DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Antonin Scalia Dead at 79

Supreme Court Justice Scalia dies

Olivier Knox
Chief Washington Correspondent
February 13, 2016

Looks like Democrats get to fill another seat before the election ?


Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a tart-tongued champion of conservative interpretation of the Constitution, has died at a West Texas ranch resort, government officials said Saturday.

“While our opinions on the law and jurisprudence were frequently at odds, he was steadfast and true to his beliefs during his tenure,” the number-two Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said in a statement. “My thoughts are with his family and loved ones at this time.

The news was first reported by mysanantonio.com , which cited federal officials.

Scalia, who was 79, was the longest-serving justice on the high court. His death is sure to trigger a pitched political battle in Washington, with President Obama likely to nominate a successor before the November elections.

“Justice Antonin Scalia was a man of God, a patriot, and an unwavering defender of the written Constitution and the Rule of Law,” Texas Governor Greg Abbott said in a statement on his official web site. “We mourn his passing, and we pray that his successor on the Supreme Court will take his place as a champion for the written Constitution and the Rule of Law.”

Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, one of the contenders for the GOP’s presidential nomination in 2016, called Scalia “one of the greatest justices in history.” Cruz, who served as a Supreme Court clerk, said Scalia “was an unrelenting defender of religious liberty, free speech, federalism, the constitutional separation of powers, and private property rights. All liberty-loving Americans should be in mourning.”

Donald Trump, one of Cruz’s rivals, tweeted that the “totally unexpected loss” was a “massive setback for the Conservative movement and our country.”

An unfortunate loss.

RIP, Scalia. You held one of the highest positions in the country, and will be forever enshrined in our nations history.

That's a shame. He was a great Justice.

I suspect that the President will not get a liberal through the Senate. If he appoints a more moderate Justice, then that could fly ..... but if he goes far left again, well, I don't think that dog will hunt.

I agree insomuch as he was a patriot who loved this country and served it for many years . The battle to seat a more liberal judge is going to be a monumental fight . Things just got much more interesting .

Well, if recent rulings are any indication, it won't matter.

Other than some civil rights issues, it's been a crap shoot guessing how ANY of them would vote.

Well, the House Leader sets the agenda for what comes to the floor, and so if Obama tries to push through some far left Justice, then that's DOA. The Senate Leader doesn't even have to allow the nomination to come for a vote, or even debate.

It will be interesting to see who Obama decides to nominate.

Well that didn't take long .....

It took only a few minutes after news broke of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death on Saturday for conservatives to demand that Senate Republicans block any replacement nominated by President Barack Obama.

The most prominent reaction came from Conn Carroll, a spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who sits on the Judiciary Committee -- through which any Supreme Court nominee must go.


GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) also chimed in and said he would like to see the next president pick Scalia's replacement.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), who, like Cruz, is running for president, made clear that he too wanted the "next president" to nominate a Scalia replacement.

The sentiment was echoed elsewhere -- rather soon after it was reported that Scalia had died of natural causes after quail hunting at a ranch in Texas.




The haste with which Scalia's death was reduced to a political battle was a bit alarming. But the tweets also underscore a pretty obvious reality that existed even before the news broke: in the last year of the Obama administration, congressional Republicans are pretty invested in just running out the clock.

Not surprisingly, Democrats weren't keen on going along with the de facto inaction. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the dean of the Judiciary Committee, encouraged the president to move swiftly in naming a replacement for Scalia. "I hope that no one will use this sad news to suggest that the President or the Senate should not perform its constitutional duty," he said in a statement.

What is perhaps more telling is the immense political importance that one man's death could have on our system of governance. Beyond the president, the death of a sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has possibly the greatest ripple effects

Damn they couldn't even wait until his body got cold.

Is anyone surprised by that? Really? It's always been that way.

I trust it was a peaceful transition.

RIP Justice Scalia

Sadly I agree with that statement .

Yeah.........I wasn't condoning it, but man, it's been going on forever.......

Heads up for a recess appointment the next time Congress is out of session. Otherwise, there's no way a de facto lame duck President gets to appoint the next SC Justice.

Rest in peace, Justice Scalia.

Recess appointment, that's Obama's method. McConnell will bend backwards to please him, i gaurantee it.

j/c

Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed to his post on the Supreme Court in 1988. It was during POTUS Ronald Reagan's last year in office.

And now the Common Man is certain the our standing POTUS can't get an appointment through Congress?


Damn.
That really says something about how far we've allowed Our Process to disintegrate... in just ~30 years.


I don't know if there's enough time left to fix enough of us, so that they can save the rest of us.


Speaking only for myself- in 2016- I'm not optimistic.

I wouldn't fret too much over it. The R's are going to screw the pooch on this election and the D's will get to stack the court for a long time to come.

RIP Justice Scalia.

But you know what's really sad, Scalia wasn't dead 24 hours and republicans were shouting from the roof tops that they will block any nominee Obama puts up.

The man just died and in less than 24 hours, They play politics. What a shame.

Quoted for truth.

Republican coin toss: Let Obama pick or Bernie.

Watchthe republican heads explode of Bernie picks Obama as a justice lmfao.

There will be chaos is the mansions if that happens.

Imagine if it was Mrs. Obama... BOOM!

Exactly as Justice Scalia would have wanted it.

nuclear launch, detected.

Clemdawg, I think it is because government has expanded its role into so much of everyday life. The Supreme Court is no different than any other government agency. It has interjected itself into places it was never meant to be. By doing so, it has also interjected politics into the court system. It is not a surprise that there is outrage from either political side when it comes to the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. Any person who thinks the President does not want to codify his legacy through a political appointment to the Supreme Court is fooling themselves. The current President is no exception. He has shown a propensity to interject himself into parts of everyday life where he really has no place interjecting himself such as immigration. The courts have done similar things such as re-writing legislation by judicial ruling. Good luck with the healing America. It is not going to be easy and it is only going to be made harder by the every widening political opposition.


Voleur

Flashback: Senate Democrats in 1960 pass resolution against election-year Supreme Court recess appointments



By David Bernstein February 13 at 9:59 PM 


Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times. Of course, the partisan arguments will be exactly the opposite this time.

Fish! Good to see you! I always thought you were the investigative one on the boards! Good find my friend!

FYI, Reagan did it with Justice Kennedy in 1988

Not for nothing, but there is already one news organization eluding to Obama having him killed..

http://www.newsfoxes.com/2016/02/what-ha...ious-questions/

Until today, I'd never heard of this company so I can't give you any other info on it.

And President Reagan nominated a centrist. He did the right thing. President Obama needs to do the same. This country would be far better off with more centrists on the bench.

Oh dear, I best go down the basement and fetch the can of fence paint.

You best, because unlike Politics, this country is better served by having Justices who rule by doing what is right for the people and the Constitution of this land.

A good Justice rules againt their political leanings when it is the right thing to do based on the Law and the Constitution of this land..

But that's not what a centrist judge is. I agree 100% with your final sentence, but to have someone labeled as a "centrist" still evokes an idea that the Justice is ruling out of political beliefs, maybe even one that is more inclined to compromise on a ruling when SCOTUS' role isn't to compromise.

The fact that Justices (and judges in general for that matter) are known for being conservative or liberal just under scores how far of the rails our country has gone. I imagine Voleur will agree with me when I say that the ONLY consideration a Justice should be considered on is whether or not they are strict Constructionist: one who interprets the Constitution based upon what is written and not what is supposed.

The Constitution is not a "living document" that as the times change, you can just give the same words a new meaning like many progressives like to do in order to fit a political agenda. Nor is it intended to give gov't more powers than what has been laid out based upon convenience and temporary circumstances (as both sides do).

If it's not in the Constitution, the gov't has no role in the issue. If you want it to, go through the process and Amend it.

Don't like what the Constitution says? Go through the process and Amend it.

Simple as that.

I don't think enough people truly understand the implications of having lost someone on the Bench who so strictly followed the Constitution and the relevance of having someone in SCOTUS like that.

A dead document finely stated that only certain Americans had certain rights. Times change, societies evolve, and a document must adapt with social progress to benefit all American citizens.

And when hasn't the Constitution done that?

It has a built in mechanism to adapt and be updated purposefully put in there by the people who wrote it and throughout history it has been changed for the reasons you mentioned (slavery, Prohibition, etc). It's called the Amendment process and THAT is what solidifies social progress.

You DO understand that the more power you give gov't, and the more areas of our lives you allow it to dictate how and when we should behave, that you greatly reduce any options you may have to institute change when someone gets in there and does something you don't agree with right?

It seems most people argue "activist judges" allowed ideas like striking down segregation, Roe v. Wade, and most recently declaring same-sex marriage constitutional across the land. That's where the "not a living document" or "constructionist" argument falls deaf on my ears.