2blu442

Just got a news flash, Supreme Court Justice Scalia passed away today at 79 years old. Whether you agreed with his decisions or not, Justice Scalia served the American people for many years. For that he should be remembered with honor.

RandyS

It's TRUE. Wow, now Obama can change the complexion of the Supreme Court from the dark side to the light side!!

m371961

If he gets a chance. I believe it will not be filled under this admin. The Dems changed the rules on appointed judicial positions. The senate will most likely be able to leave it untouched until the election. Makes this years voting much more important.
That said, this man stood for literal interpretation of the US constitution and the intention of its' writers.

RandyS

AND CITIZENS UNITED - The biggest FARCE in the history of the Supreme Court! The Rich will be buying elections until that gets overturned.

wr1970

All i know is this! TERM LIMIT. Not in favor of life time appointments.

2blu442

I'm sure people will have strong opinions about decisions he made, both for and against his decisions. But for years I've read how he and Justice Ginsburg have been close friends, even though they disagreed passionately over issues brought before them. On the news tonight I heard a story about how he took Justice Kagan to the range where they went target shooting. I would have never guessed he would build friendships with Justices that seemed to be on other ends of the spectrum. But that says something about who he was.

John

Gary's 2 442-S

Whether you agree with his rulings or not I think all justice should be given respect because the office deserves the respect. He was a dedicated public servant who believed what he believed.I think all offices should be term limited.

RandyS

X 10,000!! Lifetime politicians with their hands out to every big money donor has ruined our political system.

Tort Reform is the other big issue that needs to be addressed.

z11375ss

Yeah, lifetime appointments are a big mistake.

gs72

The emporer has already proven that anything he wants is just an exec. order away. If he wants to fill the spot he will most likely fill it.

Stevec

Hold on to your firearms!

m371961

Anyone that serves that long will have controversy. I don't agree with term limits in the judicial branch. The differences of judicial and legislative must be preserved. When the two disagree, the people and legislative branch have the opportunity to change the law.
I must use all my will to refrain from too much commenting here, this will go political fast.

wr1970

When i stated term limits.This is what i had in mind 15/16 years. 30 years is too much when you get judges with poor views. This is not a view that Justice Scalia was a good judge or a bad. JMHO. RIP Justice Scalia.

Diego

No, it says a lot about who we are.

navvet

Time can't move fast enough until the election...Bonito Obama can't select another

z11375ss

What? Sotomayor and Kagan weren't good appointees! One is a radical, the other is a lesbian. I don't see a problem here.

aliensatemybuick

A thread that could not possibly end up being about anything but politics (supposedly a forbidden subject), created by a site moderator no less.

wr1970

Boom!!!!LOL

jaunty75

The Constitution simply says that the President can nominate someone for a Supreme Court vacancy as soon as a vacancy occurs. He could nominate someone right this minute if he wanted to.

The Constitution also says that the Senate confirms the appointment. But no timetable is given. The Senate can take all the time it wants.

There IS a wrinkle at the moment, though. The Senate is currently in recess and is supposed to be until February 22. Technically, Obama could not only nominate someone right now, he could NAME someone to the Court as a recess appointment, and that person could serve until the end of 2017. This has happened before. Eisenhower appointed William Brennan to the Court as a recess appointment in 1956. Brennan was ultimately confirmed and served on the court until 1990.

Obama did say last night that he will submit a name in "due time," suggesting that he doesn't plan to make a nomination quickly.

This is in the news right now.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...ed-scalia.html

gs72

The constitution says that the emporer can't do all of the things he has accomplished with exec. Orders. The paper the constitution was written on must be getting real thin by now. I pray to God (wow... now I bring in religion) that this country can find its way back to the principles that founded it.

Diego

^ Constitutional scholar right here. We should hope that you're nominated for the SCOTUS.

jaunty75

Ain't happening.


President Obama to name Supreme Court nominee after Senate returns from break

http://fox13now.com/2016/02/14/presi...ns-from-break/

jaunty75

Obama has gone off the reservation in areas that are less-well spelled out in the Constitution, such as what it means "to faithfully execute the laws of the United States." In the area of the judiciary, the Constitution is very specific and very clear about how judges are replaced. There is no bypassing of the Senate's role in this situation, and no one would recognize as legitimate anyone about whom Obama simply said "I'm putting this guy on the court" or something similar.

RandyS

You would be wrong on this one Grasshopper........ he can make a Recess Appointment (which has been done before) as the Senate is on official Recess until Feb 23rd.

jaunty75

Yes, I pointed this out earlier. But the White House has put out a statement (which I also noted above) saying that he will not make a nomination until after the Senate returns, so the recess appointment idea has apparently been taken off the table.

Koda

Yeah, but he won't. He can't wait to **** up more of the country, so he's going for gold.

I got my money on Eric "Dick" Holder.

RandyS

Wana bet.........???

edzolz

How long before the conspiracy theorists get together about his death. Seems the Justice of The Peace did not order an autopsy to determine death.

jaunty75

Entirely possible, but the Senate would probably either just vote him down outright or simply not schedule a vote during this congressional term.

There is an interesting history on some of this. In 1960, the Senate, then under Democratic control, passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution stating that presidents should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court. They didn't like what Eisenhower had done.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415

Obama has already said he won't make a recess appointment, so this issue would seem to be off the table.

There's more on this here:

http://time.com/4224433/supreme-cour...ies-elections/


My guess is that Obama will make a nomination in the next few weeks and that Senate Republicans, unless it's someone they might actually find acceptable, which seems unlikely, will simply not schedule a vote during the remainder of Obama's term, the nomination will die, and the next president will make the nomination that gets voted on.

rustyroger

Advanced, sophisticated societies are no place for fundamentalists to be in positions of power.

Roger.

z11375ss

It's already started.

“How can the Marshal say, without a thorough post mortem, that he was not injected with an illegal substance that would simulate a heart attack…”

From here;https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ntonin-scalia/

wr1970

This thread should be Deleted!

allyolds68

Regardless of whether you believe in term limits the Justice's themselves have a responsibility to maintain a balanced court. Hanging on until they die is just selfish

m371961

Before I cannot control myself any longer and
post what I want to say.

wr1970

LOL go head no rules are being enforced!

MDchanic

I did not agree with every vote that Scalia made, but I did agree with many, and I do respect him as having been a man of principle, and a Justice who believed, as I do, that interpreting the Constitution as meaning what it meant when written (seemingly a simple concept) is the only honest way to interpret it.

Our Supreme Court has gotten away from the actual meaning of the Constitution that they are duty-bound to interpret, and Justice Scalia helped to keep them focused honestly on their task.

The Constitution includes a mechanism for amendment, and if it is the will of the nation that its rules be changed, then those changes should be enacted honestly, through amendment, rather than through the back door, by "reinterpretation."

Nothing political there.

- Eric

wr1970

Religion thread is next.

MDchanic

That'll be easy for me - I'll have nothing to say.

I am looking forward to the regional thread, though: North vs South, East vs West, Middle vs Coasts...

... And just for the Northeast, we could open up a sports thread: Yankees vs Red Sox.

Think maybe I'll just put an LS engine in my car...

- Eric

wr1970

Maine not sane!!I think i will put a ford in my car!Yankees suck!

m371961

MD, you covered it well on supreme court and Constitution. Said it very well. Scalia believed it was the basis of US law, and studied the writings of the framers at the time to understand what was behind what they wrote. I believe at times he did not totally agree with it but knew it was THE document that begat all other rules of law and not to be modified or legislated from the judicial branch of government. A man of great principle that stood up for what he believed.