Scalia found dead?

[jazyd]

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.

WOW, once again you amaze me. Obama has been rewriting the powers of the Presidency since he has been in office. The republicans are not trying to accomplish what you claim. obama or any president has the right to nominate and that is as far as his power goes. The constitution does not give him the right to nominate and confirm his appointees. The Senate has the right to take under advisement any nominee and then only they can decide whether to vote them in or not.

[jazyd]

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.

Did the republicans vote in Obamas two appointees or not? Plus they have given him almost everything he wants since they took control of both houses. Its why so many are mad at the establishment republicans, they cave.

No one ever accused McConnell of being smart and he makes dumb statements. Next much like....

[suncat05]

I gave zero faith in the US Senate and anything the current Senate leadership says. McConnell is another world class liar, just like Obama & Biden. The only difference in any of the three is their political affiliations, otherwise same-same.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck..........

[KeithKSR]

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.

It wasn't unconstitutional when the Dems were upholding Bush 43's nominees to Federal Circuit courts.

It was Leahy and Schumer who invoked the "Thurmond Rule" (his words) in 2007 declaring any Bush judicial nominees would not be brought to a vote.

Upon Lewis Powell's retirement President Reagan nominated Robert Bork on July 1, 1987. Nearly 19 months before the term ended. Kennedy was the third nomination for the post when he was nominated on November 11, 1987.

[KeithKSR]

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

SCOTUS has determined it is Obama who has attempted to circumvent the Constitution on multiple occasions, not the Senate. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Senate to vote on a nominee as part of the process.

[Doc]

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.

It's no less laughable than the idea that the democrats had any interest in working with Republicans. When you have a president who basically tells republicans, the ones that people voted for to represent them, to just come along for the ride ( "We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." ). Yeah, sounds like he and the democrats were real interested in working WITH the GOP..... No, the democrats believe that the GOP should rubber stamp their agenda and anything less is obstructionism.

[kingcat]

The President "SHALL" nominate..not "may" or "can". And congress shall fulfill their oath and do their duty with due diligence. Vote up or down on the person's merits, that is American government.

Anything else is as anti-American as any accusations made toward either major party.

Hate is not all that can bring this country to its knees, and yet that's all I see anymore. We've allowed it to consume us.

Sad times. But soon our Lord will do away with the governments of mankind, and Him only will you serve. That's my bottom line.

[jazyd]

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.

suncat, I was really surprised they didn't do a autopsy. Because of his position I would have thought that would be automatic. If he was in good health which I guess he was, plus the pillow over his face which on the face of it would be suspicious. With terror in the world, with Obama's sentence winding down and the ability to maybe change the court for the next 20 years or so I would think an autopsy would be automatic.

[Doc]

It amazes me that under Bush, the left (led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) did every dirty low down tactic possible to hinder or slow down the process. Hell, they would even lie and then boast about lying as Harry did concerning Mitt Romney, or use the gov't agencies to target opponents as they did with the IRS or flat out use bribery to pass laws like the ACA, in order to further their causes. Now when the shoe is on the other foot suddenly its a problem. It would be funny if the hypocrisy of it didn't stink so much. Most on the right warned when the left was doing it that it would come back to haunt them, that such tactics were not how the gov't was meant to function but those two sniveling hack cronies did it anyway, and not a peep from their side. Now it's suddenly a problem. Sorry if I don't weep tears for your pathetic objections. Had the outcry come when it wasn't to your advantage then MAYBE I'd respect your complaint, but now its just sour grapes. So keep quoting the constitution. Too bad you didn't do it a few years back.

[Doc]

suncat, I was really surprised they didn't do a autopsy. Because of his position I would have thought that would be automatic. If he was in good health which I guess he was, plus the pillow over his face which on the face of it would be suspicious. With terror in the world, with Obama's sentence winding down and the ability to maybe change the court for the next 20 years or so I would think an autopsy would be automatic.

Me too. Who knows, maybe Hillary had a hand in it. Wouldn't shock me. Liars, cheats and criminals............

[jazyd]

It's no less laughable than the idea that the democrats had any interest in working with Republicans. When you have a president who basically tells republicans, the ones that people voted for to represent them, to just come along for the ride ( "We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." ). Yeah, sounds like he and them were real interested in working WITH the GOP..... No, the democrats believe that the GOP should rubber stamp their agenda and anything less is obstructionism.

The only ones who understand that are the ones who are free thinkers, who look at both sides, investigate the news and then decide vs just believing what one side of the other tells them.
I always think it is funny to listen to critics of Limbaugh and call anyone that listens to his show mind dumbed robots. Which tells me they don't listen to him with an open mind. Whether you like him or not, he rips both sides. He criticizes republicans often.

There are two men..I think are one and the same..that write letters to the editor of the paper often. I play a game, I look at the headline, read part way thru and then try to decide if one of them wrote it, and I am corrrect about 99% of the time. Because they just repeat exactly the DNC agenda with no exception. PLus both are extreme racists which often gives them away. They are the robots, it is obvious they never look up facts and just repeat what the DNC tells them plus anything racist they can throw at whites, and or republicans. Its funny but sad at the same time.

[jazyd]

Me too. Who knows, maybe Hillary had a hand in it. Wouldn't shock me. Liars, cheats and criminals............

Well, may of Hillary and Bills 'friends' or 'lovers' in her case ended up dead

I doubt anything suspicous happened but with the death of any Supreme Court Justice who appeared to be in good health who suddenly dies should be investigated regardless if they are a liberal, moderate or conservative. to me it just makes good sense to rid any doubt on anyone's mind.
I threw the pillow in as it just seems odd unless he always slept with a pillow over his face which is odd anyone. Maybe he suffacated himself in his sleep

[jazyd]

I gave zero faith in the US Senate and anything the current Senate leadership says. McConnell is another world class liar, just like Obama & Biden. The only difference in any of the three is their political affiliations, otherwise same-same.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck..........

I am ashamed McConell is from Kentucky. How in the world he, or Reid or Pelosi got elected to their positions is beyond me, none of the three are very bright. Maybe sex or BJ's.

[KeithKSR]

Government in our country was never intended to work smoothly and without conflict.

[jazyd]

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.

History, there is no way Obama nominates a true moderate, won't happen. One thing he loves to do is try to punish or humiliate republicans in every way he can...he should just let them do it themselves as they are good at it...He will nominate a liberal to try to influence the election or a moderate in disguise to again try to influence the senate and the election.

I have zero faith in Obama.

I don't think republicans are louder or angrier, not when I look back and see the dirty tricks and lies the democrats throw at nominees of republican presidents. They try to destroy the person and the character of the person. But the media gives them a free pass and most of Americans don't look into the truth of what is happening, they just believe what they are told.

Jurists who understand the constitution, I would think Scalia would be that person. Most think he was totally a conservative but there were issues he went against what republicans wanted, he understood the constitution and imo what the founders meant when they wrote the laws.
Roberts is one who has made many conservatives mad because of his writings. Not that he found Obama Care lawful, but he gave the democrats something they didn't ask for by calling it a tax, it never came up. So with that one word he turned the whole thing. He made law by himself. Whether I like him or not, Kennedy is one that you can't put in a bottle and say he is conservative or liberal.

imo, and remembe it is my opinion, liberal presidents want judges who make law, conservative presidents want for the most part judges who interpret the law as the founders intended.

[Doc]

Nominate away. Its his job. And then the Senate does theirs. They confirm or don't. As it is the Presidents job to nominate, its the Senates job to confirm.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

It's no less laughable than the idea that the democrats had any interest in working with Republicans. When you have a president who basically tells republicans, the ones that people voted for to represent them, to just come along for the ride ( "We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." ). Yeah, sounds like he and the democrats were real interested in working WITH the GOP..... No, the democrats believe that the GOP should rubber stamp their agenda and anything less is obstructionism.

That is a perception that is completely false in reality.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Nominate away. Its his job. And then the Senate does theirs. They confirm or don't. As it is the Presidents job to nominate, its the Senates job to confirm.

That's all that I'm asking.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Government in our country was never intended to work smoothly and without conflict.

Obstruction is completely different than conflict.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I am ashamed McConell is from Kentucky. How in the world he, or Reid or Pelosi got elected to their positions is beyond me, none of the three are very bright. Maybe sex or BJ's.

The wonderful people of Kentucky keep electing McConnell, there's your problem.

[suncat05]

The wonderful people of Kentucky keep electing McConnell, there's your problem.

Given the only two choices there were to pick from Stu, I would venture to say that most of the good folks of the Commonwealth pinched their noses closed as they were casting that ballot. And many of us here spoke of exactly that prior to Election Day. Neither candidate was a good choice, IMHO, so as is most often the case the best choice is the lesser of two evils.

[Doc]

Nominate away. Its his job. And then the Senate does theirs. They confirm or don't. As it is the Presidents job to nominate, its the Senates job to confirm.

or NOT confirm

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Given the only two choices there were to pick from Stu, I would venture to say that most of the good folks of the Commonwealth pinched their noses closed as they were casting that ballot. And many of us here spoke of exactly that prior to Election Day. Neither candidate was a good choice, IMHO, so as is most often the case the best choice is the lesser of two evils.

There are primaries to which you can choose better candidates.

If Mitch McConnell is the best Republican Senate candidate the Ky GOP can offer, that's really sad.

[KeithKSR]

The wonderful people of Kentucky keep electing McConnell, there's your problem.

The Dems keep running terrible candidates against him, who have no chance to win.

[suncat05]

There are primaries to which you can choose better candidates.

If Mitch McConnell is the best Republican Senate candidate the Ky GOP can offer, that's really sad.

Oh, I am not disagreeing with you. As I said, it's choosing the lesser of two evils.

[KeithKSR]

As much as people complain about Mitch it is impossible not to see that much more gets accomplished with him in charge than it did with Reid in charge.

[KeithKSR]

Obstruction is completely different than conflict.

Yep, when Harry Reid refuses to allow votes to be taken it is conflict and the democratic process, if it is McConnell it is obstruction. Only those truly blinded by partisanship cannot see they are the same thing.

[Doc]

That is a perception that is completely false in reality.

No, that is the fallacy that the democrats have successfully perpetuated.

[Doc]

There are primaries to which you can choose better candidates.

If Mitch McConnell is the best Republican Senate candidate the Ky GOP can offer, that's really sad.

Happens in the presidency too. Sometimes you have to choose the least suckiest

example:
or


and this year the best the democrats can put out is a criminal or a communist
or
so please lecture the right on quality political candidates.

[Doc]

Yep, when Harry Reid refuses to allow votes to be taken it is conflict and the democratic process, if it is McConnell it is obstruction. Only those truly blinded by partisanship cannot see they are the same thing.

As I stated, I'd have sympathy for their "cause" were it not for the hypocrisy. Reid spent years blocking proposals brought forth by the GOP by refusing to bring them to vote before the senate. He did it time and time again, and not one of you on the left complained about it. All those proposals and attempts to move the government forward that were OBSTRUCTED by Harry Reid seem to be so conveniently forgotten now. Many on the right warned that when the left pulled these antics under Reid that they would regret opening that pandora's box. I didn't like it when they did it not because it was the left that did it and got their way but rather because it circumvented the process. Now when the right uses the exact same tactic, the left cries foul. Personally I don't like the tactic and believe its bush (bush as in the baseball reference, not the presidential one) league HOWEVER I don't blame the GOP for doing it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.