Scalia found dead?

[Darrell KSR]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it does seem odd.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Stu, the "will of the people" when it comes to SCOTUS is really equal parts President and Senate. It was never intended for the President to "appoint" justices. He "nominates" them to the Senate, who then decides if they are worthy.

It was never meant for him to get his picks, but rather a balance between him and the Senate, some kind of middle ground. that's the nature of the checks and balances of the system.

So it all depends on who he nominates. If he nominates a moderate, which is where this country is at right now with the conservatives running Congress and a liberal in the White House, then fine, they should give it a serious look and move forward.

BUt if he nominates a leftist it's well within the rights of the Senate to say no. Judge Bork was probably one of the smartest men ever nominated, but the Democrats smeared him into oblivion.

that's just part of the checks and balances.

Thanks for the civics lesson, I completely understand that. The problem with it is that the Republicans are saying they will consider NO candidates for the Supreme Court. That is not the intent spelled out within the Constitution.

I'm completely supportive if the Senate VOTES against a nomination. However, by taking an unprecedented stance to firmly stand against a President's obligation to nominate a candidate is unconstitutional. To use the argument that the people should vote, well they did. Obama was rewarded a 4 year term, not a 3 year term.

It's a disgrace. Moving on though, because there's no doubt that the Republicans are going to block, I love that it's going to be the #1 issue in the election. It will be a decision on social issues, and as that relates to conservatism, it's a losing bet.

People want to see government work, not government that obstructs. The strategy for success for Republicans should be to allow a vote on the nominee. It's clear that the nominee won't win, but from a perception standpoint, it proves that Republicans want to follow process and not let their ideologies stand in the way.

The other thing that's so hypocritical in this is that conservatives claim they're strict constructionists, but stripping powers of the office of the President couldn't be more unconstitutional. The role of the Senate is to advise and consent. The advise has been given, the President feels it's well in his right(and it is) to nominate. Now the role of the Senate is to consent. The Senate needs to vote. Republicans, listen to your guy George Bush, the nominee deserves and up and down vote.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I want to thank Sen a Chuck Shuner for his advice in 2007, Pres Bush last year in office. Schumer said the senate should NOT confirm ANY of Bushes nominees. And since Shumer will be the next Democrat Senate leader I will take him at his word. McConnell has that advice to accept

It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

Democrats accepted nominations in 1988 and voted 97-0 to confirm Kennedy. That was the correct decision. That should be the behavior that is followed.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I don't think Obama wants to nominate any candidate who stands a chance to be confirmed. I think he wants to ride it out and have himself be nominated by Hillary in 2017.

I don't think Obama has any interest in moving to the White House to the bench. I could see him accepting a nomination in, say, 10 years from now. I DO think that it should be a strategy to scare people into thinking this is a possibility.

[jazyd]

I don't think Obama wants to nominate any candidate who stands a chance to be confirmed. I think he wants to ride it out and have himself be nominated by Hillary in 2017.

Hope it happens, would be fun to stay home and watch that for days.

[Doc]

Thanks for the civics lesson, I completely understand that. The problem with it is that the Republicans are saying they will consider NO candidates for the Supreme Court. That is not the intent spelled out within the Constitution.

I'm completely supportive if the Senate VOTES against a nomination. However, by taking an unprecedented stance to firmly stand against a President's obligation to nominate a candidate is unconstitutional. To use the argument that the people should vote, well they did. Obama was rewarded a 4 year term, not a 3 year term.

It's a disgrace. Moving on though, because there's no doubt that the Republicans are going to block, I love that it's going to be the #1 issue in the election. It will be a decision on social issues, and as that relates to conservatism, it's a losing bet.

People want to see government work, not government that obstructs. The strategy for success for Republicans should be to allow a vote on the nominee. It's clear that the nominee won't win, but from a perception standpoint, it proves that Republicans want to follow process and not let their ideologies stand in the way.

The other thing that's so hypocritical in this is that conservatives claim they're strict constructionists, but stripping powers of the office of the President couldn't be more unconstitutional. The role of the Senate is to advise and consent. The advise has been given, the President feels it's well in his right(and it is) to nominate. Now the role of the Senate is to consent. The Senate needs to vote. Republicans, listen to your guy George Bush, the nominee deserves and up and down vote.

Expect we got a dipshit like Sotomayor. Democrats label republicans as "obstructionist" if they don't bow down and give the lefts what they want. Sometime blocking the wrong things is the right thing to do. I can sure promise if Socialist Bernie gets elected, I damn hope every congressman and congresswomen spends every ounce of time and effort trying to obstruct his agenda.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Expect we got a dipshit like Sotomayor. Democrats label republicans as "obstructionist" if they don't bow down and give the lefts what they want. Sometime blocking the wrong things is the right thing to do. I can sure promise if Socialist Bernie gets elected, I damn hope every congressman and congresswomen spends every ounce of time and effort trying to obstruct his agenda.

As long as there is a -D by someone's name, Republicans are going to obstruct. They have absolutely no interest in working with anyone but themselves. You really think Hillary as President would be any different than Bernie?

Republicans have a majority, they don't need to stall. I think they would send a better message of just simply voting 'No' to a nomination than acting like a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical A-holes, trying to rewrite the Constitution to eliminate Presidential responsibilities after 3 years in office.

Part of me is angry, but the other part of me is ecstatic. The path they're going down will virtually guarantee a Democrat sweep. Republicans will ALWAYS lose on social issues in a national race.

[KeithKSR]

It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

Democrats accepted nominations in 1988 and voted 97-0 to confirm Kennedy. That was the correct decision. That should be the behavior that is followed.

Kennedy was nominated in 1987, not 1988, to replace Powell, and was the third nominee for the appointment following Bork and Ginsburg.

[Catonahottinroof]

Not if Bloomberg runs as an independent. He will split off enough -D votes to elect a Republican.

As long as there is a -D by someone's name, Republicans are going to obstruct. They have absolutely no interest in working with anyone but themselves. You really think Hillary as President would be any different than Bernie?

Republicans have a majority, they don't need to stall. I think they would send a better message of just simply voting 'No' to a nomination than acting like a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical A-holes, trying to rewrite the Constitution to eliminate Presidential responsibilities after 3 years in office.

Part of me is angry, but the other part of me is ecstatic. The path they're going down will virtually guarantee a Democrat sweep. Republicans will ALWAYS lose on social issues in a national race.

[KeithKSR]

I don't think Obama has any interest in moving to the White House to the bench. I could see him accepting a nomination in, say, 10 years from now. I DO think that it should be a strategy to scare people into thinking this is a possibility.

He has great interest in that move according to some Washington insiders.

[KeithKSR]

As long as there is a -D by someone's name, Republicans are going to obstruct. They have absolutely no interest in working with anyone but themselves. You really think Hillary as President would be any different than Bernie?

Republicans have a majority, they don't need to stall. I think they would send a better message of just simply voting 'No' to a nomination than acting like a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical A-holes, trying to rewrite the Constitution to eliminate Presidential responsibilities after 3 years in office.

Part of me is angry, but the other part of me is ecstatic. The path they're going down will virtually guarantee a Democrat sweep. Republicans will ALWAYS lose on social issues in a national race.

They haven't tried to rewrite anything, that would be Obama who has sought to rewrite the Constitution and has been rebuked by SCOTUS for having done it. The Senate isn't preventing Obama from making a nomination, and there is no timeline for the Senate to take his nominations under consideration. I must also point out that it was Harry Reid that held up confirmation votes for numerous federal judges in the final years of GW Bush's tenure.

[bigsky]

It was wrong then, it's wrong now. Democrats accepted nominations in 1988 and voted 97-0 to confirm Kennedy. That was the correct decision. That should be the behavior that is followed.

Kennedy was nominated in November of 1987, following the Senate declining to approve Bork and Ginsberg, and only confirmed in 88. Pre-Schumer, too.

[jazyd]

As long as there is a -D by someone's name, Republicans are going to obstruct. They have absolutely no interest in working with anyone but themselves. You really think Hillary as President would be any different than Bernie?

Republicans have a majority, they don't need to stall. I think they would send a better message of just simply voting 'No' to a nomination than acting like a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical A-holes, trying to rewrite the Constitution to eliminate Presidential responsibilities after 3 years in office.

Part of me is angry, but the other part of me is ecstatic. The path they're going down will virtually guarantee a Democrat sweep. Republicans will ALWAYS lose on social issues in a national race.

BS, I would spell it out but citizen would get mad, your boy Obama the ultral left liberal nominated two for the Supreme Court, both go by easily. So don't give us that garbage that republicans block everything, it makes it sound like all you do is read what the democrats say and accept it as gospel They have given him way too much of what he wants which is one reason so many republicans are ticked at congress right now.

And yes they have blocked some of his stuff as they should because they are bad for the economy and bad for the country. So what does ole king Obama often do, forget the constittuion and does executive orders.

But keep being the robot for the democrats you are, its fun to watch

[suncat05]

McConnell talks tough, but carries a limp stick in his drawers. He's a coward, and he will fold like a pup tent in a tornado if it meets his needs. Whatever those needs may be.
I despise almost all of these people in D.C. They are there to divvy up what's left to steal. Anybody that doesn't see that has their eyes wide shut.

[Doc]

As long as there is a -D by someone's name, Republicans are going to obstruct. They have absolutely no interest in working with anyone but themselves. You really think Hillary as President would be any different than Bernie?

Republicans have a majority, they don't need to stall. I think they would send a better message of just simply voting 'No' to a nomination than acting like a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical A-holes, trying to rewrite the Constitution to eliminate Presidential responsibilities after 3 years in office.

Part of me is angry, but the other part of me is ecstatic. The path they're going down will virtually guarantee a Democrat sweep. Republicans will ALWAYS lose on social issues in a national race.

Thank you Debbie



Maybe if the democrats put forth something that wasn't so partisan that republicans might actually find it palatable then they might vote for it. You know like a health care bill that didn't include paying for birth control or a budget that funded planned parenthood? The inclusion of birth control in the ACA was there because the left knew they could FORCE it through. They had no intention of working with the GOP and their goal was to get it through despite the GOP so while the left loves to bitch about the right always fighting against the Presidents plans, perhaps they should take a glance in the mirror every now and then and ask if maybe they too are parcel to the problem.

[Doc]

Kennedy was nominated in 1987, not 1988, to replace Powell, and was the third nominee for the appointment following Bork and Ginsburg.

Don't confuse him with fact. It will screw up his reality.

[jazyd]

McConnell talks tough, but carries a limp stick in his drawers. He's a coward, and he will fold like a pup tent in a tornado if it meets his needs. Whatever those needs may be.
I despise almost all of these people in D.C. They are there to divvy up what's left to steal. Anybody that doesn't see that has their eyes wide shut.

Suncat, tell us how you really feel.

[jazyd]

McConnell talks tough, but carries a limp stick in his drawers. He's a coward, and he will fold like a pup tent in a tornado if it meets his needs. Whatever those needs may be.
I despise almost all of these people in D.C. They are there to divvy up what's left to steal. Anybody that doesn't see that has their eyes wide shut.

If it were to go to a vote you would have to watch McCain, Graham. The lady from Maine...can't think of her name. There are a few that would give away the farm vs doing what's best

[UKHistory]

Let's see who the President nominates and then decide to circle wagons or not.

The supreme court is just too much a political extension of the executive. Partisanship is on both sides. Republicans are louder and look angrier when they do it, but both are horrible.

Can we get jurists who know the law and apply it reasonably objectively?

If the President selects a reasonable judge (Citizen said moderate and I'd prefer that) the nomination should be approved. If the person is terrible (ala George W Bush nominating a person who was never a judge--which he can but most thought a poor decision) then vote down.

I am not for delay, delay, delay. Ted Cruz pushed to shut down the government and that was a problem. Holding the government hostage is not the answer.

And there is a possibility that a delay may allow Hillary or Bernie Sanders to make a nomination and believe me a newly elected liberal is going to make a much more liberal nomination over OBama.

[dan_bgblue]

Was at the barbershop this morning and I saw a crawl at the bottom of the screen that said congress would not take up the job of agreeing or disagreeing with the nominated candidate

[Darrell KSR]

Was at the barbershop this morning

Braggart!

[KeithKSR]

With the number of Obama involved cases being heard by SCOTUS is seems to be a conflict of interest for him to have yet another appointee to decide those cases.

[kingcat]

People do not even respect the office of President any more. And that started many many years ago.
I am in the" walking on the fighting side of me" camp. So more and more I try to stay away from partisan discussions...which is all there are.

The term bipartisan no longer applies to our government, or our people, except at times in our Supreme Court.
Our President, Mr. Obama is required to nominate a candidate. And Congress is required to fairly and diligently vote on the merits of that nominee regardless of their own political strategy. Any other view is anti American imo.

I argued against the policies of GWB and condemned many of his tactics, but there was always a line I refused to cross out of respect to the office. Sadly there are no longer such parameters and I feel just as many of you would have had I crossed that line.

[KeithKSR]

The error in the SCOTUS argument comes in the "advise and consent" role of the Senate. Filling a seat on SCOTUS is part of the checks and balances system. Obama has no interest in the "advise" role of the Senate by seeking out Senatorial recommendations and just wants the Senate to be limited to the "consent" role by voting.

By the way, Obama shows his role is on of chief hypocrite by insisting the Senate vote on any nominee after endorsing a filibuster of Alito in 2006, midway through Bush 43's second term.

[suncat05]

No conspiracy theory here either. But...........these circumstances surrounding Justice Scalia's death, in and of themselves alone, are ordinary circumstances surrounding an extraordinary man. But because he was who he was, his position in life and in our judicial system, and because it is an extemely rare situation where a sitting Justice dies while still on the Bench, and even though all witnessing accounts state that there were no suspicious activities noted, I still have to believe that just because of who he was that discretion is the better part of valor, and that an autopsy should have been ordered by the convening local authority to dispel any doubts of any foul play at all.
This investigation should be all encompassing too. To include the US Marshals involved, the county coroner and Sheriff, the owner of the hunting camp, and every single person involved in the hunt. Food preparation staff, hotel staff, vehicle driver's,..............anybody that had any contact with Justice Scalia prior to his death. Also, any people in D.C. that he had any contact with at all prior to leaving, anyone, going back at least 2 weeks prior to his death.
Leave no stone unturned.
The county coroner dropped the ball, in my estimation, and I say this because of my years of law enforcement experience, which tells me that in this particular situation, every possible conceivable angle is examined and eliminated towards any possible foul play.
Just my humble opinion.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Kennedy was nominated in 1987, not 1988, to replace Powell, and was the third nominee for the appointment following Bork and Ginsburg.

Yes, November 1987, right in the middle of a presidential election. Don't try to act like the Republicans wouldn't say the same thing if this happened two months ago.

The key here is that the process played out, not obstructionism. That's all that I ask. Republicans shouldn't talk about strict constructionism and then say that "lame duck" Presidents should do the "right thing" and let the next President decide. That is unconstitutional.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Thank you Debbie



Maybe if the democrats put forth something that wasn't so partisan that republicans might actually find it palatable then they might vote for it. You know like a health care bill that didn't include paying for birth control or a budget that funded planned parenthood? The inclusion of birth control in the ACA was there because the left knew they could FORCE it through. They had no intention of working with the GOP and their goal was to get it through despite the GOP so while the left loves to bitch about the right always fighting against the Presidents plans, perhaps they should take a glance in the mirror every now and then and ask if maybe they too are parcel to the problem.

Scalia supported Kagan.

The notion that you think that Republicans have any interest in working with a Democratic President is completely laughable.

If that's the case, then vowing to obstruct as soon as Obama took office must just be a case of racism and/or bigotry.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

The error in the SCOTUS argument comes in the "advise and consent" role of the Senate. Filling a seat on SCOTUS is part of the checks and balances system. Obama has no interest in the "advise" role of the Senate by seeking out Senatorial recommendations and just wants the Senate to be limited to the "consent" role by voting.

By the way, Obama shows his role is on of chief hypocrite by insisting the Senate vote on any nominee after endorsing a filibuster of Alito in 2006, midway through Bush 43's second term.

2006 wasn't an election year and his rationale wasn't let the will of the people decide. There are several reason to filibuster(I myself hate the filibuster, so I'm not going to defend it's use), but the reasons for Obama's use in 2006 is completely different than the threat of its use today.

Trying to rewrite the powers of the Presidency is unconstitutional. That's what the Republicans are trying to accomplish.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Let's see who the President nominates and then decide to circle wagons or not.

The supreme court is just too much a political extension of the executive. Partisanship is on both sides. Republicans are louder and look angrier when they do it, but both are horrible.

Can we get jurists who know the law and apply it reasonably objectively?

If the President selects a reasonable judge (Citizen said moderate and I'd prefer that) the nomination should be approved. If the person is terrible (ala George W Bush nominating a person who was never a judge--which he can but most thought a poor decision) then vote down.

I am not for delay, delay, delay. Ted Cruz pushed to shut down the government and that was a problem. Holding the government hostage is not the answer.

And there is a possibility that a delay may allow Hillary or Bernie Sanders to make a nomination and believe me a newly elected liberal is going to make a much more liberal nomination over OBama.

Wow!

A rational voice. I'm impressed. You've nailed it, though. Republicans going with this "all-in" strategy is something else. If it doesn't work(and I don't think it will), they will lose the Presidency, the Senate and will result in a stacked court for the next 30 years, which I assume will consume most of our lives.

The people that decide elections don't stand for the unprecedented tactics the Republicans are playing. Nothing has me more excited during this election season to watch it unfold.

The one thing that really is a head scratcher is that let's say that Obama can get his person nominated, and the Republicans take back the White House, the courts will swing back to the leanings of the last 30 years with at least 2 opportunities to replace.

Would the impact of a left leaning court be any greater over the next couple of years by letting the appellate court decisions stand?

Whatever our opinions are, it's just a really bizarre strategy that has a HUGE volatility of returns for the GOP. If it goes wrong, it could completely be the death of conservatism(doubt it), but it would definitely rewrite the book.

[jazyd]

Wow!

A rational voice. I'm impressed. You've nailed it, though. Republicans going with this "all-in" strategy is something else. If it doesn't work(and I don't think it will), they will lose the Presidency, the Senate and will result in a stacked court for the next 30 years, which I assume will consume most of our lives.

The people that decide elections don't stand for the unprecedented tactics the Republicans are playing. Nothing has me more excited during this election season to watch it unfold.

The one thing that really is a head scratcher is that let's say that Obama can get his person nominated, and the Republicans take back the White House, the courts will swing back to the leanings of the last 30 years with at least 2 opportunities to replace.

Would the impact of a left leaning court be any greater over the next couple of years by letting the appellate court decisions stand?

Whatever our opinions are, it's just a really bizarre strategy that has a HUGE volatility of returns for the GOP. If it goes wrong, it could completely be the death of conservatism(doubt it), but it would definitely rewrite the book.

unprecedented????Have you paid any attention to the news the last few days or only read the DNC website.
Reid would not allow any nominess to be voted on during Bush
Schumer said no nominees to be brought up for consideration during Bush last year
Democrats destroying not one but two nominees under Reagan and only got one thru near the election
History has been that in an election year, no new Supreme Court nominee is voted on by either party.
The democrats so easily influence minds.