Scalia

[Spracne]

Eric Posner--son of the most famous, living, non-SCOTUS judge Richard Posner--doesn't seem to have liked Scalia very much.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/the_tragedy_of_antonin_scalia.html

[MakeItRain]

So all of this appointment stuff is much ado about nothing, right? I mean essentially the Senate has 10 months to get this done. If at that time they don't we either get a Democrat President elect or if the President elect is Republican we'll get a recess appointment in December or January. No one really thinks he isn't going to replace Scalia.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

So all of this appointment stuff is much ado about nothing, right? I mean essentially the Senate has 10 months to get this done. If at that time they don't we either get a Democrat President elect or if the President elect is Republican we'll get a recess appointment in December or January. No one really thinks he isn't going to replace Scalia.

Recess supreme court appointment 

That would be an awesome strategy

[chum1]

Eric Posner--son of the most famous, living, non-SCOTUS judge Richard Posner--doesn't seem to have liked Scalia very much.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/the_tragedy_of_antonin_scalia.html

His anguished complaints that other justices voted ideologically were met with puzzled silence. Of course, they voted ideologically; what else would they do? The stridency with which Scalia attacked them, especially in his later years, could only make one scratch one’s head. If he was the boy who revealed that the emperor wore no clothes, did he not know that he was also naked?

Scalia refused to acknowledge that originalism does not enable justices to decide cases neutrally. If they choose to adopt this methodology, and manage to figure out a way to make it constrain them, they are committed to enforcing mostly 18th-century values—which are, by definition, conservative.

Pretty convenient for Scalia's conservatism. Also, though, even if it was somehow completely neutral, isn't his adherence to originalism itself just another application of an ideology?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The chances of the GOP both winning the presidency and holding the Senate in 2016 are somewhat less than 50%. I think pretty much any nominee can defeat The Liar or The Socialist, but I'm not convinced that any nominee will have the coattails to help the GOP retain the Senate in an unfavorable election cycle.

The Senate is sworn is before the President, which means that even if a Republican wins the presidency, a new Dem Senate majority would be able to confirm an Obama appointment before the new president could withdraw it. So all in all, the Dems are sitting in pretty good shape to replace the bulwark of Originalism with another "Living Constitution" liberal. That's unfortunate for the rule of law. In a reasoned and just society, laws must be interpreted first and foremost upon what they say - not based upon the result the justices hope to reach.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'd like to think the republicans have done themselves a big disservice by coming out against a hypothetical nominee instead of waiting to get an actual living, breathing nominee with weaknesses to attack. Their voting base is dumb enough that they are probably taking their best course of action, though.

[sonofdaxjones]

Yes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Yes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.

This is true for both parties.

[sonofdaxjones]

LOL

[wetwillie]

Aren't these judges a bit of a wild card as to how their voting record shakes out over time?  I mean Souter was a home run conservative vote nominated by Reagan and that didn't turn out so well for the pubs.

[chuckjames]

Dax, you honestly don't think GOP voters aren't motivated by race? How else do you explain Trump's glorious rise?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Dax, you honestly don't think GOP voters aren't motivated by race? How else do you explain Trump's glorious rise?

That's pretty obvious. (1) Immigration and (2) a perception of America in decline. And I know you think being pro-rule of law on immigration is based upon racism. It isn't.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Aren't these judges a bit of a wild card as to how their voting record shakes out over time?  I mean Souter was a home run conservative vote nominated by Reagan and that didn't turn out so well for the pubs.

Sadly, that door only seems to swing one direction.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I'd like to think the republicans have done themselves a big disservice by coming out against a hypothetical nominee instead of waiting to get an actual living, breathing nominee with weaknesses to attack. Their voting base is dumb enough that they are probably taking their best course of action, though.

So you'd rather they pretend that they're actually going to find any Obama nomination an acceptable replacement for Scalia? I appreciate their honesty. It's a refreshing change.

[sonofdaxjones]

Chuck, yes it's all because of skin color with Trump.   #lol

[michigancat]

Our rule-of-law on immigration has always been based upon racism.

[sonofdaxjones]

Yes anything less then wide open unsecured borders in a post 9-11 world is racism.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Well, we've got a circle jerk over the comments well respected judge's SON, and now "everybody who disagrees with us is racist" . I'd say the libtards are acting lazier than usual this day.

[star seed 7]

Did someone say something disparaging about north carolina again? Dax is very fiesty 

[chuckjames]

Dax, you honestly don't think GOP voters aren't motivated by race? How else do you explain Trump's glorious rise?

That's pretty obvious. (1) Immigration and (2) a perception of America in decline. And I know you think being pro-rule of law on immigration is based upon racism. It isn't.

So I guess it's just a coincidence that Trump has RTed a guy who's Twitter handle is White Genocide multiple times. 

Also just wondering where is all this rule of law talk when it comes to torture of other human beings? Surely there is a part of the "rule of law" that says torturing fellow human beings is wrong?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

The Supreme Court is disproportionately Jewish. The court should look like the people it serves.

 

[star seed 7]

Well that doesn't sound like me

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Better to let people be ethnically cleansed and burned alive than "boots on the ground" eh, Chuck?  That's a hot take

[CHONGS]

Yes, nothing beats the intelligence of a voting base of which a substantial number in that base vote based on skin color.

They don't pass the ball either.

[catastrophe]

Eric Posner--son of the most famous, living, non-SCOTUS judge Richard Posner--doesn't seem to have liked Scalia very much.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/the_tragedy_of_antonin_scalia.html

His anguished complaints that other justices voted ideologically were met with puzzled silence. Of course, they voted ideologically; what else would they do? The stridency with which Scalia attacked them, especially in his later years, could only make one scratch one’s head. If he was the boy who revealed that the emperor wore no clothes, did he not know that he was also naked?

Scalia refused to acknowledge that originalism does not enable justices to decide cases neutrally. If they choose to adopt this methodology, and manage to figure out a way to make it constrain them, they are committed to enforcing mostly 18th-century values—which are, by definition, conservative.

Pretty convenient for Scalia's conservatism. Also, though, even if it was somehow completely neutral, isn't his adherence to originalism itself just another application of an ideology?

Not really, IMO. You could objectively say that SCOTUS's role is to interpret the Constitution, and that interpreting a document should entail considering the circumstances in which it was written, not future circumstances.

Scalia was radical compared to the current set up of our judicial system, but I don't think his general philosophy was wrong, or even all that relativistic. Legislators are elected to determine the country's policies, and a person's rights are determined in reference to those policies (including the Constitution, which is another piece of legislation).

IMO, the court (and Congress) have stepped into roles that are contrary to what is provided in the Constitution. That said, I think we have arrived at where we are because most people recognized the Country is better off for it. People only tend to cry "unconstitutional" when it is something they don't like.