US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[chuckd]

Will someone please give this hint to Obama? - If you nominate someone, he at least should have graduated from law school.

Thank you.

Here's a hint for you: one need not have graduated from law school to serve on the Supreme Court. Stanley Forman Reed and Robert H. Jackson (justices in the 1950s) are evidence of this.

You're welcome.

Cheers!

And here's a hint for you. The 50's were 60 years ago.

Times change.

You're really going to end a post on this thread with 'times change"? How (unintentionally) ironic.

Justice Scalia, who many described as an 'originalist', would have a sharply worded retort to anyone who told him that "times change" when referring to the US Constitution.

There is no Constitutional requirement for a Supreme Court Justice to be a lawyer or graduated from law school. As thaivisa.com's self-appointed Constitutional scholar, surely you're aware of that.

A very careful reading of my post will reflect I never claimed my 'times change' reference was to the Constitution proper.

It was to your comment that two Justices without law degrees had been appointed in the 50's.

Times have changed and it is extremely unlikely any Senate would confirm an individual to the Supreme Court that was not a lawyer well schooled in constitutional law.

You nor I are likely to be appointed to the Supreme Court so your sarcasm is as unnecessary as the rest of your post.

[sgtsabai]

arjunadawn, well done sir, well done. I say this as I fall upon my smart ass sword...lol. I've read recently that Obama is seriously considering a Republican, i.e. Scalia lite. Lost the article. He has never and never will nominate anybody but center right, although some do appear to lean left, but only in comparision to the right wingnut "gang of 5". Unfortunately, or fortunately for some of you that can't accept the truth, damn electric co. dude unpluged the wrong meter and crashed everything. Still working to find half of my "stuff".

http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/myths-busted/

http://www.thenation.com/article/republican-are-now-waging-a-war-on-facts-precedent-and-the-constitution/

[chuckd]

arjunadawn, well done sir, well done. I say this as I fall upon my smart ass sword...lol. I've read recently that Obama is seriously considering a Republican, i.e. Scalia lite. Lost the article. He has never and never will nominate anybody but center right, although some do appear to lean left, but only in comparision to the right wingnut "gang of 5". Unfortunately, or fortunately for some of you that can't accept the truth, damn electric co. dude unpluged the wrong meter and crashed everything. Still working to find half of my "stuff". http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/myths-busted/ http://www.thenation.com/article/republican-are-now-waging-a-war-on-facts-precedent-and-the-constitution/

Love your choices of links. You seem to always find fault with mine so I think it only proper I point out at least one of yours.

ThinkProgress is described by Wikipedia as being owned by the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress has this said about it:

"The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization.[2] According to CAP, the center is "dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action."[2] The Center presents a liberal[3] viewpoint on economic issues. It has its headquarters in Washington, D.C.[4]

The president and chief executive officer of CAP is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.[5] The first president and CEO was John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Podesta remained with the organization as chairman of the board until he joined the Obama White House staff in December 2013. Tom Daschle is the current chairman."

John Podesta, the original President and CEO, is no longer with the Obama administration.

He is now the Chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign for the Presidency.

Do you honestly expect an unbiased article of any sort out of this bunch of beltway bandits?

Better yet, do you honestly believe TVF members will actually waste time reading links like those you provided?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinkProgress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podesta

[up-country_sinclair]

arjunadawn, well done sir, well done. I say this as I fall upon my smart ass sword...lol. I've read recently that Obama is seriously considering a Republican, i.e. Scalia lite. Lost the article. He has never and never will nominate anybody but center right, although some do appear to lean left, but only in comparision to the right wingnut "gang of 5". Unfortunately, or fortunately for some of you that can't accept the truth, damn electric co. dude unpluged the wrong meter and crashed everything. Still working to find half of my "stuff". http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/myths-busted/ http://www.thenation.com/article/republican-are-now-waging-a-war-on-facts-precedent-and-the-constitution/

Love your choices of links. You seem to always find fault with mine so I think it only proper I point out at least one of yours.

ThinkProgress is described by Wikipedia as being owned by the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress has this said about it:

"The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization.[2] According to CAP, the center is "dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action."[2] The Center presents a liberal[3] viewpoint on economic issues. It has its headquarters in Washington, D.C.[4]

The president and chief executive officer of CAP is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.[5] The first president and CEO was John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Podesta remained with the organization as chairman of the board until he joined the Obama White House staff in December 2013. Tom Daschle is the current chairman."

John Podesta, the original President and CEO, is no longer with the Obama administration.

He is now the Chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign for the Presidency.

Do you honestly expect an unbiased article of any sort out of this bunch of beltway bandits?

Better yet, do you honestly believe TVF members will actually waste time reading links like those you provided?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinkProgress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podesta

Line after line after line about a link. But not a word about the OP.

A quick reminder: The title of this thread is "US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79". It's not, "I don't like your link, boo hoo!"

[chuckd]

I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore. Stalking is a good reason.

[up-country_sinclair]

Justice Scalia's son will be the celebrant at the funeral mass.

Antonin Scalia's son will be the celebrant -- the priest leading the mass -- for the late Supreme Court justice's funeral service on Saturday, according to a spokesman for the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

The Rev. Paul Scalia will also deliver the homily, the sermon that explores the themes of the Bible readings at Mass, Basilica spokesman Jackie Hayes said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/obama-antonin-scalia-pay-respects/index.html?eref=rss_politics

[Jingthing]

Remembering the late justices Greatest FITS:

http://www.advocate.com/us-supreme-court/2015/07/09/justice-antonin-scalias-greatest-fits

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2016/2/18/justice-scalias-death-exposes-fractures-legal-political-circles

Was late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia a stalwart defender of the Constitution or of 'privilege, oppression, and bigotry?'

Scalia spent decades as the high court's most outspoken conservative stalwart, authoring numerous opinions and dissents that unapologetically devalued LGBT people, women, people of color, and low-income individuals who rely on social safety net programs. He was so fond of using hyperbolic (and sometimes made-up) language in his writing for the court that The Advocate documented "Scalia's Greatest Fits," tracking the justice's antigay rants throughout his years on the bench.

[bendejo]

Has someone put a stake through Scalia's heart yet? Can't be too careful.

If you find this post offensive, well "get over it!" as the man himself enjoyed saying.

[Chicog]

I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore. Stalking is a good reason.

Good old Chuck.

It seems anyone who talks back to him these days is a "stalker".

[Chicog]

A rather (probably too) sensible suggestion from the New Yorker:

Nominate an Atheist.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-court

[lostboy]

What's the topic again, LOL? Oh yeah, a death and perhaps a nomination...

If Obama makes a nomination at this point, it will be for political reasons - an attempt to influence the upcoming election. No? Just watch. It will be someone with a very large constituency which could be miffed by a rejection. Yes it will be.

Then the Repubs will get accused of being "obstructionist" if they refuse to play along with that bullshit. That's the plan. It's always the plan. Do something outrageous and then blame someone else for obstructing objecting.

Will someone please give this hint to Obama? - If you nominate someone, he at least should have graduated from law school.

Thank you.

Constitution fetishisers. Except when it doesn't suit them. It is the President's duty to nominate a replacement of the Supreme Court. Except when Republicans are worried they will lose control. There is no requirement for a nominee to be a lawyer. Except when Republicans believe otherwise. You assume a male will be nominated? On all three counts, such deep hypocrisy is demonstrated. All that hand-on-the-heart constitutionalist nativist-exceptionalist crap that you've been pushing is shown as just ideological bigotry.

[chuckd]

What's the topic again, LOL? Oh yeah, a death and perhaps a nomination...

If Obama makes a nomination at this point, it will be for political reasons - an attempt to influence the upcoming election. No? Just watch. It will be someone with a very large constituency which could be miffed by a rejection. Yes it will be.

Then the Repubs will get accused of being "obstructionist" if they refuse to play along with that bullshit. That's the plan. It's always the plan. Do something outrageous and then blame someone else for obstructing objecting.

Will someone please give this hint to Obama? - If you nominate someone, he at least should have graduated from law school.

Thank you.

Constitution fetishisers. Except when it doesn't suit them. It is the President's duty to nominate a replacement of the Supreme Court. Except when Republicans are worried they will lose control. There is no requirement for a nominee to be a lawyer. Except when Republicans believe otherwise. You assume a male will be nominated? On all three counts, such deep hypocrisy is demonstrated. All that hand-on-the-heart constitutionalist nativist-exceptionalist crap that you've been pushing is shown as just ideological bigotry.

Does Australia have a constitution? Just wondering.

[lostboy]

Yes it certainly does Charles but discussing it would be off topic

[sirineou]

A rather (probably too) sensible suggestion from the New Yorker:

Nominate an Atheist.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/put-an-atheist-on-the-supreme-court

Some how I suspect that there have being many Atheists in the Supreme Court and elsewhere in Government

but for one to get there and do some good, one need not disclose the fact.

[F430murci]

Will someone please give this hint to Obama? - If you nominate someone, he at least should have graduated from law school.

Thank you.

Here's a hint for you: one need not have graduated from law school to serve on the Supreme Court. Stanley Forman Reed and Robert H. Jackson (justices in the 1950s) are evidence of this.

You're welcome.

Cheers!

One not only needs to have attended jaw school, one needs to have had considerably experience in the bench. I candidly don't know the rules back in the 59s, but I do know that some trial court bench positions could be filled by non-lawyers in scattered jurisdictions throughout the country.

No have a trial judge trained in law and having considerable considerable experience is a disaster waiting to happen. Not having. Supreme Court justice at either the state or federal level is beyond a disaster waiting to happen and saves no good or constructive purpose.

I clerked for a State Supreme Court judge in the 90s and that was an extremely difficult job. I clerked for an intermediate court of appeals judge prior to my Supreme Court clerkship. The appellate court level was a cake walk easy job despite a much heavier volume of cases and opinions to write. I also had staff attorney resources such as staff attorneys dedicated to areas such as death penalty cases that had read and could discuss every death penalty case written in our state and at the Fedrral Curvuit and Supreme Court level.

I cannot even begin to fathom how someone with no formal legal education and considerable experience as a judge could begin to handle such a job. Blows me away that someone thinks otherwise.

[puukao]

no autopsy and nobody has seen the body!!!! I saw him fly fishing in Montana just a few hours ago.....

this is a cover up!!!!

all done so he can live in the White House and work for oil companies!!!!

plus he knew the truth of 911 and the 29304830948234923 other conspiracies the world must know!!!!

[CaptHaddock]

Jeffrey Toobin just published in the The New Yorker the best short critique of Scalia's tenure so far:

Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed. Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/antonin-scalia-looking-backward

Edited February 22, 2016 by Scott
Edited for Fair Use

[sgtsabai]

Well written article, thanks. One of the few times I agreed with scum Scalia, 2nd amendment decision. Yea, us lefties like our guns also. One thing the Republican's don't have to worry about is a "liberal" court. The 4 supposed liberals are not, they are center at best as the US has moved so far right due in large part to the cowardly Democrats that either sold out to the corporations/Wall Street criminals and banksters, or are afraid to stand up for what America was supposed to be. Obama has never and will never appoint a true "liberal" much less a left winger. Right wingers, you can quit shaking in your flip flops, justice still will not be served. If Hillary gets in, gawd hep us all, the nomination will be corporatist with maybe a liberal social leaning, at best. Which will still throw the right wing into piss fits. Oh wait, they do that every day, much to do about nothing. Forget the clown/buffoon right wing extremist car, although they are extremely dangerous, not only to what is left of America but the entire world. Bernie wins hands down and even Hillary will win against the clown/buffoon right wing extremist car. If Bernie is in, prepare for a hell of fight in the Senate. Personally, I think the right wing extremists, that is the Republican Party, won't allow any Democrat nomination, not now, not tomorrow, not next year, not until hell freezes over. It is their path to the destruction of the US.

[keemapoot]

Well, I guess this pretty much settles any speculation over what the Repubs are going to do:

President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court won't get a hearing or a vote from the Republican-led Senate, GOP members of the Judiciary Committee said Tuesday as they insisted only the next president must fill the vacancy.

http://news.yahoo.com/mcconnell-says-senate-wont-vote-obama-court-pick-153619775--politics.html

[NeverSure]

Well, I guess this pretty much settles any speculation over what the Repubs are going to do:

President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court won't get a hearing or a vote from the Republican-led Senate, GOP members of the Judiciary Committee said Tuesday as they insisted only the next president must fill the vacancy.

http://news.yahoo.com/mcconnell-says-senate-wont-vote-obama-court-pick-153619775--politics.html

Poor little Obama can't even get his own Democrats in the Senate to back his choices:

Democratic Senator Blocks Obama Choice to Head FDA

February 23, 2016

Senator Edward Markey, D-Mass., said Monday he is blocking President Obama’s nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration. In his statement, Markey also put pressure on the FDA to be tougher on the abuse of opioid painkillers, according to the Associated Press.

More

[sgtsabai]

And your point is what? The blockage of Dr. Califf, with extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry and their shill, for head of the FDA has absolutely zero to do with the right wingnut Republicans refusal to do their Constitutional duty. BTW Bernie joined with the two other Senators in saying he would block. The right wingnut Republicans have purposely violated their oath to uphold the Constitution with their traitorous act. By doing so they have lost the right to represent anybody, although they continue to represent the small, but vocal, minority of right wing extreme, Koch (John Birch Society traitor brothers, faux (not the) news supported and propagandized fools. They have never really served their nation and they now publically refuse to do so. Keep GitMo open for those that really belong there. "Poor little Obama", hmmm do I detect a dawg whistle?

[chuckd]

And your point is what? The blockage of Dr. Califf, with extensive ties to the pharmaceutical industry and their shill, for head of the FDA has absolutely zero to do with the right wingnut Republicans refusal to do their Constitutional duty. BTW Bernie joined with the two other Senators in saying he would block. The right wingnut Republicans have purposely violated their oath to uphold the Constitution with their traitorous act. By doing so they have lost the right to represent anybody, although they continue to represent the small, but vocal, minority of right wing extreme, Koch (John Birch Society traitor brothers, faux (not the) news supported and propagandized fools. They have never really served their nation and they now publically refuse to do so. Keep GitMo open for those that really belong there. "Poor little Obama", hmmm do I detect a dawg whistle?

You might want to dial down the hysteria. When/if Obama makes an appointment, then you can ride on your white horse into the arena shouting the republicans have violated their Constitutional duty.

Until a nomination comes out, you're simply making quite a lot of unnecessary noise.

[sgtsabai]

Do you not read the news? The "Republicans" have publically announced they will not even allow the selection committee to meet, much less hear a nominee. Oh, BTW I never rode a white horse, I rode a "pale horse", see avatar, that is me y caballo. Look it up if you can't understand.

[chuckd]

Yo intiendo.

By the way, my statement still stands. The republicans have done nothing to violate their constitutional duty.

Contact us when Obama does his thing.

[sgtsabai]

He will still nominate. Unfortunately it will be another Republican (traitor) lite. One of his nominees for Federal Judge just ruled the 1st Amendment doesn't protect people filming pigs, oops cops vamping on people. The only Judge to do so and he will loose on appeal. Not to worry, the right wingnut Republicans have not followed their oath to protect the Constitution from day 1. I'll give you this, neither has Obama. Bernie will honor and always has. He will fight for what is right (the opposite from right wing), including a decent Supreme Court Judge.