Antonin Scalia
- Thread starter gunslingerdick
- Start date
R.I.P. I tend to believe he died from his 30-year battle with social progress.
I believe an autopsy is needed .His family has declined one and I wonder, because of the national importance of this giant of a man, that those wishes can be overruled??? We need more clarity that what we have now...too many holes in this story and it is feeding all kinds of conspiracies. Let us have a definitive cause of death.
You gotta love the irony of Republicans saying that when it comes to picking the successor for a "strict constructionist," the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says.
Psssh!
You people and your conspiracy theories. You know what's funny to me? Michael Savage is quoted as saying: “We need a Warren Commission-like federal investigation,” he said. “This is serious business.”
Yeah, a government-backed investigation has no choice but to be valid and objective. Who could ever possibly question something as airtight as one of those?
I don't believe he was pinched. But, if you believe he was, or could have been? Then, you need to reassess almost everything you understand about our government and it's history. If a Supreme Court Justice can be knocked-off, and it is perceived as a natural death going forward? Then just about every major event that has happened could have been orchestrated from within. I guess we pick-and-choose which ones we're comfortable with.
You people and your conspiracy theories. You know what's funny to me? Michael Savage is quoted as saying: “We need a Warren Commission-like federal investigation,” he said. “This is serious business.”
Yeah, a government-backed investigation has no choice but to be valid and objective. Who could ever possibly question something as airtight as one of those?
I don't believe he was pinched. But, if you believe he was, or could have been? Then, you need to reassess almost everything you understand about our government and it's history. If a Supreme Court Justice can be knocked-off, and it is perceived as a natural death going forward? Then just about every major event that has happened could have been orchestrated from within. I guess we pick-and-choose which ones we're comfortable with.
Yup, since it was Scalia dying at the end of Obama's presidency, we'll see Republicans trying to delay the appointment, and Democrats getting all up in arms over it.
If it were Ginsburg dying at the end of Bush's presidency, we would have seen Democrats trying to delay the appointment, and Republicans getting all up in arms over it.
The fact that either side gets so pissed about the other side doing exactly what they would do in that situation is the most comical part of the whole thing.
Not really. Most Democrats accept that the meaning of the Constitution can evolve as society evolves. This "living document" idea is the antithesis of Justice Scalia, who thought the Constitution was inflexible and should be interpreted strictly by the words it contains as they were meant 200+ years ago when they were written.
The irony is in trying to adapt the meaning of the Constitution specifically to try to appoint someone who won't adapt the meaning of the Constitution.
That's true.
The "meaning of the Constitution" is a pretty neat trick, however. Sorta like the Bible. Emphasis on "sort of."
I am scared shitless about who Obama will nominate. I don't think the average American knows how impactful the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is. The court could become decidedly liberal.
Just to add a little bit of levity to this thread....
Antonin Scalia is a really fun name to say.
Antonin Scalia is a really fun name to say.
I would imagine Obama's nomination would complete the hat trick of Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and XXXXXXXX.
From what I've read it seems like Obama will have a tough time getting that nomination through congress before he leaves office. However, if his puppet Hillary were to be elected, I assume she would end up nominating the same person he chooses.
A lot of people are predicting that, given the Republicans' threat to not even give a hearing to the nominee, the president will nominate a relatively moderate sitting judge who has had broad bipartisan support in the past. The goal would be to either replace Scalia with someone center-left or else make Republicans look unreasonable for refusing to hold a hearing for someone they had supported in the past.
If the Democrats win the election, though, I would expect the new president's nominee to be more liberal than whoever Obama would nominate.
I dunno what liberal or conservative is, or means, from day-to-day. It's never clear, so I stopped trying.
Can we agree, right now, that the Constitution is a living document? That, in order for it to apply to present-day standards and conditions, it will require interpretation to meet those standards and conditions?
Hillary was recently quoted as saying that she would consider nominating His Excellency, Barack Obama. So that might be two jobs in the last 10 years that Obama could get in which he wasn't at all qualified.
Now, I think she's a liar and was only saying that in an attempt to motivate black voters to get to the polls for her (even though she knows anything less than going Soul Man would not encourage the same turnout from blacks in this election).
Not true. He didn't believe the constitution was "inflexible". He believed the people had the ability to change laws by VOTING, not 9 people sitting in a room. Scalia believed in democracy.
You're splitting hairs. Scalia believed that the Constitution means today only what it meant when it was written. He has consistently voted against any implied rights or evolution of its meaning. Of course it can be changed by voting, but Scalia believed that its current contents are inflexible in their interpretation.
Republicans say they want to appoint someone just like him. But to do so, they're arguing that the president shouldn't nominate someone in his last year in office, even though the Constitution expressly allows him to do that.
Not splitting hairs. Scalia believed judges shouldn't steal the rights of the voters. No need for the people to vote if judges could create laws out of the blue.
The Republicans in the Senate are "advising" Mr Obama not to nominate anybody to fill that seat. The Senators are doing their job and abiding by the constitution. Mr Obama can nominate anybody he wants.They will never consider the person.
No different than when Mr Obama tried to filibuster Samuel Alito. Payback is a beech.
Last edited:
Wrong again. The Senate Republicans have said they won't even give a hearing to anyone that Obama nominates. That's not a filibuster; it's an outright refusal of their constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent.
If they want to give the nominee a hearing and then filibuster the vote, that's fine with me. But they're too chicken$#%& to do that. Instead, they're first urging the president not to exercise his constitutional right, and then they're saying if he does, they won't perform their constitutional obligation.
Why are they afraid of a hearing when they can filibuster the nominee?
The GOP senators are just following precendent set by a Democrat senate years ago.
If Obama wants a nominee to come to vote, then maybe he should find a person who wouldnt polarize The Hill. What are the odds he would do that?
So are you trying to say that the Constitution means one thing now, but it might mean something different in 50 years?
Wrong again. Refusal to hear anyone that Mr Obama nominates is "advice and consent".
How is attempting a filibuster different than not having a vote? The purpose of a filibuster is too deny a vote. Talk about splitting hairs.
The only chicken$#%&'s are the ones whining like a little baby. I didn't get my way, i'm going to throw a temper tantrum.
Of course Mr Schumer said Mr Bush had no right to select a person for the Supreme Court with 18 months to go. What has changed?
The President can exercise his constitutional rights, so can the Republicans.
A complete waste of time, no way 14 Republicans vote to end a filibuster.
Fair enough. But why limit it to one year before the end of a term? Whoever controls the Senate should just announce that they won't bring any Supreme Court nominees from the other party's president to a vote, period. The only way a justice gets confirmed is if the same party controls the White House and more than 60 seats in the Senate. Otherwise, the court will just continue to get smaller and smaller. If the Senate doesn't have to hold a hearing for a president in his last year, why do they ever have to hold one?
That's exactly what I'm saying. There is a very well established body of legal precedent that the Constitution, like other laws, should be interpreted in the context of the society that it governs. For instance, it doesn't authorize the creation of an Air Force because the drafters couldn't have conceived of such a thing, but no one doubts that it nonetheless grants that authority.
I realize Scalia believed differently, and I respect that view as well. I just disagree with it.
It has to. Do you think the Founders considered Freedom of Speech through Radio, TV and the Internet?
Don't get me wrong; Institutions like the FCC are not something I advocate for at all. Censorship is not free speech (radio and TV are censored by the FCC). But, conditions and circumstances, and even technology, create a necessity to reevaluate, or apply what is written into what we believe is the best and most accurate depending on what they are, or might be.
That's actually surprising coming from you.
So what in the Constitution should be interpreted differently in 2016 than in 1800?
What is already IN the Constitution isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about when new situations and variables come into our society that were not even remotely possible to conceive at the time. I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm just saying that with newer variables, situations and technologies, we have to interpret it as we think it applies. I'm also not saying that I'm someone that likes to stretch it. I don't think all of these departments and new government "programs" were correct uses of the document. But, others have seen differently. Nevertheless, the new situations force us to "reinterpret" the original as it applies to the new situation.
Mr Schumer didn't limit it to one year. He was for 18 months. Maybe you should ask him.
In the history of Supreme Court Nominees, 25 were nominated and were never voted on.
I'm not sure what new technology has to do with interpreting the constitution, however the founding fathers were smart enough to realize things change and that is why they put an amendment process in place. If they meant for the original language to evolve with the times then there would be no need for amendments.
Nothing in here says nominees weren't considered in a president's last year. If the Senate wants to hold a hearing and vote the nominee down, that's fine with me.
I'm not here to defend Chuck Schumer. And anyway, all of Bush's nominees got hearings and the opportunity for a vote. That's all anyone is asking for here.
I don't think this is right. This says that only 29 nominees total have ever not been confirmed and 12 were fully considered and voted down. It seems to say only 5 had no action taken on them. What the Republicans are proposing sets a dangerous precedent. They should be careful. They won't control the Senate forever.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
After Surviving Internal Threats, ACC Now Has a Men’s Basketball Problem- Latest: 90sWoollenGymRat
-
-
