Scalia has passed away

[QMany]

I think the position should be filled before election. It's the job of the President to do this and he should.

It is his job to nominate, but the Senate confirms. Obama will certainly nominate someone (soon, I would think), which will put the Senate (GOP) in a tough position.

[StPaulHusker]

 

I think the position should be filled before election. It's the job of the President to do this and he should.

It is his job to nominate, but the Senate confirms. Obama will certainly nominate someone (soon, I would think), which will put the Senate (GOP) in a tough position.

 

You're correct. That's what I meant. But it's still his job to get someone that is confirmation worthy.

[QMany]

I think he'll nominate someone moderate. Sri Srinivasan would be tough for the Senate to filibuster after McConnell, Rubio, Cruz and all confirmed him 97-0. I've seen Loretta Lynch's name thrown around too.

[VectorVictor]

 

I think the position should be filled before election. It's the job of the President to do this and he should.

It is his job to nominate, but the Senate confirms. Obama will certainly nominate someone (soon, I would think), which will put the Senate (GOP) in a tough position.

 

 

Not if they're in recess, like they are officially through February 22nd. Unless Mitch wants to call everyone back ASAP and try to get a quorum (not likely unless something catastrophic happened) to start again, Obama could make a recess appointment tomorrow, and it's perfectly legal and has precedent from both parties.

 

And just like recess appointments for Supreme Court vacancies, final presidential year nominations are not unheard of (Reagan had one in '88, though it would have been approved in '87 had he not tried to nominate Bork first...)

 

Frankly, either way, the GOP is boned in this manner--if they do sit on their hands, they're going to lose a lot of the cases they were hoping to win at the Supreme Court level because of a potential 4-4 tie. That, and if Obama appoints a Latino or Asian candidate (the top two names I've heard are of Latino or Asian heritage) and the GOP throws a tantrum and blocks them, they're shooting themselves in the foot come November. If they make the 2016 election a referendum on the Supreme Court, that will mobilize both parties, not just the GOP.

 

Frankly, I'd be more impressed with the GOP if they would just chalk this one up to s****y luck, work with Obama, and get someone approved. That's their only way to save face for the 2016 elections in this whole thing IMO--anything else either leaves a bad taste or will backfire on them.

[TonyStalloni]

 

 

 

 

 

Rip. A man with values.

Yup. Prejudiced, bigoted values.

 

Many if not most civilized Americans will at least wait for the body to be cold before the vitriol begins. But it's a free country so continue on.

 

 

What the hell are you even talking about? I didn't wish him to be dead and I'm not rejoicing in his death, but that doesn't mean I can't talk about what his beliefs were. That in no way makes me uncivilized unless you just don't understand what that word means.

 

I'm pretty sure I understand what the word civilized means. You could have said you didn't agree with his decisions on (civil rights, abortion, gay marriage, etc) but you immediately jump to the standard accusation of "he was bigoted and prejudiced" when the original comment was only meant to be a compliment to a man he respected. There can be polite discourse.

 

 

 

It's not uncivilized to not want people to rewrite history about someone because they have died. That is why I questioned whether you know what the word meant. You misapplied it.

 

We'll have to disagree here. You're obviously the smartest person in any room you are in.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rip. A man with values.

Yup. Prejudiced, bigoted values.

Many if not most civilized Americans will at least wait for the body to be cold before the vitriol begins. But it's a free country so continue on.

What the hell are you even talking about? I didn't wish him to be dead and I'm not rejoicing in his death, but that doesn't mean I can't talk about what his beliefs were. That in no way makes me uncivilized unless you just don't understand what that word means.

I'm pretty sure I understand what the word civilized means. You could have said you didn't agree with his decisions on (civil rights, abortion, gay marriage, etc) but you immediately jump to the standard accusation of "he was bigoted and prejudiced" when the original comment was only meant to be a compliment to a man he respected. There can be polite discourse.

 

It's not uncivilized to not want people to rewrite history about someone because they have died. That is why I questioned whether you know what the word meant. You misapplied it.

We'll have to disagree here. You're obviously the smartest person in any room you are in.

Nah. I just think you're ridiculous for calling me uncivil. Death doesn't change who someone was in life. Here are some examples of non civility in this context:

 

Good riddance

Good, now we can get someone who's not an a-hole to replace him

He wasn't worth the air he breathed

 

Etc.

[knapplc]

I always find claims of bigotry dubious, merely from the issue that many of those claiming bigotry, by definition, are bigots themselves.

 

I find people celebrating his death (and yes that is happening, 30 seconds on twitter) or comparing the "harm he did to America" to people like Hitler laughable. Scalia got some things right, and some things wrong. The partisanship of politics has become so extreme over over the last 2 decades, that compromise has become a bad word. I find the pure hate and vitriol that people have for those who don't align with their wordview disgusting, and embarrassing.

 

I'm curious to see if the position is filled before the election, because if not, a nasty fight is only going to get worse. I don't know who I trust to pick a new SCJ, the current president, or the dice roll of who comes next. Either way, I hope they're worried about protecting citizens, not corporations and the government.

 

 

I used the word bigot, for good reason. I am not a bigot, and I find the bolded line an odd attempt at deflection. Let's not rewrite the history of Antonin Scalia.

 

These were Scalia's words in reference to an Affirmative Action case last December:

 

"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well," Scalia said, according to the transcript. "One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas."

 

"They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them," Scalia said. "I'm just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some -- you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks, admitted to lesser schools, turns out to be less."

 

He's saying Blacks are less able to be successful at a school like the University of Texas, so let's not try to keep it desegregated. Painting "Blacks" with a broad brush is the essence of bigotry. All Blacks are not the same person, all would not benefit from slower-track schools, and the fact that some Black scientists came from such schools does not mean no Blacks should go to UT, or that we should, as a society, protect their right to attend UT.

 

Here are Scalia's words pertaining to homosexuality:

 

States continue to prosecute all sorts of crimes by adults “in matters pertaining to sex”: prostitution, adult incest, adultery, obscenity, and child pornography

 

 

He's equating homosexuality with prostitution, incest, adultery, obscenity and most reprehensibly, child pornography, when it is related to none of those things. For a sitting Supreme Court Justice to not only harbor such thoughts but to act upon such thoughts is terrible and terrifying, and there is no place for such bigotry in our nation's highest court.

 

 

Here are Scalia's words pertaining to women:

 

You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.

 

 

He's saying the Supreme Court should not be in the business of protecting women's rights because, by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, it does not expressly prohibit discrimination based on one being female. It's an antiquated thought process better suited to 1811 than 2011. Scalia famously believed the Constitution should be interpreted as is, not as an evolving document intended to meet the needs of today's society. He ignores, because of his privilege, that we do not exist in a largely agrarian society today as we did when the Constitution was written. As our country changes, our laws need to change and adapt, and the Constitution must keep up. If it doesn't, broad swaths of our society stand to lose basic rights, those rights granted to "all men" who are "created equal," according to the Declaration of Independence.

 

 

Here are Scalia's words pertaining to the dismemberment of the Voter Rights Act:

 

I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

 

 

Because of rampant discrimination against minorities, the Voter Rights Act forced some states (mostly in the South) to seek approval of the US DOJ before making changes to their voting practices. In 2013 the Supreme Court dissolved those requirements, and Scalia - in his own words! - stated that removal of such protections were simply getting rid of entitlements. Not one month after this ruling, those states most egregious in voter disenfranchisement in the 1960s began dismantling those very protections, making it more difficult for minorities to vote. This was not some myopic mistake on the part of the Conservatives on the Supreme Court. Scalia in particular is not an idiot, and knew exactly what would happen when these protections were removed.

 

 

 

A "bigot" is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. Scalia, based on his own words while acting as a Supreme Court Justice, was a bigot.

 

Let's not try to whitewash what the man was. It is not a sin to call him a bigot. It is certainly no greater sin than his enacted bigotry.

[huKSer]

I think the position should be filled before election. It's the job of the President to do this and he should.

 

What would be interesting if Obama nominates Hillary.

[knapplc]

 

I think the position should be filled before election. It's the job of the President to do this and he should.

 

What would be interesting if Obama nominates Hillary.

 

 

While she's not qualified in the slightest for a SJC position, I'd have to strongly weigh where she'd do the least damage. I think she's going to win the presidency this year, but she'd likely do far less damage as a Justice.

 

Of course, if he did (which he wouldn't) she'd just decline the nomination. It's not like she'd be force to take it.

 

But what an interesting thought.

[QMany]

 

I used the word bigot, for good reason. I am not a bigot, and I find the bolded line an odd attempt at deflection. Let's not rewrite the history of Antonin Scalia.

 

"[H]ey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws."

 

 

Since all Americans should trust the disproportionately rich, white, straight males in Congress...

[Whistlebritches]

A couple years ago there were some changes in regards to recess appointments of Supreme Court justices. Here's a somewhat interesting and fairly short article about it.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/

[Saunders]

A "bigot" is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. Scalia, based on his own words while acting as a Supreme Court Justice, was a bigot.

FYI, I wasn't singling you out, and I didn't quote anyone for that particular reason. The word "bigot" has taken on a new life the last 5-10 years, in that arguments regarding politics become a race to pull the bigot card. It has become a meme (Bigot's Law) akin to Godwin's law, and is simply a race to the bottom. Ironically, it's become a new buzzword by the same types of people who are proponents of things such as "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" who don't want to be challenged on their world view.

[knapplc]

Despite that, Scalia was a bigot. Hence the concern over use of the word was misplaced.

[Saunders]

You're welcome to that opinion of my observation.

[BigRedBuster]

I think the position should be filled before election. It's the job of the President to do this and he should.

Something dawned on me while listening to some "Republicans" talking about this. They seemed to think they need to wait till after the election so they don't have to deal with an Obama nominee (which they already have decided is going to be horrible and destroy everything we love about America).

 

These people fully believe the Republicans are going to keep the majority in Congress.

 

I'm not totally convinced of that. With only 23% of Americans identifying themselves as Republicans, I haven't seen any predictions yet, however, I wouldn't be too confident in that at this point in time.