Antonin Scalia: RIP

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.

Obama can nominate, but unlikely a vote will be allowed this term.

Our Presidents history, has been to do things that are as far to the ideological Left as can be.

Conservatives Quickly Refuse Any Obama Court Replacement After Antonin Scalia's Death

The longest Supreme court vacancy was over a year, the last year of Tyler's presidency

healyje posted
Scalia? Good riddance.

climbski2 posted
Wow this made a good day even better.
Always a good thing when evil dies. Good riddance to bad rubbish. He was always on my better dead list.

bergbryce posted
Good riddance.
Very few deaths make me happy but this is one of them.

Evolution quote by Scalia in his 1987 dissent:
"The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth.”

Wilbeer posted
Sorry if that hurt your feeling,Larry.

You people are full of hatred for someone who opposses your viewpoints?

Donald Trump will lose the election to POTUS and be given Supreme court position.

You people are full of hatred for someone who opposses your viewpoints?
You must really hate half of the country.

Here's my prediction. Trump wins the WH. Democrats win back the Senate.

Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his supporters, I wish to make clear that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy.

Scalia is wrong. “Creation science” has no educational value. The assumption that creationism constitutes a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is simply false. Religious myth and superstition have no place in the science classroom. Teaching children creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is a form of child abuse and should not be tolerated.
(H/T Daily Kos)
(Update: Several diligent readers have complained that the above quote taken from Scalia’s dissent is unfairly attributed to Scalia and taken out of context since Scalia prefaced the quoted remarks by claiming to be only paraphrasing the arguments being made in favor of teaching creationism. The readers’ complaints have merit, and the author wishes to apologizes for any confusion. However, the larger point still stands: Scalia was wrong to defend the teaching of creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution.)

From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the 'applesauce' and 'argle bargle'—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his 'energetic fervor,' 'astringent intellect,' 'peppery prose,' 'acumen,' and 'affability,' all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

"My colleague Nino Scalia was devoted to his family, friends, our Court, and our country. He left an indelible mark on our history. I will miss him and the dimming of his special light is a great loss for me. My thoughts are with Maureen, his children, and his grandchildren."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor

"Nino Scalia will go down in history as one of the most transformational Supreme Court Justices of our nation. His views on interpreting texts have changed the way all of us think and talk about the law. I admired Nino for his brilliance and erudition, his dedication and energy, and his peerless writing. And I treasured Nino’s friendship: I will always remember, and greatly miss, his warmth, charm, and generosity. Maureen and the whole Scalia family are in my thoughts and prayers."
Justice Elena Kagan

You have seen the private side of tenderness which all but the worst men have. As a king, it is the other side, the outer, that concerns us here.

Scalia was described as the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court's conservative wing.

So when do the conspiracy theories start?

Obama should not nominate anyone so the people can make their voice heard in the election

can the next president renominate that same person to the newly elected Senate, or would she be disqualified from consideration for this vacancy, since the previous Senate already rejected her?

No Popcorn.

And for all the folks who say that democrats are equally, if not, more obstructionist, explain this.

"There comes a point in the last year of the president, especially in their second term, where you stop nominating" both Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges.

— Marco Rubio on Sunday, February 14th, 2016 in comments on "Meet the Press"

"It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year," Cruz said. "There is a long tradition that you don't do this in an election year."

— Ted Cruz on Sunday, February 14th, 2016 in comments on "Meet the Press"

If you've ever believed that people can disagree passionately about politics and still respect and care for each other as friends, the friendship of Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a comfort and an inspiration.

He was the Supreme Court's most outspoken conservative; she is its most outspoken liberal. But their friendship became famous, not just because of its odd-couple unexpectedness but because their mutual respect and affection for each other was obviously genuine.

They and their families spent New Year's Eve together every year. They rode together on an elephant in India (Scalia joked that Ginsburg betrayed her feminism by sitting behind him), and Scalia watched Ginsburg go parasailing in the south of France ("She's so light, you would think she would never come down. I would not do that").

So it's no surprise that of all the tributes to Justice Scalia, who died Saturday of an apparent heart attack at the age of 79, Justice Ginsburg's is uniquely moving. It's a tribute to Scalia as an interlocutor, a fellow opera lover — including a reference to the opera Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of Operatic Proportions, which debuted in 2015 — and a "best buddy."


It's easy to mourn the lack of civility in contemporary American politics; politicians on both sides talk glowingly about the time when Ronald Reagan could invite Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill to the White House for a drink to work out a conflict. It's just as easy to say that civility is for people who don't have the courage of their convictions — that if people genuinely disagree about what is best for America, they shouldn't have to put that aside for the sake of small talk.

What makes Ginsburg's statement remarkable is that it shows how superficial both sides of the civility argument are.

The respect that Ginsburg's statement shows for Scalia's intellect — that she could trust him to point out the flaws in her arguments — also reveals a respect for her own, to know the difference between a genuine agreement of principle and an error that needed to be corrected. But more importantly, the statement shows that it's okay for people in politics to spend time cultivating other interests — like opera — and that those can be a genuine basis for friendship in their own right.

Arguably, that's easier for appointed judges than it is for elected officials. It's still rare. And it's still worth celebrating.

It's not just atypical in contemporary American politics for people to be both ideological adversaries and close personal friends. It's atypical for contemporary American political figures to even be close personal friends with each other. Justices Scalia and Ginsburg showed just how much everyone else was missing. That won't be as significant to Scalia's legacy as his jurisprudence, but maybe it should.

Scalia? Good riddance. He was one of the worst jurists ever with the exception of Thomas who is without a doubt one among the ranks of the worst of the worst to ever sit on that lofty bench.

Right Ken. If Obama nominates Srinivasan as part of a political strategy to demonstrate republican obstructionism and the Senate that previously confirmed him to a judgeship then rejects him, can Bernie or Hillary renominate him when the new President/Senate is seated?

Never speak ill of the dead.

White house calculus: which nominee imposes greatest cost on intransigent senators?

How about if he nominates a good legal mind, rather than a political hack of either persuasion?

If the GOP controls the Senate, they would look like fools trying to block a reasonable justice, already on the Bench, who had been serving effectively.

Some conservatives are also urging senators to resist Obama's nefarious attempts to "pack the court." Well, if Obama is a court packer by appointing three justices, including one in his final year, then so was Reagan.

Both Obama and the Senate are acting as provided in the Constitution. I find it amusing, though, how both sides forget how quickly they were making the opposite arguments. It simply shows how much expediency, rather than principle, determines contemporary politics.

John

John, would be interested in your thoughts on this?

I agree, Norton, that the 4-4 tie favors the left currently, because every case the SCOTUS is hearing this term is not before the court as a matter of right. Rather, they are before the court because a majority of the court agreed to hear the case (i.e. granted a writ of certiorari), or agreed to issue a stay of the challenged rule.

Conspiracy theories that Justice Antonin Scalia was murdered on Saturday are circling the internet.

The predominantly right-wing conspiracy theorists who believe foul play might have been involved point out that Scalia's cause of death has not been officially determined, as an autopsy was not ordered.

Some have noted that Scalia, who died at 79, was pronounced dead over the phone and was allegedly found later with a pillow over his head, while others point out that Scalia had declined a security detail for his weekend visit to the Cibolo Creek Ranch in Texas.

The theories first began to swirl after John Poindexter, who owns the ranch Scalia was staying at, said he found the jurist under a pillow, although he looked "as if he was taking a nap. "

"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bedclothes were unwrinkled," he told the San Antonio Express-News.

Scalia was alone at the time of his death because he had declined a security detail from US marshals, which provide security for Supreme Court justices.

GOP presidential front-runner and business mogul Donald Trump is among those who have fanned flames on the theory.

I find the comments about "following the party line" interesting, considering that Republican-appointed justices have broken ranks on 5-4 decisions, but justices appointed by Democrats have not, at least since Kennedy appointed Byron White.

At least legal giants like Scalia told the American people that Court was usurping their power, and tried to restrain it. That's why the libs hated him--the libs are basically statists who want to impose a top down model of control on us, the People (with them controlling the top of course).

Now if the People tried to make a law that was truly against the real Constitution (the one written down and enacted by the People, not the one invented by the libs), Scalia would find such a law to be unconstitutional and strike it down. That's what happened in the Citizens United decision, where the libs tried to take away our right to free speech, which is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution

That's what happened in the Citizens United decision, where the libs tried to take away our right to free speech

It sure is a good thing that Scalia got the version of the constitution that included all the footnotes so that he can stay 100% within the bounds of what was actually spelled out by the text.

I haven't actually looked at Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the SCOTUS case finding a constitutional right to sodomy.)

I think it's safe to say that from a Scalia point of view, there should be no right to sodomy under the Constitution because in fact sodomy was punishable by death at the time that Constitution (and any relevant amendments) were enacted.

Scalia fed a worm, so they must confirm

So where in the Constitution does it say that corporations should be protected by the Bill of Rights like free speech.

You can't have the Nazis, China or ISIS funding a candidate can you?
No, especially if they are undisclosed funds, which is legal now with the current laws.

And where in the Constitution does it say speech equals monetary contributions to politicians?

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

One of the most severe blows to citizen authority arose out of the 1886 Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of “corporate personhood,” thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.” This story was detailed in “The Theft of Human Rights,” a chapter in Thom Hartmann’s recommended book Unequal Protection.

From that point on, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, was used routinely to grant corporations constitutional “personhood.” Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise. Armed with these “rights,” corporations increased control over resources, jobs, commerce, politicians, even judges and the law.

If by original intent you mean the state of affairs that existed in 1788, then things break down quickly. Anyone in the original intent camp think the 2 amendment only applies to single-shot, smooth bore, muzzle loading muskets?