Scalia

[chum1]

By making a nomination, Obama has nothing to lose and everything to gain. If it was me, I'd do it first thing Monday morning.

[CNS]

This is going to become a major talking point for the pubs.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Of course Obama should nominate a replacement. That's his job. It is also the Senate's job to give advice and consent. And their advice should absolutely be "no, we've got an election coming up in less than a year and we think the people should get a say in this."

[wetwillie]

So like who is it going to be?

[CNS]

The ppl have a say....through their congressional representatives.   They should do their jobs rather than campaigning as you recommend.

[star seed 7]

Of course Obama should nominate a replacement. That's his job. It is also the Senate's job to give advice and consent. And their advice should absolutely be "no, we've got an election coming up in less than a year and we think the people should get a say in this."

The people got their say when they elected Obama for 8 years (not 7)

[star seed 7]

This is going to be a huge negative for republicans. Almost worst case scenario

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So like who is it going to be?

Obama will pick whomever he thinks he can use to extract maximum political damage from the GOP refusing to bring to a vote. Likely a woman and minority. I would guess Loretta Lynch.

[ednksu]

Of course Obama should nominate a replacement. That's his job. It is also the Senate's job to give advice and consent. And their advice should absolutely be "no, we've got an election coming up in less than a year and we think the people should get a say in this."

Which is not what the constitution demands. Hint this was a "call to action" for pubs in '08 '12 because RGB, Beyer, Kennedy were possibly going in that term.  The electorate spoke.  Good to see you mouth deep on party talking points before Antonin is cold.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Of course Obama should nominate a replacement. That's his job. It is also the Senate's job to give advice and consent. And their advice should absolutely be "no, we've got an election coming up in less than a year and we think the people should get a say in this."

The people got their say when they elected Obama for 8 years (not 7)

You don't seem familiar with the Senate's role in the process. Or have you forgotten that "the people" also "had their say" in 2014 when they ousted the Dems from majority control?

[catastrophe]

Swing voters won't GAF that republicans are blocking an Obama appointee. No matter who it is they'll come up with at least 3 reasons why that person is a terrible choice.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Of course Obama should nominate a replacement. That's his job. It is also the Senate's job to give advice and consent. And their advice should absolutely be "no, we've got an election coming up in less than a year and we think the people should get a say in this."

Which is not what the constitution demands. Hint this was a "call to action" for pubs in 08 because RGB, Beyer, Kennedy were possibly going in that term.  The electorate spoke.  Good to see you mouth deep on party talking points before Antonin is cold.

Edna please don't pretend to know the Constitution. Just save yourself some embarrassment. You know that previously outed yourself as a major dumbass when talking about the Constitution. So just stop.

[wetwillie]

If history is any indicator Obama is going to get his.  Also when was big homie Anthony Kennedy appointed to the court?  Was it in the last year of a 2nd term president?

[star seed 7]

That's fine, but I'll lol while republicans are slammed for being so partisan for the next 9 months

[ednksu]

Of course Obama should nominate a replacement. That's his job. It is also the Senate's job to give advice and consent. And their advice should absolutely be "no, we've got an election coming up in less than a year and we think the people should get a say in this."

Which is not what the constitution demands. Hint this was a "call to action" for pubs in 08 because RGB, Beyer, Kennedy were possibly going in that term.  The electorate spoke.  Good to see you mouth deep on party talking points before Antonin is cold.

Edna please don't pretend to know the Constitution. Just save yourself some embarrassment. You know that previously outed yourself as a major dumbass when talking about the Constitution. So just stop.

lol child please

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

This is going to be a huge negative for republicans. Almost worst case scenario

Maybe. But maybe not. I agree that the President will make the most of his nomination being stalled, and McConnel and gang will likely engage in their usual political ineptitude. On the other hand, the one possible silver lining of losing such a brilliant and principled jurist is that this could potentially unify the GOP no matter who the nominee is. Even if it's Trump or Cruz, if the question is whether Hillary will pick Antonin's replacement, the base will show up at the polls.

Again though, politics aside, this is a devastating loss for the Court and for the rule of law. Scalia was also a kind and decent man. I had the pleasure of meeting him once as a law student. I asked what was in all liklihood a very stupid question about a case he'd written the opinion on. He wasn't condescending at all. He was a class act. His opinions - particularly his dissents - are jurisprudential works of art. Even at 79 it just feels like he left us way too early.

[ednksu]

This is going to be a huge negative for republicans. Almost worst case scenario

Maybe. But maybe not. I agree that the President will make the most of his nomination being stalled, and McConnel and gang will likely engage in their usual political ineptitude. On the other hand, the one possible silver lining of losing such a brilliant and principled jurist is that this could potentially unify the GOP no matter who the nominee is. Even if it's Trump or Cruz, if the question is whether Hillary will pick Antonin's replacement, the base will show up at the polls.

Again though, politics aside, this is a devastating loss for the Court and for the rule of law. Scalia was also a kind and decent man. I had the pleasure of meeting him once as a law student. I asked what was in all liklihood a very stupid question about a case he'd written the opinion on. He wasn't condescending at all. He was a class act. His opinions - particularly his dissents - are jurisprudential works of art. Even at 79 it just feels like he left us way too early.

[sunny_cat]

[OK_Cat]

Who are generally worse people....judges, or cops? Still leaning cops, but it's close

[ednksu]

Antonin: Hey guys, I hate civil rights, pre clearence, and rights for gays.

Ksuw: I'll work the shaft and balls sir.

[OK_Cat]

Also at the fanningbrag

[ednksu]

Who are generally worse people....judges, or cops? Still leaning cops, but it's close

who runs the trials where cops get off?

[catastrophe]

Who are generally worse people....judges, or cops? Still leaning cops, but it's close

who runs the trials where cops get off?

Typically grand juries, so folks like you I guess.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Also at the fanningbrag

Meeting a Justice is a fanningbrag? Mmmmkay. I've actually met three. It's not that unusual for law students to meet Justices.

[OK_Cat]

Fanningbrags are unprovoked bragging about things that nobody gives a crap about, like meeting some old guy who is a noted awful human being