Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at age 79

168 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Greens wary of Sri Srinivasan's fossil fuel past

His work as an attorney representing Enron's former CEO and ExxonMobil raises hackles among some eco-activists.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/supreme-court-srinivasan-fossil-fu...

 

pookie

The clearest way to understand the difference between the courts in Canada and the US is that people in the US make very specific predictions about EXACTLY how the Supreme Court will rule and how the various judges will split along an issue. And those predictions are accurate 98% of the time.  Think about same-sex marriage, or Citizens United, or the second amendment case from a few years ago.  Or the grand-daddy of them all: Bush v Gore.

We simply don't have that in Canada.  The Court's unanimous decision on the assisted suicide matter could not have been confidently predicted.  Nor its 5-4 split on the recent decision about whether to extend the delay period for the government to bring in a new law on assisted dying.

That's a huge difference right there, that suggests that individual politics has very little, if no, bearing, on how the SCC does its job.

NorthReport

Media Use False Comparisons To Undermine Obama's Supreme Court Nomination 

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/16/media-use-false-comparisons-...

josh

One of Poindexter's companies was involved in a case that made it to the high court. Last year, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving an age discrimination lawsuit filed against one of these companies, court records show.

The nature of Poindexter's relationship with Scalia remained unclear Tuesday, one of several lingering questions about his visit. It was not known whether Scalia had paid for his own ticket to fly to the ranch or if someone else picked up the tab, just as it was not immediately clear if Scalia had visited before. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-sc...

An unethical bastard till the end.

 

NorthReport

Although different unfortunately this does not help

White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regr...

NorthReport

Dissention?

Sen. Heller breaks with McConnell on SCOTUS pick

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/dean-heller-supreme-court-nominee-...

NorthReport

SCOTUSblog founder mulls another possible nominee; this state AG won't be on the list

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/scotusblog_founder_mulls_another_...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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.

No you don't understand it at all. President Maduro of Venezuela has a term of office that goes until 2019. The opposition since the last congressional elections rules both houses just like Obama has faced for 8 years. So according to your logic Obama should not have done anything and certainly not something as sensitive as a SC appointment anytime in his term of Office since he is merely the President with constitutional powers but his party is in a minority in both the House and Senate so he has no legitimacy to act after all his party lost the elections. Like I said you agree with the whack jobs in the GOP that the constitution is meaningless if the President does not control Congress.

You are allowed your opinion but personally I think it is ridiculous and shows that you have a very low opinion of other countries constitution's and are willing to side with right wing propaganda about the evil socialists. Imagine the audacity of President Maduro to think he is still the President until his term of Office is up. Imagine Obama thinks he is still President until the end of his term. That is an affront to all right thinking people.

quizzical

interesting

pookie

voice of the damned wrote:
pookie wrote:

The clearest way to understand the difference between the courts in Canada and the US is that people in the US make very specific predictions about EXACTLY how the Supreme Court will rule and how the various judges will split along an issue. And those predictions are accurate 98% of the time.  Think about same-sex marriage, or Citizens United, or the second amendment case from a few years ago.  Or the grand-daddy of them all: Bush v Gore.

 

So, there was widespread certainty that the SCOTUS would bring down a pro-SSM ruling in Obergeffel v. Hodges? That's not quite how I remember it. Though it's probably the case that most of the uncertainty arose from mystery surrounding the thoughts of one man, Anthony Kennedy. (For some reason, he was considered a swing, maybe because he was a Republican but had authored previous gay-rights decisions)

 

And on that general issue, in the earlier case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, Scalia joined what was effectively a pro-SSM mahority in voting to let stand the overturning California's Proposition 8. I believe his decision was based on procedural grounds, but the point is, he probably wouldn't have voted that way if he had simply been concerned with advancing a GOP and/or anti-SSM agenda.

 

And Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, voted to let Prop. 8 stand, but then voted with the pro-SSM majority in Obergeffel. I suspect she was on the opposite side of the procedural issues from Scalia, but I really don't know.

 

As for Canada, well, in a case like assisted-suicide where it was unanimous, I'd be a little bit skeptical that NOBODY saw the decision coming. Maybe not the general public, but if the relevant jurisprudence was so widely held that there was not one dissenting vote, I have to think that, at least seasoned court-watchers would have some idea of what the prevailing thought on the court was.

 

All that said, yes, I'd agree that the SCPTUS is more politicized than the SCOC, at least on certain "litmus-test" issues(eg. abortion). Probably related to the confirmation process, which of course lends itself to political pandering.

With respect, that is not what I said.  I said that in the US you can, a whole lot of the time, predict where individual judges will come down and, by extrapolation, how the Court will rule.  SSM proceeded almost exactly as people predicted in that the conservative and liberal wings voted exactly as expected.  Anthony Kennedy had telegraphed where he was going to go for over ten years, but the point is that he is the most like a Cdn judge in that he does not have one judicial voice.  That is very rare on today's Supreme Court.

Proposition 8 was a complicated case, because to vote against standing is neither inherently liberal nor conservative.  It was entirely dependent on the degree to which the judge wanted the substantive case to come to decision (and either rule in favour, or rule against).

But, yes, there are weird alliances than can develop.

Did people have an idea that assisted suicide was on the way out?  Actually, no, because of the prior decision in Rodriguez.  We did not know how the Court would deal with that, and, more to the point, we could guess but not confidently predict where individual judges would come down based solely on their "liberal" or "conservative" leanings.

voice of the damned

pookie wrote:

The clearest way to understand the difference between the courts in Canada and the US is that people in the US make very specific predictions about EXACTLY how the Supreme Court will rule and how the various judges will split along an issue. And those predictions are accurate 98% of the time.  Think about same-sex marriage, or Citizens United, or the second amendment case from a few years ago.  Or the grand-daddy of them all: Bush v Gore.

So, there was widespread certainty that the SCOTUS would bring down a pro-SSM ruling in Obergeffel v. Hodges? That's not quite how I remember it. Though it's probably the case that most of the uncertainty arose from mystery surrounding the thoughts of one man, Anthony Kennedy. (For some reason, he was considered a swing, maybe because he was a Republican but had authored previous gay-rights decisions)

And on that general issue, in the earlier case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, Scalia joined what was effectively a pro-SSM majority in voting to let stand the overturning of California's Proposition 8. I believe his decision was based on procedural grounds, but the point is, he probably wouldn't have voted that way if he had simply been concerned with advancing a GOP and/or anti-SSM agenda.

And Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, voted to let Prop. 8 stand, but then voted with the pro-SSM majority in Obergeffel. I suspect she was on the opposite side of the procedural issues from Scalia, but I really don't know.

As for Canada, well, in a case like assisted-suicide where it was unanimous, I'd be a little bit skeptical that NOBODY saw the decision coming. Maybe not the general public, but if the relevant jurisprudence was so widely held that there was not one dissenting vote, I have to think that, at least seasoned court-watchers would have some idea of what the prevailing thought on the court was.

All that said, yes, I'd agree that the SCPTUS is more politicized than the SCOC, at least on certain "litmus-test" issues(eg. abortion). Probably related to the confirmation process, which of course lends itself to political pandering.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
No you don't understand it at all. President Maduro of Venezuela has a term of office that goes until 2019.

That's super.  But:

Quote:
The Supreme Tribunal's 32 justices (magistrados) are appointed by the National Assembly and serve non-renewable 12-year terms. Appointments are made by a two-thirds majority, or a simple majority if efforts to appoint a judge fail three times in a row.

Seems that the National Assembly, after PSUV lost hard in the recent election, but before the newly elected Assembly could be sworn in, rushed through a bunch of new (and presumably beholden) appointments.

Had they done this BEFORE the election, that wouldn't have been hinky, but to do so after most of them lost the election, and prior to the actually elected representatives taking their seats, is pretty obviously opportunistic.  Perhaps the Constitution of Venezuela permits representatives who lose their seats to continue making new laws anyway, which I can't say I really understand, but even so, it's pretty gross.

In contrast:

Quote:
The Court normally consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Similar idea -- that the new Justices must be approved by an elected body -- except that Obama isn't waiting until the Democrats lose to appoint a new Justice.  As you note, he doesn't even control the Senate -- all he can do is nominate someone.  The representatives elected in the last election will make the final call.  If Maduro had wanted to go the same route then he could have either appointed new Justices before losing the election, or he could have waited until after the new Assembly was sworn in and taken his chances just like Obama is.

Quote:
Imagine the audacity of President Maduro to think he is still the President until his term of Office is up.

Maduro is certainly still the President and I'm not suggesting he isn't.  I'm suggesting that the Assembly that rubber-stamped the new Justices had lost their mandate, and approved new Justices that would serve their interest rather than the electorate's interests.

voice of the damned

Pookie:

Yes, as I said, the SCOTUS is probably overall much more predictable, at least these days, than the SCOC. I did think that Obergeffel was an odd example to make the case, since I really didn't see a lot of reporting along the lines of "Oh, it's obvious that the Court will back SSM on this" in the build-up to the decision.

josh

NorthReport wrote:

SCOTUSblog founder mulls another possible nominee; this state AG won't be on the list

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/scotusblog_founder_mulls_another_...

Goldstein changes his mind every day. And I think he's wrong on all of them .

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Maduro is certainly still the President and I'm not suggesting he isn't.  I'm suggesting that the Assembly that rubber-stamped the new Justices had lost their mandate, and approved new Justices that would serve their interest rather than the electorate's interests.

The US has no government between Nov and Jan. Okay I understand now.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The US has no government between Nove and Jan. Okay I understand now.

Of course they have a government.  That government, called a Lame Duck government, just typically doesn't convene to force through new bills, laws or appointments.

Note that the Venezuelan Assembly convened two days before Christmas, in a special session, outside of their schedule, JUST to force through new bills, laws and appointments.

I'm just re-quoting something already posted in the thread you referenced:

Quote:
Little about Wednesday’s inauguration was orthodox. Though the National Assembly’s final session was officially Dec. 18, pro-government lawmakers called for a special four-session, two-day marathon to quickly name, debate and swear in the new justices.

And I may as well re-quote this too, in case anyone seriously thinks they convened for two days, right before Christmas, in order that the Supreme Court not be shorthanded:

Quote:
Mr. Cabello then led the magistrates as they raised their hands and swore to uphold the constitution in the name of God, the 19th-century liberator Simón Bolívar, and Mr. Chavez

He's right up there with God.

NorthReport

What do you think the priority with this SC vacancy is for Obama:

To get his third nominee on the court

To get anyone on the court, or someone of his choosing, and if so, what is his choosing/priority?

To help win the election, and which election, Senate or Presidency for the Democrats, or to help Clinton secure the Demo nomination. 

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Ecellent! Smile

Cruz and his ilk need to be put out of their political misery.

Scalia was an intellectual phony: Can we please stop calling him a brilliant jurist?

No one wants to disrespect the dead. But we disrespect the truth to hail his legal mind and phony, grand principles

These examples are not rare deviations from an otherwise principled adherence to Scalia’s own conception of the rule of law: they were the standard operating procedure for the most over-rated justice in the history of the United States Supreme Court.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/18/scalia_was_an_intellectual_phony_can_we_...

NorthReport

Ted Cruz just makes this stuff up: Scalia, the GOP and the lies they tell about the Constitution

Conservatives wrap themselves in a Constitution they don't understand, claiming powers it does not provide

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/20/ted_cruz_just_makes_this_stuff_up_scalia...

NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Lawyer: Supreme Court Should Let Scalia 'Vote From Grave' Because 'We Know What He Thought'

That's step 1.  If it were to succeed, step 2 would be:

Quote:
"We should allow Ronald Reagan to campaign, get re-elected, and govern from the grave, because we know what he would have thought of ISIS".

 

NorthReport
josh

The Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday signed a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declaring that they will not hold hearings for President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, according to a statement from committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA). 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judiciary-committee-letter-no-scot...

 

NorthReport

Sounds like the Chair was overruled by the revanchists which will last unless too many GOP Senators up for re-election start crying 'uncle' because they fear the issue is jeopardising their election chances.

NorthReport

How McConnell ditched all caution in Supreme Court fight

The typically deliberative Senate leader stunned Democrats with how quickly and definitively he acted in the hours after news of Scalia's death broke.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-scal...

 

 

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

Hopefully the GOP lose control of the Senate in November over this.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/republican-groups-dirt-supreme-cou...

NorthReport

Hard to believe these clowns get elected to anything!  Frown

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/courts-gop-senate-confirmations-no...

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport
josh

I guess with Scalia gone, Thomas decided to wake up.  Then again, it's leap day.

NorthReport

Smile

Supreme Court Abortion Arguments Show Why Elections Matter

Justices appointed by Democrats were on fire Wednesday, showing the nonsense behind Texas' abortion law

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/supreme-court-abortion-argumen...

NorthReport

Personal life[edit]

In 2004, Kelly was attacked while jogging in a park in Cedar Rapids, brutally beaten and left barely conscious; her assailant was never identified.[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_L._Kelly

 

NorthReport

 

WH vetting appellate judge Jane Kelly for SCOTUS: report   

A career public defender, Kelly was backed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who now serves as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Iowa Republican praised Kelly during her 2013 confirmation hearing. He cited a glowing endorsement letter from 8th Circuit Judge David Hansen, a judge who is close with Grassley and for whom Kelly previously clerked.  “Every sentence of it speaks highly of your work,” he said. “In that letter, he states that Ms. Kelly has practiced law in an exemplary fashion. … Judge Hansen concludes that she will be a welcome addition to the court, if confirmed, and I have a great deal of confidence in Judge Hansen.” Kelly’s nomination could allow Obama and his Democratic allies to pressure Grassley to consider confirming her. But so far, the senator has refused to budge from his stance that the next president, and not Obama, should name Scalia’s successor.  “I said this is more basic than just the stuff we’ve been talking about. You have a certain view of the role of government. We have a different view of the role of government,” Grassley told reporters Tuesday after meeting with Obama in the Oval Office.  

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/271541-wh-vetting-appellate-j...

 

josh

Kelly was a classmate of Obama's at Harvard law.

NorthReport
NorthReport

  FollowSam Wang‏@SamWangPhD

Sam Wang Retweeted Kevin M. Kruse

Exactly. SCOTUS justices avoid retiring in last year. Scalia's passing forces the situation - & reveals a breakdown.

Sam Wang added,

Kevin M. Kruse @KevinMKruseRubio cites 80-year "tradition" of presidents not nominating SCOTUS in last year, but only a tradition because there were no vacancies.

 

NorthReport
quizzical

josh wrote:
Kelly was a classmate of Obama's at Harvard law.

do you think this why he is appointing her?

NorthReport

Supreme Court, Trump engulf Capitol Hill

The high court battle is all anyone's talking about other than Trump, which isn't a good place for Republicans.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/life-for-senate-gop-trump-and-supr...

josh

During a Thursday morning radio interview, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) candidly explained that Senate Republicans would take a different approach to a Supreme Court nominee if a Republican president were in office and replacing a conservative justice.

. . . .

"It's a different situation," Johnson said. "Generally, and this is the way it works out politically, if you're replacing — if a conservative president's replacing a conservative justice, there's a little more accommodation to it."

"But when you're talking about a conservative justice now being replaced by a liberal president who would literally flip the court — you know, let's face it, I don't think anybody's under any illusion — President Obama's nominee would flip the court from a 5-4 conservative to a 5-4 liberal controlled court," 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ron-johnson-republicans-scotus 

 

bekayne

Whenever I see new replies in the thread I keep wondering if he's come back to life

Pages