US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[mopar71]

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.

If the right wing were nearly as vile as you liberals, Ted Kennedy's death would have been a free-for-all. Plenty of ammo there to be sure, but I don't remember any of the "dancing on the grave" you commonly see coming from the left.

[lannarebirth]

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.

I only read your first paragraph because its past my bedtime, but nowhere did I introduce "personalities" into the discussion. Personalities are meaningless to me. If you're an ass hole that does the right thing you'll carry more sway with me than a super nice guy that pushes failed ideas. In the political realm personalities are constructs best left ignored. I'm the exact opposite of someone that cares about someone's personality. I can see past that stuff instantly.

I'll get back to you tomorrow, but if you're one of those that thinks Reagan helped destroy America without the full cooperation of Tip O'Neils congress, I'm not sure we've much to talk about.

Edited February 14, 2016 by lannarebirth

[mopar71]

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.

Just going by memory here but George HW Bush had his famous quote, "read my lips, No New Taxes" during the 1988 campaign then later compromised with the Democrats to raise taxes and they used it against him in the 1992 election. Lesson learned: compromise at your own risk.

A refresher for others...in 1992 Clinton won with only 43% of the vote. Bush had about 38% and Ross Perot about 19%. The country soon after voted in a Republican majority congress for the first time in decades led by Newt Gingrich. So Clinton had to compromise and govern more from the center. They ended the decade with a couple budget surpluses. Lesson learned: compromise can be good for the country.

Obama will fail if he nominates someone that the Republicans won't like. He will have to compromise and pick someone more appealing to all sides, someone who is ideologically opposed to himself (re: someone who values the Constitution).

Can Obama's ego do this? Or will he run the risk of Trump getting in there and appointing someone? Geez, I can't imagine who he would nominate. I guess he could do worse than nominate one of his fellow reality TV show hosts.

Edited February 14, 2016 by mopar71

[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!

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.

As I said before, I disagreed with many of his rulings, Citizens United being one of them. But the beauty of the system is that we can disagree, decisions may be made which are unjust, but later can be re-interpreted or overturned.

Scalia for all his failings was never untrue to his interpretation of the constitution, which I admire him for.

[keemapoot]

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

In reading the initial views of political journalists, it seems the Republicans are sure to block just about anyone Obama nominates, even someone moderate and unobjectionable to them. Further analysis indicates this continued obstructionist behavior may very much sway the Presidential election away from the Republicans due to this unreasonable behavior. So, if this view becomes reality, the Republicans may just shoot themselves in the foot in the Presidential race while already running a badly crippled primaries campaign.

[lannarebirth]

What Justice Scalia’s death means for pending Supreme Court decisions

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/what-does-justice-scalias-death-mean-for-pending-000410173.html

Edited February 14, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Jingthing]

This will become a HUGE factor in this election year. Reported on the news ... top google searches now are SCOTUS and GAY MARRIAGE.

Scalia was NOTORIOUSLY anti-gay. A horrible bigot really, equating gay rights to pedophile rights, in a similar was as anti-gay Russkie dictator Putin.

Yet again, the vicious right wing agenda of denying basic civil rights to GLBT Americans will be one of the top issues.

These haters under the bogus cover of "religious liberty" hope to push back GLBT civil rights that have already been acheived. Weaken or destroy the SCOTUS marriage equality ruling and also to make sure no further basic rights are achieved, such as equal treatment protections in housing and employment.

Bottom line, I think this is good for the democrats. Assuming the republican game players will block any Obama pick, even a moderate one, I think the majority of Americans would rather see this power with any democrat rather than any republican.

The anti-gay haters represented by the atrociously right wing Scalia may have more passion, but the forces of fairness have more NUMBERS.

The republicans by blocking even a moderate Obama pick are playing a dangerous game from their POV .. going for broke as it were, and they will probably indeed go BROKE.

For those who think it crass to focus on Scalia's replacement when the body isn't cold, get real.

The very MOMENT the death was announced the politics of his replacement was all over the news.

From BOTH sides of the great American political divide.

Nobody is denying Scalia wasn't intellectually brilliant ... but he was brilliant in the service of a very awful political agenda.

Of course his anti-gay agenda was only one aspect of that, but it continues to be a HOT BUTTON wedge issue in American politics as evidenced by the google searches.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

This will become a HUGE factor in this election year. Reported on the news ... top google searches now are SCOTUS and GAY MARRIAGE.

Scalia was NOTORIOUSLY anti-gay. A horrible bigot really, equating gay rights to pedophile rights, in a similar was as anti-gay Russkie dictator Putin.

Yet again, the vicious right wing agenda of denying basic civil rights to GLBT Americans will be one of the top issues.

These haters under the bogus cover of "religious liberty" hope to push back the civil rights GLBT. Weaken or destroy the SCOTUS marriage equality ruling and also to make sure no further basic rights are achieved, such as equal treatment protections in housing and employment.

Bottom line, I think this is good for the democrats. Assuming the republican games players will block any Obama pick, I think the majority of Americans would rather see this power with any democrat rather than any republican.

I agree it will be possibly huge (the Supreme Court Vacancy) in this election year but having nothing to do with gay rights. That's a battle that's been fought and won. It will be good for the Democrats if the Republicans try to obstruct any reasonable appointee from joining the court. Not everything is about gay people.

Republicans would have to be insane to try to hold a Supreme Court nomination up for a year or more. It's totally uncharted waters and they're swimming against the tide to boot.

If you were little less polarized in your views of Scalia, you'd know he had a great deal to do with protecting your privacy rights.

Edited February 14, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Jingthing]

This will become a HUGE factor in this election year. Reported on the news ... top google searches now are SCOTUS and GAY MARRIAGE.

Scalia was NOTORIOUSLY anti-gay. A horrible bigot really, equating gay rights to pedophile rights, in a similar was as anti-gay Russkie dictator Putin.

Yet again, the vicious right wing agenda of denying basic civil rights to GLBT Americans will be one of the top issues.

These haters under the bogus cover of "religious liberty" hope to push back the civil rights GLBT. Weaken or destroy the SCOTUS marriage equality ruling and also to make sure no further basic rights are achieved, such as equal treatment protections in housing and employment.

Bottom line, I think this is good for the democrats. Assuming the republican games players will block any Obama pick, I think the majority of Americans would rather see this power with any democrat rather than any republican.

I agree it will be possibly huge (the Supreme Court Vacancy) in this election year but having nothing to do with gay rights. That's a battle that's been fought and won. It will be good for the Democrats if the Republicans try to obstruct any reasonable appointee from joining the court. Not everything is about gay people.

Republicans would have to be insane to try to hold a Supreme Court nomination up for a year or more. It's totally uncharted waters and they're swimming against the tide to boot.

Totally wrong.

Sorry, but you obviously haven't been paying attention.

Republican candidates are openly talking about their plans to overturn the SCOTUS marriage equality ruling. Yes, it's possible, with the right right wing SCOTUS picks.

Republicans would have to be insane? Are you having a laugh!?! Republicans ARE insane. Look at their front runners now, Trump and Cruz. Even that looney tunes Carson was leading before.

Of course they are going to try to block any Obama pick. That's already started. Will they succeed in that? Not sure about that.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Jingthing

[lannarebirth]

This will become a HUGE factor in this election year. Reported on the news ... top google searches now are SCOTUS and GAY MARRIAGE.

Scalia was NOTORIOUSLY anti-gay. A horrible bigot really, equating gay rights to pedophile rights, in a similar was as anti-gay Russkie dictator Putin.

Yet again, the vicious right wing agenda of denying basic civil rights to GLBT Americans will be one of the top issues.

These haters under the bogus cover of "religious liberty" hope to push back the civil rights GLBT. Weaken or destroy the SCOTUS marriage equality ruling and also to make sure no further basic rights are achieved, such as equal treatment protections in housing and employment.

Bottom line, I think this is good for the democrats. Assuming the republican games players will block any Obama pick, I think the majority of Americans would rather see this power with any democrat rather than any republican.

I agree it will be possibly huge (the Supreme Court Vacancy) in this election year but having nothing to do with gay rights. That's a battle that's been fought and won. It will be good for the Democrats if the Republicans try to obstruct any reasonable appointee from joining the court. Not everything is about gay people.

Republicans would have to be insane to try to hold a Supreme Court nomination up for a year or more. It's totally uncharted waters and they're swimming against the tide to boot.

Totally wrong.

Sorry, but you obviously haven't been paying attention.

Republican candidates are openly talking about their plans to overturn the SCOTUS marriage equality ruling. Yes, it's possible, with the right right wing SCOTUS picks.

Republicans would have to be insane? Are you having a laugh!?! Republicans ARE insane. Look at their front runners now, Trump and Cruz. Even that looney tunes Carson was leading before.

It ain't gonna happen. Politicians and judges are FOLLOWERS. The people have already decided. This is the Roberts court. He keeps his ear to the ground.

[Jingthing]

Two republican picks and they can do anything they want.

Elect any republican, assuming Scalia's replacement is blocked, and any republican is likely to get TWO picks in his first term.

SCOTUS picks are always at least an underlying factor in presidential elections.

But this time, assuming a block, it becomes very major and very visible.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

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?

When the founding fathers set up the country, homosexuals would probably have been killed, so it doesn't need to be in the constitution for him to know that they would not have approved. It was so outrageous an idea back then that they didn't even think about putting it in the constitution, as it wouldn't have even registered as an idea to them. You might as well ask why they didn't ban nuclear bombs.

[lannarebirth]

Two republican picks and they can do anything they want.

Elect any republican, assuming Scalia's replacement is blocked, and any republican is likely to get TWO picks in his first term.

SCOTUS picks are always at least an underlying factor in presidential elections.

But this time, assuming a block, it becomes very major and very visible.

Take a chill pill. No Republican is getting elected unless people like you keep backing a toxic candidate that might even make Donald Trump seem attractive by comparison. You know why you're worried don't you? It's because you're not right with your political leanings. You're backing the wrong candidate because you think she is more electable instead of doing what you know is right in your heart and in your gut. Get on the bus and send Bernie $27.

[Chicog]

It seems Mitch wasn't so principled when he confirmed Anthony Kennedy on Feb 3 1988 - Reagan's final year in office.

[thaibeachlovers]

This will become a HUGE factor in this election year. Reported on the news ... top google searches now are SCOTUS and GAY MARRIAGE.

Scalia was NOTORIOUSLY anti-gay. A horrible bigot really, equating gay rights to pedophile rights, in a similar was as anti-gay Russkie dictator Putin.

Yet again, the vicious right wing agenda of denying basic civil rights to GLBT Americans will be one of the top issues.

These haters under the bogus cover of "religious liberty" hope to push back the civil rights GLBT. Weaken or destroy the SCOTUS marriage equality ruling and also to make sure no further basic rights are achieved, such as equal treatment protections in housing and employment.

Bottom line, I think this is good for the democrats. Assuming the republican games players will block any Obama pick, I think the majority of Americans would rather see this power with any democrat rather than any republican.

I agree it will be possibly huge (the Supreme Court Vacancy) in this election year but having nothing to do with gay rights. That's a battle that's been fought and won. It will be good for the Democrats if the Republicans try to obstruct any reasonable appointee from joining the court. Not everything is about gay people.

Republicans would have to be insane to try to hold a Supreme Court nomination up for a year or more. It's totally uncharted waters and they're swimming against the tide to boot.

If you were little less polarized in your views of Scalia, you'd know he had a great deal to do with protecting your privacy rights.

Actually not much is about homosexual people etc. They only constitute 10% of the population. Most people don't even think about it, ever.

[Jingthing]

As I said. Totally changes the presidential race and GLBT civil rights will be a big part of the debate:

Republicans will pledge to appoint strict constructionists who will follow the letter of the Constitution, and they will also be under pressure to pledge that their choices would roll back court decisions that upheld the Affordable Care Act and legalized same-sex marriage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-scalias-death-increases-urgency-of-social-issues-in-2016-race/2016/02/13/eeb3ce0c-d2aa-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_scaliacampaign-1020pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[lannarebirth]

It seems Mitch wasn't so principled when he confirmed Anthony Kennedy on Feb 3 1988 - Reagan's final year in office.

You're buying into the narrative. Presidents appoint SC justices when vacancies occur. Congres vets them and their approval is not to be unreasonably withheld. End of story. Longest it ever took was something like 125 days. 340ish days left in the Obama presidency. If Congress drops the ball and obstructs the process they will lose one or more chambers of Congress. Count on it.

[OMGImInPattaya]

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.

Four other justices had the same "bizarre" view.

[lannarebirth]

This will become a HUGE factor in this election year. Reported on the news ... top google searches now are SCOTUS and GAY MARRIAGE.

Scalia was NOTORIOUSLY anti-gay. A horrible bigot really, equating gay rights to pedophile rights, in a similar was as anti-gay Russkie dictator Putin.

Yet again, the vicious right wing agenda of denying basic civil rights to GLBT Americans will be one of the top issues.

These haters under the bogus cover of "religious liberty" hope to push back the civil rights GLBT. Weaken or destroy the SCOTUS marriage equality ruling and also to make sure no further basic rights are achieved, such as equal treatment protections in housing and employment.

Bottom line, I think this is good for the democrats. Assuming the republican games players will block any Obama pick, I think the majority of Americans would rather see this power with any democrat rather than any republican.

I agree it will be possibly huge (the Supreme Court Vacancy) in this election year but having nothing to do with gay rights. That's a battle that's been fought and won. It will be good for the Democrats if the Republicans try to obstruct any reasonable appointee from joining the court. Not everything is about gay people.

Republicans would have to be insane to try to hold a Supreme Court nomination up for a year or more. It's totally uncharted waters and they're swimming against the tide to boot.

If you were little less polarized in your views of Scalia, you'd know he had a great deal to do with protecting your privacy rights.

Actually not much is about homosexual people etc. They only constitute 10% of the population. Most people don't even think about it, ever.

Well its important to them and because some of them may be our friends, neighbors, families. coworkers or fellow human beings it should be important to us. I think the number is closer to 5% but I'm not sure.

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

Lot of good stuff there like 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. I was having a hard time wondering why it had become such a prominent issue when most people don't give a monkey's.

for instance about making America great again, to distract the voters from their real economic decline

Doesn't apply to the Donald. He's not beholden to anyone- doesn't need their money, which is probably the main reason people support him- they know he's not bought and sold like the other clowns, and that's of both parties.

[lannarebirth]

As I said. Totally changes the presidential race and GLBT civil rights will be a big part of the debate:

Republicans will pledge to appoint strict constructionists who will follow the letter of the Constitution, and they will also be under pressure to pledge that their choices would roll back court decisions that upheld the Affordable Care Act and legalized same-sex marriage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-scalias-death-increases-urgency-of-social-issues-in-2016-race/2016/02/13/eeb3ce0c-d2aa-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_scaliacampaign-1020pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Cut it out. You're forgetting about independent voters who won't be voting Republican if they hold up the process beyond the election. The only people in favor of that are already Republican and really extreme Republicans at that.

[thaibeachlovers]

This will become a HUGE factor in this election year. Reported on the news ... top google searches now are SCOTUS and GAY MARRIAGE.

Scalia was NOTORIOUSLY anti-gay. A horrible bigot really, equating gay rights to pedophile rights, in a similar was as anti-gay Russkie dictator Putin.

Yet again, the vicious right wing agenda of denying basic civil rights to GLBT Americans will be one of the top issues.

These haters under the bogus cover of "religious liberty" hope to push back the civil rights GLBT. Weaken or destroy the SCOTUS marriage equality ruling and also to make sure no further basic rights are achieved, such as equal treatment protections in housing and employment.

Bottom line, I think this is good for the democrats. Assuming the republican games players will block any Obama pick, I think the majority of Americans would rather see this power with any democrat rather than any republican.

I agree it will be possibly huge (the Supreme Court Vacancy) in this election year but having nothing to do with gay rights. That's a battle that's been fought and won. It will be good for the Democrats if the Republicans try to obstruct any reasonable appointee from joining the court. Not everything is about gay people.

Republicans would have to be insane to try to hold a Supreme Court nomination up for a year or more. It's totally uncharted waters and they're swimming against the tide to boot.

If you were little less polarized in your views of Scalia, you'd know he had a great deal to do with protecting your privacy rights.

Actually not much is about homosexual people etc. They only constitute 10% of the population. Most people don't even think about it, ever.

Well its important to them and because some of them may be our friends, neighbors, families. coworkers or fellow human beings it should be important to us. I think the number is closer to 5% but I'm not sure.

Erm, most people, and I mean MOST people don't know any homosexuals etc, or at least they might know some but they don't know they're homosexual etc. Those that do either don't care or probably don't want anything to do with them ( not referring to family members or friends ). I used to work in the hospital with a guy that was a closet trans sexual. When he "came out" and started wearing a dress, he was shunned by almost everyone. However, there was a recent story about a uni lecturer that was a closet tranny. One day he went to work all dressed up in female clothes and no one even blinked- notice they didn't all crowd around saying "well done", they just ignored it completely.

It's 10% according to google.

Edited February 14, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

As I said. Totally changes the presidential race and GLBT civil rights will be a big part of the debate:

Republicans will pledge to appoint strict constructionists who will follow the letter of the Constitution, and they will also be under pressure to pledge that their choices would roll back court decisions that upheld the Affordable Care Act and legalized same-sex marriage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-scalias-death-increases-urgency-of-social-issues-in-2016-race/2016/02/13/eeb3ce0c-d2aa-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_scaliacampaign-1020pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Cut it out. You're forgetting about independent voters who won't be voting Republican if they hold up the process beyond the election. The only people in favor of that are already Republican and really extreme Republicans at that.

LOL. Given many US citizens don't know who the VP is, I doubt if anything going on in the House or SCOTUS even registers on their brain.

[lannarebirth]

As I said. Totally changes the presidential race and GLBT civil rights will be a big part of the debate:

Republicans will pledge to appoint strict constructionists who will follow the letter of the Constitution, and they will also be under pressure to pledge that their choices would roll back court decisions that upheld the Affordable Care Act and legalized same-sex marriage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-scalias-death-increases-urgency-of-social-issues-in-2016-race/2016/02/13/eeb3ce0c-d2aa-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_scaliacampaign-1020pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Cut it out. You're forgetting about independent voters who won't be voting Republican if they hold up the process beyond the election. The only people in favor of that are already Republican and really extreme Republicans at that.

LOL. Given many US citizens don't know who the VP is, I doubt if anything going on in the House or SCOTUS even registers on their brain.

Well, if you're right they probably won't even take the time to register to vote.

[Publicus]

 

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?

When the founding fathers set up the country, homosexuals would probably have been killed, so it doesn't need to be in the constitution for him to know that they would not have approved. It was so outrageous an idea back then that they didn't even think about putting it in the constitution, as it wouldn't have even registered as an idea to them. You might as well ask why they didn't ban nuclear bombs.

Equality under law. It's all over the founding documents, papers, thoughts, discussions, debates, ideas, precepts.

Take note of it here in our time, place, circumstance:

The words "equal justice under law" paraphrase an earlier expression coined in 1891 by the Supreme Court.[7][8] In the case of Caldwell v. Texas, Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote on behalf of a unanimous Court as follows, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law."[9] The last seven words are summarized by the inscription on the U.S. Supreme Court building.[7]

Later in 1891, Fuller's opinion for the Court in Leeper v. Texas again referred to "equal...justice under...law".[10] Like Caldwell, the Leeper opinion was unanimous...[11]

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

Scalia for all his personal attention to privacy missed this completely and it is due to his religious and rightwing views, attitudes, convictions, all of which were in toto in conflict with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers etc.

All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [sic] rights, chief among them being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Looks like Justice Antonin Scalia had the wrong creator. His must have been from down below instead.

Sure hope he likes it down there.

[helpisgood]

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.

In the case of a tie on an 8 member Supreme Court the lower court ruling stands.

True, but also, if I recall correctly, a Supreme Court's 4-4 ruling would not set precedent.

This means that such a ruling would not be binding on lower courts. Thus, lower courts would not have to follow what's called the holding, which is the ruling on the issue or issues at hand.

That may become a problem due to the current ideological split on the court. It's now somewhat 4 to 4 with Kennedy, and at least on one big case Roberts (Obamacare), sometimes siding with the liberals.

This is a problem if it's a momentous case that people are expecting to get a final and settled ruling on. Also, it's a problem if different federal circuit courts, sitting in different regions of the country, have ruled differently on important points of law. This could result in one or more parts of the country ruling on one issue one way while others rule in a different way. One important role of the Supreme Court is to harmonize rulings among the several circuits.

[kingalfred]

As a "religious" man of a certain type who believed in the two places after death, hope he likes fire!

[slerickson]

The devil has finally called back one of his disciples. Praise the lord.

[Credo]

As a "religious" man of a certain type who believed in the two places after death, hope he likes fire!

I don't wish anything bad on the man or his family.

Perhaps now, though, he is feeling the 'Bern'.

[Gecko123]

Ironically, if Republicans successful block Obama's efforts to appoint Scalia's successor, it will likely work to the advantage of the Democratic nominee.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Gecko123