US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[CaptHaddock]

Either side will do their utmost to block a nominee they don't like. But it seems the longest delay has been 125 days. Amazing how 'conservatives' seem so keen to break with the past.

Not true. The Democratic Senate approved unanimously Reagan's appointment of Anthony Kennedy in 1988, an election year. It did so after rejecting Robert Bork.

You watch. McConnell will refuse even to send an Obama nomination to the Judiciary Committee.

The Republican preference for disfunctional government at work.

[Publicus]

 

Of course, everyone dies, but few deserve it so richly.

Coming up next in the USA: Constitutional Crisis! The Repub Senate will certainly not approve any Obama nomination to swing the Court 5-4 to the liberal side. They will probably refuse even to hold hearings on an Obama appointee. If so, that would be a first in American governance. So only 8 justices for the next year. Now what happens if there is another Florida like in 2000 where the Court got to decide the election (which it die in true banana republic fashion?) An eight member Court might be unable to decide. In any case, no major decisions can be reached by the Court in the next year. So, now the Court is gridlocked just like the Congress. American government seizes up.

I hope the new constitution reverts to a parliamentary system, but I couldn't rule out military dictatorship.

Read the Constitution please or get a 7th Grade civics book on it.

A contested election of the president/vice president goes to the House of Representatives (each state gets one vote) and to the House only for a final and absolute determination. SCOTUS has nothing to do with it which is why the 2000 intervention by the Court was anti-constitutional.

SCOTUS does not gridlock. It makes decisions as it determines to make decisions to include the consideration of cases or to not consider cases. SCOTUS has no official quorum; it's up to the justices to rule, to meet, to not meet; to decide, not decide, hear arguments or not etc etc. (SCOTUS is obligated to rule on only Constitutional questions of Original Jurisdiction. This does not include disputed elections of potus/vp.)

People who think one vacancy on the Supreme Court must or even might create a Constitutional crisis don't know the Washington Monument from the Grand Canyon. Talk of a military dictatorship is garbage.

[CaptHaddock]

 

Of course, everyone dies, but few deserve it so richly.

Coming up next in the USA: Constitutional Crisis! The Repub Senate will certainly not approve any Obama nomination to swing the Court 5-4 to the liberal side. They will probably refuse even to hold hearings on an Obama appointee. If so, that would be a first in American governance. So only 8 justices for the next year. Now what happens if there is another Florida like in 2000 where the Court got to decide the election (which it die in true banana republic fashion?) An eight member Court might be unable to decide. In any case, no major decisions can be reached by the Court in the next year. So, now the Court is gridlocked just like the Congress. American government seizes up.

I hope the new constitution reverts to a parliamentary system, but I couldn't rule out military dictatorship.

Read the Constitution please or get a 7th Grade civics book on it.

A contested election of the president/vice president goes to the House of Representatives (each state gets one vote) and to the House only for a final and absolute determination. SCOTUS has nothing to do with it which is why the 2000 intervention by the Court was anti-constitutional.

SCOTUS does not gridlock. It makes decisions as it determines to make decisions to include the consideration of cases or to not consider cases. SCOTUS has no official quorum; it's up to the justices to rule, to meet, to not meet; to decide, not decide, hear arguments or not etc etc. (SCOTUS is obligated to rule on only Constitutional questions of Original Jurisdiction. This does not include disputed elections of potus/vp.)

People who think one vacancy on the Supreme Court must or even might create a Constitutional crisis don't know the Washington Monument from the Grand Canyon. Talk of a military dictatorship is garbage.

I am well-informed on the role of the House in deciding presidential elections, thank you very much. The case of Bush v. Gore was a lawsuit called to halt the ongoing recount of ballots in Florida. That decision decided the election. The decision was not unconstitutional, but it was corrupt since their was no legitimate reason for the Republican majority to stop the recount other than to throw the election to Bush.

[geriatrickid]

Wow, some of these comments are depressing if only for their nasty bias. I make no bones about disagreeing with many of the man's views and legal opinions. However, the fact remains that he was a constitutional and legal scholar and certainly more qualified than me in constitutional law. It looks like some of his critics here never read any of his opinions, particularly those which could be labeled as "liberal". Yes, that's right, the man was a strong believer in free speech and civil liberties, especially freedom from warrantless police searches.

Here's a nice summary of some of his "liberal" moments from none other than Slate.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/09/justice_antonin_scalia_s_brilliant_liberal_moments_on_the_supreme_court.html

I don't know why people have to make so many issues black or white. Yes, the deceased often espoused views that were "conservative", but so what? Those were his legal opinions. President Reagan nominated him because he knew he would offer those views. President Obama will nominate a judge who will reflect his views. I anticipate that some of the crazies in the the U.S. Senate will try and sabotage the nomination process.Obama has had a shortlist for some time as several of the current judges are aged. I expected Ginsburg would go first, but its Scalia. I anticipate that this will push Ginsburg into retirement and we will see 2 judges nominated within the year.

[GinBoy2]

Wow, some of these comments are depressing if only for their nasty bias. I make no bones about disagreeing with many of the man's views and legal opinions. However, the fact remains that he was a constitutional and legal scholar and certainly more qualified than me in constitutional law. It looks like some of his critics here never read any of his opinions, particularly those which could be labeled as "liberal". Yes, that's right, the man was a strong believer in free speech and civil liberties, especially freedom from warrantless police searches.

Here's a nice summary of some of his "liberal" moments from none other than Slate.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/09/justice_antonin_scalia_s_brilliant_liberal_moments_on_the_supreme_court.html

I don't know why people have to make so many issues black or white. Yes, the deceased often espoused views that were "conservative", but so what? Those were his legal opinions. President Reagan nominated him because he knew he would offer those views. President Obama will nominate a judge who will reflect his views. I anticipate that some of the crazies in the the U.S. Senate will try and sabotage the nomination process.Obama has had a shortlist for some time as several of the current judges are aged. I expected Ginsburg would go first, but its Scalia. I anticipate that this will push Ginsburg into retirement and we will see 2 judges nominated within the year.

I also think that this may push Ginsburg into retirement, she and Scalia have been so synonymous with the court, I wonder if she will want to continue without him.

'If' that were to occur I'm hoping for the following:

Obama is not a fool, he knows trying to push a very left wing justice onto the court will never get past a highly partisan Senate. On the flip side the GOP establishment are probably unwilling to risk the outcome of November's election, consigning the court to 8 members.

So what I think (hope) Obama will do is to nominate someone somewhat centrist, difficult for the GOP to oppose, yet moving the court back towards a more centrist position.

If that actually happens, and we indeed end up with a less partisan, left or right court, then it'll be a good day all around

Edited February 14, 2016 by GinBoy2

[Ulysses G.]

While I agree with what you say, Obama has had lots of chances to move to the middle, but he never does. My guess is that he will nominate some far-left nut-job and try to jam him down our throats unconstitutionally.

[Publicus]

 

 

Of course, everyone dies, but few deserve it so richly.

Coming up next in the USA: Constitutional Crisis! The Repub Senate will certainly not approve any Obama nomination to swing the Court 5-4 to the liberal side. They will probably refuse even to hold hearings on an Obama appointee. If so, that would be a first in American governance. So only 8 justices for the next year. Now what happens if there is another Florida like in 2000 where the Court got to decide the election (which it die in true banana republic fashion?) An eight member Court might be unable to decide. In any case, no major decisions can be reached by the Court in the next year. So, now the Court is gridlocked just like the Congress. American government seizes up.

I hope the new constitution reverts to a parliamentary system, but I couldn't rule out military dictatorship.

Read the Constitution please or get a 7th Grade civics book on it.

A contested election of the president/vice president goes to the House of Representatives (each state gets one vote) and to the House only for a final and absolute determination. SCOTUS has nothing to do with it which is why the 2000 intervention by the Court was anti-constitutional.

SCOTUS does not gridlock. It makes decisions as it determines to make decisions to include the consideration of cases or to not consider cases. SCOTUS has no official quorum; it's up to the justices to rule, to meet, to not meet; to decide, not decide, hear arguments or not etc etc. (SCOTUS is obligated to rule on only Constitutional questions of Original Jurisdiction. This does not include disputed elections of potus/vp.)

People who think one vacancy on the Supreme Court must or even might create a Constitutional crisis don't know the Washington Monument from the Grand Canyon. Talk of a military dictatorship is garbage.

I am well-informed on the role of the House in deciding presidential elections, thank you very much. The case of Bush v. Gore was a lawsuit called to halt the ongoing recount of ballots in Florida. That decision decided the election. The decision was not unconstitutional, but it was corrupt since their was no legitimate reason for the Republican majority to stop the recount other than to throw the election to Bush.

The post I responded to talked about "the new constitution" creating a parliamentary system and "couldn't rule out a military dictatorship." It addresses the ridiculous and the flippant.

SCOTUS and Scalia et al had no jurisdiction to accept the case of a 2000 election disputed vote count.

It was up to the individual state, Florida, to conclude and report a certified electoral vote count to the Congress by the required date. SCOTUS with Scalia egging it on had nothing to do with it on any basis. SCOTUS never had a role in previous disputed elections of potus/vp which were in fact determined in the House of Representatives as is specifically mandated by the Constitution. SCOTUS has had no constitutional role, ever, at any time, until the notorious Court that included Antonin Scalia in its political lead.

The Constitution says in the House of Representatives, by state. Each state reports or does not report based on the state acting or not acting to meet Constitutional and statutory requirements. While the supreme court of a state has jurisdiction, SCOTUS has no jurisdiction; none.

So if the particular state, in this instance Florida, could not meet the requirement, the election goes to the House of Representatives. The military hasn't anything to do with it either so to say that or any such outrage is objectionable.

[GinBoy2]

While I agree with what you say, Obama has had lots of chances to move to the middle, but he never does. My guess is that he will nominate some far-left nut-job and try to jam him down our throats unconstitutionally.

You know as well I I do, there is no way around Senate confirmation for a Supreme Court Justice

[CaptHaddock]

Scalia was a right-wing political hack, not some learned jurist with integrity. Even his claim to be a strict constructionist was bogus. He was a contructionist only when it suited his politics. He just made up out of whole cloth the bizarre view that the Second Amendment supported individual's right to own guns, an opinion which conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger called "a complete fraud." To say nothing of his disgraceful and corrupt role in throwing the 2000 election to Bush.

Edited February 14, 2016 by CaptHaddock

[lannarebirth]

But, in that case, the constitutional issue is not decided. No precedent is set. The reason the institution of the Supreme Court exists is because constitutional issues need to be resolved. So, now in all likelihood, that essential function of government will be largely in abeyance because of the obstructive Republican Congress.

The Supreme Court does not always set precedent in its decisions. Often it upholds precedent, as do appellate courts.

You're quibbling. Whether by upholding or overturning precedent, the Court decides the constitutional issues of the cases it accepts. That function in the US government is essential, not optional.

I'm not quibbling. If your point is that we should mourn the death of a SC judge, have the President appoint a new SC judge, then have the Congress vet but not unreasonably then approve, in a timely manner that appointment, then we've nothing to quibble about.

[lannarebirth]

Either side will do their utmost to block a nominee they don't like. But it seems the longest delay has been 125 days. Amazing how 'conservatives' seem so keen to break with the past.

I guarantee you there are some conservatives that still understand how government is supposed to function, whether they hold the reigns of power or not. A prolonged, unreasonable obstructionist movement will blow up in their faces. Prediction: They probably don't care and will do it anyway. They've got some kind of death wish.

[CaptHaddock]

I'm not quibbling. If your point is that we should mourn the death of a SC judge, have the President appoint a new SC judge, then have the Congress vet but not unreasonably then approve, in a timely manner that appointment, then we've nothing to quibble about.

Lannarebirth,

I do agree that that is what should happen, but it is not going to happen. Mitch McConnell has made the claim, unique in US history, that the president should forebear to send a nomination for the vacant seat to the Senate. Given the past willingness of the radical Republican leadership to countenance default on US debt or government shutdown, there is every reason to believe that the Repub Senate will refuse to hold hearings on an Obama nomination, which would be a another first in US history.

The Senate is not obliged to approve. It might like the Democratic Senate in 1988 reject a specific nominee as unqualified, like Robert Bork. In that case Reagan submitted another candidate whom they approved. But no Democrat at the time claimed that there was something illegitimate in President Reagan's submitting a nomination even though he was in hist last year of office. It is radical obstructionism of this new kind that threatens the stability of the US government.

[Chicog]

Either side will do their utmost to block a nominee they don't like. But it seems the longest delay has been 125 days. Amazing how 'conservatives' seem so keen to break with the past.

Not true. The Democratic Senate approved unanimously Reagan's appointment of Anthony Kennedy in 1988, an election year. It did so after rejecting Robert Bork.

You watch. McConnell will refuse even to send an Obama nomination to the Judiciary Committee.

The Republican preference for disfunctional government at work.

I didn't say they have, I said they will.

But of course since they will probably have input as to who is nominated, in this case they won't.

It seems to be the divisive nature of politics in America at the moment; the Republicans have been at it since Obama won.

McConnell has already laid his cards on the table.

[kingalfred]

While I agree with what you say, Obama has had lots of chances to move to the middle, but he never does. My guess is that he will nominate some far-left nut-job and try to jam him down our throats unconstitutionally.

More apt to say Trump or Cruz would, if given the chance,nominate some "right wing nut job" and get a free pass from the senate repubs

[kingalfred]

I'm not quibbling. If your point is that we should mourn the death of a SC judge, have the President appoint a new SC judge, then have the Congress vet but not unreasonably then approve, in a timely manner that appointment, then we've nothing to quibble about.

Lannarebirth,

I do agree that that is what should happen, but it is not going to happen. Mitch McConnell has made the claim, unique in US history, that the president should forebear to send a nomination for the vacant seat to the Senate. Given the past willingness of the radical Republican leadership to countenance default on US debt or government shutdown, there is every reason to believe that the Repub Senate will refuse to hold hearings on an Obama nomination, which would be a another first in US history.

The Senate is not obliged to approve. It might like the Democratic Senate in 1988 reject a specific nominee as unqualified, like Robert Bork. In that case Reagan submitted another candidate whom they approved. But no Democrat at the time claimed that there was something illegitimate in President Reagan's submitting a nomination even though he was in hist last year of office. It is radical obstructionism of this new kind that threatens the stability of the US government.

thats the ambition of majority of right wing radical repubs. Playing to their loony base. This will all be evident before November and independents can decide!

[iReason]

“I even believe in the Devil…he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that. … In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things.

He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore…What he’s doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God.

He’s much more successful that way…”

In response, (interviewer) Senior expressed her utter disbelief at his literal acceptance of the Bible to which Scalia scornfully replied: “You’re looking at me as though I’m weird.

My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels!

You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history.

Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil".

http://www.alternet.org/media/6-most-absurd-statements-justice-scalia

Good riddance you archaic nutcase.

Edited February 14, 2016 by iReason

[ToS2014]

Does anybody know the cause of death?

Justice Scalia dies following 30-year battle with social progress

You must really enjoy social progress. Indeed I do; well, some of the progress. I just hate that I must pay more for it. Taxed nearly to death, welcome Thailand.

"...What the government giveth to one, they MUST TAKE AWAY from another..." ie...social progress. RIP Judge.

[MZurf]

Scalia was a towering figure of the Conservative theology and it's too bad the Left have already started spewing their invictive. Typical.

Any bets Scalia was Vince Fostered, eh?

actually its the right wing and republicans who are saying that the supreme court should not have a new judge for a year. They lost their ancient relic of bigoted conservatism . Hope the President selects a latino or black successor and as expected the Repub Senate reject. See how that plays in the states that will decide election in November!

So you think that a Supreme Court judge should be appointed purely on the basis of his/her race, and for a potential short-term political gain?

On that basis, no doubt you would be happy to see Obama nominated? Then he could continue with his present attempts to undermine the Constitution!

"Then he could continue with his present attempts to undermine the Constitution!"

Great. Maybe he could do away with the second amendment? That would be real progress at last!

[mopar71]

Hope the President selects a latino or black successor and as expected the Repub Senate reject. See how that plays in the states that will decide election in November!

Well, I don't care if the next judge is a liberal or conservative, black or white or yellow or green, Jewish, Muslim or Catholic, man or woman.

I just hope that the next judge does their job and honestly interprets the US Constitution without trying to make laws from the bench like liberal judges often do.

Has anyone noticed that often judges nominated by Republican presidents rule against conservative values? That is because they are supposed to use the Constitution not their own personal views. I wish Democrats could understand this. Scalia did...

"Scalia also supported free speech rights, but complained too. "I do not like scruffy people who burn the American flag," he said in 2002, but "regrettably, the First Amendment gives them the right to do that.""

[GinBoy2]

Scalia was a right-wing political hack, not some learned jurist with integrity. Even his claim to be a strict constructionist was bogus. He was a contructionist only when it suited his politics. He just made up out of whole cloth the bizarre view that the Second Amendment supported individual's right to own guns, an opinion which conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger called "a complete fraud." To say nothing of his disgraceful and corrupt role in throwing the 2000 election to Bush.

As a non repentant liberal, I hate to disagree,

Scalia was absolutely a jurist with integrity. Disagree with him you may well do, but he served the court well.

I hated his opinions, but I also respected them, based as they were on law and the constitution.

The fact that Justice Ginsburg could count on him as one of her most trusted friends says a lot about the integrity of the man, and the fact that so many also seem to deride him, without ever knowing him, says much about about them!

[elgordo38]

Scalia was a right-wing political hack, not some learned jurist with integrity. Even his claim to be a strict constructionist was bogus. He was a contructionist only when it suited his politics. He just made up out of whole cloth the bizarre view that the Second Amendment supported individual's right to own guns, an opinion which conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger called "a complete fraud." To say nothing of his disgraceful and corrupt role in throwing the 2000 election to Bush.

I wonder if he often looked back at Bush's term as president and regretted his 2000 decision. I would assume using his own words time to move on is what he did. This type of A personality has no conscience as a rule.

[mopar71]

So you think that a Supreme Court judge should be appointed purely on the basis of his/her race, and for a potential short-term political gain?

On that basis, no doubt you would be happy to see Obama nominated? Then he could continue with his present attempts to undermine the Constitution!

"Then he could continue with his present attempts to undermine the Constitution!"

Great. Maybe he could do away with the second amendment? That would be real progress at last!

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, not do away with parts some members don't like.

Any nominee that doesn't understand that should be automatically disqualified.

[thaibeachlovers]

RIP

But I cant say that I am sorry to see him go. This is huge, it will change the balance of power in the Supreme court and lead to some more progressive decisions

The conservative majority Senate may disagree with you. Hopefully they will refuse to confirm any liberal candidate and tell Obama to leave it till the next president is elected. Let's see the president get around that with his phone and his pen 5555555555555555555555.

[lannarebirth]

Either side will do their utmost to block a nominee they don't like. But it seems the longest delay has been 125 days. Amazing how 'conservatives' seem so keen to break with the past.

Not true. The Democratic Senate approved unanimously Reagan's appointment of Anthony Kennedy in 1988, an election year. It did so after rejecting Robert Bork.

You watch. McConnell will refuse even to send an Obama nomination to the Judiciary Committee.

The Republican preference for disfunctional government at work.

I didn't say they have, I said they will.

But of course since they will probably have input as to who is nominated, in this case they won't.

It seems to be the divisive nature of politics in America at the moment; the Republicans have been at it since Obama won.

McConnell has already laid his cards on the table.

Actually they've been at it since Bill Clinton won. Bill Clinton was the classical Republican. But the Republican party saw him only as "the other party". Consequently they became even more right wing in their policies, in order to differentiate themselves from the opposition incumbent.

But to really understand American politics of the current era, you need to go back to Reagan. Before Reagan ( and the huge deficits that followed) you had men of principle (some corrupt, to be sure) that started with opposing points of view that would hammer out legislation neither party was wholly happy with but in the main, moved America forward. It was more or less what I learned in those Poli Sci classes years ago. Politics being "the art of the possible", "the art of compromise". Post Reagan, every single president and congress has seen "compromise" to mean "i'll allow your party to include its worst ideas, if you'll allow us to include our worst ideas". Consequently deficits balooned, and to no good end.

It's probably too late for America. It probably can't correct from the tailspin it's in. But if it can, the only candidate among the current roster that could hope to effect that change is Bernie Sanders. Of his stated policy goals, I agree with about half of them, which for me, places him head and shoulders above any other candidate that's currently running.

[Chicog]

Hope the President selects a latino or black successor and as expected the Repub Senate reject. See how that plays in the states that will decide election in November!

Well, I don't care if the next judge is a liberal or conservative, black or white or yellow or green, Jewish, Muslim or Catholic, man or woman.

I just hope that the next judge does their job and honestly interprets the US Constitution without trying to make laws from the bench like liberal judges often do.

Has anyone noticed that often judges nominated by Republican presidents rule against conservative values? That is because they are supposed to use the Constitution not their own personal views. I wish Democrats could understand this. Scalia did...

"Scalia also supported free speech rights, but complained too. "I do not like scruffy people who burn the American flag," he said in 2002, but "regrettably, the First Amendment gives them the right to do that.""

So what was his big objection to same sex marriage?

Which bit of the constitution said that was illegal?

[brewsterbudgen]

Strong backing for this guy to be Obama's nominee. Approved 97-0 to the DC Circuit only 3 years ago, so surely they must approve!!

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

[CaptHaddock]

Scalia was a right-wing political hack, not some learned jurist with integrity. Even his claim to be a strict constructionist was bogus. He was a contructionist only when it suited his politics. He just made up out of whole cloth the bizarre view that the Second Amendment supported individual's right to own guns, an opinion which conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger called "a complete fraud." To say nothing of his disgraceful and corrupt role in throwing the 2000 election to Bush.

As a non repentant liberal, I hate to disagree,

Scalia was absolutely a jurist with integrity. Disagree with him you may well do, but he served the court well.

I hated his opinions, but I also respected them, based as they were on law and the constitution.

The fact that Justice Ginsburg could count on him as one of her most trusted friends says a lot about the integrity of the man, and the fact that so many also seem to deride him, without ever knowing him, says much about about them!

You don't say. So, in the Citizens United case, he decides that corporations, because they are statutory persons, have a right to free speech, i.e. unlimited political spending to influence elections. This was a vast and unprecedented expansion of the powers of corporations, nearly all of which accrue to the rich owners. A corporation is not even a citizen and cannot vote.

Scalia nearly always supported the rich and powerful against everyone else.

[sgtsabai]

The Republicans immediately turned Scalia's death into politics as usual. My take on his death: Great news today, that "frigging" Scalia is DOA! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Ring the bells, fire the guns! A great start to the Chinese New Year. Must have been quick damn it. I would have hoped for a long, slow, painful, miserable, lonely death. As of my latest reading the cause of death is not known. I think 2 causes can be ruled out, brain tumor/stroke-no brain, heart attack-no heart. The journalist Glenn Greenwald summed up the mood among many critics of the justice in a tweet: Dont even try to enforce the inapplicable dont-speak-ill-of-the-dead rule for the highly polarizing, deeply consequential Antonin Scalia.

This really throws a twist into the election and will give the Democrats all the more reason to go to the poles and elect not only the president, even if the lessor of 2 evils but Hillary does still have some small bit sanity left, unlike any of the buffoon car, not heart and soul though, but also a Senate that will NOT refuse to bring up for nomination a Democratic president's nomination for Supreme Court as Mitchell and the Republicans immediately threatened. Don't worry Republicans, like Obama's, except for Sonia Sotomayor her nomination will be center right at best. Their will be no more Justice William O. Douglas types, much needed by America over the last decade.

[lannarebirth]

The Republicans immediately turned Scalia's death into politics as usual. My take on his death: Great news today, that "frigging" Scalia is DOA! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Ring the bells, fire the guns! A great start to the Chinese New Year. Must have been quick damn it. I would have hoped for a long, slow, painful, miserable, lonely death. As of my latest reading the cause of death is not known. I think 2 causes can be ruled out, brain tumor/stroke-no brain, heart attack-no heart. The journalist Glenn Greenwald summed up the mood among many critics of the justice in a tweet: Dont even try to enforce the inapplicable dont-speak-ill-of-the-dead rule for the highly polarizing, deeply consequential Antonin Scalia. This really throws a twist into the election and will give the Democrats all the more reason to go to the poles and elect not only the president, even if the lessor of 2 evils but Hillary does still have some small bit sanity left, unlike any of the buffoon car, not heart and soul though, but also a Senate that will NOT refuse to bring up for nomination a Democratic president's nomination for Supreme Court as Mitchell and the Republicans immediately threatened. Don't worry Republicans, like Obama's, except for Sonia Sotomayor her nomination will be center right at best. Their will be no more Justice William O. Douglas types, much needed by America over the last decade.

I have to say, I find you no different than the most extreme people espousing exactly the opposite of what you do. Both you and they would appear to be really hateful SOB's.

Edited February 14, 2016 by lannarebirth

[CaptHaddock]

Either side will do their utmost to block a nominee they don't like. But it seems the longest delay has been 125 days. Amazing how 'conservatives' seem so keen to break with the past.

Not true. The Democratic Senate approved unanimously Reagan's appointment of Anthony Kennedy in 1988, an election year. It did so after rejecting Robert Bork.

You watch. McConnell will refuse even to send an Obama nomination to the Judiciary Committee.

The Republican preference for disfunctional government at work.

I didn't say they have, I said they will.

But of course since they will probably have input as to who is nominated, in this case they won't.

It seems to be the divisive nature of politics in America at the moment; the Republicans have been at it since Obama won.

McConnell has already laid his cards on the table.

Actually they've been at it since Bill Clinton won. Bill Clinton was the classical Republican. But the Republican party saw him only as "the other party". Consequently they became even more right wing in their policies, in order to differentiate themselves from the opposition incumbent.

But to really understand American politics of the current era, you need to go back to Reagan. Before Reagan ( and the huge deficits that followed) you had men of principle (some corrupt, to be sure) that started with opposing points of view that would hammer out legislation neither party was wholly happy with but in the main, moved America forward. It was more or less what I learned in those Poli Sci classes years ago. Politics being "the art of the possible", "the art of compromise". Post Reagan, every single president and congress has seen "compromise" to mean "i'll allow your party to include its worst ideas, if you'll allow us to include our worst ideas". Consequently deficits balooned, and to no good end.

It's probably too late for America. It probably can't correct from the tailspin it's in. But if it can, the only candidate among the current roster that could hope to effect that change is Bernie Sanders. Of his stated policy goals, I agree with about half of them, which for me, places him head and shoulders above any other candidate that's currently running.

When people cannot understand some social or political change they like to put it down just to personalities that change out of the blue, for no reason, but in large enough numbers to account for large political change. But that's not good social science because it doesn't actually explain anything. What really happened is that Reagan's Revolution, and a true revolution it was, drastically lowered tax rates on the rich at the same time that it pursued anti-union laws and legal actions. These policies produced a shift in the distribution of income in America. In the following graph you can see that up until the Reagan period the incomes of the 99% and 1% groups both share in the post-war prosperity. Then beginning in 1983 the 1% quickly outpaces the 99% whose income growth slows down. If you were to break out the 99%, you would see that the bottom half got no income growth at all. All of it went to the top 10% or so.

Economic changes as vast as that will certainly bring about political change as well. Formerly the two political parties competed for the middle-class. Both parties included what could be called liberal and conservative factions. So, Nixon, although certainly a conservative, supported policies like environmental protection and guaranteed income policies that were essentially liberal ideas. Now, after thirty years of income skewed to the rich accumulated wealth is concentrated in the rich more than ever. The rich, specifically the billionaires without whose support no Republican candidate can compete, only support policies from which they benefit, which means lower taxes. So, all Republican candidates always support tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich. They want small government because they themselves don't need services from the government like education for their children, or healthcare or even clean water. The candidates they subsidize must support the policies that favor the rich which forces them to utter inanities, for instance about making America great again, to distract the voters from their real economic decline. Or they distract them with lifestyle issues like gay marriage that in fact are much less important to them than maintaining a foothold in the middle-class.

So, it's a mistake to focus on personality although politicians certainly have them like everyone else. Trump, for instance, seems like a mould-breaker in view of how willing he is to offend various groups including potential voters. But his proposed tax policy is the same old tax-cuts-for-the-rich.