Justice Anton Scalia Reportedly Found Dead At Texas Resort

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-reported-dead.html/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/antonin-scalia-found-dead-article-1.2530791

Just read that.

RIP Justice Scalia

Rest in Peace, Anton Scalia.

I'm a natural opposite to him but I remember some pro comments by such as me, no links, natch.

I figure dealing with this will be near ground war.

Ah, thanks for posting this. He was a very intelligent and reportedly rather funny man. I don't think we would have agreed on much, but he knew his stuff.

His seat will, I suspect, be filled before President Obama leaves office.

RIP Justice Scalia.


Unfortunately it's going to turn the USSC into a political zoo for the next few months.

With less than 10 months before the election and less than 12 before a new president is sworn in, the question is whether or not the Republican held Senate will vote on Obama's nomination for a replacement before the end of 2016.

Obviously, Obama is going to nominate a judge considered to be a liberal, but he may steer clear of a controversial figure to put pressure on the Republicans to at least have an up or down vote.

Of course he could pick someone whose nomination might cause a riot: Eric Holder for example.

Here's an interesting, albeit admittedly far fetched, possibility: Obama nominates Hillary Clinton as a way to remover her from the race for President and pave the way for Biden.

No matter what happens, it's likely to have an impact on the election.

If the Republicans decide to prevent another Obama candidate from being appointed in the hope that one of their own wins the election, there will be a widespread hue & cry that they are depriving Obama of his presidential right and duty for purely partisan purposes. Whether this would rub off on the GOP's standard bearer will, in part, depends upon whether or not that person unambiguously endorses the move within the next couple of months. We can be certain that all of the GOP candidates will be peppered, by the media, with questions about what should happen next?

If any of them endorses a freeze on the Obama nomination, he will certainly be asked who he might nominate if he wins in November. We can probably expect them all to equivocate to some extent, as few will want to be pinned down on a single name. However, don't be surprised if Cruz comes out with a name that he promises to nominate.

While Clinton & Sanders have to urge/demand that the Republicans act quickly on and confirm any Obama nomination, they will, more than likely, offer up examples of who they might pick and Clinton, at least, will repeat her comment about Obama making a "great" Supreme Court Justice because he is such an "expert" on the Constitution and because he makes "persuasive arguments."

The media in general and pundits in particular are going to have a field day guessing what the Senate will do and who Obama will nominate.

It has some very real results in the coming months. It basically puts the court in a 4-4 split ideologically which means there could tie votes in some of the decisions left this year.

One would think and hope it would be impossible for the Senate to block a nominee before October when the next Court session starts. I wouldn't put it past the GOP to want to do that but it does run some very real risks politically in Senate races for them to be seen to put politics ahead of the country like that.

I've seen some ugly things posted about him already all over facebook. Despite opposing schools of thought, he was a fellow man with a family that loved him and he loved.

May he rest in peace.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/first-reactions-on-the-passing-of-justice-scalia/

Agreed. No matter what our party affiliations, HE was a really sharp mind . I saw him give a talk over t Peinceton in 2012 when he was hawking his book. He was brilliant and verry funny. This guy coulda been stand-up . He was saying that he was giving Alito comedy store lessons

After the way the Democrats maliciously blocked Mr. Bush's nominees for no reason back in 2008, Republicans can (and should) block any nomination that Mr. Obama makes to fill Mr. Scalia's seat.

Any controversy can be dismissed by pointing out that they are simply giving the Democrats a dose of their own medicine.

This was a shocker. Totally unexpected. I disagreed with a lot of his opinions, but sad to hear the news anyway. Condolences to his wife and family.

It will certainly change the debate tonight and alot of conversation going forward. I am sure the Republicans will hold off until after the election to even start thinking about a replacement no matter who gets elected.

Obama has already announced that he intends to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia, and that he expects the Senate to give an Up or Down vote before he leaves office. Anyone reading my posts know that I'm not a fan of Obama's notions of how to run our country, but my distaste for the man extends beyond his politics and ideology. Despite all the original bunkum about him being a leader that would unite us, he has held the presidency during a period in which I believe we have become more divided than ever, and it's due, in large measure, to him.

It seems to me inappropriate for him to talk about a successor and already begin scolding the Republicans about acting on his nomination at the same time he is marking the passing of one of our Supreme Court Justices. Surely this nonsense could have waited and the moment reserved for noting the man's brilliance and significant influence on the nation.

I didn't know this but apparently no "lame duck" president has nominated a new SC Justice in the last 80 years. If this is the case, than his remarks were even more unseemly because just announcing his intent was a defiant taunt. He can be very petty at times.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/02/13/obama-breaks-tradition-will-nominate-supreme-court-successor-to-scalia/

I don't know how or why this "tradition" was started, or why it has held up for so long, but I don't have a problem with a "lame duck" president making a nomination. I don't think Obama's decision to do so is particularly untoward, but his announcement during his remarks on the passing of Justice Scalia is. There's no chance that any of the major players in DC are going to opt for class and decorum over politics, but It could have waited at least a day.

Yes, some of his Republican opponents have been petty and insulting in their criticism of him and anyone that interjected a comment about how the president should uphold this tradition, into their marking Justice Scalia's death are just as petty and unseemly, but he's the president, and they are not. It doesn't excuse them, but I'm afraid I expect more from our president (regardless of party) than I do his critics.

It's unfortunate and, again, disappointing that the man has such a fragile ego and so large a chip on his shoulder that he seems to think that Republicans are greater enemies than any other group on earth.

Before I heard about his remarks, I would have leaned towards the Senate moving to a vote before the end of 2016. I'm now in favor of their doing whatever they feel they must, and I no longer think Obama's nominee will be relatively uncontroversial. I was joking about Eric Holder and still don't see it likely that he will get the call, but the president seems bound and determined to give Republicans the finger with every chance he gets. It's hard ball politics? Fine, then he shouldn't complain when he gets thrown back on him and he does it all the time: throw it , and complain.

Well said.

I don't expect anyone who disagreed with his thinking to suddenly become Scalia fans because he died, and eulogies that portray anyone as a faultless saints are part of a questionable tradition in my opinion, but reveling in anyone's death is an indication of someone's complete lack of class, and particularly so on the very day of their passing.

Unfortunately, some of the folks who do such things believe they are avoiding hypocrisy, as if it's hypocritical to be decent and wait at least a few weeks before expressing satisfaction that the man will no longer be participating in the business of the USSC. There is no reason to make such comments unless it's to gratuitously shock others or to satisfy a truly pathological level of hatred.

It is not just Mr. Obama. Remember the way the Democrats maliciously blocked Mr. Bush from even making recess appointments to his own executive branch in 2008.

This is the last gasp of a dying ideology though. The 2013 gun control debacle damaged Mr. Obama's second term so badly that the Democrats won't be back in the White House for 20 years. And when the Democrats finally do manage to elect someone again, it won't be a Liberal.

I'm sure the author is correct that failure to act on the president's nomination will be used in election campaigns to tar the Republicans. It's par for the course in national politics. The Democrats would be in no hurry to confirm or even have a vote on a conservative nomination made by a Republican president and especially so if the Justice being replaced was considered a liberal judge. If the tables were turned, the Republicans would trot out all of the indignation they could muster and insist the process be concluded before the president's term was over.

Both sides do this stuff all the time and don't even blink an eye when someone suggests they are simply being partisan opportunists.

This will put a brighter light on the USSC as an issue in the campaigns, but I don't think that it will be a game-changer. Candidates and pundits alike all repeatedly remind voters that a presidential election is, perhaps most importantly, a potentially enormous event as respects long term effect on the daily lives of people should the character of the Court changes dramatically during the winner's term(s). I suppose Scalia's passing will drive this home more clearly for some voters, but not, I think, to the extent that it will be the deciding factor. A controversial ruling on the eve of the election would be more impactful.

My first introduction to Scalia was in my teens when he was a regular member of a round table discussion series run out of the University of Chicago (if I recall correctly, but I may have that wrong). A moderator would present an ethical, moral or legal dilemma and the round table would take it up. Members were lawyers, professors, ethicists, theologicans, artists, writers etc. My mother and I watched this regularly.

Scalia was always notable for his intelligence and humor but also for his self-confidence. Not shy. It was very easy to like the guy. Later on, he became something of a culture warrior and I ended up liking him much less.

In fact, before Obama had announced he would be nominating a new SC member, Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz (and others on the right) had already made the demand that Obama refrain from nominating anyone as it should be left to the next President to do so. The "defiance" didn't originate in the WH.

As to nominations/confirmations in the final year of a term, Chris Hayes noted on twitter that
Others have done a count and found 12 or more SC justices have been confirmed in the final year of a presidential term.

McConnell suggested that it would be inappropriate for Obama to make a nomination now because citizens should choose which president ought to make the nomination. Of course, they already did when they re-elected Obama. So McConnell's claim is bogus. There's no law nor rule in place to validate McConnell's claim nor historical precedent for it based on anything other than mere chance. It's a grasp for power.

That Scalia's passing represents a very important political event is understood by everybody. One obvious bit of evidence for this is to note how quickly (an hour or two) the announcement of the death was followed by right wing politicos' demand and then a shift in news coverage to the political aspects of this situation.

I should add the obvious point that McConnell is pushing a big deceit here if he is implying that the GOP would behave any differently than right now if the next president is a Democrat. They won't.