US Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia dies aged 79

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/02/13/us-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-aged-79/

Pink News/Joseph Patrick McCormick  13th February 2016, 10:27 PM 

"One of the most conservative US Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia has died.

It was confirmed that the 79-year-old judge, who was strongly against same-sex marriage, had died during a hunting trip.


According to reports, he died in his sleep after a day of quail hunting.

His death could bring about a fifth liberal justice on the bench, potentially shifting the balance of power on the Supreme Court, once he is replaced by President Obama.

The conservative majority had stalled some efforts, including on climate change and immigration."

This should shake things up , RIP  justice Antonin Scalia

It's unlikely that a new appointee will be confirmed before Mr. Obama leaves office. We all (in the US) need to think hard about how our votes in this election will affect our actual interests.

Congress can't keep Obama from appointing Scalia's replacement, even though they are already claiming that they will. Obama still has nearly a year left in office and we can't go without a functioning supreme court for that long. The longest it has taken to nominate any member of the current supreme court was 106 days. It would have to triple that number to keep it from happening. Don't worry; we won't have to wait for the next president to make this decision.

Quote from: Eevee on February 13, 2016, 06:05:55 PM
Congress can't keep Obama from appointing Scalia's replacement, even though they are already claiming that they will. Obama still has nearly a year left in office and we can't go without a functioning supreme court for that long. The longest it has taken to nominate any member of the current supreme court was 106 days. It would have to triple that number to keep it from happening. Don't worry; we won't have to wait for the next president to make this decision.

They will try and will fail like every thing else.

Luanne

well, lets hope for the best.

Quote from: Eevee on February 13, 2016, 06:05:55 PM
Congress can't keep Obama from appointing Scalia's replacement, even though they are already claiming that they will. Obama still has nearly a year left in office and we can't go without a functioning supreme court for that long.

I don't think you are right about that.  Obama can name anyone he chooses to the vacancy.  However, appointment requires confirmation by the Senate - 51 votes.  The Republicans control the Senate 56-44.  Beyond that, under Senate rules, a court appointment can also be filibustered, in which case it will require 60 votes to even place the nomination before the full Senate.  This leaves Obama some 16 votes short of what he needs to win approval of his nominee.  I am dubious that 16 Republican Senators will break ranks with their party during a heated election year in order to help Obama with a judicial appointment.

I hope there's some plan to move forward with a replacement this year, but I'm not optimistic.  And if 2016 elections result in a Republican President and both houses of Congress remaining in Republican hands, the Supreme Court is likely to veer sharply to the right next year.  Possible losses include sharp curtailment of abortion rights and reversal of same-sex marriage.

Quote from: itsApril on February 13, 2016, 07:58:59 PM
I hope there's some plan to move forward with a replacement this year, but I'm not optimistic.  And if 2016 elections result in a Republican President and both houses of Congress remaining in Republican hands, the Supreme Court is likely to veer sharply to the right next year.  Possible losses include sharp curtailment of abortion rights and reversal of same-sex marriage.

I greatly fear this happening. I feel like things would get very bad very quickly.

I think the odds are pretty slim it will happen, but the possibility exists and it's terrifying.

Quote from: stephaniec on February 13, 2016, 04:37:59 PM
US Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia dies aged 79


"One of the most conservative US Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia has died.

It was confirmed that the 79-year-old judge, who was strongly against same-sex marriage, had died during a hunting trip.

By the way, looking backward at Scalia's career, I don't think the article does him full justice.  It's true that he was "strongly against same-sex marriage," but that just scratches the surface of it.

In fact, Scalia made it clear in his opinions that he strongly supported the right of states to criminally prosecute and punish LGBT people for what he liked to call "homosexual sodomy."  To put it bluntly, Scalia (and his judicial satellite Clarence Thomas) essentially believe that LGBT people have no rights worthy of protection by law.  They don't want to protect our rights.  In fact, they want to see us in jail.

Clarence Thomas is another little camper

I liked some of his decisions more than others, but I'll miss the flair he gave his written opinions. 

I'm not betting on a replacement this year, either.  It could happen, but there is a reason justices don't retire in election years.   

There can be a substantial amount of time between the time a Supreme Justice leaves office and a replacement is confirmed.

For example, when Louis Powell retired in the summer of 1987, President Reagan nominated Robert Bork to replace him. It took the Senate almost 4 months to reject his nomination.  President Reagan then nominated Anthony Kennedy (now the current longest tenured Supreme Court Justice) for Powell's seat on the court.  His nomination came almost a month after Bork's defeat. Kennedy was not confirmed until almost 2 months later.

Another example is the replacement of Abe Fortas who resigned from the court in May 1969.  President Richard Nixon first nominated Clement Haynsworth to replace him. His nomination was rejected by the Senate in November 1969.  Nixon then nominated Harrold Carswell in January of 1970. Carswell's nomination was rejected by the senate in April of 1970. Nixon's third nominee for the seat, Harry Blackmun was confirmed by the senate in June of 1970.

Never before have I rejoiced at death.  Screw that guy.  I'm so glad he's dead!  However...

The Republican party has made it clear that they are much more interested in throwing tantrums than running the country.  For example, that long run of budget shutdowns; the pointless Obamacare filibusters, etc.  A year-long filibuster to block a perfectly middle-of-the-road justice wouldn't surprise me at this point.  The only question is if a tantrum would gain them, or lose them seats in the next election.

Quote from: sparrow on February 14, 2016, 01:46:57 PM
Never before have I rejoiced at death.  Screw that guy.  I'm so glad he's dead!  However...

The Republican party has made it clear that they are much more interested in throwing tantrums than running the country.  For example, that long run of budget shutdowns; the pointless Obamacare filibusters, etc.  A year-long filibuster to block a perfectly middle-of-the-road justice wouldn't surprise me at this point.  The only question is if a tantrum would gain them, or lose them seats in the next election.

The GOP proven they can can't govern, and they are worst then terrorist groups.

Luanne

A five liberal justice position on the court will only be bad for the country.  The place of the court is to interpret the Constitution and not to bend to current worldly trends.

The party that constantly harps on the constitution has revealed what they are really about.  All the republican presidential candidates have stated that no appointment should be approved until the next president is in office.  So even though the constitution itself assigns the responsibility of appointing judges these buffoons are quite willing to disregard their beloved constitution in this case by refusing to even consider any nomination.

So are republicans about preserving the Republic?  No.  Their goal is simply power by whatever means necessary.  The constitution be damned.


Sapere Aude

Quote from: mac1 on February 14, 2016, 03:51:45 PM
The place of the court is to interpret the Constitution and not to bend to current worldly trends.

What do you think "interpret" means?

Quote from: Alexander HamiltonA Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

The constitution is silent on homosexuality.  The constitution is silent on transgender identity.  The constitution is silent on the internet, genetic modifications, etc.  The constitution is silent on a great number of things.  But it's got huge hole, in the 9th amendment:

QuoteThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So in fact, it is the role of the supreme court to "fill in the blanks" where the constitution doesn't govern every tiny detail of modern life.

Quote from: stephaniec on February 13, 2016, 08:23:08 PM
Clarence Thomas is another little camper

Whatever will Clarence do now that the one who told him what to think has died.

If we're lucky he'll resign next week so Pres. Obama will be picking two justices before his term expires. 

A girl can dream.

Us girls hope our dreams come true.

Luanne

Quote from: sparrow on February 14, 2016, 05:02:11 PM
What do you think "interpret" means?

The constitution is silent on homosexuality.  The constitution is silent on transgender identity.  The constitution is silent on the internet, genetic modifications, etc.  The constitution is silent on a great number of things.  But it's got huge hole, in the 9th amendment:

So in fact, it is the role of the supreme court to "fill in the blanks" where the constitution doesn't govern every tiny detail of modern life.

The Constitution also states that any powers not specifically granted by it to the Federal Government are delegated to the individual states.  Thus, it looks like that should be a matter for the individual states to decide.