Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court justice dies at 79

**Zacha341** · February-13-16, 07:09 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politi...ia-dies-at-79/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-...dead-in-texas/

**Lowell** · February-13-16, 07:36 PM

Fat chance any Obama appointee will be approved but even if there is no confirmed appt. the court is now 4-4 meaning the attempts to overturn Obama's executive orders and other right wing efforts will also go nowhere.

**Johnnny5** · February-13-16, 08:28 PM

Poor guy's not even cold and it's already politics as usual. Pretty sad.

**Jimaz** · February-13-16, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

Poor guy's not even cold and it's already politics as usual. Pretty sad.

You got that one right.

Republicans rule out replacing Antonin Scalia until new president is elected

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that the Senate should wait until a new president is elected to confirm a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, whose sudden death Saturday shook Washington and threatened to reshape the 2016 presidential race.

Democrats said that with 11 months left in President Obama’s tenure, the Senate has enough time — and indeed an obligation — to confirm a replacement. Sen. Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the chamber, said it would be “shameful” to put off a replacement that long.

I sincerely doubt that McConnell will hesitate to drag his feet over Scalia's grave. This routine has become ghoulish.

**Johnnny5** · February-13-16, 10:36 PM

Video from a few years back showing Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg. Polar opposites politically, but apparently great friends in life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Gwg8t7j3s

**oladub** · February-14-16, 12:37 AM

President Obama has the right and duty to nominate a new Justice. The Senate has the right and duty to accept or reject a president's nominee[[s). Out of 318M Americans, surely President Obama can find one person to nominate whom both Democrats and Republicans would enthusiastically support. If he can't, he either isn't trying or is playing politics.

Lowell asserted that "attempts to overturn Obama's executive orders and other right wing efforts will also go nowhere" with a 4-4 court. According to Politico, "In cases where the eight remaining justices are evenly divided, appeals court rulings would be left to stand, but no precedent would be set for future cases. The justices could also hold cases and leave stays of lower court rulings in place, while awaiting confirmation of a new justice, but it’s unclear if they would do so for nearly a year if the Senate refuses to consider any nominee while President Barack Obama is in office."

**Lowell** · February-14-16, 01:56 PM

Good point from Politico Oladub. It's not so much that nothing will happen but the uncertainty and obstacles should create much the same in effect, if not in fact.

My fear is that if the Republicans run out the clock not approving Obama's appointment[s] a very bad precedent will be set. Should a Republican win I could see the Democrats doing a pay back and then as Ghandi said, 'an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.'

Checking Wikipedia there have been 12 SC rejections in history most famously in recent history being Bork. Even then Reagan got his appointment, Anthony Kennedy, approved in his final year.

Maybe a scenario where a bi/multi-partisan Senate committee agrees on a pool of nominees would be a way out. The President chooses any one and confirmation is automatic.

For now there appears nothing in the future but a protracted gridlock.

**WKL** · February-15-16, 09:38 AM

Was talking with my son [[the lawyer) and we figure the Republicans are idiots.

The President will probably nominate someone confirmable within the week.

The Republicans stand a good chance of losing control of the Senate [[just based on which seats are up this year) and who knows how the Presidential race will come out. In other words they could be in a world of hurt come November.

A confirmable nominee looks like their best option

**Zacha341** · February-15-16, 10:05 AM

Good. I think the conservative world view [[in all its incarnations) should be silenced...

... Period. Then we can have rulings coming from one side only without opposition. Not that I think the repubs are always right. I DON'T, nor do I think the dems are!

For sure it is going to be interesting times coming forth. Especially considering the grand candidate batch we have before us.

Having said that, president Obama has the call on this one. It's not like the presidential election is next week.

**Lowell** · February-15-16, 10:33 AM

A little clarification on what happens when there is a 4-4 split that I heard this AM. The lower court decision does stand but it only applies to the state where the case originated. It does not apply to the rest of the country nor does it establish precedent.

**Jimaz** · February-15-16, 04:02 PM

DetroitYES Home » Non Detroit Issues » Thom Hartmann » Republicans: Black President Only Gets to Appoint Scotus 3/5ths of the Time

**Farwell** · February-15-16, 04:54 PM

"Tit for tat" Thom.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...court-nominees

**Zacha341** · February-19-16, 10:23 AM

President Obama Is Criticized Over Funeral for Scalia [Not Attending]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/us...or-scalia.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...uneral-n520236

**Lowell** · February-19-16, 11:17 AM

...and if he announced he was attending the headline would read "Obama Criticized for Attending Scalia Funeral'

**Zacha341** · February-19-16, 11:22 AM

^^^ THAT'S TRUE! Hah! Still, it would have been better [[and less criticism) for president Obama to err in that direction IMO. Somethings are simply 'presidential' to do and attend.

**Jimaz** · February-24-16, 09:46 PM

Petition - Tell The Senate To Hold Hearings For President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee

**G-DDT** · February-25-16, 04:12 PM

If one watches John Oliver, enough, one gets the idea that the Republicans are for screwing out all due process and legal rights for the President to attempt to appoint a replacemen
thttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DFqXFgUEi0 andhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrMuw7LfIV8.

Surprised to see Oliver be tight-lipped to criticize the man after he died. I guess I'd be the same way.

**JBMcB** · February-25-16, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by G-DDT

Surprised to see Oliver be tight-lipped to criticize the man after he died. I guess I'd be the same way.

In polite society, you don't criticize the dead. They are dead, you don't need to crap on their grave.

**G-DDT** · February-27-16, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

In polite society, you don't criticize the dead. They are dead, you don't need to crap on their grave.

I agree, and I'm not taking a criz'zap on the guy [[even if I never agreed with most things about him). It's just that John Oliver represents one of many of the forms of humor out there [[be they politically incisive or just plain crude) that thinks taking shots at celebrities is the way [[Lily Tomlin was right for saying it's too easy to do and makes for cheap humor). There isn't ten minutes into his [[Oliver's) show that he isn't ragging on how one dresses, looks, sounds, and compares them to something. It's just something he does.

Chris Hardwick, Seth Myers, they all seem to do that now. To rag on how one acts is one things, but to attack them for appearances [["how they aren't going to get laid looking like that") or other such superficial things makes me cringe at how cruel and juvenile humor has gotten over the years [[yeah, is showing poorly dressed obese folks at Wal-Mart really elevating society or actually lowering all involved?). I respect John Oliver and he makes great comparisons and observations, but if he continues to employ such tactics, they will only serve to undermine his best arguments.

Thus, I was surprised to see him display some sense of restraint regarding Scalia's passing [[even if did bring up the bulldog).

**JBMcB** · February-27-16, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by G-DDT

Thus, I was surprised to see him display some sense of restraint regarding Scalia's passing [[even if did bring up the bulldog).

Agreed, agreed, and agreed some more

**frankfrank** · March-19-16, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Lowell

Checking Wikipedia there have been 12 SC rejections in history most famously in recent history being Bork.

Does this also mean that Bork was nominated, and the Senate - like now - refused to even consider him? NO-SIRREE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bork GOT his consideration and hearings in the Senate, and they VOTED on his confirmation. The vote just happened not to be in Bork's favor.

The Repugs don't even have the cojones to have the hearings, and follow their own foregone conclusions and vote not to confirm. Why not?

I looked at Article Two of the U. S. Constitution recently, and it says that the President "SHALL" nominate. That last I knew in legalese, SHALL is a command, a requirement, an order. Even if there is some wiggle room, as there is nothing that requires nine Justices at a time [[just NO MORE THAN nine), it is certainly going against custom and logic to keep a vacancy there for more than a year.

Sen. Orrin Hatch [[R. - Utah) recently said that Obama was likely to nominae some flaming liberal [[or something), but if Obama was going to do the right thing he should name Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy. Yes, Hatch actually SUGGESTED this nomination. Now that Obama has done exactly what Hatch said should be done, he steadfastly refuses to consider any kind of nhearing at all.

I actually retained some respect for Hatch for all these years. Now, that is gone forever - and perhaps there is no Republican left that I respect at all. Hypocrite.