Judge Scalia RIP

[ArcadiaGP]

Scalia's former clerks line the stairs today as the casket is brought in

 

[oldpink]

A great man and lion in support of the Constitution is lost.
Such a shame that more of the country can't show appropriate somberness and respect for his passing.

 

[rhino]

It's a legitimate question.
If the family doesn't want him there, then he shouldn't go.
I have a hard time imaging it though, but it could happen.

I will outlive the current occupant of the White House by a long, long time, but theoretically I wouldn't want him at my funeral.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Joe Biden Says There Should Be No SCOTUS Nominee in an Election Year | The Resurgent

 

[pudly]

That makes it unanimous. All four of the leading Democrat politicians agree that SCOTUS should not be selected leading up to the next election- President, VP, House and Senate minority leaders.

 

[OakRiver]

That makes it unanimous. All four of the leading Democrat politicians agree that SCOTUS should not be selected leading up to the next election- President, VP, House and Senate minority leaders.

Yeah, but they were only in agreement when their party was in opposition.

 

[Expat]

Yeah, but they were only in agreement when their party was in opposition.

You aren't suggesting that our Vice President might be a hypocrite?

 

[pudly]

You aren't suggesting that our Vice President might be a hypocrite?

No, that they all are hypocrites.

 

[OakRiver]

You aren't suggesting that our Vice President might be a hypocrite?

Of course I would not dare suggest it. But I would rather outright say that it is the MO for all politicians

 

[KG1]

Don't listen to what I said back then. Listen to what I say now.

 

[Restroyer]

In the Book "I Hear You Paint Houses" in one of the chapters it gives a very clear description of the young crooked Joe Biden and it was written prior to him becoming the VP. Yes, he's a hypocrite.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Great plan, Sandoval would be a reliably liberal Justice. Now they can say "See, they're even blocking their own! THOSE RACISTS JUST HATE OBAMA."

Brian Sandoval, Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted for Supreme Court vacancy

 

[PRasko]

Great plan, Sandoval would be a reliably liberal Justice. Now they can say "See, they're even blocking their own! THOSE RACISTS JUST HATE OBAMA."

Brian Sandoval, Republican governor of Nevada, is being vetted for Supreme Court vacancy

I'm failing to see how he's a liberal? I mean, unless he's bought somehow.

Brian Sandoval on the Issues

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm failing to see how he's a liberal? I mean, unless he's bought somehow.

Brian Sandoval on the Issues

More of a moderate liberal in some cases

Brian Sandoval: Nevada?s Party Pooper - POLITICO Magazine

Tends to be pro-Obamacare, pro-Dreamer, pro-tax, pro-open borders, pro-abort, big government. Things that don't "traditionally" line up with the majority of those that consider themselves "Republican"

 

[oldpink]

I'm failing to see how he's a liberal? I mean, unless he's bought somehow.

Brian Sandoval on the Issues

When you're way out on the left, Mao Tse Tung looks like a conservative.

 

[rhino]

Ultimately, we only know how a justice is going to act on the bench if they are clearly a progressive, pseudo-liberal socialist-statist. We know they're going to actively pursue their personal political agenda with utter disregard for the document whose principles are supposed to be their sole source of input. By contrast, a justice can seem like they're going to rule based on strict interpretation of the US Constitution when they're being considered and examined by the media, but with those people it's a crap shoot what will happen once they're sitting behind that big bench in the black robe like David Souter or the disappointing John Roberts.

So from what I see, the only guarantees are on the side of evil. Those who seem like good guys might be, or they might not be.

 

[printcraft]

Ultimately, we only know how a justice is going to act on the bench if they are clearly a progressive, pseudo-liberal socialist-statist. We know they're going to actively pursue their personal political agenda with utter disregard for the document whose principles are supposed to be their sole source of input. By contrast, a justice can seem like they're going to rule based on strict interpretation of the US Constitution when they're being considered and examined by the media, but with those people it's a crap shoot what will happen once they're sitting behind that big bench in the black robe like David Souter or the disappointing John Roberts.

So from what I see, the only guarantees are on the side of evil. Those who seem like good guys might be, or they might not be.

I can't recall all the details but the warning signs were there with Roberts. Bush has other nominations that were tossed that would have been better.

 

[rhino]

I can't recall all the details but the warning signs were there with Roberts. Bush has other nominations that were tossed that would have been better.

The Ambiguously Honorable Justice Roberts.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ultimately, we only know how a justice is going to act on the bench if they are clearly a progressive, pseudo-liberal socialist-statist. We know they're going to actively pursue their personal political agenda with utter disregard for the document whose principles are supposed to be their sole source of input. By contrast, a justice can seem like they're going to rule based on strict interpretation of the US Constitution when they're being considered and examined by the media, but with those people it's a crap shoot what will happen once they're sitting behind that big bench in the black robe like David Souter or the disappointing John Roberts.

So from what I see, the only guarantees are on the side of evil. Those who seem like good guys might be, or they might not be.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I can't recall all the details but the warning signs were there with Roberts. Bush has other nominations that were tossed that would have been better.

Republicans are always forced to nominate someone that is "mainstream" or the democrats will threaten to filibuster. On the other hand, the republicans will bluster and fain outrage but always seem to wind up "taking the high road" on the dem's nominations. Is it any wonder folks are supporting Trump? They're tired of being told: "just get us the Senate and then you'll see results"...then being told: "just get us the House. Without the House, we just can't get the stuff done we all want to get done"...now they're telling us: "We're powerless without the White House".

Meh! I guess with a republican in the White House, at least there's a 30-40% chance they'd replace Scalia with another one kind of like him. That's better than a 100% chance of replacing a Ginsberg with another one.