View Full Version : Scalia is DEAD!
This could not have happened at a worse time....
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php
2018commo
02-13-2016, 16:11
Oh no...
Rest in Peace, Your Honor.
CAARNG 68W
02-13-2016, 16:17
Oh no, oh no, oh no. I may have to end up praying harder than Obama doesn't get a worthy pick....
Divemaster
02-13-2016, 16:19
And the libs are high-fiving each other while Obama is doing the cabbage patch in the Oval Office shouting, "Hey, it wasn't one from our side!"
Roguish Lawyer
02-13-2016, 16:36
So anyone who votes for Trump is now a fucking traitor.
Oldrotorhead
02-13-2016, 16:40
Why RL?
I would think that since Trump has a sister that is a Federal Judge and Liberal as hell would be one reason.
I would think that since Trump has a sister that is a Federal Judge and Liberal as hell would be one reason.
His sister was named a federal judge by President Ronald Reagan in 1983
Prayers out to the family
Roguish Lawyer
02-13-2016, 18:49
Why RL?
Maybe "traitor" is a little harsh, but Trump is not going to appoint people like Scalia if he gets elected.
Maybe "traitor" is a little harsh, but Trump is not going to appoint people like Scalia if he gets elected.
I see your concern, we could get another quack like the last two. We could get Obama, Holder or some other radical.
Team Sergeant
02-13-2016, 19:26
Maybe "traitor" is a little harsh, but Trump is not going to appoint people like Scalia if he gets elected.
So, we had a Kenyan, didn't work out that well, now you want to put in a Canadian in office? For what? So he can continue obamas work saying "sorry" to the world?
I'll Vote Trump, at least he's 100% American. :munchin
Maybe "traitor" is a little harsh, but Trump is not going to appoint people like Scalia if he gets elected.
No one is. I don't any judges out there like Scalia. May he rest in peace.
Wait ... WHAT ?!?!?!
Cruz, Rubio, McConnell insist that new president fill Scalia seat on Supreme Court
GREENVILLE, S.C. – GOP presidential contenders argued for the Senate to run out the clock on President Barack Obama, depriving him the chance to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death today.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed. :eek: :eek:
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” McConnell said in a statement.
Nearly a quarter of Obama’s second term remains – just over 11 months — and Obama reportedly planned to shrug off his adversaries advice and announce tonight that he will, in fact, nominate someone to fill the seat.
Democrats argued that for the Senate to block such a nominee would violate its duty.
But with news of Scalia’s death less than an hour old, Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio quickly asserted that the next president, not Obama, fill the job.
“We owe it to him, and the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement,” Cruz tweeted.
Said Rubio: “The next president must nominate a justice who will continue Justice Scalia’s unwavering belief in the founding principles that we hold dear.”
It wasn’t exactly clear if they were calling on Obama to refrain from naming a new justice, or on the Senate to block any nominee.
In reality, Obama would have a hard time getting a nominee confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate. The implication from Cruz and Rubio — and McConnell — seemed to be that he shouldn’t even bother to try.
The stance raises a question for a would-be president: At what point in a president’s four-year term does there come a tipping point after which nominees should be ignored and rejected?
Eleven months is a long cooling off period.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton argued Saturday night that “the Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility here that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons.”
That echoed Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.. He called for Obama to name a replacement right away, tweeting that “the Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible.”
But the battle lines were drawn. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa joined the chorus of Republicans insisting on keeping the seat open for the next president.
“It’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year,” he said — an assertion Democrats took issue with. “Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this President, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a Judiciary member, left open the remote chance of Obama filling the seat — if he picks someone such as Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican, or someone else entirely acceptable to Republicans.
“Is there a situation where this president could fill the vacancy? The only one I can think of is if he picks a consensus choice that people would say is qualified,” Graham told reporters ahead of the GOP debate in Greenville. “I doubt if that will happen.”
Republicans have accused Obama of overstepping his authority with executive orders on immigration and other matters.
The authority to nominate federal judges, however, clearly rests with the president, subject of course to the Senate’s “advice and consent.”
Both of Texas’ senators, Cruz and John Cornyn, the deputy majority leader, serve on the Judiciary Committee, which screens nominees to the high court and lower federal benches.
Cornyn has not weighed in on whether Obama should get a chance to fill the vacancy.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/cruz-rubio-mcconnell-insist-that-new-president-fill-scalia-seat-on-supreme-court.html/
The Reaper
02-13-2016, 20:01
RIP, Sir.
Thank you for your service to this nation and our Constitution.
This was something that had been worrying me lately, but I thought Ginsburg would be the next to go.
Now what happens if she passes (or retires) on Obama's watch as well?
I think this nation just took a huge step closer to the brink, and I do not trust the Republican Establishment to do what needs to be done. I fully expect that they will approve Obama's nominee(s), however looney they might be.
TR
RIP Sir.....
Prayers out for your friends and family.
Rest in Peace, Justice Scalia.
This was my worst nightmare.
So, we had a Kenyan, didn't work out that well, now you want to put in a Canadian in office? For what? So he can continue obamas work saying "sorry" to the world?
I'll Vote Trump, at least he's 100% American. :munchin
The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which children become “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” In addition to those who are born in the United States or born outside the country to parents who were both citizens — or, interestingly, found in the United States without parents and no proof of birth elsewhere — citizenship goes to babies born to one American parent who has spent a certain number of years here.
That single-parent requirement has been amended several times, but under the law in effect between 1952 and 1986 — Cruz was born in 1970 — someone must have a citizen parent who resided in the United States for at least 10 years, including five after the age of 14, in order to be considered a natural-born citizen. Cruz’s mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born in Delaware, lived most of her life in the United States, and gave birth to little Rafael Edward Cruz in her 30s. Q.E.D.
So why all the brouhaha about where Obama was born, given that there’s no dispute that his mother, Ann Dunham, was a citizen? Because his mother was 18 when she gave birth to the future president in 1961 and so couldn’t have met the 5-year-post-age-14 residency requirement. Had Obama been born a year later, it wouldn’t have mattered whether that birth took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or anywhere else. (For those born since 1986, by the way, the single citizen parent must have only resided here for five years, at least two of which must be after the age of 14.)
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-president
Interestingly, Lawrence Tribe, who says that Cruz is ineligible, was one of the authors of this opinion.
And, unfortunately, Cuban ex-pats seem to be more Conservative than todays Americans.
Pat
Old Dog New Trick
02-13-2016, 20:54
RIP Justice Scalia, thank you for your service to the nation. Your legacy will be hard to follow.
:(
mark46th
02-13-2016, 21:31
Let's hope the Repubs can stall until after the election...
Rest in Peace Justice Scalia.
RIP, Sir.
Thank you for your service to this nation and our Constitution.
This was something that had been worrying me lately, but I thought Ginsburg would be the next to go.
Now what happens if she passes (or retires) on Obama's watch as well?
I think this nation just took a huge step closer to the brink, and I do not trust the Republican Establishment to do what needs to be done. I fully expect that they will approve Obama's nominee(s), however looney they might be.
TR
I don't see any figure on the debate stage who would propose a halfway decent candidate. Agree that the current Rep est hasn't demonstrated the cohesiveness to be effective against Obama esp if he moves to make a recess appointment. That is a looney enough scenario for me. Yes, the brink is closer now. If there was a doomsday clock for life beyond the brink what time would it be? Don't think there's much time to pack.
I don't see any figure on the debate stage who would propose a halfway decent candidate.
How deeply have you looked? Cruz was a clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Pat
The republicans in the Senate, if they are smart, will block whoever he nominates. Obama can make a recess appointment if he wants....and he will be gone day one of a new President (if republican).
SittingElf
02-14-2016, 04:59
This story will scare the crap out of you.... Recess Appointment....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html?intcmp=hpbt3
SittingElf
02-14-2016, 05:02
The republicans in the Senate, if they are smart, will block whoever he nominates. Obama can make a recess appointment if he wants....and he will be gone day one of a new President (if republican).
I don't think Supreme's are subject to recall, or to Senate action once seated.
I could be wrong, and have been occasionally in the past, but I think that's the story.
All recess appointments are. A recess appointment is never permanent. It can only be done during a recess and can be undone when congress goes back in session as well as the new President can fire him. To remain in effect, a recess appointment must be approved by the Senate by the end of the next session of Congress, or the position becomes vacant again. Other options the Senate has are to not appropriate money to pay the salary of the recess appointee as well as stay in session until the seating of the next President.
How deeply have you looked? Cruz was a clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Pat
In all respects, sir, I'm not charmed by Sen. Cruz. Then, I'm not that impressed with any of the others we have to choose from. Of course anyone on the Rep set is preferable over anything onstage of the DNC or in the wings of the DNC, but that doesn't mean they'd nominate a good jurist who would share a love of the Constitution as that held by Scalia. IMHO that passion for the Constitution is what the Court needs, whether conservative or liberal.
RIP Justice Scalia, Vaya con Dios
My condolence to the family.
He will be hard to replace..
Rest In Peace, Justice Scalia. You will most assuredly be missed!
The Reaper
02-14-2016, 09:36
The Republicans have a long history of appointing moderates who have turned liberal once confirmed and seated.
The Dims have not had that happen very often.
The media will ensure that the eventual nominee will be well left of center.
TR
Oldrotorhead
02-14-2016, 09:43
I don't think Supreme's are subject to recall, or to Senate action once seated.
I could be wrong, and have been occasionally in the past, but I think that's the story.
I think the only way to get rid of a Federal Judge is impeachment. I remember at least one Federal Judge serving a long Federal prison term still collecting a salary.
I think the only way to get rid of a Federal Judge is impeachment. I remember at least one Federal Judge serving a long Federal prison term still collecting a salary.
You obviously did not read what I wrote:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/
You obviously did not read what I wrote:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/
That is interesting, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
A name that has been thrown out is Sri Srinivasan who grew up just West in liberal Lawrence, Kansas, attended KU and worked under Sandra Day O'Connor.
Another local Obama put on the 9th Curcuit is Mary H. Murguia who is the sister of Janet Murguia who is the head of La Raza and their brother Carlos is a Federal Judge in Kansas appointed by WJC.
This is an easy one to block or at least make his appointment very temporary.....for any one other than this crop of fucktard republicans. Somehow McConnell will fuck this up.
craigepo
02-14-2016, 13:54
As long as the GOP continues to put forward judges to the Supreme Court that have been indoctrinated at Ivy League schools, they will continue to get the same result, i.e. no telling what type of judge we will get.
I went to a talk given by Judge Scalia last April on my birthday. Here were a couple of interesting points that he made:
1. Have you ever wondered why all of the Supreme Court judges are from either Ivy League or Stanford? Also, why all are either Jewish or Catholic? (Scalia was both Ivy League and Catholic).
2. When asked about the opinions he authored that he was most proud of, he gave three that his objective was to "return rights to the people that had been taken by the government". (IIRC, the three cases involved gun rights (Heller), the right to confront one's accuser (Crawford), and a lone dissent he wrote contesting the constitutionality of appointing an independent prosecutor(can't remember the name of the case, but liberals later agreed with him when Ken Starr was appointed to prosecute Clinton).
3. He felt that the Constitution did not give any authority for a Federal Dept of Education or Health and Human Services.
In my opinion, Judge Scalia was one of the most important Supreme Court justices to ever sit in that chair. As one commentator noted, every law school student looks to his opinions, whether they agree or not, to see where his line of logic laid.
The nation has suffered a grievous loss.
Dear Mr. Justice...RIP.
Simple definition of respect:
: a feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important, etc.
: a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way
: a particular way of thinking about or looking at something
WarriorDiplomat
02-14-2016, 15:26
RIP Justice Scalia
Oldrotorhead
02-14-2016, 17:40
You obviously did not read what I wrote:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/
I should have been more clear. A sitting judge that was confirmed by the Senate. You are corect I did not read your scotus blog.
Roguish Lawyer
02-14-2016, 17:42
Very nice, sinjefe. SCOTUSblog is a serious source.
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_ election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html
RIP Justice Scalia, you left us too soon. Condolences to your family.
Wonder what the autopsy will reflect.
mojaveman
02-14-2016, 21:54
Agree that this couldn't have happened at a worse time. Wish he could have lived for a few more years and hopefully with a Republican in office.
Rest in Peace Justice Scalia.
Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_ election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html
What's funny about that one in 1960 is now there will be a role reversal by the parties.
Agree that this couldn't have happened at a worse time. Wish he could have lived for a few more years and hopefully with a Republican in office.
Rest in Peace Justice Scalia.
I posted a month or so ago about my fear regarding the age of 4 Supreme Court Justices.
Now 3 as one of the 4 has already passed away.
Does it matter significantly?
Aren't all 4(now 3) still highly likely to die from natural causes or retire due to cognitive degradation by the end of the next term anyway?
Is it a possible positive?
In that un/under-informed voters now have another data point to verify that this is an election of possibly unprecedented importance?
I went to a talk given by Judge Scalia last April on my birthday. Here were a couple of interesting points that he made:
1. Have you ever wondered why all of the Supreme Court judges are from either Ivy League or Stanford? Also, why all are either Jewish or Catholic? (Scalia was both Ivy League and Catholic).
The nation has suffered a grievous loss.
Did he give an answer to the second part of that question, Judge?
Pat
Wonder what the autopsy will reflect.
It is being reported that his family declined to have an autopsy performed. His body was immediately embalmed at a funeral home in El Paso on Sunday, as well as given last rites by a Catholic priest, and will be flown to DC Monday.
Social media has EXPLODED about this news. Everything from, he was found with a pillow over his head, to a secret CIA "heart attack" gun. :rolleyes:
WarriorDiplomat
02-15-2016, 06:53
Wonder what the autopsy will reflect.[/QUOTE]
Good question remember the Clinton crime family era we know libs are not above this
Social media has EXPLODED about this news. Everything from, he was found with a pillow over his head, to a secret CIA "heart attack" gun. :rolleyes:
That keeps Hillary and Trump from becoming the topic of the day.
It is being reported that his family declined to have an autopsy performed. His body was immediately embalmed at a funeral home in El Paso on Sunday, as well as given last rites by a Catholic priest, and will be flown to DC Monday.
Social media has EXPLODED about this news. Everything from, he was found with a pillow over his head, to a secret CIA "heart attack" gun. :rolleyes:
Personally I'd want to know and would want an autopsy but to each his own.
Good question remember the Clinton crime family era we know libs are not above this
I remember...
That keeps Hillary and Trump from becoming the topic of the day.
True.
Anyone have any extra tinfoil? :eek:
Streck-Fu
02-15-2016, 07:55
I hope Senator Obama influences President Obama on this:
On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on “This Week” that he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.”
That keeps Hillary and Trump from becoming the topic of the day.
for maybe?? 10 minutes.. :munchin
Three history notes:
Or: How to BORK berry's appointee
LMAO
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/joe-biden-wrote-obstructionist-playbook-on-borking-a-presidents-nominee-craven-coward-gop-do-not-confirm-obama-nominee/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/joe-biden-wrote-obstructionist-playbook-on-borking-a-presidents-nominee-craven-coward-gop-do-not-confirm-obama-nominee/
Smile,, You pays a nickle and you gets your ticket, Enjoy the show..
:munchin
for maybe?? 10 minutes.. :munchin
Going on 24 hours thus far.
craigepo
02-15-2016, 12:36
Did he give an answer to the second part of that question, Judge?
Pat
I think that his point was that the Supreme Court was not very "diverse". The judges come from either the East Coast or California. They also hail from either an Ivy League or Stanford Law school, and they are all either Jewish or Catholic. He noted that this seemed odd, in that the United States is a large country, and no person has been deemed worthy to come from the South, Heartland, Mountains, or other state for a long time. Same idea for there being no protestant or evangelical on the court. He didn't have a reason, only an observation. Arguably rather astute.
Personally I'd want to know and would want an autopsy but to each his own.
Don't think family would need an autopsy, but a least check blood, urine and stomach contents for any foul play. :munchin
Badger52
02-15-2016, 16:09
Getting back to Justice Scalia I found these words of his, from an address to his grand-daughter's HS graduating class:
“Movement is not necessarily progress. More important than your obligation to follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your conscience correctly. Nobody — remember this — neither Hitler, nor Lenin, nor any despot you could name, ever came forward with a proposal that read, ‘Now, let’s create a really oppressive and evil society.’ Hitler said, ‘Let’s take the means necessary to restore our national pride and civic order.’ And Lenin said, ‘Let’s take the means necessary to assure a fair distribution of the goods of the world.’
“In short, it is your responsibility, men and women of the class of 2010, not just to be zealous in the pursuit of your ideals, but to be sure that your ideals are the right ones. That is perhaps the hardest part of being a good human being: Good intentions are not enough. Being a good person begins with being a wise person. Then, when you follow your conscience, will you be headed in the right direction.”
There are no official qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court justice. The Constitution spells out age, citizenship and residency requirements for becoming president of the United States or a member of Congress but mentions no rules for joining the nation's highest court.
:confused:
There are no official qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court justice. The Constitution spells out age, citizenship and residency requirements for becoming president of the United States or a member of Congress but mentions no rules for joining the nation's highest court.
:confused:
Nor is there anywhere where it states how many justices are on the SC.
Old Dog New Trick
02-16-2016, 13:00
If I'am hearing this right (left) three upcoming cases will not be favorable to the administration if they end in a tie. Which is likely. Also, by naming a left of center or just plain old left of left field justice and the ensuing battle in the senate will weaken the GOP and brand them as 'obstructionists' once again.
All during an election year...it's a win-win for BHO (and the democrats) and probably why he again couldn't let the body cool before coming out sounding like the jackass that he is. It's the same with gun-control, never let a crisis go to waste.
Whatever happens next this election is still a referendum on the SC - Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy, are all just as or older than Scalia was. The next five years will see another shift.
We are finally facing real fundamental transformation and potential tectonic shift in this court for possibly decades to come.
Elections have consequences - no one should be sitting this one out.
Nor is there anywhere where it states how many justices are on the SC.
The number of justices is established by congress. That's their balance of power over the Supreme Court (besides confirming appointments). It's been as low as 6 and as high as 10 and has been at 9 for about 150 years.
They can't get rid of a justice by reducing the number since they're appointed for life, but they can prevent a President from appointing a justice by reducing the number (act of congress, filibuster, veto, blah, blah).
ddoering
02-16-2016, 19:01
There are no official qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court justice. The Constitution spells out age, citizenship and residency requirements for becoming president of the United States or a member of Congress but mentions no rules for joining the nation's highest court.
:confused:
Maybe he will appoint a muslim.
Oldrotorhead
02-16-2016, 19:07
Qualifications
The U.S. Constitution guides the process for confirming a federal judge, but does not specify qualifications. Notably, a federal judge is not required to possess a law degree unless he serves as magistrate or bankruptcy judge. In most cases, those who assess judicial candidates apply their own criteria. As such, presidents and members of Congress develop their own standards for federal judgeships.
Or Bill Ayers :eek:
Wonder how many Senators would vote for him?
Qualifications
The U.S. Constitution guides the process for confirming a federal judge, but does not specify qualifications. Notably, a federal judge is not required to possess a law degree unless he serves as magistrate or bankruptcy judge. In most cases, those who assess judicial candidates apply their own criteria. As such, presidents and members of Congress develop their own standards for federal judgeships.
Or Bill Ayers :eek:
Wonder how many Senators would vote for him?
Or Eric Holder possibly Loretta Lynch. :eek:
Loretta Lynch. :eek:
And she's doing backflips demanding an autopsy.
Pat