11 months. Obama's term ends next January. Lame duck or not, he's still the President. It's ridiculous to hear some conservatives bluster about the constitution and gleefully advocate for compromising one branch of the government.

As for Scalia, he was a racist, homophobe, sexist and waded in xenophobia. I don't celebrate in his passing but I'm not brokenhearted.

EDIT:

 
#12 ·
Probably the last great mind the Supreme Court will ever have on it, and certainly the last with at least some conception of how the three branches of the federal government were supposed to function in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America, even if some of his rhetoric, as with certain cases involving blacks in academia, as already mentioned, was superciliously framed. At the same time many of his decisions were erudite and fascinating applications of natural law as per exceedingly rigorous and restrained Thomism, while others did read a bit unfortunately like political screeds. He at least understood the idea of having his will bound by the chains of the Constitution, as per the Jeffersonian maxim. Practically all of the other present Supreme Court Justices' decisions read like the inane posturing scribble of the power-hungry and the intellectually feeble, fitting their decisions to fit the societally revolutionary.

In any case, RIP.
 
#17 ·
Reality is that this makes this election of even more consequence. Obama has the right to offer a nomination, but it will not be approved. Whoever is the next President,shall have that honor. Judging by the demographics, I assume the Democrat shall win, but that is why there are elections. This election has the highest stakes in recent memory. Not only is it for the Executive and Judicial branches, but also the Senate. The House is out of reach.
 
#19 · (Edited)
Scalia was cool, my favorite of his opinions was:
"He opposed affirmative action and other policies that treated minorities as groups. " the Constitution does not have any citizen groupings now days, there is nothing in it that groups people into a caste


Sucks, this is one person that Obama hasn't earned the right to appoint. But luckily since we have a majority republican congress, they have the ability to block any appointees of Obama unless they agree with the appointed, and since they all got pissed off in 2014 when Obama was ruled by the Supreme Court he broke the law with 4 appointments, it's likely they may ignore him. There can be a temporary appointed though until the new President is elected and agrees or disagrees and can appoint the permanent one if Obama is blocked as a "lame duck".

Until 2017 the 114th Congress is:
Senate Majority: Republican Party
House Majority: Republican Party

There were few articles written in 2014 warning that if Republicans take the Senate (House doesn't count for Justices) then Obama could be screwed, due to Supreme Court already ruled one of Obama's appointments as illegal. Obama had been ruled by the Supreme Court in June of 2014 for breaking the law with 4 illegal appointments, his action was reversed and Supreme Court issued a stern warning and reminder about his appointment powers, so Republicans had threatened to block any future appointments back in 2014 when the president's approval was very very low and of course the Democrats lost both the house and the senate beginning that November as the nation was a bit pissed:


If Republicans take the Senate this November, there is a very real possibility that no one President Obama nominates to a Supreme Court vacancy, no matter what their record or qualifications, could be confirmed to the Court.

The situation where Obama broke the law as ruled by the US Supreme Court:

In the Federal government of the United States, either house of the Congress (the House of Representatives or the Senate) can hold a pro forma session at which no formal business is expected to be conducted. This is usually to fulfill the obligation under the Constitution "that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other."Pro forma sessions can also be used to prevent the President pocket-vetoing bills, or calling the Congress into special session.They have also been used to prevent presidents from making recess appointments.

In 2012 President Barack Obama attempted to make four appointments during a pro forma session, calling the practice of blocking recess appointments into question. However, on June 26, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the President had improperly used his presidential power to make these appointments stating that while the Senate was in recess punctuated by pro forma sessions the period of time between the sessions was not long enough to invoke such power.
His 4 appointments were given the boot.



Senate has also denied and grilled the fuck out of nominations.
This has happened in past such as in 1987 President appointed Robert Bork, he broke the record as longest confirmation hearing in the Senate: 30 hours of grilling by the Senate, at the end of the 30 hours Robert was denied from becoming a Justice.

They have to be damn sure cause once in, it's for life.

In a "perfect world" a good mix to avoid bias would be 3 republican, 3 democrat, 3 independent, those independent could be libertarian/green/constitution party's or just independent. But "Perfect" will never happen.

Supreme Court has the power to erase any presidential executive decision, and can erase laws enacted by congress. They are the U.S. pseudo-Monarchy in some ways, not elected, and once confirmed they are in for life. And they are protectors of the constitutional interpretation.
 
#37 · (Edited)
Does anyone in this generation read?

This is why folks start arguing and both sides are clueless.


Obama broke the law, he got a warning by Supreme Court, 4 of his appointees booted , Obama overstepped power of the presidency and got a mark against him so to speak. If a President does this again he can trigger instant impeachment proceedings. But Obama baked off and took his punishment.

Since Obama tried to use a pro forma loophole to spam 4 appointees at same time illegally he lost all credibility and dishonored the office by attempting to usurp powers he did not have. Therefore Republicans and couple Democrats vowed they would block any appointments as he's "lost the congress" confidence in appointments.

Read my first post. All of it. Or don't comment because I answered you question in "fine detail" including dates and situation and defining pro forma, a method required as house or senate cannot adjourn more than 3 days without the opposite house's consent. The Senate must vote majority for house to adjourn longer than 3 and house must vote majority to allow Senate to adjourn longer than 3. It's in the Constitution, legislative branch can't just break when they want. To get a small break but still meet the law, they use pro forma. But its kinda rare and not abused.

Anyhow read my first post.

Then look up Obama's legal reprimands, where he had to cancel plans and stop an executive decision after being warned if he signed it Supreme Court will erase it and record another illegal act.

He screwed up his reputation so bad in 2014 to send a huge message to Obama the Democrats in House and Senate were fired by the people and both houses immediately became Republican majority.

Last time that happened was Clinton was impeached in the House, but barely made it in Senate so he was censured by house. The US people had already fired Democrats in house placing the Republican in control. After Senate failed to impeach the Senate was swapped by citizens to Republican and the presidency swung back Republican.

It's not a party thing, its a "country moves too far right, people replace it all with left to get us to the middle of roadz if the country veers off to far left, people replace it with the right to steer us back into the road"

It's happened every time since Roosevelt.

But that's why Gerrymandering is bring used as tactic to stop people from doing that.


Anyhow go read my first post explaining why he hadn't earned, and US has swapped the government and governors parties except the president.

They may leave the Republican owned Senate and House as chains on a Democrat President, or they may give permission for Republican to swing us back to middle and dismantle liberal political correctness which had already begun with the Republican majority legislative branch.


They already won 1 huge final appeal in December by stopping online censorship of disturbing threats and sexual threats after the judges ruled and stated government has no authority over our thoughts and imagination no matter how vile.

Biggest win for free speech and big chunk of political correctness fell apart :p

Thanks to swapping congress.
 
#22 ·
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell tweet that: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice."

But they have. They elected a President in 2008 and re-elected him in 2012, and it's the President's job to nominate Supreme Court justices. He makes it sound like Obama somehow doesn't have Presidential authority to do that part of his job any more. There were elections, two of them, and he won them both. Until he leaves office in January 2017 he is the duly elected official in charge of nominating justices to vacant seats on the Supreme Court.

Not seeing how it'd be more democratic after the election than it would be now.

But I guess here we go with 11 months of political game-playing because of petty bullshit. God I love Congressional Republicans... /sarcasm.
 
#24 ·
Wow did I open a can of worms. And I only posted it because of the timing to the comment by either Trevor Noah or Larry Wilmore.
 
#40 ·
This isn't going to be a real debate about if he should appoint someone else or not.

People involved in this, including the presidential candidates don't approach the situation as:

A Supreme Court Justice has died. There will be an election in 9 months for the presidency where there will be a new president. Should the current president appoint a new Supreme Court Justice?

They instead base their view on the results they want. Republicans want a conservative judge to be appointed so they naturally want Obama to wait while Democrats want a liberal judge so they want him to do it right away. If the parties were in opposite positions there is no doubt in my mind that the arguments would have completely flipped the other way. For most people this isn't a question about what a president should do but it's a way to justify the results that they want.
 
#44 ·
A Supreme Court Justice has died. There will be an election in 9 months for the presidency where there will be a new president. Should the current president appoint a new Supreme Court Justice?
Someone educate me please (and I mean it not in a snarky way). But isn't the whole point of an independent judiciary that the President or ruling party should have absolutely no power at all to influence or make appointments.

How can a judiciary be independent if the appointments are being made by those in power ?
 
#41 · (Edited)
Obama has earned the right to nominate the next justice, the people who voted him in AGAIN gave him that right.

Also Obama can just appoint a recess appointment until a new justice is approved. Most justices get approved within 60 days, Obama still has 300 days in office.

He should be appointing a new justice. A year is way too long to wait.
 
#48 ·
The only sad thing is hell doesn't exist, because this chap would be Satans butt monkey. Total asshole.

I don't wish anyone dead, but don't expect me to feel sorry for them when they do go. Anyway, God gained an angel so what are you worried about.
 
#53 · (Edited)
Because that's what the Constitution says. Federal judges can get fired and they have but they usually have to commit some type of crime or do something else really bad. The Constitution says that they " shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." So they have to do something bad to lose the office.

As far as the reasoning goes I think it's because we want consistency on the court. The words of the Constitution don't change so you want to minimize changes to how it's interpreted. One thing that we don't want to Supreme Court to do is to rule one way, overrule their own precedent, and then override their precedent again.

If the terms were fixed the law would change every time there was a new term. Gay marriage would be legal for a few years, then banned, then legal, then banned. Yet the words that make it legal or illegal would always stay the same.
 
#56 ·
People don't have to agree with scalia but he was one of the few people who actually stood by the constitution.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top