Judge Scalia RIP

[T.Lex]

The Senate is holding pro forma sessions every few days during the break to prevent Obama from making a recess appointment to SCOTUS

The concept of "recess appointments" seems really shady. Did they have a decent purpose in the past? Seem like more of an abuse tool today

They have been around since the early days of the republic. Recall that, back in the day, it would take several days or weeks of travel for members of Congress to go "home" and come back to DC. During those recesses, sometimes appointments need to be made to continue the business of gov't. It made sense to allow time-limited appointments.

In the modern era, they are a way to kick the advice-and-consent can down the road.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The Senate is holding pro forma sessions every few days during the break to prevent Obama from making a recess appointment to SCOTUS

The concept of "recess appointments" seems really shady. Did they have a decent purpose in the past? Seem like more of an abuse tool today

They have been around since the early days of the republic. Recall that, back in the day, it would take several days or weeks of travel for members of Congress to go "home" and come back to DC. During those recesses, sometimes appointments need to be made to continue the business of gov't. It made sense to allow time-limited appointments.

In the modern era, they are a way to kick the advice-and-consent can down the road.

More important, congress was in session only a small portion of the years in the early years of our republic, affording the president a much larger administrative role than we generally find today, although in most regards more circumspect than today given that at the time the government still pretty much lived within the Constitution rather than most if its functions representing extraconstitutional power grabs.

 

[KLB]

Ah, for the days of part time politicians.

 

[bbucking]

Our future depends on this election not because of who will be president, but who they will appoint to replace Justice Scalia (and possibly one to two more seats). I'm not a big fan of any of the Republican candidates but in the grand scheme of it all I will vote republican to protect our liberties.

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-senate-dem-warns-trump-supreme-court-pick-183501787--politics.html


My worry is, with the hard right running the show, that the likelihood of the nominee being mainstream is decreasing every day," Sen. Chuck Schumer said Wednesday.

Asked to define mainstream, Schumer said, "You know it when you see it."

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-senate-dem-warns-trump-supreme-court-pick-183501787--politics.html


My worry is, with the hard right running the show, that the likelihood of the nominee being mainstream is decreasing every day," Sen. Chuck Schumer said Wednesday.

Asked to define mainstream, Schumer said, "You know it when you see it."

In Schumer's world, it's anybody to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-senate-dem-warns-trump-supreme-court-pick-183501787--politics.html


My worry is, with the hard right running the show, that the likelihood of the nominee being mainstream is decreasing every day," Sen. Chuck Schumer said Wednesday.

Asked to define mainstream, Schumer said, "You know it when you see it."

1) At least it will be fun, for a change, seeing the dems instead of the R's being viewed as Obstructionists...blockers...gridlock...

2) I've heard him say several times, even in the last debate, he wants someone just like Scalia.

3) I haven't heard him say he wants someone anti R-v-W...anyone heard that? Got a reference? If so, that's a mistake. I've said all along R's need to pick the battles they can win for a change. Go after fiscal responsibility.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I think Larsen is a good pick. She's young, spent some time with Scalia, seems to be a strong constitutionalist.

A closer look at Trump?s potential Supreme Court nominees - POLITICO

 

[Bill of Rights]

1) At least it will be fun, for a change, seeing the dems instead of the R's being viewed as Obstructionists...blockers...gridlock...

2) I've heard him say several times, even in the last debate, he wants someone just like Scalia.

3) I haven't heard him say he wants someone anti R-v-W...anyone heard that? Got a reference? If so, that's a mistake. I've said all along R's need to pick the battles they can win for a change. Go after fiscal responsibility.

I don't want someone that's pro Roe. I also don't want someone that's anti-Roe. That sounds impossible, I know. What I want is someone who is pro-Constitution. I want someone who respects the rights of all American citizens. What I want is someone who will work to put the Court back on solid Constitutional ground. I want to see Kagan and Sotomayor, Ginsburg,Breyer and maybe even Kennedy either resign or be impeached for failing to discharge the duties of their offices. When the Constitution says, "shall not be infringed", that doesn't mean you start looking for ways to infringe. When you're supposed to be impartial, you don't endorse one candidate over the other- you stay above the fray and cast your own vote, privately.

Justice Scalia will not be replaced-that's not possible. However, someone will need to fill his seat at the bench and that person needs to hold the same principles he held, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't want someone that's pro Roe. I also don't want someone that's anti-Roe. That sounds impossible, I know. What I want is someone who is pro-Constitution. I want someone who respects the rights of all American citizens. What I want is someone who will work to put the Court back on solid Constitutional ground. I want to see Kagan and Sotomayor, Ginsburg,Breyer and maybe even Kennedy either resign or be impeached for failing to discharge the duties of their offices. When the Constitution says, "shall not be infringed", that doesn't mean you start looking for ways to infringe. When you're supposed to be impartial, you don't endorse one candidate over the other- you stay above the fray and cast your own vote, privately.

Justice Scalia will not be replaced-that's not possible. However, someone will need to fill his seat at the bench and that person needs to hold the same principles he held, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

"Anti-Roe" does not necessarily mean anti-abortion...it could be. Anti-Roe also means you believe that the court made its decision on faulty grounds. I am anti-Roe in that light. I am anti-abortion on other points as you and I have discussed a few times.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Hear ya bill. SCOTUS is not a religious bully platform, it's not the place to make law. It's the place to uphold the constitution for everyone exactly the same. That's who I think Larsen is, tough to know because of her age and experience, but she seems to be that kind of person.

 

[HoughMade]

"Anti-Roe" does not necessarily mean anti-abortion...it could be. Anti-Roe also means you believe that the court made its decision on faulty grounds. I am anti-Roe in that light. I am anti-abortion on other points as you and I have discussed a few times.

I agree. Roe, and the cases thatcame before it, including Griswold​ were decided based upon horrible logic and a misinterpretation of the constitution. You don't have to be anti-abortion to hold that opinion.

 

[jamil]

1) At least it will be fun, for a change, seeing the dems instead of the R's being viewed as Obstructionists...blockers...gridlock...

Ain't gonna happen. Our side is terrorists. Their side is freedom fighters. That's how the Dems and most of the mainstream press are gonna play it.

I don't want someone that's pro Roe. I also don't want someone that's anti-Roe. That sounds impossible, I know. What I want is someone who is pro-Constitution. I want someone who respects the rights of all American citizens. What I want is someone who will work to put the Court back on solid Constitutional ground. I want to see Kagan and Sotomayor, Ginsburg,Breyer and maybe even Kennedy either resign or be impeached for failing to discharge the duties of their offices. When the Constitution says, "shall not be infringed", that doesn't mean you start looking for ways to infringe. When you're supposed to be impartial, you don't endorse one candidate over the other- you stay above the fray and cast your own vote, privately.

Justice Scalia will not be replaced-that's not possible. However, someone will need to fill his seat at the bench and that person needs to hold the same principles he held, IMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

I have to agree with all of this. I just want someone who will interpret the constitution for what it says. Evolving meaning is worthless for a state based on rule of law. Laws mean what they meant when they were passed. That's why we have a mechanism to change laws and the Constitution.

"Anti-Roe" does not necessarily mean anti-abortion...it could be. Anti-Roe also means you believe that the court made its decision on faulty grounds. I am anti-Roe in that light. I am anti-abortion on other points as you and I have discussed a few times.

I am anti-roe in that sense.

 

[indiucky]

I am anti-roe in that sense.

Yeah...I hate caviar too...

Actually I always figured that's how you were on the subject....

 

[rhino]

We need all originalists on the bench.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I say we invent time travel, go back to 1790 or so and grab one of the younger Founders, bring him back and put HIM on the Supreme Court. Let EVERYONE see what an "Originalist" REALLY thinks. . .

 

[Kutnupe14]

We need all originalists on the bench.

Lol....be careful what you ask for.

 

[HubertGummer]

I say we invent time travel, go back to 1790 or so and grab one of the younger Founders, bring him back and put HIM on the Supreme Court. Let EVERYONE see what an "Originalist" REALLY thinks. . .

He would be absolutely appalled at what we've done the the country they founded.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I say we invent time travel, go back to 1790 or so and grab one of the younger Founders, bring him back and put HIM on the Supreme Court. Let EVERYONE see what an "Originalist" REALLY thinks. . .

Perhaps we should define originalist, because I really think it wouldn't be palatable to most Americans today- conservative nor liberal. Can you set some parameters?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Perhaps we should define originalist, because I really think it wouldn't be palatable to most Americans today- conservative nor liberal.

No doubt in my mind.