US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[JDGRUEN]

This link is to an article with a good analysis of what cases the possible 4/4 split U.S. Supreme Court will be involved with in the coming months...

It spells out case by case what the impact of split decisions may be ...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scalia-conservative-legal-movement

[JDGRUEN]

There will be no vote on an Obama nominated replacement for Scalia. The Senate will go through the motions but nothing will come to the Senate Floor for a vote... It is easy to stall something while pretending you're not - the Democrats are masters at it.. The Senate will play the game of motions to ride out 11 months for Obama to go away ...

[Jingthing]

Highly likely, sure. Let's wait to see who the pick is though.

[CaptHaddock]

Obama will appoint someone like Tino Cuellar, an associate justice on the California Supreme Court and a Mexican-American, with degrees: undergrad, Harvard; law school, Yale; master’s and doctoral degrees, Stanford. Taught law at Stanford Law School. There are 33 million Mexican-Americans. When the Repubs refuse even to hold hearings on Cuellar or someone like him, the Dems will make hay out of their rejection, get out the Latino vote, take back the Senate, and then appoint all the SC justices they want. Cuellar is 43 years old and might serve on the SC for 40 years.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/the-gop-s-worst-nightmare-scotus-nominee.html

What lies at the heart of the conflict over replacing Scalia are the billionaires behind the Republican party. The six Republican senators whose seats are at risk because they were elected in 2010, an off-year election with low turnout, can easily lose their seats, for instance by offending Latino voters, 80% of whom voted Democrat in the Iowa caususes. But they can't go around saying the Senate should accept an Obama appointee or the Tea Party will go after them and maybe run some of their extreme right-wing Repub candidates against them. But the Tea Party is just a sham grass-roots movement created the by billionaire polluters, the Koch brothers, and others like them. They are the ones prodding the Repub candidates into their extreme obstructionist and anti-constitutional stance. And that strategy has high risks for their brand.

[chuckd]

You have admitted to being Australian.

"How have his decisions affected you personally?"

After all your rhetoric, please answer the question.

You keep asking me to answer questions I already answer. I found a case. I quoted the case, I explained how Scalia's points of view can influence people in other countries. What else do you want? I am sure as an old Texan you know the phrase that you can lead a horse to water...

Unless this is classic baiting. Is your point that SCOTUS' jurisdiction is only in the USA and not in other countries etc. Being a bit of a strict constructionist yourself I think. I think my words are sufficiently clear in terms of responding to your goad. I won't explain them again. You may choose to express dumb insolence on this matter.

Uh, those are dissenting opinions, which means he was in the minority and his opinion did not prevail.

Have any of his dissenting opinions kept you from marrying the person of your choice or had any other direct impact on your life?

Now try and find a majority opinion he wrote that affects any laws in Australia, Thailand or anywhere else outside the US.

And just for the record, if you believe any laws in Australia have ever had any impact on me personally or if I even care what you people do with your laws, you are far off the mark.

I simply don't care what you folks do but please don't try and tell me a dissenting opinion made by a US Supreme Court Justice affects the laws of Australia or any other country.

He wasn't in the minority when they elected GW, and WE got Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS and all the rest, so don't say HE never affected US.

SCOTUS did not elect Bush. The people of Florida elected Bush.

What SCOTUS did was stop an unnecessary recount and throw the election back into the lap of the State of Florida to declare a winner in accordance with the election laws of the state.

By the way, you do know the Supreme Court vote was 7-2 in favor of stopping the recount...not 5-4.

Putting all the blame on Scalia is somewhat ridiculous when six other Justices, including Democrat appointees, also voted the same way.

[JDGRUEN]

Obama will appoint someone like Tino Cuellar, an associate justice on the California Supreme Court and a Mexican-American, with degrees: undergrad, Harvard; law school, Yale; master’s and doctoral degrees, Stanford. Taught law at Stanford Law School. There are 33 million Mexican-Americans. When the Repubs refuse even to hold hearings on Cuellar or someone like him, the Dems will make hay out of their rejection, get out the Latino vote, take back the Senate, and then appoint all the SC justices they want. Cuellar is 43 years old and might serve on the SC for 40 years.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/15/the-gop-s-worst-nightmare-scotus-nominee.html

What lies at the heart of the conflict over replacing Scalia are the billionaires behind the Republican party. The six Republican senators whose seats are at risk because they were elected in 2010, an off-year election with low turnout, can easily lose their seats, for instance by offending Latino voters, 80% of whom voted Democrat in the Iowa caususes. But they can't go around saying the Senate should accept an Obama appointee or the Tea Party will go after them and maybe run some of their extreme right-wing Repub candidates against them. But the Tea Party is just a sham grass-roots movement created the by billionaire polluters, the Koch brothers, and others like them. They are the ones prodding the Repub candidates into their extreme obstructionist and anti-constitutional stance. And that strategy has high risks for their brand.

It is hard to make headlines out of a nomination when the Senate never mentions the name ... Even the National Media Circus won't be able to do much with it... Obama ought to nominate Clinton - just to get her out of the race... hehehehehe

Edited February 18, 2016 by JDGRUEN

[JDGRUEN]

Highly likely, sure. Let's wait to see who the pick is though.

It won't matter if Obama's pick has a halo around his or her head... No one that Obama would choose would be acceptable to the people who vote for Republicans and 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection... No sensible - rational Senator is going to rile voters in the run up to election... Most people do not purposely shoot themselves in the foot. For every voter who is upset at Republicans for stymieing Obama's SCOTUS appointment - 1000 Republican voters will be even more enthusiastic to go vote.

Obama is not going to get his stealth Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens either - the best he can hope for is a 4-4 decision which sends it back to the Appeals Court that has already ruled against him ... This too will have little effect on the vote for a future Democrat President or against a Republican Candidate

[thaibeachlovers]

You keep asking me to answer questions I already answer. I found a case. I quoted the case, I explained how Scalia's points of view can influence people in other countries. What else do you want? I am sure as an old Texan you know the phrase that you can lead a horse to water...

Unless this is classic baiting. Is your point that SCOTUS' jurisdiction is only in the USA and not in other countries etc. Being a bit of a strict constructionist yourself I think. I think my words are sufficiently clear in terms of responding to your goad. I won't explain them again. You may choose to express dumb insolence on this matter.

Uh, those are dissenting opinions, which means he was in the minority and his opinion did not prevail.

Have any of his dissenting opinions kept you from marrying the person of your choice or had any other direct impact on your life?

Now try and find a majority opinion he wrote that affects any laws in Australia, Thailand or anywhere else outside the US.

And just for the record, if you believe any laws in Australia have ever had any impact on me personally or if I even care what you people do with your laws, you are far off the mark.

I simply don't care what you folks do but please don't try and tell me a dissenting opinion made by a US Supreme Court Justice affects the laws of Australia or any other country.

He wasn't in the minority when they elected GW, and WE got Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS and all the rest, so don't say HE never affected US.

SCOTUS did not elect Bush. The people of Florida elected Bush.

What SCOTUS did was stop an unnecessary recount and throw the election back into the lap of the State of Florida to declare a winner in accordance with the election laws of the state.

By the way, you do know the Supreme Court vote was 7-2 in favor of stopping the recount...not 5-4.

Putting all the blame on Scalia is somewhat ridiculous when six other Justices, including Democrat appointees, also voted the same way.

?????

I don't believe I ever said that he was the only one to allow Bush the war criminal to be elected, as of course, he had to be part of a majority. If I had said that he was part of a SCOTUS majority that allowed Bush the war criminal to be elected would that have satisfied you? Given that this thread is about Scalia and not the other judges, I didn't think I needed to. I sit corrected.

To be clear, the SCOTUS ( including Scalia ) allowed Bush the war criminal to be elected, given that at that stage, no one knew if the future war criminal had indeed won a majority of the votes.

[Jingthing]

Highly likely, sure. Let's wait to see who the pick is though.

It won't matter if Obama's pick has a halo around his or her head... No one that Obama would choose would be acceptable to the people who vote for Republicans and 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection... No sensible - rational Senator is going to rile voters in the run up to election... Most people do not purposely shoot themselves in the foot. For every voter who is upset at Republicans for stymieing Obama's SCOTUS appointment - 1000 Republican voters will be even more enthusiastic to go vote.

Obama is not going to get his stealth Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens either - the best he can hope for is a 4-4 decision which sends it back to the Appeals Court that has already ruled against him ... This too will have little effect on the vote for a future Democrat President or against a Republican Candidate

I think you are indulging in partisan wishful thinking.

The republicans blocking a reasonable Obamapick may indeed be harmful to them in the upcoming election.

It makes a difference who he picks.

[thaibeachlovers]

Highly likely, sure. Let's wait to see who the pick is though.

It won't matter if Obama's pick has a halo around his or her head... No one that Obama would choose would be acceptable to the people who vote for Republicans and 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection... No sensible - rational Senator is going to rile voters in the run up to election... Most people do not purposely shoot themselves in the foot. For every voter who is upset at Republicans for stymieing Obama's SCOTUS appointment - 1000 Republican voters will be even more enthusiastic to go vote.

Obama is not going to get his stealth Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens either - the best he can hope for is a 4-4 decision which sends it back to the Appeals Court that has already ruled against him ... This too will have little effect on the vote for a future Democrat President or against a Republican Candidate

I think you are indulging in partisan wishful thinking.

The republicans blocking a reasonable Obamapick may indeed be harmful to them in the upcoming election.

It makes a difference who he picks.

IMO the man who is a genius in his own mind can't help himself and will pick someone that is completely unacceptable to the GOP, as he thinks he can use his pen and his phone to get around the constitution.

Of course he might have a momentary flash of common sense and nominate a sensible compromise. So, let's wait and see, shall we?

BTW, I doubt if any blocking by the GOP will change a single vote. Either people are already going to vote against the GOP, so they don't count, or people don't give a rat's bottom about SCOTUS. Many US citizens don't know who the VP is.

Edited February 18, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[Jingthing]

Yes, let's see.

I don't expect they'll accept anyone he picks, regardless, but it will have different political implications depending on who he picks.

[up-country_sinclair]

He wasn't in the minority when they elected GW, and WE got Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS and all the rest, so don't say HE never affected US.

SCOTUS did not elect Bush. The people of Florida elected Bush.

What SCOTUS did was stop an unnecessary recount and throw the election back into the lap of the State of Florida to declare a winner in accordance with the election laws of the state.

By the way, you do know the Supreme Court vote was 7-2 in favor of stopping the recount...not 5-4.

Putting all the blame on Scalia is somewhat ridiculous when six other Justices, including Democrat appointees, also voted the same way.

?????

I don't believe I ever said that he was the only one to allow Bush the war criminal to be elected, as of course, he had to be part of a majority. If I had said that he was part of a SCOTUS majority that allowed Bush the war criminal to be elected would that have satisfied you? Given that this thread is about Scalia and not the other judges, I didn't think I needed to. I sit corrected.

To be clear, the SCOTUS ( including Scalia ) allowed Bush the war criminal to be elected, given that at that stage, no one knew if the future war criminal had indeed won a majority of the votes.

No you didn't post that, it's yet another example of moving the goal posts. Coupled with a healthy dose of obfuscation.

That's not to say that I agree with everything in your post. I don't believe that President Bush is a war criminal, and I don't believe that SCOTUS elected Governor Bush, but those are (hyper-partisan) topics for another thread.

[chuckd]

He wasn't in the minority when they elected GW, and WE got Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS and all the rest, so don't say HE never affected US.

SCOTUS did not elect Bush. The people of Florida elected Bush.

What SCOTUS did was stop an unnecessary recount and throw the election back into the lap of the State of Florida to declare a winner in accordance with the election laws of the state.

By the way, you do know the Supreme Court vote was 7-2 in favor of stopping the recount...not 5-4.

Putting all the blame on Scalia is somewhat ridiculous when six other Justices, including Democrat appointees, also voted the same way.

?????

I don't believe I ever said that he was the only one to allow Bush the war criminal to be elected, as of course, he had to be part of a majority. If I had said that he was part of a SCOTUS majority that allowed Bush the war criminal to be elected would that have satisfied you? Given that this thread is about Scalia and not the other judges, I didn't think I needed to. I sit corrected.

To be clear, the SCOTUS ( including Scalia ) allowed Bush the war criminal to be elected, given that at that stage, no one knew if the future war criminal had indeed won a majority of the votes.

" no one knew if the future war criminal had indeed won a majority of the votes."

The State of Florida knew. They declared Bush the winner.

By the way, do you consider those 29 Democrat Senators who voted for the Iraq War Resolution to be war criminals?

The Iraq war would never have happened without their votes to approve it.

See if you recognize any names on the list of those that voted for the action.

Bayh, Evan (D-IN)

Baucus, Max (D-MT)

Biden, Joseph (D-DE)

Breaux, John (D-LA)

Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)

Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)

Carper, Thomas (D-DE)

Cleland, Max (D-GA)

Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)

Daschle, Tom (D-SD)

Dodd, Chris (D-CT)

Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)

Edwards, John (D-NC)

Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)

Harkin, Tom (D-IA)

Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)

Johnson, Tim (D-SD)

Kerry, John (D-MA)

Kohl, Herb (D-WI)

Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)

Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)

Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)

Miller, Zell (D-GA)

Nelson, Ben (D-NE)

Nelson, Bill (D-FL)

Reid, Harry (D-NV)

Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV)

Schumer, Chuck (D-NY)

Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)

[CaptHaddock]

Highly likely, sure. Let's wait to see who the pick is though.

It won't matter if Obama's pick has a halo around his or her head... No one that Obama would choose would be acceptable to the people who vote for Republicans and 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection... No sensible - rational Senator is going to rile voters in the run up to election... Most people do not purposely shoot themselves in the foot. For every voter who is upset at Republicans for stymieing Obama's SCOTUS appointment - 1000 Republican voters will be even more enthusiastic to go vote.

Obama is not going to get his stealth Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens either - the best he can hope for is a 4-4 decision which sends it back to the Appeals Court that has already ruled against him ... This too will have little effect on the vote for a future Democrat President or against a Republican Candidate

I think you are indulging in partisan wishful thinking.

The republicans blocking a reasonable Obamapick may indeed be harmful to them in the upcoming election.

It makes a difference who he picks.

IMO the man who is a genius in his own mind can't help himself and will pick someone that is completely unacceptable to the GOP, as he thinks he can use his pen and his phone to get around the constitution.

Of course he might have a momentary flash of common sense and nominate a sensible compromise. So, let's wait and see, shall we?

BTW, I doubt if any blocking by the GOP will change a single vote. Either people are already going to vote against the GOP, so they don't count, or people don't give a rat's bottom about SCOTUS. Many US citizens don't know who the VP is.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit in school, was it? The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, announced that the Senate would not consider any candidate nominated by the President. They (rather stupidly) weren't waiting for an actual nominee to evaluate, because anyone the President nominates is not acceptable to them. It seems these Republicans who have been fawning over Scalia for his strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution have convinced themselves that the powers ot the President expire somehow in the fourth year of his term. They are strict constructionist or fantasist depending on what they want.

[sgtsabai]

Obama, or any Democrat president could nominate Jesus for Supreme Court and he would be rejected for being too liberal, communist, marxist, socialist, what ever. Remember, he did feed the people, help the poor, throw the money changers out, and other bad, bad things, gee, not a not a good christian Republican type at all.

[thaibeachlovers]

He wasn't in the minority when they elected GW, and WE got Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS and all the rest, so don't say HE never affected US.

SCOTUS did not elect Bush. The people of Florida elected Bush.

What SCOTUS did was stop an unnecessary recount and throw the election back into the lap of the State of Florida to declare a winner in accordance with the election laws of the state.

By the way, you do know the Supreme Court vote was 7-2 in favor of stopping the recount...not 5-4.

Putting all the blame on Scalia is somewhat ridiculous when six other Justices, including Democrat appointees, also voted the same way.

?????

I don't believe I ever said that he was the only one to allow Bush the war criminal to be elected, as of course, he had to be part of a majority. If I had said that he was part of a SCOTUS majority that allowed Bush the war criminal to be elected would that have satisfied you? Given that this thread is about Scalia and not the other judges, I didn't think I needed to. I sit corrected.

To be clear, the SCOTUS ( including Scalia ) allowed Bush the war criminal to be elected, given that at that stage, no one knew if the future war criminal had indeed won a majority of the votes.

" no one knew if the future war criminal had indeed won a majority of the votes."

The State of Florida knew. They declared Bush the winner.

By the way, do you consider those 29 Democrat Senators who voted for the Iraq War Resolution to be war criminals?

The Iraq war would never have happened without their votes to approve it.

See if you recognize any names on the list of those that voted for the action.

Bayh, Evan (D-IN)

Baucus, Max (D-MT)

Biden, Joseph (D-DE)

Breaux, John (D-LA)

Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)

Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)

Carper, Thomas (D-DE)

Cleland, Max (D-GA)

Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)

Daschle, Tom (D-SD)

Dodd, Chris (D-CT)

Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)

Edwards, John (D-NC)

Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)

Harkin, Tom (D-IA)

Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)

Johnson, Tim (D-SD)

Kerry, John (D-MA)

Kohl, Herb (D-WI)

Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)

Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)

Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)

Miller, Zell (D-GA)

Nelson, Ben (D-NE)

Nelson, Bill (D-FL)

Reid, Harry (D-NV)

Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV)

Schumer, Chuck (D-NY)

Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)

Yes, I do consider any politician in the US or the UK that voted to approve the illegal war to be equally guilty, but none of those other ones, except HRC, are possibly going to be president. I don't need to use the term against HRC as she has plenty of other bad things to accuse her of instead. GW only has war criminal, unless I can use bad use of language as a derisory term, and in his case it's possibly amounting to a disability, so might be in poor taste.

[thaibeachlovers]

Obama, or any Democrat president could nominate Jesus for Supreme Court and he would be rejected for being too liberal, communist, marxist, socialist, what ever. Remember, he did feed the people, help the poor, throw the money changers out, and other bad, bad things, gee, not a not a good christian Republican type at all.

The people that would have the most to fear from the Christ, and therefore the first to deny him, would be the Catholic church hierarchy, living in obscene splendour in the Vatican. The casting out of the money changers would be nothing on the destruction of the Vatican by an outraged Christ.

[thaibeachlovers]

It won't matter if Obama's pick has a halo around his or her head... No one that Obama would choose would be acceptable to the people who vote for Republicans and 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection... No sensible - rational Senator is going to rile voters in the run up to election... Most people do not purposely shoot themselves in the foot. For every voter who is upset at Republicans for stymieing Obama's SCOTUS appointment - 1000 Republican voters will be even more enthusiastic to go vote.

Obama is not going to get his stealth Amnesty for millions of illegal aliens either - the best he can hope for is a 4-4 decision which sends it back to the Appeals Court that has already ruled against him ... This too will have little effect on the vote for a future Democrat President or against a Republican Candidate

I think you are indulging in partisan wishful thinking.

The republicans blocking a reasonable Obamapick may indeed be harmful to them in the upcoming election.

It makes a difference who he picks.

IMO the man who is a genius in his own mind can't help himself and will pick someone that is completely unacceptable to the GOP, as he thinks he can use his pen and his phone to get around the constitution.

Of course he might have a momentary flash of common sense and nominate a sensible compromise. So, let's wait and see, shall we?

BTW, I doubt if any blocking by the GOP will change a single vote. Either people are already going to vote against the GOP, so they don't count, or people don't give a rat's bottom about SCOTUS. Many US citizens don't know who the VP is.

Reading comprehension not your strong suit in school, was it? The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, announced that the Senate would not consider any candidate nominated by the President. They (rather stupidly) weren't waiting for an actual nominee to evaluate, because anyone the President nominates is not acceptable to them. It seems these Republicans who have been fawning over Scalia for his strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution have convinced themselves that the powers ot the President expire somehow in the fourth year of his term. They are strict constructionist or fantasist depending on what they want.

No reason for the president not to nominate someone and call their bluff, if it is a bluff, and I think it may be, if Obama nominated a sensible candidate.

Regardless of what McConnell says, Obama still has a pen and a phone, LOL.

[arjunadawn]

Obama, or any Democrat president could nominate Jesus for Supreme Court and he would be rejected for being too liberal, communist, marxist, socialist, what ever. Remember, he did feed the people, help the poor, throw the money changers out, and other bad, bad things, gee, not a not a good christian Republican type at all.

Jesus would probably be rejected if he openly espoused the militant Jesuit Marxism known as liberation theology/black liberation theology, etc. Jesus would not be rejected for simply preaching the injunctions as you note above. In the end, Jesus' triumph were not in just his words but his actions. Jesus never developed the exegesis mandating State employ his moral injunctions by coercion (this was done in the 20th CE); he did not force other people to share their stuff. He argued morally and persuasively, but never gave evidence he supported broadly inflicting his good on others without their awakened consent.

In any event, if Obama rifled through his desk, found it, dusted it off, and slammed the "Jesus Card" on the table it would have no value as not one single person on the left would believe it, and not one single person on the right would believe it. So the value of such a figure if offered by... such a figure as Obama, is pointless. So, these are mind exercises we are playing, right?

Playful side thought: Jesus would not need confirmation. If the structure of government where made analogous to Davidic bicameral government- Judah/Levite- Jesus would have been entitled to be #1 on the Court as a Levite. I presume we agree the Supreme Court is a Levitic equvilent- preistly class. Also, the Presidency as from the Davidic Line.

Just playing. Back to the OP.

[sirineou]

He wasn't in the minority when they elected GW, and WE got Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS and all the rest, so don't say HE never affected US.

SCOTUS did not elect Bush. The people of Florida elected Bush.

What SCOTUS did was stop an unnecessary recount and throw the election back into the lap of the State of Florida to declare a winner in accordance with the election laws of the state.

By the way, you do know the Supreme Court vote was 7-2 in favor of stopping the recount...not 5-4.

Putting all the blame on Scalia is somewhat ridiculous when six other Justices, including Democrat appointees, also voted the same way.

?????

I don't believe I ever said that he was the only one to allow Bush the war criminal to be elected, as of course, he had to be part of a majority. If I had said that he was part of a SCOTUS majority that allowed Bush the war criminal to be elected would that have satisfied you? Given that this thread is about Scalia and not the other judges, I didn't think I needed to. I sit corrected.

To be clear, the SCOTUS ( including Scalia ) allowed Bush the war criminal to be elected, given that at that stage, no one knew if the future war criminal had indeed won a majority of the votes.

" no one knew if the future war criminal had indeed won a majority of the votes."

The State of Florida knew. They declared Bush the winner.

By the way, do you consider those 29 Democrat Senators who voted for the Iraq War Resolution to be war criminals?

The Iraq war would never have happened without their votes to approve it.

See if you recognize any names on the list of those that voted for the action.

Bayh, Evan (D-IN)

Baucus, Max (D-MT)

Biden, Joseph (D-DE)

Breaux, John (D-LA)

Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)

Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)

Carper, Thomas (D-DE)

Cleland, Max (D-GA)

Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)

Daschle, Tom (D-SD)

Dodd, Chris (D-CT)

Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)

Edwards, John (D-NC)

Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)

Harkin, Tom (D-IA)

Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)

Johnson, Tim (D-SD)

Kerry, John (D-MA)

Kohl, Herb (D-WI)

Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)

Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)

Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)

Miller, Zell (D-GA)

Nelson, Ben (D-NE)

Nelson, Bill (D-FL)

Reid, Harry (D-NV)

Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV)

Schumer, Chuck (D-NY)

Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)

He willfully lied and they believed him

That makes him a war criminal liar and it makes them believing idiots

[NeverSure]

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Edited February 19, 2016 by NeverSure

[Jingthing]

He was elected twice.

He wouldn't be doing his job if he doesn't send a pick to the senate.

Any president would and should do the same.

All the republicans running now, if elected (they won't be) would do the same.

Why attack Obama for doing his job?

Edited February 19, 2016 by Jingthing

[CaptHaddock]

He was elected twice.

He wouldn't be doing his job if he doesn't send a pick to the senate.

Any president would and should do the same.

All the republicans running now, if elected (they won't be) would do the same.

Why attack Obama for doing his job?

Of course. The Republicans have invented a new provision in the Constitution, the Expiration of Presidential Powers While Still Holding Office clause. One wonders if the lame duck Republican senators will have the good manners not to vote this year.

[up-country_sinclair]

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

Thank you.

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

You're welcome.

Cheers!

[chuckd]

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

Thank you.

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

You're welcome.

Cheers!

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

Times change.

[keemapoot]

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

Thank you.

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

You're welcome.

Cheers!

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

Times change.

Actually, as most people (often dismayingly) realize, Washington is filled with lawyers. I suppose it makes sense that law makers should be lawyers.

Though lawyers still dominate, their ranks are shrinking slightly: Of House members, 37 percent — 160 people — will be lawyers in 2015. So will 53 percent of senators. In the last Congress, 39 percent of the House members were lawyers, along with 57 percent of U.S. senators.

http://news.yahoo.com/meet-the-new-congress--younger-and-more-female--it-s-still-mainly-lawyers-and-career-politicians-212445761.html

However, when speaking of the Supreme Court, even though there were some aberrations in the past, it's virtually impossible to imagine a non-lawyer, and indeed a non appellate-level judge being considered for nomination.

Edited February 19, 2016 by keemapoot

[up-country_sinclair]

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

Thank you.

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

You're welcome.

Cheers!

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

Times change.

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

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

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

[up-country_sinclair]

Double post.

Edited February 19, 2016 by up-country_sinclair

[up-country_sinclair]

However, when speaking of the Supreme Court, even though there were some aberrations in the past, it's virtually impossible to imagine a non-lawyer, and indeed a non appellate-level judge being considered for nomination.

Justice Elena Kagan was never a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court 5 years ago.

[keemapoot]

However, when speaking of the Supreme Court, even though there were some aberrations in the past, it's virtually impossible to imagine a non-lawyer, and indeed a non appellate-level judge being considered for nomination.

Justice Elena Kagan was never a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court 5 years ago.

I should have qualified my statement the nominee at this time in this politically charged lame duck environment.