Thoughts...

[pcuser]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has dies. Any thoughts?

[DEVOREFLYER]

Goodbye to one of the great vestiges of what this country is supposed to be. I am very very saddened by this horrible news. Thank you Justice Scalia for defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You will be dearly missed. Had the great privilege to see and hear him speak at an event at the Claremont colleges years ago, spellbinding talk with a great sense of humor. RIP

[etucker1959]

It's sad when any one dies unexpectedly!!!! Yet is the country better off with a Conservative Supreme court or a Liberal one??? On a slightly humorous but true note. What is poor Clarence Thomas going to do now????? When it came to voting, he would look to Scalia and say me too!!!! lol

[Theos]

It's sad when any one dies unexpectedly!!!! Yet is the country better off with a Conservative Supreme court or a Liberal one??? On a slightly humorous but true note. What is poor Clarence Thomas going to do now????? When it came to voting, he would look to Scalia and say me too!!!! lol

We are screwed, Oloser is licking his chops, now he will try to stack the court with more liberal slime.

[DEVOREFLYER]

Class act etucker you are a size 8 ******** at least.......no respect for the dead, none...azzhat..

[Stinkbait]

So, typically a president will not nominate and SCOTUS justice in an election year. Bad form I guess.
If Obama chooses too, it is likely the senate will not confirm.

Scalia was a excellent justice and responsible for the Heller descision confirming the 2A applys outside the home.

[etucker1959]

Class act etucker you are a size 8 ******** at least.......no respect for the dead, none...azzhat..
In any way shape or form how did I insult the memory of justice Scalia???? I made fun of Longdong silver, (who is not dead) you know the guy who "NEVER ASKED A QUESTION IN HIS LIFE" about any of the cases!!!!!!

[etucker1959]

If I wanted to be a DICK, I would have mentioned the worst decision that court made with the worst results in the last 15 years. What was the decision they made????? Giving the election to George W. Bush instead of letting them count all the votes. (which Gore actually won) That decision is horrible on many fronts!!!! First of all it made the WRONG person President!!! Secondly it was a Non Precedent decision!!! (since when do they do that!!!!) I'm not going to mention all the things Little Bush screwed up on, But I will mention one decision Gore would not have made. Invade Iraqi after 9/11, which cost us thousands of causalities and a Trillion dollars spent. Only to replace Sadam with ISIS. That was a great exchange!!!! D/S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sktruth]

So, typically a president will not nominate and SCOTUS justice in an election year. Bad form I guess.
If Obama chooses too, it is likely the senate will not confirm.

Scalia was a excellent justice and responsible for the Heller descision confirming the 2A applys outside the home.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought reagon elected one in an election year.

[Stinkbait]

You are right^^^^^^after 2 denials by the senate.
Another thing to think about is that the senate is currently on recess.
It was said on one of the political shows that the president could potentially nominate a judge without senate approval.
Don't know how true this is.

[HawgZWylde]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought reagon elected one in an election year.

Yes he did, his name was Robert Bork and the demorats fought and ultimately defeated his nomination and we ended up with Justice Kennedy...

[HawgZWylde]

You are right^^^^^^after 2 denials by the senate.
Another thing to think about is that the senate is currently on recess.
It was said on one of the political shows that the president could potentially nominate a judge without senate approval.
Don't know how true this is.

The senate MUST confirm or deny a Supreme court nomination...

[etucker1959]

The senate MUST confirm or deny a Supreme court nomination...
The President could appoint someone when the Senate is in recess for the duration of one Congress. That would mean next January Obama could appoint someone for one year. Not a very popular move if he did.

[HawgZWylde]

The President could appoint someone when the Senate is in recess for the duration of one Congress. That would mean next January Obama could appoint someone for one year. Not a very popular move if he did.

Yes and I have no doubt Obama will try but the Senate could and will reconvene to block him.

[DEVOREFLYER]

The President could appoint someone when the Senate is in recess for the duration of one Congress. That would mean next January Obama could appoint someone for one year. Not a very popular move if he did.

Wrong the Supreme Court over ruled Obama when he last tried that . The Senate is in recess when the Senate says it's in recess not when the pResident says it is. Nice try though.

[etucker1959]

Wrong the Supreme Court over ruled Obama when he last tried that . The Senate is in recess when the Senate says it's in recess not when the pResident says it is. Nice try though.
Wrong!!!!!! The Senate is only in Recess in January. It's complicated, but Obama would have to wait till next January to appoint someone if he dares!!!!!

[etucker1959]

Yes and I have no doubt Obama will try but the Senate could and will reconvene to block him.
Obama will try!!!!! The best part is for the Demorats, the Republicans will look like obstructionist to the world!!! Which will help the Demorats candidate for President.

[DEVOREFLYER]

Obama will try!!!!! The best part is for the Demorats, the Republicans will look like obstructionist to the world!!! Which will help the Demorats candidate for President.

Nice try etucker but the law is "Settled".

The Senate, not the president, gets to decide when it's in recess and when it's not. I'm almost 100% sure that there will not be any formal Senate recess adjournments for the rest of the year.

By the way, that 2014 SCOTUS ruling (NLRB v. Canning) was 9-0 AGAINST Obama. Can't get much more decisive than that.

Can the Senate by holding pro forma sessions during which they say, “No business is to be transacted.”

Break up, what would otherwise be a long recess into a series of short breaks, too brief to allow the President to make recess appointments?

We conclude that it can.

We hold that the Senate is in session and not in recess when the Senate says, “That it is in session.”

[Brent]

So, typically a president will not nominate and SCOTUS justice in an election year. Bad form I guess.
If Obama chooses too, it is likely the senate will not confirm.

Scalia was a excellent justice and responsible for the Heller descision confirming the 2A applys outside the home.

That is 100% not true, only a Republicans wishful thinking.

[Brent]

Does anyone that watched the fiasco debate last night actually think any of the children arguing on stage would be a good president. Good lord that was hard to watch. No substance, all bashing and name calling. What the hell has happened to the GOP?
Kasich is starting to sound like the only one that has a brain or is mature enough to get out of the 6th grade.
Don't get me started on "look at my website" because I can't remember or answer a damned question Carson. It was frustrating to watch. wanted badly to learn something and only came away feeling like I needed a shower.
The world is laughing at the sideshow that it has become and must be scared poopless that one of these guys might get in.
They have to get it together if they want to have any chance of winning and if they don't, then the whole stall and delay everything tactic will be pointless.

[TroutOnly]

.it just the process brent the field will be thinned ,then you will get a better debate.........nothing like Bernie and soon to be jailbird...............oh no here comes efucc..............

[etucker1959]

.it just the process brent the field will be thinned ,then you will get a better debate.........nothing like Bernie and soon to be jailbird...............oh no here comes efucc..............
Because it was you, I said to myself, "I don't care what he writes I won't comment!!!!!" Then he calls me out by an insulting name. So guess what, "HERE I am!!" Instead of dropping to TO's level, with insults and name calling, I'll just say this, "I'll make a prediction," since monkey's can't help but throw their own feces around. Even in the last debate in the nominating process, "the Republicans will still be throwing SHITE at each other!!!" Let's see if I'm right???????????

[Brent]

.it just the process brent the field will be thinned ,then you will get a better debate.........nothing like Bernie and soon to be jailbird...............oh no here comes efucc..............

Let's hope so TO, because it's really been crazy so far and the insults only hurt the party and the process. I may not be Republican, but I'm not a Democrat either, I just vote for who I think will best help our country period and right now the crazy train has pulled into the station on both parties.

[hookdfisherman]

.




Because it was you (TO), I said to myself, "I don't care what he writes I won't comment!!!!!" Then he calls me out by an insulting name. "

















































Beetlejuice!

Beetlejuice!

Beetlejuice!

















So guess what, "HERE I am!!"





.

[etucker1959]

The more that comes out about what justice Scalia believed in, "he must be turning over in his grave." (all thanks to the Republicans) Even though he was a Conservative he was also a firm believer in the Constitution. (the kinda guy who believed in original intent) So where in the world do these Republicans come off that they should stall the process of naming a new replacement for a year. Do you think that's what justice Scalia believed in????? I think not!!!!! So these Republicans are dishonoring the man by playing politics!!!!! They should all be wearing a Brown paper bag over their faces for this terrible insult to such a fine man!!!!!!!

[DEVOREFLYER]

The hypocrisy of the left is telling indeed as is your phony logic. The left is overjoyed at the loss of Judge Scalia and in no way would they allow a judge like Scalia be appointed to the bench to replace him.

"A lot of people say that Justice Scalia was conservative. He was conservative in one sense. And in that sense he was conservative, he didn't believe in the federal government expanding anymore into the powers of the state than allowed by the constitution," "He was an originalist on the Constitution, which means he believed you looked to the original text of the Constitution or any other statute, and he was also a textualist on the Constitution, which meant, in interpreting the Constitution or any statute, you have to give the text the meaning that it had at the time the statute was passed."

"Scalia believed that the Supreme Court should not expand its power and interfere into the rights of the states. For instance, to decide what constituted a valid marriage, he thought that was up to the states. And he preached to me on more than one occasion, 'Where in the Constitution do we get the authority to do what we just did!'" Scalia said to Carroll. "His integrity was impeccable. It was not an ideological thing with him. He said, 'Look, this is what the Constitution says; we can't change that just because we think it's a good idea to change that.' His mission on the court was to keep the Constitution from being changed from what it meant at the time it was written. He didn't think the Supreme Court should be sticking its nose into things like gay rights, gay marriage, or any other death penalty, anything that has been traditionally decided by the states."

Now if you want to see the stark contrast between Scalia and Judge Stevens in the 2nd amendment case “DC vs Heller”. You can read or hear in their own words a summary of the case here. Click on the opinion announcement on the left side of the screen and play the pop up screen.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

I can't wait to hear your comments after you hear the case summary opinion.

[etucker1959]

The hypocrisy of the left is telling indeed as is your phony logic. The left is overjoyed at the loss of Judge Scalia and in no way would they allow a judge like Scalia be appointed to the bench to replace him.

"A lot of people say that Justice Scalia was conservative. He was conservative in one sense. And in that sense he was conservative, he didn't believe in the federal government expanding anymore into the powers of the state than allowed by the constitution," "He was an originalist on the Constitution, which means he believed you looked to the original text of the Constitution or any other statute, and he was also a textualist on the Constitution, which meant, in interpreting the Constitution or any statute, you have to give the text the meaning that it had at the time the statute was passed."

"Scalia believed that the Supreme Court should not expand its power and interfere into the rights of the states. For instance, to decide what constituted a valid marriage, he thought that was up to the states. And he preached to me on more than one occasion, 'Where in the Constitution do we get the authority to do what we just did!'" Scalia said to Carroll. "His integrity was impeccable. It was not an ideological thing with him. He said, 'Look, this is what the Constitution says; we can't change that just because we think it's a good idea to change that.' His mission on the court was to keep the Constitution from being changed from what it meant at the time it was written. He didn't think the Supreme Court should be sticking its nose into things like gay rights, gay marriage, or any other death penalty, anything that has been traditionally decided by the states."

Now if you want to see the stark contrast between Scalia and Judge Stevens in the 2nd amendment case “DC vs Heller”. You can read or hear in their own words a summary of the case here. Click on the opinion announcement on the left side of the screen and play the pop up screen.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

I can't wait to hear your comments after you hear the case summary opinion.
If you go back to my original point, "that he wanted to interrupt the law as the Constitution say's it should be." The Constitution say's that the President shall appoint the justices to the Supreme court. Not for the Senate to stall indefinitely till they get a President that they like!!!!! Everything YOU wrote verifies my original point!!! "Justice Scalia is turning over in his grave at what the Senate is doing!!" Just man up and say "etucker got it right on this one." lol

[Lady Quagga]

The hypocrisy of the left is telling indeed as is your phony logic. The left is overjoyed at the loss of Judge Scalia and in no way would they allow a judge like Scalia be appointed to the bench to replace him.

There is a sentiment among the left; one of jubilation at the death of Scalia. I was no fan of the late Justice, and will not mourn his passing. But while the animosity is not undeserved, I personally feel this celebration of his death borders on distasteful, particularly when it comes from those who may not have cared or even thought about Justice Scalia for months (or years) prior to his death.

As I said in a separate forum on the day of his death, anti-establishment liberals (who seem to be the most vocal in their joy at Scalia's passing) shouldn't be so happy about this. As we've already seen, there is a sentiment among congressional republicans that any appointment to the bench should occur after the election, or at the very least should be some sort of political moderate. Some have already suggested taking on a obstructionist stance, and if this turns out to be the case, it will only benefit establishment candidates during this election cycle. That's right boys and girls - Hillary Clinton.

Having said all this, there is nothing which mandates that President Obama choose a conservative or even moderate for his appointment, in order to maintain the right's sense of "balance" on the Supreme Court. Assuming a victory in November by the GOP, a right-leaning Court would indeed unbalance politics in this country, with all three branches being right-leaning simultaneously. Thanks, but no thanks.


"A lot of people say that Justice Scalia was conservative. He was conservative in one sense. And in that sense he was conservative, he didn't believe in the federal government expanding anymore into the powers of the state than allowed by the constitution," "He was an originalist on the Constitution, which means he believed you looked to the original text of the Constitution or any other statute, and he was also a textualist on the Constitution, which meant, in interpreting the Constitution or any statute, you have to give the text the meaning that it had at the time the statute was passed."

This statement contradicts itself at the very end with that sentence. Any statute by definition expands the powers of the federal government. The very words of the Constitution all but guaranteed an expansion of those powers, as supported by Necessary and Proper Clause. Of course, there are those who will argue whether this law or that law oversteps Constitutional limitations, which is why we have..................wait for it..................the Supreme Court to make those interpretations. Of course, this leads us to the next statement:


"Scalia believed that the Supreme Court should not expand its power and interfere into the rights of the states. For instance, to decide what constituted a valid marriage, he thought that was up to the states. And he preached to me on more than one occasion, 'Where in the Constitution do we get the authority to do what we just did!'" Scalia said to Carroll. "His integrity was impeccable. It was not an ideological thing with him. He said, 'Look, this is what the Constitution says; we can't change that just because we think it's a good idea to change that.' His mission on the court was to keep the Constitution from being changed from what it meant at the time it was written. He didn't think the Supreme Court should be sticking its nose into things like gay rights, gay marriage, or any other death penalty, anything that has been traditionally decided by the states."

The writer is trying to suggest that Scalia wasn't trying to inject his own ideology into the judicial process. Bullsh!t. Justices, due to the nature and duration of their appointments, are certainly less influenced by the ever-changing political currents, but that doesn't mean their personal views aren't injected into their opinions. Each Justice has his/her own interpretation of the Constitution, and no one interpretation is more or less legitimate than the other, but it is their own. And really, if personal politics didn't play a part in the confirmation process, we would not be having this conversation now.

Of course, when the Court hands down a decision which one political group or another objects to, people start crying "Judicial Activism!" or "Legislating from the bench!" Hey, listen up you disingenuous idiots:

"An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don't like." - Justice Anthony Kennedy

[DarkShadow]

And really, if personal politics didn't play a part in the confirmation process, we would not be having this conversation now.

And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.

[Lady Quagga]

And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.

I don't think we'll be seeing Babyface Bambino on the bench anytime soon......

[DarkShadow]

I don't think we'll be seeing Babyface Bambino on the bench anytime soon......

Obama should appoint a milk maid.

[Lady Quagga]

Obama should appoint a milk maid.

Obama's pick should realize it's important to have a job that makes a difference.

[DarkShadow]

Obama's pick should realize it's important to have a job that makes a difference.

Is that why you manually masturbate caged animals for artificial insemination?

[TroutOnly]

......you are a dick etard..............

[etucker1959]

......you are a dick etard..............
Tell me any thing that isn't true!!!! (you just can't help insulting people with your potty mouth can you?????)

[hookdfisherman]

.




Tell me any thing that isn't true!!!!


since monkey's can't help but throw their own feces around.




Let's see if I'm right???????????




.

[hookdfisherman]

.




Tell me any thing that isn't true!!!!


Scalia




"he must be turning over in his grave."

Here's a good one...






I think !!!!!!!!!!


I feel the need for speed... I mean...

Diffusion.




.

[etucker1959]

Yes he did, his name was Robert Bork and the demorats fought and ultimately defeated his nomination and we ended up with Justice Kennedy...
A lot of people are mentioning in articles and talk programs that Reagans nomination of Robert Bork was never confirmed. As if that case has any thing similar with Obama's nomination of Garland. Most people think it's the time line there comparing of both nominations. (not even close folks)
I think Professor etucker needs to give a little history!!! lol

We all know the Watergate scandal was a huge black eye on President Nixon Presidency. (it caused him to resign as President for it) Robert Bork played a big part in helping President Nixon's effort in trying to sweep it all under the rug. Was President Nixon successful in sweeping it under the rug???? Helll No!!!!!!! The people who then tried to aid him were forever Black Balled for their efforts. Well what did Robert Bork do???????? I'll tell you!!!!! Robert Bork was an Assistant Attorney General for the Federal government during the Nixon administration. When the Watergate scandal first broke out, Congress called out for a special prosecutor to investigate the Watergate scandal. Nixon then ordered the Attorney General to fire the special prosecutor Congress requested. The Attorney General refused President Nixon orders and thus was fired by Nixon. He then was replaced by the first Assistant Attorney General. President Nixon then ordered him to fire the special prosecutor and he also refused to do that. Guess what President Nixon did to him???? Fired him too!!!!!

Can you guess where this story is leading?????

Along comes Robert Bork who was an Assistant Attorney General and now made the Attorney General. President Nixon then orders Robert Bork to fire the special prosecutor Congress ordered to come into existence. Can you guess what Robert Bork did?????? He took one look at Nixon and said, "YES SIR!!!!" and fired the special prosecutor. Congress then just circumvented everybody and got their special prosecutor and the rest is history!!!! Now a few years pass and it's now President Reagans turn to nominate a Supreme Court justice and he nominates Robert Bork. Now the Senate has a long memory. This is the same Robert Bork who aided President Nixon feeble attempt to cover up the Watergate scandal. They took one look at him and said, "NO WAY JOSE" and never confirmed him. So Obama's choice of Garland who is so squeaky clean compared to Bork, shouldn't even be compared by the same light but it is!!!!

That concludes our history lesson of today!!!! lol

[DockRat]

That concludes our history lesson of today!!!! lol

Merrick Garland is probably the most anti-gun Supreme Court nomination in decades.

You probably support him as the nominee since your such a Obama lover, do you Tucker ?

[etucker1959]

Merrick Garland is probably the most anti-gun Supreme Court nomination in decades.

You probably support him as the nominee since your such a Obama lover, do you Tucker ?
I am going to go on record as saying yes I am a BIG Obama supporter. For 2 big reasons.

1. Does anybody think any candidate from either party who's running in 2016 for President is a good as Obama?????? If so PLEASE name them!!!!

2. Number two is a selfish reason. I love my Obama Care!!!!!!!!!! I'm 56 and starting to feel my age, so I'm starting to go to the doctor more now. I've gone to the doctor more times in the last 2 years then I did in the last 40 years combined!!! All thanks to Obama Care!!!!!