Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at age 79

186 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at age 79

+

Issues Pages: 
NorthReport

So Obama now will get to appoint his third SC justice. His first two appts were women - Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan

Hopefully someone much, much more progressive this time. 

This will be a huge battle with Congress and could have a large impact on the presidential race

Scalia was appointed by Reagan.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Rest in pieces. Sometimes death isn't sad. The man was a piece of shit.Remember to flush. Good riddance.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Going to make Valentine's special for a lot in the American LGBT community - Scalia was always in the running for enemy #1

lagatta

Vaffanculo, Scalia. Someone who left the world just a bit better by no longer being in it. And yes, a vile homophobe.

NorthReport

This is seismic and will impact on election campaign as Cruz and the GOP will say next president should appoint next justice.

NorthReport

If there is any possibility of Obama getting a third SC justice approved it could shift the court into what in the USA would be called a 5-4 liberal court.

Who would Donald Trump appoint?

Or Cruz

Or Clinton?

Or Bernie Sanders?

 

NorthReport

Trump better quickly do his homework on the SC otherwise Cruz will be all over him in tonite's debate.

NorthReport

Ted Cruz leads Republicans’ rush to demand Justice Scalia’s SCOTUS replacement be named by next POTUS, not Obama

Respectful silence be damned, Cruz politicizes Scalia's death to preserve his seat for a conservative sucessor

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/ted_cruz_leads_republicans_rush_to_deman...

abnormal

 "I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." ~ Clarence Darrow

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHQLQ1Rc_Js

abnormal

BTW, The longest Supreme Court confirmation process from nomination to resolution was Brandeis, at 125 days. (Obama has 342 days left in office.) Woodrow Wilson nominated him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis...

NorthReport

Politically the GOP obstruction to Obama's choice to replace could damage GOP congressional candidates saying they are not doing their job if they filibuster nomination

josh

Obama will unlikely be able to get his nominee through. However, if the Democrats gain at least four seats in the senate in November, there is a two week window in January before the new president is sworn in, where the new senate convenes. The Democrats could then be able to get the nominee through before Obama leaves office regardless of who is elected president..

NorthReport

Thanks josh.

NorthReport

Whom could President Obama nominate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomi...

NorthReport

Just watched "Boycott" which shows some of the importance of the Supreme Court

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0255851/

NorthReport

In the debate tonite Trump said delay, delay, delay any attempted SC appointment by Obama

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, I am glad he has vacated the chair. This is still worth reading:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/an...

Even though all that jurisprudence went out the window when it conflicted with his politics and his religion.

 

quizzical

i agree with Trump they should let 'the Bern' choose the next Justice.

6079_Smith_W

@ quizzical

Problem is that would leave the supreme court with a year of potential deadlocks, it is twice as long as the longest time (158 days) it has take to replace a justice, and you might be disappointed and wind up with trump deciding.

Bsides, McConnell voted for a new justice himself in the last year of a president's tenure. So his argument is baseless.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mitch McConnell

bekayne

Applesauce and jiggery-poker

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Well according to some babblers in the Venezuela thread the GOP is absolutely right to say that Obama should not appoint the next SC Justice. After all it is only his job under the Constitution as President but the opposition is calling foul so they must be right and he should just not proceed as if he was still President.  Besides I hear Obama had him murdered.  He is obviously just as bad as those commies down South.

Of course those are just nut bars not like the the GOP and a leading candidate for President.

Quote:

Leave it to Senator majority leader Mitch McConnell to defile Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s “originalist” constitutional legacy, when he’d barely been gone 24 hours. McConnell says President Obama can’t appoint Scalia’s successor; the choice must be left to “a new president,” although Obama has more than 11 months left in his term.

Thus did McConnell seem to unilaterally rewrite the Constitution to strip a year from the president’s final term. All 43 presidents before him had four-year terms (unless they died in office or resigned, of course), but when it comes to arguably the president’s most important job, McConnell would limit Obama to three years.

...

Of course, the GOP presidential contenders agree with him. Senator Ted Cruz claimed at Saturday night’s debate that there hasn’t been an election-year SCOTUS appointment in 80 years. When moderator John Dickerson reminded him that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the nominee of lame-duck President Ronald Reagan, was confirmed in 1988, the GOP crowd actually booed him. He apologized for delivering the “facts,” and the crowd jeered at his apology as well as his facts. (In fact, 17 Supreme Court justices have been confirmed during presidential election years, according to Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress.)

http://www.thenation.com/article/mitch-mcconnell-wants-obama-to-have-a-t...

Quote:

Social media has been percolating with nonsense explanations and possible culprits who had Justice Scalia removed from the picture so President Obama could leave a lasting progressive legacy on the high court. Here’s some of the bilge being circulated online:

2016-02-13_23-50-40

2016-02-13_23-53-07

2016-02-13_23-53-27

2016-02-13_23-59-15

2016-02-14_0-02-15

2016-02-14_0-04-14 (1)

 

2016-02-14_0-05-02

2016-02-14_0-05-36

2016-02-14_0-06-35

2016-02-14_0-08-58 (1)

2016-02-14_0-05-02

2016-02-14_0-10-55

2016-02-14_0-12-15

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2016/02/14/conservatives-now-saying-scalia...

NorthReport

After listening to some of the priceless excerpts of the GOP debates, it is totally understandable why social media stories like Scalia was murdered, etc. occur. These GOP presidential candidate idiots will say absolutely anything, look at Trump's or any of their comments last nite. Unbelievable that one of those clowns actually could become the President.

6079_Smith_W

Not exactly k. If Obama was able to convince the supreme court to suspend enough republican senators to prevent them from stonewalling his new appointment, it might be something approaching a similar situation.

Not likely to happen, since the mid-terms are long over, and there absolutely no grounds for them to do that, even fabricated ones.

But of course the rebublican majority are going to try to stop him because that is what they have done with every piece of legislation he has put forward.

Question is, can they?

 

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

It is useful to keep in mind that the 2016 election will involve 34 Senate races, 10 currently held by Democrats 24 by Republicans. If accusations of obstructionism gain traction by a Republican attempt to stonewall a nominee this could have "down ticket" consequences for those 24 Republicans seeking re-election. It might be a bit harder for the current Senate majority to enforce discipline if some of these senators seeking re-election see the public turning against them for obstructionist tactics. Of course if the right wing fear machine does its job it could strengthen their commitment to the R party line. Still, useful to keep in mind that the results will not necessarily depend on the "virtue" of the debate itself - many incumbents will have an eye out for the consequences to their actions during the nomination process.

josh

If Obama had him murdered, he sure picked a bad time. He could have done it six months ago, then Republicans could not have used the final year excuse. Or in 2014, when the Democrats controlled the Senate. But no, he waited till he had less than a year to go when the Republicans controlled the senate. Some evil genius.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Remember this reptile's real legacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mby8uukRNqE

6079_Smith_W

Apparently Obama has the option of appointing without senate approval at all:

http://reverbpress.com/politics/pres-obama-might-troll-senate-gop-by-app...

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Tom Tomorrow says it all:

Cartoon

Paladin1

Wait for the 9/11 connections.

6079_Smith_W

x

6079_Smith_W

That execution thing is inaccurate. There is a meme floating around with a similar quote.  What they were considering was whether executing an innocent person was unconstitutional.

Quote:

The opinion is technically right, Dahlia Lithwick points out in Newsweek. "As a constitutional matter, Scalia's assertion is not wrong," she wrote. "The court has never found a constitutional right for the actually innocent to be free from execution."

http://www.businessinsider.com/antonin-scalia-says-executing-the-innocen...

There is plenty of nasty stuff he did to for which he deserves blame. No need to make stuff up.

abnormal

As for the final year argument, in the words of a conservative demi-god

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_3PEIUEGto

With just a year left in his presidency, President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy left by Justice Powell. In his remarks he said, "....Join together in a bipartisan effort to fulfill our constitutional obligation of restoring the US Supreme Court to full strength."

abnormal

Interesting survey

Quote:
Long-Serving Scalia Controversial, Yet Widely Unknown

The unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday deprives the high court of its longest-serving and arguably most-outspoken member. And, from the American public's perspective, one of the high court's controversial figures. In July of last year, popular perceptions of the conservative jurist were evenly divided, with 29% seeing him favorably and 27% unfavorably. Scalia, whom one prominent legal scholar named "the most influential justice of the last quarter-century," was nonetheless unknown to nearly a third of Americans (32%) and generated no opinion from another 12% in 2015, Scalia's 29th year on the nation's top court.

etc ...

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/189251/long-serving-scalia...

One sentence deserves repeating

Scalia ... was nonetheless unknown to nearly a third of Americans (32%)

 

 

 

 

swallow

How many Supreme Court of Canada judges can any of us name? 

voice of the damned

swallow wrote:

How many Supreme Court of Canada judges can any of us name? 

Well, let's see. Off the top of my head, Bora Laskin, Brian Dickson, Bertha Wilson, John Sopinka, Ms. L'Hereux-Dube(?), Beverly McLachlin, Antonio Lamar, and Mr. Iobiucci(?).

Granted, that covers a period of over thirty years, and does not even total the number of sitting judges at any one time.

Though I'm pretty sure I could list almost all the sitting SCOTUS judges at any one time. That could be because they tend to be treated more as media icons, possibly because of the USA's more extensive history of judicial review, and also that they're subject to widely reported confirmation hearings.

pookie

voice of the damned wrote:
swallow wrote:

How many Supreme Court of Canada judges can any of us name? 

 

Well, let's see. Off the top of my head, Bora Laskin, Brian Dickson, Bertha Wilson, John Sopinka, Ms. L'Hereux-Dube(?), Beverly McLachlin, Antonio Lamar, and Mr. Iobiucci(?).

 

Granted, that covers a period of over thirty years, and does not even total the number of sitting judges at any one time.

 

Though I'm pretty sure I could list almost all the sitting SCOTUS judges at any one time. That could be because they tend to be treated more as media icons, possibly because of the USA's more extensive history of judicial review, and also that they're subject to widely reported confirmation hearings.

Nice VOTD.  Of course only one of those is still on the Court. :)

Which sort of goes to swallow's point.  The profile of the current SCC, to the average Cdn, is roughly zero.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

That is a good thing. In the US because all SC judges are political it is an extension of politics so the Justice's are better known. So far in Canada we still have judges that look at the law and not what the party that appointed them wants as an outcome. So most people don't know who authors which SCC decisions and therefore they are way less known.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

That is a good thing. In the US because all SC judges are political it is an extension of politics so the Justice's are better known. So far in Canada we still have judges that look at the law and not what the party that appointed them wants as an outcome. So most people don't know who authors which SCC decisions and therefore they are way less known.

Very good point.

NorthReport

The Supreme Court Vacancy Explained (in 250 Words)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/15/the_supreme_court_v...

iyraste1313

So far in canada we still have judges that look at the law....

...I nearly fell off my seat reading this one!

In Canada we don´t even have a Court that considers constitutional law!

SCC is only for the millionaires...the Provicial Supreme Court justices haven´t a clue what´s in the Charter...and they never never will challenge any institutional authority...so all the regulations and legislation passed by our governments are fascist.....there is no judiciary that can analyse them, based on constutional law...In BC e.g. you can´t even discuss Charter rights without passing through the gatekeeper called ¨constitutional questions act¨

And if you are poor? the judges will automatically throw out your case based on fundamental principles of law, which of course they haven´t a clue what they mean!

6079_Smith_W

Considering that Stephen Harper spent much of his tenure being stonewalled by the court largely appointed by him, yes there is a big difference between our court and that in the U.S. when it comes to partisanship.

And most of those cases did hinge on the constitution - specifically the charter.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

iyraste1313 wrote:

So far in canada we still have judges that look at the law....

...I nearly fell off my seat reading this one!

In Canada we don´t even have a Court that considers constitutional law!

SCC is only for the millionaires...the Provicial Supreme Court justices haven´t a clue what´s in the Charter...and they never never will challenge any institutional authority...so all the regulations and legislation passed by our governments are fascist.....there is no judiciary that can analyse them, based on constutional law...In BC e.g. you can´t even discuss Charter rights without passing through the gatekeeper called ¨constitutional questions act¨

And if you are poor? the judges will automatically throw out your case based on fundamental principles of law, which of course they haven´t a clue what they mean!

I was talking about the difference between the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of the US. It was in no way meant as an endorsement of our judicial system nor was it meant to imply that our courts are a place for poor people to go to get Justice. However our SC Judges do in fact base their decisions on law rather than politics unlike the US where their judiciary has been totally subsumed into the political realm.

It is confusing to have more than one level of court called the Supreme Court but the BC Supreme Court is a lower level court whose judges are supposed to be the triers of fact. The SCC does not hear any new facts it merely decides whether the lower court judges got the law right. Of course the law they interpret was made to chain us well.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well according to some babblers in the Venezuela thread the GOP is absolutely right to say that Obama should not appoint the next SC Justice. After all it is only his job under the Constitution as President but the opposition is calling foul so they must be right and he should just not proceed as if he was still President.

If you're talking about me, then I would totally agree that Obama shouldn't appoint the next Justice if Scalia had died in between the election of a new government and its swearing in.

Do you see the difference?  In Venezuela, the new appointments came AFTER the electorate gave Maduro & Co. the pink slip.  In the U.S. the election is still 8 months away.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Doug Henwood noted from a student at U of Chicago that Scalia failed every single African American student he ever had.

Doug Henwood wrote:
According to this account from someone who was at the University of Chicago law school when Scalia taught there, Scalia flunked every black student he had. What a comprehensively shitty human being. I am not responsible for what happens the next time I hear a liberal singing his praises.

Here is the commentary.

Arnim Johnson wrote:
Scalia was a law professor of mine, and was on the faculty of the U of Chicago the entire three years I attended. The law school is one of the smallest in the country, housed in one building and relatively intimate as graduate schools go. While I was there, Scalia was outed as a blatant racist to the extent that the Black American Law Students Association (BALSA) chapter at the law school brought it to the attention of acting Dean Norval Morris in several meetings. Scalia flunked every black student who took his classes that year. Nobody flunks courses in elite law schools. It's unheard of. He flunked one brother so badly, it skewered his grade average, and he became the first, last, and only student in the history of the school to repeat first year. That man went on to become a repected military judge. Ultimately, no action was taken because the source of the information was private, confidential and privileged, and Scalia's racist attitude and actions toward black students could be plausibly denied, but just barely. He stuck with his story that he had graded blindly, but it came out that Scalia had done the same thing, when he was on the faculty at the U of Virginia. However, Scalia was an academic star actively politicking for a federal judgeship with national political connections, as well as being quite personable. The school administration passed on taking any action, since the actual facts regarding his intent could not be adduced in a tribunal. However, what he thought of black people was indisputable, and believe me it was nothing nice. Being a swarthy, son of poor Sicilian immmigrants, and intent on becoming an all-American white man, he was consumed with putting as much space between himself and Negroes as possible, and becoming an honorary member of the WASP elite.

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

iyraste1313 wrote:

So far in canada we still have judges that look at the law....

...I nearly fell off my seat reading this one!

In Canada we don´t even have a Court that considers constitutional law!

SCC is only for the millionaires...the Provicial Supreme Court justices haven´t a clue what´s in the Charter...and they never never will challenge any institutional authority...so all the regulations and legislation passed by our governments are fascist.....there is no judiciary that can analyse them, based on constutional law...In BC e.g. you can´t even discuss Charter rights without passing through the gatekeeper called ¨constitutional questions act¨

And if you are poor? the judges will automatically throw out your case based on fundamental principles of law, which of course they haven´t a clue what they mean!

I was talking about the difference between the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of the US. It was in no way meant as an endorsement of our judicial system nor was it meant to imply that our courts are a place for poor people to go to get Justice. However our SC Judges do in fact base their decisions on law rather than politics unlike the US where their judiciary has been totally subsumed into the political realm.

It is confusing to have more than one level of court called the Supreme Court but the BC Supreme Court is a lower level court whose judges are supposed to be the triers of fact. The SCC does not hear any new facts it merely decides whether the lower court judges got the law right. Of course the law they interpret was made to chain us well.

 

So when the SCOC brings down a decision with which you disagree, do you still assume that their reasoning was based on law, not politics?  

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

So when the SCOC brings down a decision with which you disagree, do you still assume that their reasoning was based on law, not politics?  

Yes. Legal precedents in cases that go to the SCC are always mixed with law that could go either way. Otherwise it would not be a case the SCC would hear. When decisions go against what I would have ruled I don't think it's because any of the Judges wanted to push the Conservative or Liberal parties agenda. Scalia was known for political based decision making.

NDPP

Pillow Talk

https://youtu.be/USmRIPo253g

Was Scalia murdered?

6079_Smith_W

Sorry NDPP. I couldn't get past the 1 minute mark .

I know Glen Beck thinks god did it.

And it is pretty clear that in the U.S. they choose for their politics and expect them to make decisions based on that. Similarly, it is kind of strange that judicial jobs (like sherriff) are elected. But so it goes.

 

iyraste1313

re the SCC...perhaps I´m over my depth here, my legal opinions just based on personal experience...

my best analysis comes re the SCC decision on the Nemiah valley Tsilhqotin case....so this band of mayvbe 100, living in the foothillls of the Nemiah Valley, basically people living off the land...spent over 30 million? and over 20 years to win their court case covering all native matters re unceeded land whether settled or not in treaty negotiation...imagine what 30 million could have done to raise the living standards, housing, project development of the Tsilhqotin people!

So with what result? The lower courts continue to pass injunctions against their people blockading the roads to stop the logging and mining on their Territory, recognized by the SCC!
So what does it mean a decision of the SCC if the lower courts  refuse to recognize their decisions and claim no jurisdiction re constitutional matters?

So is the SCC just window dressing to make the total impunity and injustice of the real courts, somehow look respectable?

Pages