Antonin Scalia's death

[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).

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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).

No, I'm not a legal scholar, and don't claim to be one. I think from what I recall, as I'm not getting into a long pissing match today and looking this up, were his Heller opinion was a more conservative interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel the same about his recent comments on affirmative action. I also recall some pretty Conservative (respectfully, I am sure rooted in his faith) opinions regarding DOMA. You can think he had legal opinions not based in a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, but you are a conservative, so I'm not sure how objective you are being on it, just like I as a liberal sees him as conservative.

If rumors were true, and the Indian-American who I mentioned above were nominated, he seems at first glance to be a 'moderate'

I think it will be interesting, and ugly moving forward. Obama will nominate someone, and the Senate should to do their job, even if that means not appointing anyone, and we'll see how it plays out.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No, I'm not a legal scholar, and don't claim to be one. I think from what I recall, as I'm not getting into a long pissing match today and looking this up, were his Heller opinion was a more conservative interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel the same about his recent comments on affirmative action. I also recall some pretty Conservative (respectfully, I am sure rooted in his faith) opinions regarding DOMA. You can think he had legal opinions not based in a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, but you are a conservative, so I'm not sure how objective you are being on it, just like I as a liberal sees him as conservative.

If rumors were true, and the Indian-American who I mentioned above were nominated, he seems at first glance to be a 'moderate'

I think it will be interesting, and ugly moving forward. Obama will nominate someone, and the Senate should to do their job, even if that means not appointing anyone, and we'll see how it plays out.

As always, your points are thoughtful and respectful. You know how to disagree with someone in a way that no one could be offended by, I could learn that from you...

On affirmative action, the constitution says that racial discrimination is illegal, right? It doesn't say "unless the person being victimized, is white".

[wdmso]

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


yes they blocked bork and the other guy withdrew and yet someone was appointed to the seat during Regan's last year in office thru negotiations

The Dems never told Regan you Must wait until the election is over or Dont even try it ?? your a lame duck ... and he hasn't even given a Name Thats the difference you choose to disregard

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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


yes they blocked bork and the other guy withdrew and yet someone was appointed to the seat during Regan's last year in office thru negotiations

The Dems never told Regan you Must wait until the election is over or Dont even try it ?? your a lame duck ... and he hasn't even given a Name Thats the difference you choose to disregard

"The Dems never told Regan you Must wait until the election is over "

Schumer tried selling exactly that. It didn't come up.

I don't hide the fact that I am horrified at the potential shifting of the balance. I wouldn't say I'm all that "worried" about it, because Obama can't do it without Senate approval, and as the Senate stands now, they won't approve. So it's not a real concern.

Unlike most here, I proudly admit my bias.

What I can't stand, is the hypocrisy. When Democrats obstruct and filibuster, they are heroes (see Wendy Davis in Texas).

John R is, unlike me, not a diehard partisan. He said that what the GOP I saying they will do, is no different than what the Dems have done repeatedly. My favorite was when Ted Kennedy was grilling Clarence Thomas about the way Thomas treated women. Because Ted Kennedy has a lot of moral authority in that area, right?

[wdmso]

Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration when a Vacancy opened .. Technically this hasn't happen yet but the Republicans have hinted as much


Historical precedence :Reagan appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States ..

But OMG Obama might appoint One



2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The president followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet

[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