Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Black-it-out-Frog!

Stay Hard Justice Scalia

Recommended Posts

We will now see that even those disagreed with his hard right philosophy appreciated his seriousness about the constitution and his personality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of fans of his strict constructionist positions are about to offer a lot of very interpretist opinions about how long it should take to name his replacement ...

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always got a kick out of how Scalia and Ginsburg were such good friends. I'm sure the other Justices are heartbroken.

 

From everything I've ever heard, the Supremes are pretty much a circle your wagons, us against the world sort of group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already seeing the calls for Obama to defer the nomination or the Senate to vote no on principle. I'm sure they'd be saying the same thing if it were a sitting Republican President and a Democratic Senate (please turn on your sarcasm meter....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already seeing the calls for Obama to defer the nomination or the Senate to vote no on principle. I'm sure they'd be saying the same thing if it were a sitting Republican President and a Democratic Senate (please turn on your sarcasm meter....)

 

The longest gap in the history of the nation has been 125 days. To go over 300 would be quite unprecedented and probably not be a good example of "strict constructionism" nor of "original intent". Therefore, I doubt Scalia would have approved of such a move. But hypocrisy has never been limited to any one group.

 

I foresee a real

CbJVxBYUYAAhM1c.jpg

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect Obama to nominate a far left wing candidate, who he knows will not get confirmed, so that the Dems can score political points in an elections cycle by pointing fingers at the Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect Obama to nominate a far left wing candidate, who he knows will not get confirmed, so that the Dems can score political points in an elections cycle by pointing fingers at the Republicans.

I think you have it wrong for 2 reasons:

 

1. No matter who Obama nominates (Attilla the Hun???), the candidate will instantly be labeled as "far left" by certain quarters.

2. The reps in the Senate are quite capable of self destructing on their own with no help from Obama needed.

 

 

That said, as you kind of note, the  nuclear strategy that some rep Senators have already been proposing might well backfire. And to initiate it all Obama has to do is act like any normal president ever has in the history of the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually don't take the deaths of public figures hard, but this one stings. Been a fan since I was a old enough to remember. The man was obviously a brilliant man of the law.

The timing is a bit curious. Not going all conspiracy theorist. But yeah. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually don't take the deaths of public figures hard, but this one stings. Been a fan since I was a old enough to remember. The man was obviously a brilliant man of the law.

The timing is a bit curious. Not going all conspiracy theorist. But yeah. Interesting.

Yeah very sad and the timing is terrible. He may have been the last hope of maintaining our Constitutional Republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have it wrong for 2 reasons:

 

1. No matter who Obama nominates (Attilla the Hun???), the candidate will instantly be labeled as "far left" by certain quarters.

2. The reps in the Senate are quite capable of self destructing on their own with no help from Obama needed.

 

 

That said, as you kind of note, the  nuclear strategy that some rep Senators have already been proposing might well backfire. And to initiate it all Obama has to do is act like any normal president ever has in the history of the nation.

I disagree with the notion that he should not nominate, he should. The problem is that I do not see him nominating someone that will have a shot at passing through a Republican congress. Instead, I see him concerned more with political points and less with what is good for the country, which is par for the course. So now we run the real risk of a few SCOTUS 4-4 decisions on issues that will affect American lives for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the notion that he should not nominate, he should. The problem is that I do not see him nominating someone that will have a shot at passing through a Republican congress. Instead, I see him concerned more with political points and less with what is good for the country, which is par for the course. So now we run the real risk of a few SCOTUS 4-4 decisions on issues that will affect American lives for decades.

Agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have it wrong for 2 reasons:

1. No matter who Obama nominates (Attilla the Hun???), the candidate will instantly be labeled as "far left" by certain quarters.

2. The reps in the Senate are quite capable of self destructing on their own with no help from Obama needed.

That said, as you kind of note, the nuclear strategy that some rep Senators have already been proposing might well backfire. And to initiate it all Obama has to do is act like any normal president ever has in the history of the nation.

What do you think the chances of Obama nominating an originalist are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think the chances of Obama nominating an originalist are?

If you're asking what are the odds of him nominating a Scalia clone, none. But our constitutional republic survived a court packed for nearly half a century with FDR appointees. It can survive a slight majority of justices appointed by Democratic presidents ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're asking what are the odds of him nominating a Scalia clone, none. But our constitutional republic survived a court packed for nearly half a century with FDR appointees. It can survive a slight majority of justices appointed by Democratic presidents ...

You changed my question and provided your own answer.

One can be a political liberal and still be an originalist. It's just harder because one has to believe that the Constitution should be changed through amendments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You changed my question and provided your own answer.

One can be a political liberal and still be an originalist. It's just harder because one has to believe that the Constitution should be changed through amendments.

I'd argue that the focus on "original intent of the Founders" is a relatively recent interpretation of how the SCOTUS should operate. I can think of a whole lot of cases, on both sides of the political spectrum, where what the SCOTUS decided took into account how American society had changed more than what the Founders would have wanted a century or two before.

Citizens United was just as "interpretist" as Roe v. Wade. The Founders didn't have a clue what kind of money would be in the system and how it would be spent to shift policy. No one voted on a constitutional amendment to decide whether it was okay ...

And I was responding in part to this:

Yeah very sad and the timing is terrible. He may have been the last hope of maintaining our Constitutional Republic.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that the focus on "original intent of the Founders" is a relatively recent interpretation of how the SCOTUS should operate. I can think of a whole lot of cases, on both sides of the political spectrum, where what the SCOTUS decided took into account how American society had changed more than what the Founders would have wanted a century or two before.

Citizens United was just as "interpretist" as Roe v. Wade. The Founders didn't have a clue what kind of money would be in the system and how it would be spent to shift policy. No one voted on a constitutional amendment to decide whether it was okay ...

And I was responding in part to this:

If American society changes, then American voters can change the Constitution. America doesn't need 5 justices just making it up, no matter what their party affiliation is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If American society changes, then American voters can change the Constitution. America doesn't need 5 justices just making it up, no matter what their party affiliation is.

I don't disagree in principle, but I'm not sure it has worked that way in a long, long time ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that a Scalia clone is even out there, and Obama has no incentive to nominate one even if he or she exists.

Obama will likely fulfill his constitutional duty to nominate a replacement, and the Repub Senate is likely to reject whoever he nominates. Repeatedly.

We're going to have an 8-person SCOTUS for awhile. In the event of a tie, lower court rulings will be binding.

So yes, the election just got a lot more serious. (Trump would nominate, I don't know... Judge Judy?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...