Justice Anton Scalia Reportedly Found Dead At Texas Resort

I think you'd want that sort of absolutism when it came to topics such as evolution or global warming. So would I. Likewise, I wouldn't think much of a doctor who said "childhood immunization is a good thing, but I'm keeping an open mind about it." I don't have a problem with a jurist who thinks he's right all the time if, indeed, he happens to be right all the time. As Dizzy Dean once put it, "it ain't braggin' if you can do it." In the same vein, it isn't rigidity of thinking if you're right.

But that's the grounding part of this, isn't it?

Scalia believed and said that Satan is immanent in the world, working his tricky wiles. He was, apparently, absolutely certain of this.

The majority of scientists working in climate/biology are convinced by the scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels will likely have catastrophic consequences in the future. They are (quite but not absolutely) certain of this.


You do not have my agreement on that.

Depends on the provider and the type of revenue, IMO.

I have no qualms about enabling ad blocking software, and tricking Forbes and other sites into thinking I'm not running ad blocking software. Too much malware has been propagated by the ad brokerage software.

I don't attempt to get around sites that require subscriptions. I wouldn't dream of pirating or sharing an account on, say, Netflix or HBO.

Sites that offer "10 free and then we block you" are more of a gray area, for me, especially with the blind links in tiny urls that people like to post. In the few cases I've run up against the restriction I've been able to find the information elsewhere, so I think it's a stupid business model. Really all they're doing to driving away viewership.

It's hardly the moral question of our time, but clearly the Times intends for users to either pay a fee after ten views or move on. I'm sure they realize that there is a way to foil their fee scheme, and rely upon a user's sense of fair play.

I don't see it as grey, but I surely would never report someone for stealing their services. Everyone has, to one extent or the other, an elastic conscious Mine tends to be rigid, but I would be lying if I said it was inflexible.

So McConnell states there will be no meeting with any Obama nominee, no hearings, and no vote. Does anyone expect this stance to change if Hillary is elected and the Senate remains in GOP control?

Now that Scalia is no longer part of the equation, I wonder how Kennedy might be effected? I imagine the three remaining conservatives will work hard to keep him or bring him onside while the four liberal justices will do the same. That's how it apparently was before but the new situation might mean a change in dynamics.

Also, I've been wondering whether the absence of Scalia's strong personality might give Kennedy more latitude in philosophy and in voting. Was Scalia an influence via intimidation?

No available answers to that stuff. I'm just engaging in some wishful thinking.

Well, other Republicans are refuting him.

Really, the only thing that kind of trumpeting does is turn off potential voters; they'd be much better off holding extended hearings introducing procedural delays, but nobody's accusing the Republican party of not being completely tone deaf.

I just don't think there is any negative to the Republican obstructionism. Has any Representative gone back to his district and been pummeled by ads saying "this guy was all for shutting down the government and letting the US default on its debt"? Not one that I've seen. Has it stopped any of them from being re-elected? Delaying a SC nominee is small change compared to that.

I think McConnell probably sees the studies that show Trump supporters liking his authoritarian manner. I suspect he's trying to tap into that.

Less than a handful. And they have no power.

McConnell really had no option here. If he'd moved to follow the norms, he'd face an onslaught worse than Cantor or Boehner.

And for the sake of totally cynical political power, keeping any nominee (and his/her qualifications) out of media attention and the public mind while claiming that Obama's desire to follow due process is an instance of an anti-constitutional grab for power keeps the media conversation where he wants it.

These people no longer give a damn about anything other than power.

White House is floating Brian Sandoval, Republican governor of Nevada, to replace Scalia.

That's really interesting. First, as political strategy, it puts the stance of McConnell and the GOP in the correct perspective. Second, it does continue Obama's attempts to find medium ground on a host of nominations and policies (in other words, it tries to counter the destructive levels of polarization we see modernly). Third, from what I can gather of the fellow, though a conservative in many ways, he is apparently outside of the Federalist Society crowd and its agenda.

Sandoval just popped up all over the place.

It would be fun to see what the McConnells of the US political world would do with that.

Already said no way, no how.

specifically about Sandoval? or the general "we're big poopy pants and don't do the constituion" ?

In general. They said it doesn't matter who the nominee is.

Yeah, saw the general thing.

I want to see them say that about someone specific - especially someone who is a Republican.

__

Since Scalia was not on the short list of justices expected to die / retire within the next two years (Ginsburg has been top of that list for a few years (see dozens of freeper discussions)), there is a decent chance that there will be one or two more openings in the near term ( 2 - 4 years). That means that if the Democrats are re-elected at the presidential level, the Republicans may be losing their last chance to pick a candidate who might be favourable to their interests for some time. Instead of 1 repub/1 or 2 dem newbies, it could end up being 2 or 3 dem newbies.

McDonnell and his clan are thinking waaaaaaay too short term.

Tough to know what McConnell and his pack of nincompoops are thinking. It wasn't just the statement/promise there would be total obstruction to any Obama pick, he had everyone sign the promise. And given the near totality of GOP voices in concurrence, a lot of pressure is being exerted across the board. Apparently, they think they can win a propaganda war through lying about the constitution and tradition and precedent, etc. Or they are, as individuals, so frightened of their own base that they feel they must behave in such a manner.

Aside from possibly bringing on a constitutional crisis (as Roger Ailes' key legal boy has warned on Fox) they risk further defining themselves as just blatant obstructionists as the election nears. Maybe they've concluded that the only chance they have electorally is to continue with the strategy of inflaming their base and restricting Dem voter access.

That last sentence seems to me pretty clearly exactly what's going on. And aligned with that strategy is their need to construct a Supreme Court which will abide by far right ideological goals all of which allows them to go where they want to go regardless of citizens' wishes.

And I think we have to posit the very real possibility that given a Hillary win, they will continue to obstruct her SC appointments, perhaps for years. If they think they can get away with that, they'll try. It's not just that they've gone insane, it's that their are billions of dollars at stake for their main funders.

And I'll add to beth's point re the future inevitable appointments. If left wing voices get upset about a Republican nominee (Obama caves!) then those voices too would be thinking short-term stupid. On the assumption Sandoval would me a moderate, if conservative, vote then future appointments can ameliorate this influence.

I think Obama has been not merely sincere in his belief that American must move away from the modern polarization in order for democracy and the nation to thrive or perhaps even maintain stability. I think he's also quite right in arriving at that conclusion. What's going on cannot continue without real damage to the nation.

My guess: not at all. Scalia's views on "original intent" were surprisingly unpersuasive during his decades on the court. Only one justice - Clarence Thomas - could be said to have adopted Scalia's approach to constitutional interpretation, and Thomas has, if anything, taken it further than even Scalia was willing to go. Everyone else has, to a greater or lesser degree, believed in the "living constitution" method of interpretation (and, for all intents and purposes, so did Scalia - he just wouldn't admit to it). As for Kennedy, he has always been his own man on the court.

Thanks Joe.

By the way, your brief little eulogy (sort of) remains the most artful bit on Scalia I've bumped into anywhere.