Judge Scalia RIP

[BugI02]

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.

^^^^THIS!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. And you'll note it's like Ground Hog day on doing something about abortion. We elect them to drastically limit and then end the killing of the innocent and they do everything else but. Then when it's time to get re-elected in two, or four or six years its 'Return me to office so I can complete the job of ending the scourge of abortion'. Wash, rinse, repeat. It's partly our fault for being that gullible

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

^^^^THIS!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. And you'll note it's like Ground Hog day on doing something about abortion. We elect them to drastically limit and then end the killing of the innocent and they do everything else but. Then when it's time to get re-elected in two, or four or six years its 'Return me to office so I can complete the job of ending the scourge of abortion'. Wash, rinse, repeat. It's partly our fault for being that gullible

Exactly! I seem to recall hearing all the hype, including having it fed to me in person by Dick Armey, followed up by 6 years of W in the White House, along with R control of both House and Senate, and we got jack sh*t. No, I have not forgotten this, nor have I forgotten Newt's highly-touted and quickly forgotten 'Contract with America', nor do I trust any reheated version of any of the above.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Exactly! I seem to recall hearing all the hype, including having it fed to me in person by Dick Armey, followed up by 6 years of W in the White House, along with R control of both House and Senate, and we got jack sh*t. No, I have not forgotten this, nor have I forgotten Newt's highly-touted and quickly forgotten 'Contract with America', nor do I trust any reheated version of any of the above.

You don't have to look any further than Indianapolis to see its current iteration and results. At least we did get a few things like the school parking lot thing passed before their spines completely melted away.

 

[Expat]

The Republicans just seem to want to play the role of lovable loser. The Dems have the Senate, suspend the rules, invoke the nuclear option, tell Republican to Eff Off and then do whatever the hell they want. The Republicans get back in, take the high road, get rid of the nuclear option, go back to the collegial rules of the Senate and then kowtow to the Dems and Obama. At one time, it was sort of accepted that if a judge was well qualified, then the Senate would confirm him. Then Reagan appointed Bork and the Dems went wild. They will not stand for a conservative Justice, yet the Republican still adhere to the old idea of confirming most anyone that a Dem President appoints. Maybe that has indeed changed now... It reminds me how this country did not believe we were at war with terrorism until 9/11/01 when it has been ongoing for decades.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The Republicans just seem to want to play the role of lovable loser. The Dems have the Senate, suspend the rules, invoke the nuclear option, tell Republican to Eff Off and then do whatever the hell they want. The Republicans get back in, take the high road, get rid of the nuclear option, go back to the collegial rules of the Senate and then kowtow to the Dems and Obama. At one time, it was sort of accepted that if a judge was well qualified, then the Senate would confirm him. Then Reagan appointed Bork and the Dems went wild. They will not stand for a conservative Justice, yet the Republican still adhere to the old idea of confirming most anyone that a Dem President appoints. Maybe that has indeed changed now... It reminds me how this country did not believe we were at war with terrorism until 9/11/01 when it has been ongoing for decades.

I doubt it. I'd like to believe so but I really don't. Wasn't if McConnell that said if he needed to get support to get re-elected, he'd start talking about introducing a law to ban flag burning and it worked? This is just the new version.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You don't have to look any further than Indianapolis to see its current iteration and results. At least we did get a few things like the school parking lot thing passed before their spines completely melted away.

Very true. What this tells me is that the Rs need to lose that supermajority and be put into a position where they have to work to get what they want and live in fear of getting kicked to the curb.

The Republicans just seem to want to play the role of lovable loser. The Dems have the Senate, suspend the rules, invoke the nuclear option, tell Republican to Eff Off and then do whatever the hell they want. The Republicans get back in, take the high road, get rid of the nuclear option, go back to the collegial rules of the Senate and then kowtow to the Dems and Obama. At one time, it was sort of accepted that if a judge was well qualified, then the Senate would confirm him. Then Reagan appointed Bork and the Dems went wild. They will not stand for a conservative Justice, yet the Republican still adhere to the old idea of confirming most anyone that a Dem President appoints. Maybe that has indeed changed now... It reminds me how this country did not believe we were at war with terrorism until 9/11/01 when it has been ongoing for decades.

What I gather from this is that both are owned by the same people, and the owners understand that so long as we have some bad theater going on in which one side pushes the evil agenda and the other postures and at most holds the status quo (never mind that the Rs frauded us all the way around with RFRA 2.0 which was the original goal), then no one pays attention to the man behind the curtain and believes that elections mean something and that the damage can be undone when, without a major paradigm shift, the damage CANNOT be undone.

 

[BugI02]

The Republicans just seem to want to play the role of lovable loser. The Dems have the Senate, suspend the rules, invoke the nuclear option, tell Republican to Eff Off and then do whatever the hell they want. The Republicans get back in, take the high road, get rid of the nuclear option, go back to the collegial rules of the Senate and then kowtow to the Dems and Obama. At one time, it was sort of accepted that if a judge was well qualified, then the Senate would confirm him. Then Reagan appointed Bork and the Dems went wild. They will not stand for a conservative Justice, yet the Republican still adhere to the old idea of confirming most anyone that a Dem President appoints. Maybe that has indeed changed now... It reminds me how this country did not believe we were at war with terrorism until 9/11/01 when it has been ongoing for decades.

What REALLY bothers me about this is this. My idea of SCOTUS is it functions as the final arbiter of what's CONSTITUTIONAL. It's right there in black and white and a justice's idealogical bent SHOULD NOT influence that determination. How did we get where we are today?

 

[Expat]

What REALLY bothers me about this is this. My idea of SCOTUS is it functions as the final arbiter of what's CONSTITUTIONAL. It's right there in black and white and a justice's idealogical bent SHOULD NOT influence that determination. How did we get where we are today?

Just having this opinion would make you a right wing extremist and unqualified to sit on the Court.

 

[BugI02]

Know Your Rights by The Clash is running through my mental music player

 

[jamil]

Well. The court has evolved to be what it is. It is a panel of partisans who mostly vote party lines on a given case. So instead the US being a nation of laws, we are essentially a nation of the SCOTUS majority party. I guess we've been witnessing the logical conclusion of that for the last few decades.

 

[BugI02]

Guess it's time to sharpen the tines on the pitchfork and start making torches, then.


View attachment 45493

 

[rob63]

What REALLY bothers me about this is this. My idea of SCOTUS is it functions as the final arbiter of what's CONSTITUTIONAL. It's right there in black and white and a justice's idealogical bent SHOULD NOT influence that determination. How did we get where we are today?

Immediately after Scalia died there was a piece by a nationally syndicated columnist in the Indy Star that went on and on about how Justice Scalia didn't represent the author or anybody else that he knew. The thing that really struck me was the realization that the author was completely serious about his expectation that a supreme court justice should literally be a representative for a particular group.

 

[actaeon277]

Immediately after Scalia died there was a piece by a nationally syndicated columnist in the Indy Star that went on and on about how Justice Scalia didn't represent the author or anybody else that he knew. The thing that really struck me was the realization that the author was completely serious about his expectation that a supreme court justice should literally be a representative for a particular group.

Schools and parents have failed to teach what the government is. Not all. But enough that we are here.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Christie speaking today, says the GOP Senate should hold hearings on Obama's SCOTUS nominee

Because of course he does.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Obama asked Republican leaders to offer top court nominee: White House | Reuters

 

[ArcadiaGP]

President to announce his nominee at 11am

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/201...ma-ive-made-my-decision-supreme-court-nominee

 

[jamil]

President to announce his nominee at 11am

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/201...ma-ive-made-my-decision-supreme-court-nominee

I think he's going to go for a wise, female person of color.

"Therefore, the third quality I looked for in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly-changing times. In my view, that’s an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes."
​

In other words, another activist.

The Republican establishment will cement America's view of them by capitulating.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I think he's going to go for a wise, female person of color.

"Therefore, the third quality I looked for in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly-changing times. In my view, that’s an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes."
​

In other words, another activist.

White House has already created a Twitter account called "SCOTUSNom", and Mark Knoller reports they will be doing a high-pressure push to get public support for Senate confirmation of the nominee.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Merrick Garland is the nominee. Anyone know anything about him?

SCOTUSBlog has some info here

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/04/the-potential-nomination-of-merrick-garland/

 

[HoughMade]

Merrick Garland is the nominee. Anyone know anything about him?

SCOTUSBlog has some info here

The Potential Nomination of Merrick Garland : SCOTUSblog

Based on the name alone I'm prepared to say that he comes from a pretentious family.