US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[stillbornagain]

Just for the record:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

BLAKE NEFF

Reporter

12:55 PM 02/14/2016

During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.

Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40CiHVHYm

But the thing is, Schumer may have called for it, but the Democrats didn't actually do it. Whereas it looks like the Republicans will.

[stillbornagain]

Just for the record:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

BLAKE NEFF

Reporter

12:55 PM 02/14/2016

During a Sunday morning appearance on ABCs This Week, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.

Almost immediately after Scalias death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40CiHVHYm

Can you spell H Y P O C R I C Y?

I can. But apparently you can't.

[chuckd]

Just for the record:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

BLAKE NEFF

Reporter

12:55 PM 02/14/2016

During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.

Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40CiHVHYm

But the thing is, Schumer may have called for it, but the Democrats didn't actually do it. Whereas it looks like the Republicans will.

That makes the threat nonexistent?

By your reasoning, the Republicans haven't done it either so the current threat is of no value.

[lostboy]

Oh, I know what a racist is. We have one in the White House as we speak.

Reverse racism is not a thing. It does not exist in a world where racism is defined as a system of advantages based on race, also known as White Privilege. Non-whites do not benefit from systemic, institutionalised racism, so consequently such people cannot be defined as racist.

White-victimhood now from the extreme white right. The embodiment of crass.

Edited February 15, 2016 by lostboy

[sgtsabai]

Your "reasoning" is like you, way out in right field. The full-throated promise by Republicans, not just one senator speaking his mind-i.e. NOT a threat, is very real and it will happen. Ahem, can you distinguish the difference between past and present, fact and fiction, ahem, right and wrong? Maybe the dominionists, theological, evangelicals really do deserve their "rupture", oops, "rapture". Then the good people can get on with correcting all the evil done by them. Bye, bye scalia, only the bad will miss you.

[thaibeachlovers]

 

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.

You seem to be implying that the founding fathers were NOT, in fact slave owners, and WOULD have allowed acknowledged homosexuals to not only live, but to marry.

[GinBoy2]

Maybe it's time for you zealots left & right to move past Scalia. I think from my previous posts you recognize that I opposed his interpretation of the law, but conversely recognized that he was interpreting the law as he saw it, not some son of Satan as many seem to want to believe.

So who is a likely replacement?

I'm hoping Obama nominates Sri Srinivasan. A notable jurist who got through his DC Circuit confirmation 97-0. Hard to argue that somehow this guy who was confirmed in 2012 with such overwhelming approval would have suddenly turned into the liberal justice from Hell.

An Asian minority on the court would also add a nice twist to the makeup of the court

[thaibeachlovers]

Maybe it's time for you zealots left & right to move past Scalia. I think from my previous posts you recognize that I opposed his interpretation of the law, but conversely recognized that he was interpreting the law as he saw it, not some son of Satan as many seem to want to believe.

So who is a likely replacement?

I'm hoping Obama nominates Sri Srinivasan. A notable jurist who got through his DC Circuit confirmation 97-0. Hard to argue that somehow this guy who was confirmed in 2012 with such overwhelming approval would have suddenly turned into the liberal justice from Hell.

An Asian minority on the court would also add a nice twist to the makeup of the court

How can we move past Scalia on a thread about Scalia? That would be .

[Chicog]

Maybe it's time for you zealots left & right to move past Scalia. I think from my previous posts you recognize that I opposed his interpretation of the law, but conversely recognized that he was interpreting the law as he saw it, not some son of Satan as many seem to want to believe.

So who is a likely replacement?

I'm hoping Obama nominates Sri Srinivasan. A notable jurist who got through his DC Circuit confirmation 97-0. Hard to argue that somehow this guy who was confirmed in 2012 with such overwhelming approval would have suddenly turned into the liberal justice from Hell.

An Asian minority on the court would also add a nice twist to the makeup of the court

Put simply the Republicans don't want another justice appointed unless it's their choice.

They don't want to play by anyone's rules but their own. Quite appalling really, and they have the nerve to accuse Obama of being divisive.

[sgtsabai]

The Republicans will refuse to bring up anybody that Obama nominates, even the worst right wingnut he can find. He will nominate as is his Constitutional obligation. Damn, he finally figured that part out and maybe, just maybe has found those cojones that have been missing for 7 years. I don't know what he really believes in besides Wall Street criminals and banksterd, like Hillary, but sometimes one just has to fight. When reason fails, force prevails. The harder he and the Democrats push on this the worse the Republicans look.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-scalia-supreme-court-seat_us_56c0a82be4b0c3c55051c5e1

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/after_antonin_scalias_death_whats_next_for_the_supreme_court_20160213

http://www.thenation.com/article/yes-president-obama-can-still-nominate-a-supreme-court-justice/

[GinBoy2]

Maybe it's time for you zealots left & right to move past Scalia. I think from my previous posts you recognize that I opposed his interpretation of the law, but conversely recognized that he was interpreting the law as he saw it, not some son of Satan as many seem to want to believe.

So who is a likely replacement?

I'm hoping Obama nominates Sri Srinivasan. A notable jurist who got through his DC Circuit confirmation 97-0. Hard to argue that somehow this guy who was confirmed in 2012 with such overwhelming approval would have suddenly turned into the liberal justice from Hell.

An Asian minority on the court would also add a nice twist to the makeup of the court

Put simply the Republicans don't want another justice appointed unless it's their choice.

They don't want to play by anyone's rules but their own. Quite appalling really, and they have the nerve to accuse Obama of being divisive.

But I'm sure the political mandarins of the GOP are weighing the odds.

Srinivasan is pretty centrist. Now they could go for a nomination like that or, they could throw the dice and see what November brings.

If I was in the GOP establishment given whats happening in the turmoil that is the current primary season, I'd pick the 'not so awful' choice!

[sgtsabai]

I would too, but..... ? Obama has never nominated a real "liberal" much less a lefty for anything. He is a center right person himself, republican lite, a Manchurian President if you chose. The Republicans make much to do about nothing, but seem to think it has worked for 7 years. Evidently it has for some, witness some of the posts here. They still can't believe they have lost 2 straight elections because the candidates the put up are ones that nobody really wants. Probably thought nobody would vote for a black man in a white house also. Obama had already lost his "charm" by his re-election but still carried without problem, and probably by much more than the electronic voting machines would allow. With this Republican buffoon car, the Republican establishment would be better off to take his center/moderate nominee rather that what Bernie will want and eventually get.

[Publicus]

 

 

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.

You seem to be implying that the founding fathers were NOT, in fact slave owners, and WOULD have allowed acknowledged homosexuals to not only live, but to marry.

The post is again way off base and out in a distant zone of confused and confounded reference.

The Founders certainly would not have approved of it. No one today thinks the Founders would have approved of gay marriage or gay anything, at least not publicly if at all.

The possible material comparison would be whether, if George Washington were potus today, at the present time, would he advocate or support equal justice under law. I propose he indeed would. One can argue it either way but I would argue that President Washington today would not be a rightwhingenut nor would he support Mike Huckabee or as a successor in office, nor would he support overly religious candidates all of which are over on the far fringe right.

A President George Washington today would of course congratulate Barack Hussein Obama and attend the opening ceremony of the President Barack Obama Library and Centre. George btw never graduated university so he might be well impressed by Barack Obama the lawyer. Abraham Lincoln who was a lawyer would surely congratulate Barack Hussein Obama in the White House.

In fact one can suspect Antonin Scalia might have some heavy explaining to do at the Gates to Eternal Greatness where Washington and Lincoln will surely stamp his application with its reject notice.

[Publicus]

 

 

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.

You seem to be implying that the founding fathers were NOT, in fact slave owners, and WOULD have allowed acknowledged homosexuals to not only live, but to marry.

A childish post indeed of no reflective substance and of no perspective. It demonstrates an inability to project forward due to a dogmatic fixation on fundamentalism and its concomitant textualist mindset. As with Justice Scalia, it fails to recognise or comprehend that words on a document are more than, well, words on a document or of a dictionary of the past time.

The post focuses on the literal paper while ignoring the general applicability of human flesh and blood principles. It considers only the denotation of meaning while ignoring its connotations. It presents yet again these critical rightwing flaws and faults.

[stillbornagain]

Just for the record:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

BLAKE NEFF

Reporter

12:55 PM 02/14/2016

During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.

Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40CiHVHYm

But the thing is, Schumer may have called for it, but the Democrats didn't actually do it. Whereas it looks like the Republicans will.

That makes the threat nonexistent?

By your reasoning, the Republicans haven't done it either so the current threat is of no value.

Not at all. We do know that it didn't happen with the Democrats. We also know that Chuck Schumer was not a high ranking Senator in the Democratic hierarchy in the Senate. But the Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell has made the threat. As did many (most?) of the Republican candidates. There is a huge difference between what one lowly Democratic Senator said and a whole panoply of high ranking Republicans. That should be glaringly obvious.

[stillbornagain]

Can you spell H Y P O C R I C Y?

Ah, the old "BUT YOU GUYS DID IT FIRST!" defense. Classic.

Back then it never actually came to pass because Bush didn't get the chance to nominate anyone. Now that Republicans have that opportunity, let's see if they adopt the Schumer Doctrine or if they take the high road and actually do their jobs.

REally? George Buish never nominated any Supreme Court justices? I guess it was Dick Cheney who nominated Samuel Alioto and John Roberts.

[sgtsabai]

Oh jeez, Cheny/Bush et al didn't get a chance to nominate anyone else before leaving office, thankfully. And yea it probably was Cheny. Both nominees absolute disasters for America.

[pegman]

Can anyone shed light as to wether Texas is exceptional in not requiring an autopsy in such circumstances? My jurisdiction back home states one needs to be done unless the medical examiner is "certain" of the cause of death. Appearrently the judge saw his doctor on weds and thrus. If his health was so bad that the cause of death was obvious without an autopsy why was he traveling. Conspiracy pedlars on the right are saying assaination. I wonder if he brought friends together to his end at his own hands in a place where the cause could be easily covered up.

[iReason]

"Cruz cast the moment in stark terms, saying allowing another Obama nominee to be approved would amount to Republicans giving up control of the Supreme Court for a generation."

Conrol?

Very revealing.

To this arrogant neocon and self professed carpet bomber, it may come as a surprise that there are those who do not want a political party or anyone else; "controlling" the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/debate-gop-contenders-say-no-court-nominee-for-obama/

Edited February 15, 2016 by iReason

[chuckd]

Oh, I know what a racist is. We have one in the White House as we speak.

Reverse racism is not a thing. It does not exist in a world where racism is defined as a system of advantages based on race, also known as White Privilege. Non-whites do not benefit from systemic, institutionalised racism, so consequently such people cannot be defined as racist.

White-victimhood now from the extreme white right. The embodiment of crass.

[sgtsabai]

When my dad died, we knew ahead of time he would, the doctor asked if he could do an autopsy as he was perplexed as to what was really wrong. I had no problem, in fact insisted he do so. It was TB, but strange. Anyway, I'm guessing from that the family might need to ok an autopsy. In NM where I was in law enforcement if the circumstances warranted it, the Medical Examiner would call for an autopsy. Usually under suspicious circumstances. The tin foil hat boys will have a good time with this one. I'm guessing from my knowledge of rich Texans that it would be a cold day in hell before anybody at that "ranch" would be involved in an assignation of a right wingnut icon. Although, there are a few sane people left in Texas. If you believe in heaven and hell, his autopsy will come in hell.

[chuckd]

Just for the record:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations

BLAKE NEFF

Reporter

12:55 PM 02/14/2016

During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.

Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/#ixzz40CiHVHYm

But the thing is, Schumer may have called for it, but the Democrats didn't actually do it. Whereas it looks like the Republicans will.

That makes the threat nonexistent?

By your reasoning, the Republicans haven't done it either so the current threat is of no value.

Not at all. We do know that it didn't happen with the Democrats. We also know that Chuck Schumer was not a high ranking Senator in the Democratic hierarchy in the Senate. But the Republican majority leader Mitch McConnell has made the threat. As did many (most?) of the Republican candidates. There is a huge difference between what one lowly Democratic Senator said and a whole panoply of high ranking Republicans. That should be glaringly obvious.

" We also know that Chuck Schumer was not a high ranking Senator in the Democratic hierarchy in the Senate."

You might want to check out some facts before you make any more ignorant comments.

From Wikipedia:

"Schumer was chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2005 to 2009, in which post he oversaw a total of 14 Democratic gains in the Senate in the 2006 and 2008 elections. He is the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, behind Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, elected Vice Chairman of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate in 2006.^[1] In November 2010, he was also chosen to hold the additional role of chairman of theSenate Democratic Policy Committee starting at the opening of the 112th Congress.^[2]

In 2015, Minority Leader Harry Reid, who is retiring after the 2016 elections, endorsed Schumer to succeed him as Leader. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin also endorsed Schumer for the post.^[3]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer#State_Assemblyman_and_Congressman}

​He wasn't exactly the water boy in 2007.

[pegman]

When my dad died, we knew ahead of time he would, the doctor asked if he could do an autopsy as he was perplexed as to what was really wrong. I had no problem, in fact insisted he do so. It was TB, but strange. Anyway, I'm guessing from that the family might need to ok an autopsy. In NM where I was in law enforcement if the circumstances warranted it, the Medical Examiner would call for an autopsy. Usually under suspicious circumstances. The tin foil hat boys will have a good time with this one. I'm guessing from my knowledge of rich Texans that it would be a cold day in hell before anybody at that "ranch" would be involved in an assignation of a right wingnut icon. Although, there are a few sane people left in Texas. If you believe in heaven and hell, his autopsy will come in hell.

I don't know. A guy with that profile you would think an autopsy was a automatic. Would there be a religious reason, some Catholic Tenet, that would have the family decline one? Makes one wonder wether he was terminal and popped a couple pills.

[lostboy]

Oh, I know what a racist is. We have one in the White House as we speak.

Reverse racism is not a thing. It does not exist in a world where racism is defined as a system of advantages based on race, also known as White Privilege. Non-whites do not benefit from systemic, institutionalised racism, so consequently such people cannot be defined as racist.

White-victimhood now from the extreme white right. The embodiment of crass.

Thank you Charles for confirming that you have entirely no business making any comment on racism. Crassness personified. Enjoy your White Privilege.

[Publicus]

 

"Cruz cast the moment in stark terms, saying allowing another Obama nominee to be approved would amount to Republicans giving up control of the Supreme Court for a generation."

Conrol?

Very revealing.

To this arrogant neocon and self professed carpet bomber, it may come as a surprise that there are those who do not want a political party or anyone else; "controlling" the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/debate-gop-contenders-say-no-court-nominee-for-obama/

As a point of information Republican and conservative justices have continuously dominated the Supreme Court since 1972. The justices in the majority since 1972 have always been Republicans who are conservatives.

This is true despite a few Republican justices famously liberating themselves to join the more liberal Court groupings.

Since Ronald Reagan advanced the reactionary rightist Scalia, a succession of almost all right wingers have been sent to the Court, as best exemplified by the legal oddball eccentric Clarence Thomas.

So yes, for those rightists who prefer to argue in terms of domination or control, it is perhaps time instead for some balance over the coming decades. The Court after all still has to recover from its 2000 election theft.

Beyond the Republican Court's 2000 election swindle and as with any court, and from anything except a rightwingenut bent, the Court since 1972 has had some better rulings and some worse rulings. We should expect more of the same no matter who succeeds the Cro Magnon Scalia.

[up-country_sinclair]

Justice Scalia had strong conservative principles, and he will be remembered as a giant of the court. He was, however, too invested in his own celebrity.

[NeverSure]

Here is a Scalia quote that I wish all SC members, members of Congress and the POTUS would get through their heads. If people want to change society, rather than finding new and spurious interpretations of the Constitution, they should amend it. No member of the SC should be there based on ideology.

"That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things." - Scalia

[NeverSure]

BREAKING: Obama says he will seek to replace Scalia with "a Muslim Mexican lesbian Wiccan priestess vegan marijuana farmer" - @RexHuppke

[lostboy]

Here is a Scalia quote that I wish all SC members, members of Congress and the POTUS would get through their heads. If people want to change society, rather than finding new and spurious interpretations of the Constitution, they should amend it. No member of the SC should be there based on ideology.

"That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things." - Scalia

This is what you post to demonstrate Scalia as a 'giant' of the Supreme Court, to use another posters words? He sounds like a right wing TVF poster, calling people who don't agree with him idiots and making puerile comments and assertions. This quote demonstrates him as a clown with no concept of humanity. It puts him with the fetishisers of the Founding Fathers and Founding Documents. It further demonstrates why the old guard Republicans continue to lose relevance. I fully expect this fact to be confirmed by the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election.

The Constitution says some things and doesn't say other things! What a giant of a legal scholar to pass on this particular BS. Let's all go back to wearing tricorn hat and owning slaves then.

[Jingthing]

Here is a Scalia quote that I wish all SC members, members of Congress and the POTUS would get through their heads. If people want to change society, rather than finding new and spurious interpretations of the Constitution, they should amend it. No member of the SC should be there based on ideology.

"That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things." - Scalia

Unless there's something political he really wanted. Then he bent it.