US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[helpisgood]

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.

CaptHaddock,

I do not disagree with you regarding the Reagan tax cuts and how voters are distracted from the substantial issues. I think you understand the economics better than I do. So, I enjoyed reading your post. Thanks!

I'd like to know if you think that an additional factor was the deregulation of businesses and banking. I know that Clinton was responsible for taking down Glass-Steageall, but I think the Reagan administration deregulated banking in other ways. I am not clear on it.

Basically, it seems to me that an important part of the Reagan era was a partial dismantling of the New Deal.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

Again, thanks!

PS, I now see that there's some issue regarding the affect of personalities on current affairs. I am sure that's an interesting issue, but, with all due respect to you and lannarebirth, that's not part of the scope of my interest here.

Also, it occurred to me that I may be changing the drift of this discussion. So, my apologies and maybe we'll have to discuss the Reagan years at another time.

Edited February 14, 2016 by helpisgood

[Grouse]

I think it's really great that so many of you Americans know so much about such obscure things as the make up of the Supreme Court!

In fact, of all our former colonies, I must say you've done jolly well

Sure the constitution was a bit, well, poor. But, you've been able to introduce amenments to fix prohibition and other such nonsense.

Good job all round I say!!

[Jingthing]

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

I agree, it will most likely backfire badly on them. Of course, there is a chance it won't, so they're taking a big gamble.

[helpisgood]

I think it's really great that so many of you Americans know so much about such obscure things as the make up of the Supreme Court!

In fact, of all our former colonies, I must say you've done jolly well

Sure the constitution was a bit, well, poor. But, you've been able to introduce amenments to fix prohibition and other such nonsense.

Good job all round I say!!

Maybe you should take some time away from being patronizing and study your own language. It's "makeup," not "make up." And, you're from the master country?

Oh, and keep your day job.

[arjunadawn]

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.

Interesting appraisal, but it misses another consistently missed point in US politics- Americans by and large do not want progress. They want gridlock. Americans want the wheels of state to be locked and grind to a halt to stop the surge toward socialism. Republicans have not mis judged their constituency on this matter. They have repeatedly flipped off their constituency when given clear and overwhelming mandate to stop Progressive/Obama social engineering. Congress may suffer but it will not be for obstructing Obama's choice for SC.

[Usernames]

I think it's really great that so many of you Americans know so much about such obscure things as the make up of the Supreme Court!

In fact, of all our former colonies, I must say you've done jolly well

Sure the constitution was a bit, well, poor. But, you've been able to introduce amenments to fix prohibition and other such nonsense.

Good job all round I say!!

The "mistake" was the result of the suffragette movement and the WTCU, who finally pushed through the Eighteenth Amendment while the men were in Europe fighting World War I.

[Credo]

The death of Scalia has made a profound decision on who I support. I like Trump and I like Bernie. I could lean toward Rubio, but would have a difficult time voting for Hillary.

Scalia's death and the thought of another conservative judge means that I will vote for the Democratic nominee even if Donald Duck gets the nomination.

[sirineou]

The death of Scalia has made a profound decision on who I support. I like Trump and I like Bernie. I could lean toward Rubio, but would have a difficult time voting for Hillary.

Scalia's death and the thought of another conservative judge means that I will vote for the Democratic nominee even if Donald Duck gets the nomination.

and then there is that

I Dont like Trump and would never vote for him because , though I dont now him personally

I am professionally involved the high rise construction industry in NYC , my company did the concrete on the west side highway Trump towers, and I had a conversation about this with my boss who knows him personally and had to deal with his managers. and this is what he said "if he is elected president. god save as all"

but that's an other story

I despise Hillary also, but in a situation where we have HRC and Trump in the general election, What does one do?

One good thing about the Sanders campaign is that all his donations are on the average $30 so he can go back to his donors and ask for more as the have not reached their limit

correct me if I am wrong I think it is $2700,

Where HRS has received the bulk of her money from large donors who have reached their limit. So hopefully Bearnie would be able to raise the necessary funds to oppose her and we wont have to consider the above quandary

[Jingthing]

Confronting the BS myth that right wing jurists like Scalia are actually the constitutional "originalists" that they claim to be:

One could find case after case in which the conservative majority, Scalia included, had voted to suit its views, sometimes finding justification somewhere in the words of the Constitution or in legal precedent, sometimes by deciding that times had changed. In principle it’s no different from the legal and constitutional practice of the liberals. The difference is that the liberals admit what they’re doing. The conservatives wrap themselves in the sober-sounding philosophy that serves primarily to let them unravel decades of social progress in the name of a pretend constitutional piety.

http://forward.com/opinion/333477/why-antonin-scalia-was-a-closet-radical-and-would-relish-political-firestor/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

[sirineou]

Two things I find funny. Cruz is sorry to see Scalia die, but if a challenge to his eligibility came before a Scalia court , Scalia's Originalist constitutional views would declare him ineligible. And Cruz wants to replace Scalia with an other conservative originalist? I don't think he has thought this through.

Which brings me to Cruz's intellectual dishonesty. He is a constitutional originalist when it comes to other people but when it comes to him , he is liberal.

[arjunadawn]

Prediction: One more Associate Supreme Court Justice will announce retirement this year leveraging (or neutralizing) any senate efforts to delay appointment during Obama's final 'reign." This likelihood will be in proportion to the senate's resolve to wait out Obama's term.

The Supreme Court is arguably the last refuge conservative/traditional/constitutionalist Americans have to thwart the slide into socialism/fascism in the US. Why anyone has any trust in SCOTUS following strict interpretation and not legislating from the bench is remarkable in view of recent judicial activism and interpretative gymnastics evidenced from the bench lately. Obama is certainly rubbing the mental palms of his hands together with relish at getting to stack the bench; any president would. The opportunity to seat another justice marries perfectly with Lorreta Lynch's guidance to enact changes that will be nearly impossible to undo when Obama leaves office (paraphrase, her statement). I suspect that into this lame duck year the ante will be upped provoking the senate to act- not defer. There is no better mechanism to paint an incomplete bench as emergent than the retirement/departure of another justice. At that point it could be argued that senate deference would be negligence.

I was unaware that Scalia had a medical conditions that anticipated this. RIP.

[arjunadawn]

Two things I find funny. Cruz is sorry to see Scalia die, but if a challenge to his eligibility came before a Scalia court , Scalia's Originalist constitutional views would declare him ineligible. And Cruz wants to replace Scalia with an other conservative originalist? I don't think he has thought this through.

Which brings me to Cruz's intellectual dishonesty. He is a constitutional originalist when it comes to other people but when it comes to him , he is liberal.

Interesting POV. Very curious point indeed.

[kingalfred]

Senate Recess appointment coming up if Republicans dont wanna play ball. And the Pres CAN make such an appointment!

[Usernames]

Senate Recess appointment coming up if Republicans dont wanna play ball. And the Pres CAN make such an appointment!

Keep pushing and see a civil war erupt. And one side is well armed and trained in the military, while the other one isn't.

[kingalfred]

Senate Recess appointment coming up if Republicans dont wanna play ball. And the Pres CAN make such an appointment!

Keep pushing and see a civil war erupt. And one side is well armed and trained in the military, while the other one isn't.

there speaks the militia loony NRA psychos epitomised by Trump/Cruz

[iReason]

@Post #101

“Americans have to thwart the slide into socialism/fascism in the US.”

Socialism SLASH Fascism?

What a complete bunch of disingenuous nonsense.

P.S. Read up.

It’s been a fascist state for quite some time.

[Usernames]

Senate Recess appointment coming up if Republicans dont wanna play ball. And the Pres CAN make such an appointment!

Keep pushing and see a civil war erupt. And one side is well armed and trained in the military, while the other one isn't.

there speaks the militia loony NRA psychos epitomised by Trump/Cruz

Not any militias, but the armed forces.

[Publicus]

 

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.

Interesting appraisal, but it misses another consistently missed point in US politics- Americans by and large do not want progress. They want gridlock. Americans want the wheels of state to be locked and grind to a halt to stop the surge toward socialism. Republicans have not mis judged their constituency on this matter. They have repeatedly flipped off their constituency when given clear and overwhelming mandate to stop Progressive/Obama social engineering. Congress may suffer but it will not be for obstructing Obama's choice for SC.

In one statement the post states, "Americans do not want progress. They want gridlock." For one point, it could seem you miss Donald Trump's themes not to mention the similar themes of Bernie Sanders, each of whom rail against the do-nothing system, its systemic paralysis and corrupt weaknesses.

In the next graph the post jumps to stating, "Republicans have not misjudged their constituency..." Leaping from Americans to Republicans and their constituency is a bridge too far. It graphs a universal constituency and a sub-constituency into one big ball of reactionary and backward rightwingnut yahoos, which fails to exclude yours truly along with the vast majority of Americans.

Antonin Scalia's originalism or textualism in jurisprudence is at the core of this Republican and other rightwhinge obstructionism. Gridlock is the problem rather than anything to celebrate or advocate. Scalia's originalism is the same as the theocratic originalist, fundamentalist, textualist creationism that engineers a rearguard social and cultural warfare against progress. And it is progress as well as development.

Republicans and other rightwhinger naysayers have effectively morphed the American constitutional democracy of checks and balances and co-equal branches of government into a parliamentary one in which standoff and stalemate occurs unless one party sweeps all three institutions, namely the Presidency, the Senate, the House.

The Republican Party of No has in fact transformed US government, politics, democracy. Reactionaries and other rightwhingenuts have done this. Justice Antonin Scalia is most recently one principal who has led the way back to the caves.

[Publicus]

 

Senate Recess appointment coming up if Republicans dont wanna play ball. And the Pres CAN make such an appointment!

Keep pushing and see a civil war erupt. And one side is well armed and trained in the military, while the other one isn't.

there speaks the militia loony NRA psychos epitomised by Trump/Cruz

Not any militias, but the armed forces.

Kindly do not insult or offend the Constitutional loyalty of my country's armed forces.

Militia are the crackpots, not the professional military of the United States.

[Usernames]

 

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.

Interesting appraisal, but it misses another consistently missed point in US politics- Americans by and large do not want progress. They want gridlock. Americans want the wheels of state to be locked and grind to a halt to stop the surge toward socialism. Republicans have not mis judged their constituency on this matter. They have repeatedly flipped off their constituency when given clear and overwhelming mandate to stop Progressive/Obama social engineering. Congress may suffer but it will not be for obstructing Obama's choice for SC.

In one statement the post states, "Americans do not want progress. They want gridlock." For one point, it could seem you miss Donald Trump's themes not to mention the similar themes of Bernie Sanders, each of whom rail against the do-nothing system, its systemic paralysis and corrupt weaknesses.

In the next graph the post jumps to stating, "Republicans have not misjudged their constituency..." Leaping from Americans to Republicans and their constituency is a bridge too far. It graphs a universal constituency and a sub-constituency into one big ball of reactionary and backward rightwingnut yahoos, which fails to exclude yours truly along with the vast majority of Americans.

Antonin Scalia's originalism or textualism in jurisprudence is at the core of this Republican and other rightwhinge obstructionism. Gridlock is the problem rather than anything to celebrate or advocate. Scalia's originalism is the same as the theocratic originalist, fundamentalist, textualist creationism that engineers a rearguard social and cultural warfare against progress. And it is progress as well as development.

Republicans and other rightwhinger naysayers have effectively morphed the American constitutional democracy of checks and balances and co-equal branches of government into a parliamentary one in which standoff and stalemate occurs unless one party sweeps all three institutions, namely the Presidency, the Senate, the House.

The Republican Party of No has in fact transformed US government, politics, democracy. Reactionaries and other rightwhingenuts have done this. Justice Antonin Scalia is most recently one principal who has led the way back to the caves.

[orchis]

oh, I'm so sorry.

[arjunadawn]

 

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.

Interesting appraisal, but it misses another consistently missed point in US politics- Americans by and large do not want progress. They want gridlock. Americans want the wheels of state to be locked and grind to a halt to stop the surge toward socialism. Republicans have not mis judged their constituency on this matter. They have repeatedly flipped off their constituency when given clear and overwhelming mandate to stop Progressive/Obama social engineering. Congress may suffer but it will not be for obstructing Obama's choice for SC.

In one statement the post states, "Americans do not want progress. They want gridlock." For one point, it could seem you miss Donald Trump's themes not to mention the similar themes of Bernie Sanders, each of whom rail against the do-nothing system, its systemic paralysis and corrupt weaknesses.

In the next graph the post jumps to stating, "Republicans have not misjudged their constituency..." Leaping from Americans to Republicans and their constituency is a bridge too far. It graphs a universal constituency and a sub-constituency into one big ball of reactionary and backward rightwingnut yahoos, which fails to exclude yours truly along with the vast majority of Americans.

Antonin Scalia's originalism or textualism in jurisprudence is at the core of this Republican and other rightwhinge obstructionism. Gridlock is the problem rather than anything to celebrate or advocate. Scalia's originalism is the same as the theocratic originalist, fundamentalist, textualist creationism that engineers a rearguard social and cultural warfare against progress. And it is progress as well as development.

Republicans and other rightwhinger naysayers have effectively morphed the American constitutional democracy of checks and balances and co-equal branches of government into a parliamentary one in which standoff and stalemate occurs unless one party sweeps all three institutions, namely the Presidency, the Senate, the House.

The Republican Party of No has in fact transformed US government, politics, democracy. Reactionaries and other rightwhingenuts have done this. Justice Antonin Scalia is most recently one principal who has led the way back to the caves.

Thanks, I have no visibility on the former poster; perusing the above post I am reminded why. In any event, Americans most certainly do want gridlock. Gridlock was an integral component on the mechanics of the US government arrangement. The hackneyed "Americans want progress" is nonsense; it is a cliche of the left to always move 2 steps left, 1 step right. Americans want commonsense and they want the debasement of their nation to end. The fact that proponents of the Leviathan spew nonstop "progress" is why "people's liberties are in the most danger when congress is in session." While pundits can muse why Obama was elected twice its pretty clear the mid term elections told a very distinct story- those closest to the people- congress- wanted the socialist/Obama slide to stop. Gridlock is a valid mechanism of State. Gridlock provides through the branches what the senate was designed to offset in the congress- vox populi, emotion, and impulse. Thus the liberal battle cry of emotion at every turn. Gridlock for any branch is a valid mechanism, including the Supreme Court.

The inevitable consequence of progressive pollution of the US polity had the consequence of the Judicial Branch becoming the fail-safe for progressives. Have no doubt, the real coup de etat in America is legislating from the bench; the progressive (legislative) goose stepping is just noise without judicial complicity and activism. Scalia is not remarkable because he is indispensable. The gravity is less Scalia than the hour of his passing, and the status of his associates. If any believe the "fundamental transformation of America" with regard to judicial appointment will not be marked by the same insidious mechanics that ushered in Obamacare under the cover of a transportation bill they are deluded or decietful. Come hell or high water the entire tenure of Obama is now on stage.

Without question, America itself is a game in play.

[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.""

So what was his big objection to same sex marriage?

Which bit of the constitution said that was illegal?

I haven't read his opinion on it. But I'm sure there is nothing in the Constitution about it at all.

[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?

I haven't read his opinion on it. But I'm sure there is nothing in the Constitution about it at all.

You're missing a lot.

[sgtsabai]

America has mistakenly moved so far right that Dwight Eisenhower couldn't be nominated for any party, he was too far left. Yep, I am one hateful SOB, born a bastard child in a home for unwed mothers. I hate those that would destroy the country that I love. I won't be nice to people that aren't nice and want to destroy the US.

[iReason]

"In Conversation: Antonin Scalia"

October 6, 2013

Many lines stand out in this extensive interview, but one of my favorites is this:

"I’m rather pessimistic that my grandchildren will enjoy the great society that I’ve enjoyed in my lifetime. I really think it’s coarsened. It’s coarsened in so many ways."

Watching too much Leave it to Beaver? Or just plain ignorance?

http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/

Edited February 14, 2016 by iReason

[Jingthing]

Senate Recess appointment coming up if Republicans dont wanna play ball. And the Pres CAN make such an appointment!

I don't think so.

Yes he CAN do that but he has already indicated he won't in the words of his recent statement about senate confirmation.

If he did, which he won't, it would likely impact on the presidential election as well.

I think there is more mileage for the democrats in picking a moderate and watching the republicans reject her.

[Publicus]

 

 

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.

Interesting appraisal, but it misses another consistently missed point in US politics- Americans by and large do not want progress. They want gridlock. Americans want the wheels of state to be locked and grind to a halt to stop the surge toward socialism. Republicans have not mis judged their constituency on this matter. They have repeatedly flipped off their constituency when given clear and overwhelming mandate to stop Progressive/Obama social engineering. Congress may suffer but it will not be for obstructing Obama's choice for SC.

In one statement the post states, "Americans do not want progress. They want gridlock." For one point, it could seem you miss Donald Trump's themes not to mention the similar themes of Bernie Sanders, each of whom rail against the do-nothing system, its systemic paralysis and corrupt weaknesses.

In the next graph the post jumps to stating, "Republicans have not misjudged their constituency..." Leaping from Americans to Republicans and their constituency is a bridge too far. It graphs a universal constituency and a sub-constituency into one big ball of reactionary and backward rightwingnut yahoos, which fails to exclude yours truly along with the vast majority of Americans.

Antonin Scalia's originalism or textualism in jurisprudence is at the core of this Republican and other rightwhinge obstructionism. Gridlock is the problem rather than anything to celebrate or advocate. Scalia's originalism is the same as the theocratic originalist, fundamentalist, textualist creationism that engineers a rearguard social and cultural warfare against progress. And it is progress as well as development.

Republicans and other rightwhinger naysayers have effectively morphed the American constitutional democracy of checks and balances and co-equal branches of government into a parliamentary one in which standoff and stalemate occurs unless one party sweeps all three institutions, namely the Presidency, the Senate, the House.

The Republican Party of No has in fact transformed US government, politics, democracy. Reactionaries and other rightwhingenuts have done this. Justice Antonin Scalia is most recently one principal who has led the way back to the caves.

Thanks, I have no visibility on the former poster; perusing the above post I am reminded why. In any event, Americans most certainly do want gridlock. Gridlock was an integral component on the mechanics of the US government arrangement. The hackneyed "Americans want progress" is nonsense; it is a cliche of the left to always move 2 steps left, 1 step right. Americans want commonsense and they want the debasement of their nation to end. The fact that proponents of the Leviathan spew nonstop "progress" is why "people's liberties are in the most danger when congress is in session." While pundits can muse why Obama was elected twice its pretty clear the mid term elections told a very distinct story- those closest to the people- congress- wanted the socialist/Obama slide to stop. Gridlock is a valid mechanism of State. Gridlock provides through the branches what the senate was designed to offset in the congress- vox populi, emotion, and impulse. Thus the liberal battle cry of emotion at every turn. Gridlock for any branch is a valid mechanism, including the Supreme Court.

The inevitable consequence of progressive pollution of the US polity had the consequence of the Judicial Branch becoming the fail-safe for progressives. Have no doubt, the real coup de etat in America is legislating from the bench; the progressive (legislative) goose stepping is just noise without judicial complicity and activism. Scalia is not remarkable because he is indispensable. The gravity is less Scalia than the hour of his passing, and the status of his associates. If any believe the "fundamental transformation of America" with regard to judicial appointment will not be marked by the same insidious mechanics that ushered in Obamacare under the cover of a transportation bill they are deluded or decietful. Come hell or high water the entire tenure of Obama is now on stage.

Without question, America itself is a game in play.

Americans want compromise. The whole system of checks and balances and coequal branches of government is based on compromise among rational and reasonable people. That is the predicate of a successful American democracy. Compromise produces a steady and stable forward movement on all fronts, i.e., social, political, cultural, economic and the like. No sudden lurches radically in either direction.

Republicans and their right wingers are however absolutely opposed to compromise. This is the genesis of the gridlock that frustrates Americans throughout the country. Antonin Scalia was a practitioner of stagnation and stasis, a night rider of reaction and nullification. He was never a balancer. Rather, Scalia was a judicial caveman. His opinions on the Court are the etchings on the stone walls inside the darkness.

He has gone now to where the primeval fires burn bright and hot.

[chuckd]

Senate Recess appointment coming up if Republicans dont wanna play ball. And the Pres CAN make such an appointment!

Recess appointments are temporary in nature, unless later confirmed by the Senate.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

[Pinot]

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.

Interesting appraisal, but it misses another consistently missed point in US politics- Americans by and large do not want progress. They want gridlock. Americans want the wheels of state to be locked and grind to a halt to stop the surge toward socialism. Republicans have not mis judged their constituency on this matter. They have repeatedly flipped off their constituency when given clear and overwhelming mandate to stop Progressive/Obama social engineering. Congress may suffer but it will not be for obstructing Obama's choice for SC.

Wait up, just a moment Arj. You're confusing "most Americans" with Fox News wingnuts.

"Most Americans" want progress. That point will be driven home in November.

Ding dong the witch is dead