Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[normiss 897]

There are clearly more than two distinct versions although for some reason we insist on the 2 party political system, yet that should have zero impact on upholding and working towards the commonality of the constitution. I think that's why it's there.
I know, "should".

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

I do not know if you were around back then; I was.

So was I

Quote

It had nothing to do with Johnson's last year in office.

Depends who writes the history, which historian, historical interpretation, what as on the tapes in the Oval Office. err...Nixon wasn't the only one with a tape recorder.

Quote

It was this: ' . . . at least in part due to ethics problems . . .'

You might be right. But then you cite ethics as being PART of the issue.

Wikipedia? A fairly good source but remember that "wikis" take in a lot of information as it is a forum anyone can contribute to. Thus, while Wikipedia strives for accuracy, it may not have the QC mechanisms that would prevent inaccuracies either.

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

I have complete confidence the extremist fringe in the GOP will attempt just that.

OK...let's play out the hypothetical converse.
Do you think Senate Democrats in majority would allow a conservative Republican President in less than a year of their presidency to nominate a conservative jurist to replace a sudden vacancy of Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagan?

Not very likely and given the current Senator Democratic leadership, I think it's a, "Hell no!" And further, everyone in this forum of liberal/progressive persuasion would be writing stuff in favor of holding off the nomination for the next President if the polls indicated a high probability of electing a Democrat.

Extremist fringe?!??!? Oh puhleaze...

[Stumpy 284]

What - like in Reagan's last year?

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[kallend 2,148]

Stumpy

What - like in Reagan's last year?

That doesn't count because ... something.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Stumpy 284]

kallend

***What - like in Reagan's last year?

That doesn't count because ... something.


Because... Obama!

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[normiss 897]

I was going to add that the statement needed some sort of screaming, so thank you, you nailed it.

[Boomerdog 0]

With the Internet and even as far off as New Zealand, you're capable of peeling back the onion a little more in spite of your superficial response. I'm disappointed.

The Kennedy Nomination was a continuance of two previously failed nominations during the Reagan Administration. President Reagan nominated Robert Bork on July 1, 1987; approximately 19 months before he left Office on 20 Jan 89. Of course Bork went down in flames after the full Senate vote not to confirm on October 23, 1987. Shortly after, Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg who at the time was a justice on the Washington D.C. Federal Court of Appeals. But Ginsburg was discovered to have smoked a little too much weed in his past and this did not sit well with some Senators and eventually the nomination was withdrawn. Justice Kennedy was nominated by Reagan on Nov 30, 1987 with Senate confirmation on February 3,1988 (less than a year to go for Reagan I admit). Reagan's term as President ended on January 30, 1989 so Kennedy's nomination took place one year and 52 days before leaving office and not in his last year as you contend.

Now obviously it's a matter of opinion whether one does or does not accept the fact that the Kennedy nomination was a continuation of a process that initially began on July 1, 1987.

But I understand. Many years ago, one of your fellow countrymen (actually it was a very lovely Kiwi lady) asked me to explain to her the US Constitution and I did my best, kept it very simple out of respect to her but to no avail. It all confused the hell out of her. And I must admit, I have no clue about the political processes of New Zealand. I could comment on them but I'd probably be wrong and I'm sure you'd be first in line to point out my errors. Therefore I shall refrain and I hope to adhere to that level of self imposed restraint in perpetuity.

Now would you like to try Double Jeopardy, US Constitution for $200?

[Stumpy 284]

Condescending much?

If you have to work that hard to try and make out it didn't happen in the final year of the presidency, chances are you are standing in a hole with a shovel. Stop digging.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

But I understand. Many years ago, one of your fellow countrymen (actually it was a very lovely Kiwi lady) asked me to explain to her the US Constitution and I did my best, kept it very simple out of respect to her but to no avail.

Since you have been through this already, it should be easy for you to point me to the specific language in the constitution that says that the President is in office for only the first 3 years, and has no authority to carry out the duties of the office in the 4th year of the term.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

Condescending much?

This time, this subject, but cut you no slack on another topic.

[Boomerdog 0]

Nowhere did I stipulate anything you suggest. Obama can nominate anyone he likes and send it to the Senate. In theory, he could make a nomination the last day, perhaps the last hour he's in office.

But you know and I know, the Senate is under no Constitutional obligation to approve this nomination much less hold hearings or hold a vote in committee or bring it to the full Senate Floor for a vote.

McConnell is calling the shots from the Senate side. I'm sure you don't like it but that's how the Constitutional pickle squirts from time to time.

Let me ask you this question I asked another here. If this situation were in complete reverse, you think a Democratic Senate Majority would react differently to a conservative Republican President sending up a SCOTUS nominee with less than a year to the end of term? Don't bullshit me now.

[normiss 897]

Just because both parties have decided to act like children doesn't make it the right thing to do.
I really wish they actually represented US.

[wmw999 2,588]

I'm in complete agreement with you. I think calling for him not to nominate someone is ridiculous. I also think that for them to out-of-hand dismiss any nominee is childish.

That said, I don't think Obama could nominate someone who would fill the "assigned slot" of Scalia on the far thinking right. I'm not sure someone with views that rigid exists who also has the intellectual and judicial stature needed. We already have Thomas, so it does need to be someone who contributes to the discussion.

And we really don't want a repeat of a president nominating their personal lawyer because she's nice

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[normiss 897]

Attorney General Loretta Lynch?
She should have a decent shot at it given her history.

[turtlespeed 226]

wmw999

I'm in complete agreement with you. I think calling for him not to nominate someone is ridiculous. I also think that for them to out-of-hand dismiss any nominee is childish.

That said, I don't think Obama could nominate someone who would fill the "assigned slot" of Scalia on the far thinking right. I'm not sure someone with views that rigid exists who also has the intellectual and judicial stature needed. We already have Thomas, so it does need to be someone who contributes to the discussion.

And we really don't want a repeat of a president nominating their personal lawyer because she's nice

Wendy P.

I tried to open discussion on the topic - but no one wanted to even try.

I submit again, Anita Hill.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,117]

>Well...the sad part of this is that THERE ARE two distinct visions of what this country ought to look
>like in the future and what we ought to be working to in order to secure that futureneither side is giving
>an inch. We are that polarized.

No they aren't. Most Americans want the same basic things - to be able to live their lives, raise their kids, work towards a better future and leave the world a good place for their kids to live their lives in. The myth that democrats want to destroy the country, or republicans want to remove all rights other than those enjoyed by old white male Protestants, are fictions created by both campaigns and promulgated by the media.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I tried to open discussion on the topic - but no one wanted to even try.

I submit again, Anita Hill.

If most of your posts are drive-by one liners, do not be surprised when people assume that a post such as this is a drive-by one liner.

Of course, it actually is a drive-by one liner, but I'll play along. Maybe you have some sort of valid point besides giggling about sexual harassment.

Anita Hill is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

- Dan G

[wmw999 2,588]

I read the name Sri Srinivasan (Wikipedia entry).

I think he'd be better than Anita Hill.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Boomerdog 0]

My answer to you AND billivon is this. Better check pop culture, academia, and the press for they are either writing or supporting that narrative.

[normiss 897]

I don't follow pop culture, entirely unsure what academia has to do with the Supreme Court, and the press clearly depends on your choice of sources for anything.
I'm also unclear what you mean by "narrative".

[quade 4]

Because facts matter, take a look at the entire history of SCOTUS nominations.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/15/us/supreme-court-nominations-election-year-scalia.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Stumpy

What - like in Reagan's last year?

Reagan nominated two the year prior
One was Bork
Remember him??

Anyway, the third was confirmed in his last year but nominated the year prior

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Anita Hill is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

I don't think even a law degree is actually required...
Do you have the list of official qualifications (not a list of what people think or like to have, but the legal requirements).

I'm sad about the (very small) group of fringies that are celebrating a man's death because.....POLITICS.

On the plus side, in my circle of friends, I don't see more than one or two of the hard lefties that are actually crowing and happy, most of the more....enthusiastic....lefties are still being human about it. Apparently not so on discussion forums....

I'm sure his family is quite happy about it too.

IMO? Any selection criteria designed to confirm a political BIAS (a 'litmus test') is a huge sign that it's flawed.

I think judges should have a proven record to interpret to original intent DESPITE any biases in their personal opinions. i.e., they have to prove able to to the job no matter how they lean. Too bad the hope of either party is just the exact opposite....

I think the guy in charge now, and the top 5 candidates for the job next Nov ALL would pick people that would completely be biased in the their job....scratch that, I have NO IDEA what Trump would do, and not in a good way. That said - Bernie, Hillary, Cruz and Rubio would be a nightmare to me - as is Obama - in terms of picking a judge

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

I don't think even a law degree is actually required...
Do you have the list of official qualifications (not a list of what people think or like to have, but the legal requirements).

Do you think that's what he meant?

Quote

I think judges should have a proven record to interpret to original intent DESPITE any biases in their personal opinions. i.e., they have to prove able to to the job no matter how they lean. Too bad the hope of either party is just the exact opposite....

Too bad that's not on the official list of requirements

Do you want to have an ideagasm?