Antonin Scalia's death

[wdmso]

The poor guys hasn't even been buried and it begins.. However It is the sitting POTUS job to fill that Seat .. Just bad timing for the republicans
if they go crazy and try to block it until after the election it might blow up in their face


Note that the record for longest time period to go through this process is 125 days. Obama has 342 remaining in office.


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that the Senate should wait until a new president is elected (WHY) besides the obvious


“The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee,

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The poor guys hasn't even been buried and it begins.. However It is the sitting POTUS job to fill that Seat .. Just bad timing for the republicans
if they go crazy and try to block it until after the election it might blow up in their face


Note that the record for longest time period to go through this process is 125 days. Obama has 342 remaining in office.


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that the Senate should wait until a new president is elected (WHY) besides the obvious


“The Supreme Court of the United States is too important to our democracy for it to be understaffed for partisan reasons, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee,

It's the job of POTUS, maybe his most important job, to occupy that court. Obama has every right to nominate someone.

"Just bad timing for the republicans "

No one gets in without approval of the Senate, which the GOP controls, so the timing could be a LOT worse. I don't know that I believe McConnell would have the onions to block an Obama nominee, but I believe that Cruz would.

How about this...in 2014, the citizens of this country gave the Senate to the GOP. Obama, when it suits him, likes to say, "elections have consequences". I have no quarrel (not that this surprises anyone) with the Republican senators declaring that based on the 2014 midterms, that the public doesn't want the makeup of the court tilted dramatically to the left. The 2014 midterm results make that pretty obvious.

We all know what happened to the Bush appointee Robert Bork. The Senate (when ruled by Democrats) refused to aprove of him, and that effort was lead by Biden. Let's see how Biden likes being on the other end of political gridlock. What's good for the goose...

Obama will probably nominate a transgender Native American female with Bolshevik political leanings, preferably one in a wheelchair, crippled from getting run over by a Koch Brothers oil truck. That way, when the Senate says "pass", Obama can say "see, the Republicans hate all these victim groups represented by this pick, blah, blah, blah."

That aside, I mourn the passing of Scalia, he was a worthy guardian or libetry. He also used to vacation all the time with Ginsburg. Talk about an unlikely pair!!

You think Leahy's statement isn't politically self-serving?

It will be very, very interesting. In the middle of the election, of all things.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Obama will probably nominate a transgender Native American female with Bolshevik political leanings, preferably one in a wheelchair, crippled from getting run over by a Koch Brothers oil truck. That way, when the Senate says "pass", Obama can say "see, the Republicans hate all these victim groups represented by this pick, blah, blah, blah."
.

Saw this elsewhere, the speculation has begun...

"My mole in the White House tells me Obama will nominate 46-year-old Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American jurist who Obama nominated in 2013 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and the Senate confirmed unanimously. Having confirmed him unanimously just three years ago, it would be difficult (but hardly impossible) for Republicans to oppose him now. (Twelve former Solicitors General, including Republican notables as Paul Clement and Kenneth Starr had endorsed his confirmation. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has long been a Supreme Court farm team – Scalia himself, along with John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were judges there before ascending to the Supreme Court.)

But is Srinivasan progressive? He had been Obama’s principal Deputy Solicitor General before the nomination, arguing Supreme Court cases in support of affirmative action and against Indiana’s restrictive voter ID law, for example. But this record doesn’t prove much. (Having once worked as an assistant Solicitor General, I know the inhabitants of that office will argue whatever halfway respectable arguments the Justice Department and, indirectly, the President, wants made.)

Before the Obama administration, Srinivasan worked for five years in George W. Bush’s Justice Department. Prior to that, as an attorney in the private firm of O'Melveny & Myers, he defended Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit brought by Indonesians who accused the company’s security forces of torture, murder, and other violations against their people; successfully represented a newspaper that fired its employees for unionizing; and defended Enron’s former CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, later convicted for financial fraud. But in these instances, too, it could be argued he was just representing clients. Another clue: After graduating Stanford Law School in 1995, Srinivasan clerked for two Republican-appointed jurists – Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor – both of whom were considered moderate. "

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Saw this elsewhere, the speculation has begun...

"My mole in the White House tells me Obama will nominate 46-year-old Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American jurist who Obama nominated in 2013 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and the Senate confirmed unanimously. Having confirmed him unanimously just three years ago, it would be difficult (but hardly impossible) for Republicans to oppose him now. (Twelve former Solicitors General, including Republican notables as Paul Clement and Kenneth Starr had endorsed his confirmation. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has long been a Supreme Court farm team – Scalia himself, along with John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were judges there before ascending to the Supreme Court.)

But is Srinivasan progressive? He had been Obama’s principal Deputy Solicitor General before the nomination, arguing Supreme Court cases in support of affirmative action and against Indiana’s restrictive voter ID law, for example. But this record doesn’t prove much. (Having once worked as an assistant Solicitor General, I know the inhabitants of that office will argue whatever halfway respectable arguments the Justice Department and, indirectly, the President, wants made.)

Before the Obama administration, Srinivasan worked for five years in George W. Bush’s Justice Department. Prior to that, as an attorney in the private firm of O'Melveny & Myers, he defended Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit brought by Indonesians who accused the company’s security forces of torture, murder, and other violations against their people; successfully represented a newspaper that fired its employees for unionizing; and defended Enron’s former CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, later convicted for financial fraud. But in these instances, too, it could be argued he was just representing clients. Another clue: After graduating Stanford Law School in 1995, Srinivasan clerked for two Republican-appointed jurists – Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor – both of whom were considered moderate. "

I was half-joking, but it wouldn't shock me at all.

I don' think Obama gets any appointee confirmed, who isn't as conservative as Scalia. And I would urge every Republican Senator to do whatever they had to do, to prevent Obama from dragging the court one zillimeter to the left of where it is now.

God, I hate that this happened.

"If the Constitution means whatever the present society wants it to mean, then sometimes it will evolve in the direction of greater freedom, and sometimes it will evolve in the direction of less freedom, as it has often done throughout our history." -Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died today at the age of 79.
In the words of Shakespeare, "He should have died hereafter."

This was Scalia's defense of his view that it's not healthy for each generation to decide what the Constitution really means, in light of the view of the times. If we were to do that, then the rights spelled out in the Constitution are not guaranteed, but rather subject to the whim of whoever is in office at the time. I don't want Obama getting to decide what the Bill Of Rights really says, nor do I want Trump doing it. The only way to guarantee those rights, is to implement the Constitution the way it's written. If we want to change it, there is a mechanism to do that.

How does anyone disagree with what Scalia said here?

[Jim in CT]

Just saw on CNN, it was not a joke, that Obama says that Eric Holder is on the short list to replace Scalia. In a related story, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio died laughing.

How can anyone take Obama seriously, if he could say that out loud?

[Jim in CT]

And it's OK, I guess, when Chuck Schumer suggested that the Dems refuse to confirm any Bush nominee for the last 18 months of his presidency. What's good for the goose...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm..._medium=social

[wdmso]

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's current swing vote, took office during Ronald Reagan's final year in office.

My friend posted this on facebook and he is Far from left but summed it up nicely


To all of my second amendment friends who always post about our right to bear arms (which I have no problem with). You can't have it both ways. Some of the same people who fervently believe in the second amendment also believe that President Obama shouldn't be able to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice after Scalia's death.
Here's the deal, like him or not, it's his right under the Constitution. Article 2 section 2 absolutely gives him that right. "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
I don't want to hear about any bull#^&#^&#^&#^& traditions...Justice Scalia was the justice who always erred on the side of never interpreting the Constitution to fit the trends of the day, I absolutely believe he would agree with Obama's right to appoint the next justice.
Just for the record I'm not happy about it either, but what's right is right.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And it's OK, I guess, when Chuck Schumer suggested that the Dems refuse to confirm any Bush nominee for the last 18 months of his presidency. What's good for the goose...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm..._medium=social

And I disagree with him ..But lets be frank he made that statement 10 years ago I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances. with no power to forward his recommendation or opportunity to bring it to the floor a Hollow threat

then you have this,, Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election the big difference this is not a recommendation
this the Republican's Mission statement and he is in a position of power

Not sure how he can say

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

Hate to say it Sen Warren is right

McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice,” Warren wrote. “In fact, they did -- when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”

Very Very interesting

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And I disagree with him ..But lets be frank he made that statement 10 years ago I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances. with no power to forward his recommendation or opportunity to bring it to the floor a Hollow threat

then you have this,, Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election the big difference this is not a recommendation
this the Republican's Mission statement and he is in a position of power

Not sure how he can say

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," McConnell said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

Hate to say it Sen Warren is right

McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice,” Warren wrote. “In fact, they did -- when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.”

Very Very interesting

"But lets be frank he made that statement 10 years ago "

He made the statement the last time a Republican president had the potential to nominate a SCOTUS justice, when the Dems controlled the Senate. Obviously, Schumer wouldn't have said that during the Obama presidency, so the fact that it was 10 years ago, is irrelevant.

The President has the right to nominate anyone he wants. The Constitution doesn't allow anyone to prevent him from nominating someone. The Senate has the right to say "no, thanks", as the Dems did with Justice Bork, widely considered to be a brilliant jurist, and rejected for pure politics, and I don't recall any of the Democrats apologizing fot that. Biden led the charge against Bork, and he can't have it both ways. If there was nothing wrong with the Dems blocking Bork, there's similarly notihng wrong with the GOP blocking whatever Bolshevik twit Obama nominates.

"And I disagree with him "

I notice you didn't say why you think Scalia is wrong.

"Sen Warren is right "

Are you feeling OK? Yes, Obama won the 2012 election. And in 2014 (the most recent national election), do you know what happened? Those same people that elected Obama in 2012, gave the Senate majority to the GOP.

You, and Senator Warren, are saying that the 2012 election was an expression of the will of the people, but the 2014 midterms were not?

Brother, I would just LOVE to hear you, or Senator Lie-awatha, explain that one. You have fun with that, OK?

I guess we should just forget every election the Democrats have ever lost?

Every Republican Senator is just as "elected" as Obama is.

[JohnR]

I don't see what is different this time than previous ones - both sides have attempted and often been successful in stonewalling or preventing a nomination for a justice.

Situation normal, all depends on whose ox to gore.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I don't see what is different this time than previous ones - both sides have attempted and often been successful in stonewalling or preventing a nomination for a justice.

Situation normal, all depends on whose ox to gore.

The difference is, when Bush was in office, dissent was "the highest form of patriotism". Now that Obama is in there, dissent is the lowest form of racism.

Of course, you are correct.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I don't see what is different this time than previous ones - both sides have attempted and often been successful in stonewalling or preventing a nomination for a justice.

Situation normal, all depends on whose ox to gore.

exactly

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"But lets be frank he made that statement 10 years ago "

He made the statement the last time a Republican president had the potential to nominate a SCOTUS justice, when the Dems controlled the Senate. Obviously, Schumer wouldn't have said that during the Obama presidency, so the fact that it was 10 years ago, is irrelevant.

The President has the right to nominate anyone he wants. The Constitution doesn't allow anyone to prevent him from nominating someone. The Senate has the right to say "no, thanks", as the Dems did with Justice Bork, widely considered to be a brilliant jurist, and rejected for pure politics, and I don't recall any of the Democrats apologizing fot that. Biden led the charge against Bork, and he can't have it both ways. If there was nothing wrong with the Dems blocking Bork, there's similarly notihng wrong with the GOP blocking whatever Bolshevik twit Obama nominates.

"And I disagree with him "

I notice you didn't say why you think Scalia is wrong.

"Sen Warren is right "

Are you feeling OK? Yes, Obama won the 2012 election. And in 2014 (the most recent national election), do you know what happened? Those same people that elected Obama in 2012, gave the Senate majority to the GOP.

You, and Senator Warren, are saying that the 2012 election was an expression of the will of the people, but the 2014 midterms were not?

Brother, I would just LOVE to hear you, or Senator Lie-awatha, explain that one. You have fun with that, OK?

I guess we should just forget every election the Democrats have ever lost?

Every Republican Senator is just as "elected" as Obama is.

Mid terms are mid terms they are the will of state election's not a presidential election and if you think they trump a presidential election.. if just shows how partisan you really are .. they may influence things in Washington But they don't erase who the POTUS or nullify those who voted for him ..

Its just bad timing for the republicans .. and if a Hillary or Bernie gets in and there are vacancies to be Filled OMG Thats going to be fun to watch

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Mid terms are mid terms they are the will of state election's not a presidential election and if you think they trump a presidential election.. if just shows how partisan you really are .. they may influence things in Washington But they don't erase who the POTUS or nullify those who voted for him ..

They don't trump presidential elections, but neither do presidential elections trump them. Presidents may be elected, among other things, to NOMINATE Supreme Court Judges, but Senators are elected to CONFIRM, and thus ultimately to appoint them. You seem to have a hard time understanding that simple but very important, fundamental, concept.

Would you prefer a king or dictator instead of a constitutionally limited President?

Its just bad timing for the republicans .. and if a Hillary or Bernie gets in and there are vacancies to be Filled OMG Thats going to be fun to watch

Do you enjoy cat fights?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Mid terms are mid terms they are the will of state election's not a presidential election and if you think they trump a presidential election.. if just shows how partisan you really are .. they may influence things in Washington But they don't erase who the POTUS or nullify those who voted for him ..

Its just bad timing for the republicans .. and if a Hillary or Bernie gets in and there are vacancies to be Filled OMG Thats going to be fun to watch

"Mid terms are mid terms "

Thanks for the scoop.

"they are the will of state election's not a presidential election"

That is a tortured, nonsensical answer if I have ever heard one. In 2014, the will of many states was to replace Democratic senators with Republican ones, meaning that those people in those states, wanted a Republican senator, not a Democrat one, to decide on confirmations. That's democracy.

WDMSO, were you complaining when the Democrats blocked Bork's nomination? If not, you have zero legitimate beef here

"they may influence things in Washington But they don't erase who the POTUS or nullify those who voted for him "

Who said that midterms negate the Presidential elections 2 years prior? I said Obama gets to pick the nominee. And the Republican-led Senate, via the will of the people, gets to vote on confirmation.

There has never been a President as dismissive and insulting to those who disagree with him, than Weird Harold. He hasn't built up a lot of goodwill among us bitter clingers, us racists, those of us who do nothing but "hate all the time". He reaps what he sows.

"Its just bad timing for the republicans "

True, but during the first 6 years of Obama's presidency, when the Dems controlled the senate, would have been far worse.

"and if a Hillary or Bernie gets in and there are vacancies to be Filled OMG Thats going to be fun to watch"

If the GOP still controls the Senate, it will be entertaining. If the GOP nominates Trump, the GOP could easily lose control of the Senate. Then the next few years would be a jackpot for liberals.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

To all of my second amendment friends who always post about our right to bear arms (which I have no problem with). You can't have it both ways. Some of the same people who fervently believe in the second amendment also believe that President Obama shouldn't be able to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice after Scalia's death.

And they are right.

Here's the deal, like him or not, it's his right under the Constitution. Article 2 section 2 absolutely gives him that right.

No. the Constitution does not ABSOLUTELY, give the President that right. Read carefully your quote of that portion of Article 2:

"He shall have power . . . And he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court . . .

That is, he has the absolute power to nominate Judges, but the power to appoint Judges is absolutely dependent on the advice and consent of the Senate.

I don't want to hear about any bull#^&#^&#^&#^& traditions...Justice Scalia was the justice who always erred on the side of never interpreting the Constitution to fit the trends of the day, I absolutely believe he would agree with Obama's right to appoint the next justice.

No he would not believe that Obama has the absolute right to unilaterally appoint the next Justice. Not only does the text (and he was a textualist) not give Obama that power, but he understood that the constitutional framers would never have given that absolute power to one person to appoint someone to such a fundamentally important position. And that the People's representatives should have a major portion of that power.

Just for the record I'm not happy about it either, but what's right is right.

Exactly, what is right is right.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Thanks for the lesson.

I am by no means a constitutional "expert." Just a fellow citizen who believes we would be governed best if we faithfully governed according to it. So I try to, what I consider, appropriately and necessarily understand it. I think that it is nowhere near as difficult to understand as our agenda driven politicians would like us to believe. In my opinion, the difficulty in constitutional interpretation occurs when politicians legislate outside constitutional bounds and Supreme Court Judges try to make the Constitution fit their legislation rather than to decide that it is unconstitutional. And that difficulty is compounded when those Justices are personally sympathetic to what they consider higher ideals, or more "equitable" social outcomes no matter if the legislation is originally and textually unconstitutional. So tangled, convoluted, even rationally ridiculous arguments become necessary to make constitutional text fit their personal preference.

I don't intend to give "lessons." Just want to have rational and honest discussions.

If Obama nomiates a so-called moderate, the Senate will be playing a tough hand; delay delay delay, and hope the GOP candidate wins, of they will have to obstruct nominees for 4 more years

As I have been trying to tell some of the more optimistic "conservatives" on the forum, that what is left of our founding system of government, of whatever it is that they consider "conservatism," is dangling by a thread which is thinner than a hanging chad.

The Progressives have been absolutely persistent in changing our system of government. The "conservatives" just react every now and then, and think that any victory will be permanent. That the price of liberty is eternal vigilance doesn't seem to penetrate the average "conservative" mind.

So, yes, you are right. Not only the Senate, or the Republican Party been reduced to playing a tough hand, but the fundamental nature of how we are governed is as well.

I think that some "liberal" minds might be persuaded to preserve our founding system if their understanding of the difference between unalienable rights and government granted rights was fully informed. I keep hoping for discussions along those lines, but we just seem to stay stuck on if what politicians do "works" within the parameters that those politicians prescribe. Basic, foundational, principles are not regarded. Which why, in my opinion, things seem to "work" for a while, then the illusion stops working and things get worse. We get further in debt. We breed more poverty. We create more conflict and divisiveness. We eviscerate the individual differences that comprise our famous "e pluribus Unum" all in the name and quest of a so called diversity which actually herds us into conformity.

Sorry for the bloviating "lesson." I didn't mean it to be that. Just trying, probably futilely, to stimulate a discussion.

Yes, as you say, the Senate will be playing a tough hand if it remains in Republican hands and the Democrats win the presidency. But much of that is due to not playing as tough as the Democrats the past eight to twenty years. So now they pay the piper. Their fear of main stream press and the supposed moderate center has been at the expense of their supposed faithfulness to the Constitution. So now they are backed into a tiny corner not just of preserving their power, which is not so important to the rest of us, but preventing the appointment of a majority of progressive judges which basically means the final end of the Constitution as written, and the final touch and implementation of reversing the relation of American citizens to their government.

By the way, if the Republicans had the courage to be tough, the number of Supreme Court Justices does not have to be nine. Congress decides the number and can change it. If the Republicans maintain control of Congress, they don't really have to fill a vacancy. Of course, there is that perception thing. And because we are ignorant of reality, we are driven by perception

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As I have been trying to tell some of the more optimistic "conservatives" on the forum, that what is left of our founding system of government, of whatever it is that they consider "conservatism," is dangling by a thread which is thinner than a hanging chad.

The Progressives have been absolutely persistent in changing our system of government. The "conservatives" just react every now and then, and think that any victory will be permanent. That the price of liberty is eternal vigilance doesn't seem to penetrate the average "conservative" mind.

So, yes, you are right. Not only the Senate, or the Republican Party been reduced to playing a tough hand, but the fundamental nature of how we are governed is as well.

I think that some "liberal" minds might be persuaded to preserve our founding system if their understanding of the difference between unalienable rights and government granted rights was fully informed. I keep hoping for discussions along those lines, but we just seem to stay stuck on if what politicians do "works" within the parameters that those politicians prescribe. Basic, foundational, principles are not regarded. Which why, in my opinion, things seem to "work" for a while, then the illusion stops working and things get worse. We get further in debt. We breed more poverty. We create more conflict and divisiveness. We eviscerate the individual differences that comprise our famous "e pluribus Unum" all in the name and quest of a so called diversity which actually herds us into conformity.

Sorry for the bloviating "lesson." I didn't mean it to be that. Just trying, probably futilely, to stimulate a discussion.

Yes, as you say, the Senate will be playing a tough hand if it remains in Republican hands and the Democrats win the presidency. But much of that is due to not playing as tough as the Democrats the past eight to twenty years. So now they pay the piper. Their fear of main stream press and the supposed moderate center has been at the expense of their supposed faithfulness to the Constitution. So now they are backed into a tiny corner not just of preserving their power, which is not so important to the rest of us, but preventing the appointment of a majority of progressive judges which basically means the final end of the Constitution as written, and the final touch in reversing the relation of American citizens to their government.

By the way, if the Republicans had the courage to be tough, the number of Supreme Court Justices does not have to be nine. Congress decides the number and can change it. If the Republicans maintain control of Congress, they don't really have to fill a vacancy. Of course, there is that perception thing. And because we are ignorant of reality, we are driven by perception

I'm pretty liberal on a lot of issues, centrist on others. That being said
I'd prefer to see someone like I mentioned above, as shown to be more middle of the road, and not an activist of either party. I think that is where both parties are heading though... Ultimately, you don't know how they will preside until often many years after they are appointed...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I'm pretty liberal on a lot of issues, centrist on others. That being said
I'd prefer to see someone like I mentioned above, as shown to be more middle of the road, and not an activist of either party. I think that is where both parties are heading though... Ultimately, you don't know how they will preside until often many years after they are appointed...

Is someone like Scalia, who interprets the Constitution literally, necessarily advocating for conservatism? I don't think so. WDMSO wants to elect a POTUS who gets to decide what he thinks the Constitution really means. What that means is, if we elect someone with fascist inclinations as POTUS, he can decide that we don't really have a right to a free press, and do away with it. A guy like Scalia would strike that down as not complying with what the constitution says. Is that strictly a Republican notion? You'll never convince me that it is.

The Constitution isn't a legal opinion, it's a binding, legal document.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Is someone like Scalia, who interprets the Constitution literally, necessarily advocating for conservatism? I don't think so. WDMSO wants to elect a POTUS who gets to decide what he thinks the Constitution really means.

He clearly, to my eye, interpreted the Constitution with a conservative mindset. I think his decisions and particularly his public speeches bear that out. But this is no different than Ginsberg, who interprets the Constitution through a more liberal lens.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

He clearly, to my eye, interpreted the Constitution with a conservative mindset. I think his decisions and particularly his public speeches bear that out. But this is no different than Ginsberg, who interprets of the Constitution is done through a more liberal lens.

Can you cite an example of conservative activism on his part? If one says "the Constitution is what it says, and nothing more", how is that right-leaning, unless you concede that it's the liberals who are more likely to try to ignore the constitution to further their agenda - a notion I wholeheartedly agree with. But it's conceivable that a uber conservative could be a fascist, in which case I still want a guy like Scalia to reign that person in.

Scalia has said that his personal views are conservative, but he doesn't advocate that way when deciding cases. I am no expert, but I wonder what true right-wing advocacy you'd find in his legal opinions.

If Obama nominates a moderate, the Senate should consider that person. Trouble is, to Obama, Josef Stalin is a moderate. That's what you get from a guy whose spiritual advisor is Rev Wright. Sonja Sotomayor wrote somewhere that in her opinion, a Latina female, because of her life experience, can reach superior legal opinions than anyone else. That bigoted sentiment would rightly preclude her from serving in jury duty, yet there she is on the highest court in the land, for the next 4 decades. She also had multiple opinions get reversed in higher court (Bork had none).

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Is someone like Scalia, who interprets the Constitution literally, necessarily advocating for conservatism? I don't think so. WDMSO wants to elect a POTUS who gets to decide what he thinks the Constitution really means. What that means is, if we elect someone with fascist inclinations as POTUS, he can decide that we don't really have a right to a free press, and do away with it. A guy like Scalia would strike that down as not complying with what the constitution says. Is that strictly a Republican notion? You'll never convince me that it is.

The Constitution isn't a legal opinion, it's a binding, legal document.

let be honest your only upset because of the possibility that the court could swing the other way . and the possibility of other justices not seeing the world as you do its terrifying and all those things are fine until people like you and other politicians have no problem openly trying usurp the process to maintain status Quo ..

Looks like Subversion to me
Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I'm pretty liberal on a lot of issues, centrist on others.

I'm very "liberal" on most issues, but in a classical sense. And I'm extremely "centrist" on those issues. But my "center" is the one the Founders created, not a fictional one created by political interest groups.

That being said
I'd prefer to see someone like I mentioned above, as shown to be more middle of the road, and not an activist of either party. I think that is where both parties are heading

You really do have more affinity, in perspective, with the Founder's view than what is referred to nowadays as the "liberal" or Progressive view. Except the Founder's had a different concept of what was the "middle of the road."

They were very concerned with the danger of "factions" nibbling away at unalienable freedoms and individual liberty. But they, especially Madison, thought that in a large republic the great variety of factions would check each other. Unfortunately, in that we have developed a two party system, various factions coalesce in one or the other party in order to have influence. So we, in actuality, have only two huge factions composed of conglomerated interests. And the two factions, rather than balancing and neutralizing each other, strive to dominate. And by virtue of majority vote, they succeed.

Which is why the Founders chose a republican form of government rather than a pure democracy. A pure democracy is eminently susceptible to the tyranny of the majority. It is, in fact, absolutely a tyranny of the majority.

There is no middle of the road between two diametrically opposed factions. But even further, the burden of factions by which each party is composed cannot really, or barely, find a middle of the road within the party, much less than with the other party. And that, as you say, is where both parties are headed, if they have not actually arrived. So they strive, each, to have their own separate versions of the "middle." And to legitimize their power to do so, they prefer to cast us as a democracy rather than a constitutional republic. And thereby they can justify their majority tyrannies.

So by election rather than constitutional process, they achieve forced "compromises "along the way. Thus by victory or defeat, factional rule is imposed. And the "way" constantly departs from the middle road on which we were founded and veers into factional despotism.

The "middle of the road" for the Founders was the Constitution. A just and equitable government would stay within the bounds of that road in order to preserve individual freedom. Straying to the "right" of it could lead to anarchy, and to the "left" of it to the tyranny they revolted against.

The departure from the original road now gives us little option to vote for those who would govern by the original middle. We are confronted as options those who insist on taking over the road and imposing their will on the people . . . and doing so by inventing and shaping the "issues" and solutions so that the will of the people is also shaped according to the rhetoric of factions rather than by desires of sovereign individuals.

though... Ultimately, you don't know how they will preside until often many years after they are appointed...

And that is the crossroad to which we have ultimately arrived. Rather than adhering to their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, to be faithful to it in their jurisprudence, they are, as you say activists fueled by factional partisan appointments and desires.

And, in order to fundamentally reshape our system of government, it is necessary to demonize as extremists those who seek to faithfully govern in accordance to the Constitution. They must be marginalized, made to look like fools. i.e., Ted Cruz.

We have, in the coming election, a chance to begin to liberate ourselves from factional dominance, or to further enchain ourselves to it. And for most, that won't be easy not only because a progressive precedence has conditioned us to it, but as well because, for many, the chains are covered with velvet and secure for them an "equal," comfortable, though confined, little place. And that's as "liberal" as remaining in the womb. And as "centrist" as a fetus between those walls.

As an aside re the topic of this thread, Scalia, though an avowed social "conservative," he even more so followed the original middle of the road and adhered to its original text and meaning. He, above all, valued the liberty it guaranteed which allowed him his "conservatism" and others their "liberalism." But only if we didn't stray from the constitutional "middle." If not, all bets are off. You may temporarily win a factional government lottery, or you may lose.

And the factional drift is obviously toward the "left" rather than to the "right" since it is evident that government is gaining power, not losing it. Drift toward tyranny rather than anarchy. The true middle is being erased.

OK, so I bloviated again. But if you stick with it and read between the lines, you can get the picture.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And that is the crossroad to which we have ultimately arrived. Rather than adhering to their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, to be faithful to it in their jurisprudence, they are, as you say activists fueled by factional partisan appointments and desires.

And, in order to fundamentally reshape our system of government, it is necessary to demonize as extremists those who seek to faithfully govern in accordance to the Constitution. They must be marginalized, made to look like fools. i.e., Ted Cruz.

We have, in the coming election, a chance to begin to liberate ourselves from factional dominance, or to further enchain ourselves to it. And for most, that won't be easy not only because a progressive precedence has conditioned us to it, but as well because, for many, the chains are covered with velvet and secure for them an "equal," comfortable, though confined, little place. And that's as "liberal" as remaining in the womb. And as "centrist" as a fetus between those walls.

As an aside re the topic of this thread, Scalia, though an avowed social "conservative," he even more so followed the original middle of the road and adhered to its original text and meaning. He, above all, valued the liberty it guaranteed which allowed him his "conservatism" and others their "liberalism." But only if we didn't stray from the constitutional "middle." If not, all bets are off. You may temporarily win a factional government lottery, or you may lose.

And the factional drift is obviously toward the "left" rather than to the "right" since it is evident that government is gaining power, not losing it. Drift toward tyranny rather than anarchy. The true middle is being erased.

OK, so I bloviated again. But if you stick with it and read between the lines, you can get the picture.

Man what an apocalyptic view

You have passion and conviction I see it in your writing.. may I take the Liberty and say you would fall in the originalist Camp And I would fall in the Non Originalist Camp and we agree to disagree on how we see a replacement would effect the court

Eight Reasons to be an Originalist
1. Originalism reduces the likelihood that unelected judges will seize the reigns of power from elected representatives.
2. Originalism in the long run better preserves the authority of the Court.
3. Non-originalism allows too much room for judges to impose their own subjective and elitist values. Judges need neutral, objective criteria to make legitimate decisions. The understanding of the framers and ratifiers of a constitutional clause provide those neutral criteria.
4. Lochner vs. New York (widely considered to be a bad non-originalist decision).
5. Leaving it to the people to amend their Constitution when need be promotes serious public debate about government and its limitations.
6. Originalism better respects the notion of the Constitution as a binding contract.
7. If a constitutional amendment passed today, we would expect a court five years from now to ask what we intended to adopt. [Can the same be said for a court 100 or 200 years from now?]
8. Originalism more often forces legislatures to reconsider and possibly repeal or amend their own bad laws, rather than to leave it to the courts to get rid of them.


Eight Reasons to be a Non-Originalist
1. The framers at the Convention in Philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation.
2. No written Constitution can anticipate all the means that government might in the future use to oppress people, so it is sometimes necessary for judges to fill in the gaps.
3. Intentions of framers are various, sometimes transient, and often impossible to determine. Text is often ambiguous and judicial precedents can be found to support either side. In such cases, why not produce the result that will best promote the public good? It's better than flipping a coin.
4. Non-originalism allows judges to head off the crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. (The amendment process is too difficult and cannot be relied upon to save us.)
5. Non-originalism allows the Constitution to evolve to match more enlightened understandings on matters such as the equal treatment of blacks, women, and other minorities.
6. Brown vs Board of Education (on originalist grounds, it was decided incorrectly).
7. Originalists lose sight of the forest because they pay too much attention to trees. The larger purpose--the animating spirit--of the Constitution was the protection of liberty, and we ought to focus on that.
8. Nazi Germany: Originalist German judges did not exercise the power they might have to prevent or slow down inhumane programs.

source http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...aw/interp.html

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Eight Reasons to be a Non-Originalist
1. The framers at the Convention in Philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation.
2. No written Constitution can anticipate all the means that government might in the future use to oppress people, so it is sometimes necessary for judges to fill in the gaps.
3. Intentions of framers are various, sometimes transient, and often impossible to determine. Text is often ambiguous and judicial precedents can be found to support either side. In such cases, why not produce the result that will best promote the public good? It's better than flipping a coin.
4. Non-originalism allows judges to head off the crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. (The amendment process is too difficult and cannot be relied upon to save us.)
5. Non-originalism allows the Constitution to evolve to match more enlightened understandings on matters such as the equal treatment of blacks, women, and other minorities.
6. Brown vs Board of Education (on originalist grounds, it was decided incorrectly).
7. Originalists lose sight of the forest because they pay too much attention to trees. The larger purpose--the animating spirit--of the Constitution was the protection of liberty, and we ought to focus on that.
8. Nazi Germany: Originalist German judges did not exercise the power they might have to prevent or slow down inhumane programs.

source http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...aw/interp.html

this is hilarious "Non-sense"

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I incorrectly used appointment rather than Nomination as you said... but it dosn't change my question > but thanks for the Civics lesson.. I in no way shape or form have I suggested what you have written I never mentioned recess appointments.. I incorrectly used a term.. you caught that but couldn't figure the context of my question?

The different term changes the context.

. I have only expressed where in History? Has a Sitting president be told don't even forward a nomination ( not appointment ) for advice and consent...

you dont think this is the kinda of behavior that creates that tyrannical power of one branch which you wrote ^^^^

I don't know if, when, or where in history a President was told not to submit a nomination. But that would not prevent a President from submitting one. The leader of the Senate forecasting that it would attempt to block Presidential action has happened many, many, times by both parties. I forget which speaker of which branch said that a President's or his party's proposals would be "dead on arrival" for the rest of his term. It is a common and expected practice to block the opposition's legislation or nomination. Opposition is not tyranny. The suppressing or elimination of opposition is tyranny. Constitutional opposition is the intended check and balance used to prevent that tyranny.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election

yet historically: from the NY times The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn within 25 days. When Justice Antonin Scalia died, 342 days remained in President Obama’s term.

It is not written in stone or in the Constitution that more than or less than a given number of days are required to confirm a nomination. It is certainly not required in the Constitution that a President's nomination must be confirmed. The number of SCOTUS Justices is not specified in the Constitution, and is decided by Congress. The Constitution does not require nine Supreme Court Judges. The NY Times may get their panties all up in a bunch if it takes more than 125 days to vote on a successor, but it is not the arbiter of who or when or if a successor is voted on or if their even will be a successor. The NY Times is not the authority on the matter. It certainly is not impartial. And its opinions should be viewed in the light of its partisan and ideological predilections.

And, as has been said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. When a political party's agenda scarcely hides that it is about rewriting the Constitution by appointing activist Judges who have no intention of letting the Constitution stand in their way of approving unconstitutional legislation which agrees with their ideological views, then the opposition must defend the Constitution with whatever powers it grants them to do so.

If you wish to preserve the Constitution, we are at a critical point in history when all stops must be pulled to avoid its wreck.

On the other hand, if you think the Constitution is "living and breathing,"a slave which follows to current fashions, then it is of no account and should be, as Progressives believe, tossed into the dust bin of history. (Strange that you would even insist, as a believer of a living breathing constitution, that there must be an unchanging, static amount of days for a nomination to be voted on).

And, even if that were the case that the Constitution was defunct, how would that stop the Republicans from taking more than 125 days to vote on a nomination? Just because the NY Times says they shouldn't?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Man what an apocalyptic view ?????

You have passion and conviction I see it in your writing.. may I take the Liberty and say you would fall in the originalist Camp And I would fall in the Non Originalist Camp and we agree to disagree on how we see a replacement would effect the court


Eight Reasons to be a Non-Originalist
1. The framers at the Convention in Philadelphia indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation.

An originalist such as Scalia would agree with that. Which is why, as an originalist, he was a textualist, and did not seek to infuse intentions into his judgments.

2. No written Constitution can anticipate all the means that government might in the future use to oppress people, so it is sometimes necessary for judges to fill in the gaps.

Judges filling in gaps on their own cognizance can, and most assuredly will, be a means to oppress people. That's why the Framers didn't try to anticipate everything in the future and made an amendment process part of the Constitution, thus giving the people the power to provide for change without it being shoved down their throats by agenda driven Judges.

3. Intentions of framers are various, sometimes transient, and often impossible to determine. Text is often ambiguous and judicial precedents can be found to support either side. In such cases, why not produce the result that will best promote the public good? It's better than flipping a coin.

Intentions were clearly argued and stated during the constitutional conventions. What counted was the agreed upon intentions. And the majority's agreed upon Constitution to fulfill those intentions.

It is a ploy to say that text is ambiguous. What makes clear text appear ambiguous is a judge's desire to make the Constitution fit bad legislation. Which requires the insertion of meanings which do not reside in the text. What is called "interpretation" in that manner is actually revision and rewriting.

And that is an oppressive means of "producing" a result which promotes the Judge's preferred notion of the public good rather than allowing the public to decide for itself what is its good.

4. Non-originalism allows judges to head off the crises that could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its original purpose. (The amendment process is too difficult and cannot be relied upon to save us.)

The people, through their representatives, are the ones to head off crises. Judges are, by definition, interpreters of law not crisis managers. And the people, through their representatives, make the law, not the Judges. The Judges are studied in existing law. They apply that law. They are no more competent to create law than are the people's representatives. They are even less so because there are only nine of them. The body politic is vastly larger and profoundly more informed as to what is proper to its needs and what are its crises. And leaving it up to nine fallible humans who are not even "expert" in policy and crisis management to "save us" is a recipe for disaster or for the well worn method of oppression by not letting a crisis go to waste.

I'll use your tactic here--where is it in history that Supreme Court Judges have saved us from disaster by going outside of the Constitution?

5. Non-originalism allows the Constitution to evolve to match more enlightened understandings on matters such as the equal treatment of blacks, women, and other minorities.

The Constitution is not in conflict with "enlightened understandings." It allows their evolution and protects them. It also protects the people against unenlightened understandings. Without that protection, despots can impose their versions of enlightened understanding.

6. Brown vs Board of Education (on originalist grounds, it was decided incorrectly). ??
7. Originalists lose sight of the forest because they pay too much attention to trees. ??? The larger purpose--the animating spirit--of the Constitution was the protection of liberty, and we ought to focus on that. Textualist originalists, such as Scalia, do focus on that. The constitutional text (the forest?) is constructed to protect liberty. Progressive anti-constitutionalists (living and breathing Constitution types) are focused on the forest of "social justice" for groups more than on protection of individual liberty. The Progressive notion of liberty is that which government prescribes as liberty.

8. Nazi Germany: Originalist German judges did not exercise the power they might have to prevent or slow down inhumane programs.

What the hell does that have to do with the U.S. Constitution

And, BTW, I am more in the textualist/originalist camp.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What the hell does that have to do with the U.S. Constitution

And, BTW, I am more in the textualist/originalist camp.

Seems you know exactly what that has to do with the Constitution

Seeing you have Identified what camp you fall in on How its interpreted

But I understand your is the only correct way to interpret the Constitution

[Jim in CT]

WDMSO -

One reason to be an originalist...our founding fathers believed the freedoms spelled out in our founding documents, were self-evident, and given to us by God, and NOT something for the current leader to decide whether or not we really had the right to expect. If we let the current folks in DC decide what the Constitution means, then sometimes they will decide it means we have less liberty than it clearly states. The only way to guarantee those freedoms, is to make them absolute.

Why would anyone be comfortable letting people in DC decide what the Bill Of Rights really means?

As Scalia said, the Constitution isn't a legal opinion, it is a legally binding document. It's not carved in stone either, if we want to change it, there is a mechanism to do that.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

WDMSO -

One reason to be an originalist...our founding fathers believed the freedoms spelled out in our founding documents, were self-evident, and given to us by God, and NOT something for the current leader to decide whether or not we really had the right to expect. If we let the current folks in DC decide what the Constitution means, then sometimes they will decide it means we have less liberty than it clearly states. The only way to guarantee those freedoms, is to make them absolute.

Why would anyone be comfortable letting people in DC decide what the Bill Of Rights really means?

As Scalia said, the Constitution isn't a legal opinion, it is a legally binding document. It's not carved in stone either, if we want to change it, there is a mechanism to do that.

The Country's not a 1 way street your standard bearer Has died Who know's whos name he'll forward in any case the country will march on