Scalia

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

There is a lot of hysteria ITT about what the president and the senate should do, and I'm not sure why. It's really pretty simple. It is the president's right and duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. He will. It is the senate's right to not confirm that successor. They won't. That is completely understandable given the importance of this position and the fact that we'll have an election for a new president and a new senate in less than a year.

Anyone feigning outrage about the senate not confirming Obama's pick is either a complete moron or just doing some political sniping.

Finally, Scalia was not a judicial activist just because you don't agree with his opinions. If you really think that, you don't understand what "judicial activism" means. It means reading something into the text of a law that isn't there, or just making law up, to reach a desired result. Scalia was the anti-activist. He would be the first Justice to say "this is an issue for the legislature - not the Court. The Constitution doesn't cover this."

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

KSUW, you forget that Libtards think having people vote for things is unconscionable, hence their hate for scalia and democracy generally.

[chum1]

No doubt Obama will do everything in his power as one of his last acts as President to ensure that the next justice is EXTRA LIBERAL AS eff.

[wetwillie]

No doubt chum, it will be his lasting legacy.

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

Obamas legacy will be torn between being that one guy who traded all of his political capital to eff up healthcare, and that one guy who poured gas on the fire in the middle east.

[IPA4Me]

Interesting local connection to Justice Scalia.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/31216835/konz-reflecting-back-on-the-day-i-crossed-paths-with-us-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

His legacy will be being the first black president. I don't think even the liberals here would disagree with that.

His greatest liberal accomplishments will be getting two young reliably liberal justices onto the Court, significantly expanding the scope of government, and significantly diminishing the US's power and presence in foreign affairs.

If you're a liberal, he's been ok. If you're a conservative, he's been the most destructive president in history. These arguments are pointless.

[chuckjames]

There is a lot of hysteria ITT about what the president and the senate should do, and I'm not sure why. It's really pretty simple. It is the president's right and duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. He will. It is the senate's right to not confirm that successor. They won't. That is completely understandable given the importance of this position and the fact that we'll have an election for a new president and a new senate in less than a year.

Anyone feigning outrage about the senate not confirming Obama's pick is either a complete moron or just doing some political sniping.

Finally, Scalia was not a judicial activist just because you don't agree with his opinions. If you really think that, you don't understand what "judicial activism" means. It means reading something into the text of a law that isn't there, or just making law up, to reach a desired result. Scalia was the anti-activist. He would be the first Justice to say "this is an issue for the legislature - not the Court. The Constitution doesn't cover this."

Just wondering when is like the cutoff date for when a lame duck President should at least get the opportunity to get his nominee confirmed? This is setting dangerous precedent. Will a President be able to nominate someone his entire 2nd term or should we be forced to wait until the next election?

[mocat]

he's been the most destructive president in history.

Amazing

[wetwillie]

Obama is going to get a nominee confirmed,  everyone ITT already knows that. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

he's been the most destructive president in history.

Amazing

I could give you a very detailed, point by point, argument of all the things Obama has done to tear down the foundations of what made this country the greatest nation the world has ever seen. But again, pointless.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

There is a lot of hysteria ITT about what the president and the senate should do, and I'm not sure why. It's really pretty simple. It is the president's right and duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. He will. It is the senate's right to not confirm that successor. They won't. That is completely understandable given the importance of this position and the fact that we'll have an election for a new president and a new senate in less than a year.

Anyone feigning outrage about the senate not confirming Obama's pick is either a complete moron or just doing some political sniping.

Finally, Scalia was not a judicial activist just because you don't agree with his opinions. If you really think that, you don't understand what "judicial activism" means. It means reading something into the text of a law that isn't there, or just making law up, to reach a desired result. Scalia was the anti-activist. He would be the first Justice to say "this is an issue for the legislature - not the Court. The Constitution doesn't cover this."

Just wondering when is like the cutoff date for when a lame duck President should at least get the opportunity to get his nominee confirmed? This is setting dangerous precedent. Will a President be able to nominate someone his entire 2nd term or should we be forced to wait until the next election?

The fact that you used the term "lame duck" should answer your question. There is no actual definition. Like the famous jurisprudence on what constitutes pornography, "you just know it when you see it." And even you know Obama is a lame duck. We're in the thick of the primaries and any hope of substantive legislative action has all but shut down for the election year.

[mocat]

Point by pointless

[michigancat]

How could a conservative possibly think Obama was more destructive than FDR or LBJ?

[chuckjames]

There is a lot of hysteria ITT about what the president and the senate should do, and I'm not sure why. It's really pretty simple. It is the president's right and duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. He will. It is the senate's right to not confirm that successor. They won't. That is completely understandable given the importance of this position and the fact that we'll have an election for a new president and a new senate in less than a year.

Anyone feigning outrage about the senate not confirming Obama's pick is either a complete moron or just doing some political sniping.

Finally, Scalia was not a judicial activist just because you don't agree with his opinions. If you really think that, you don't understand what "judicial activism" means. It means reading something into the text of a law that isn't there, or just making law up, to reach a desired result. Scalia was the anti-activist. He would be the first Justice to say "this is an issue for the legislature - not the Court. The Constitution doesn't cover this."

Just wondering when is like the cutoff date for when a lame duck President should at least get the opportunity to get his nominee confirmed? This is setting dangerous precedent. Will a President be able to nominate someone his entire 2nd term or should we be forced to wait until the next election?

The fact that you used the term "lame duck" should answer your question. There is no actual definition. Like the famous jurisprudence on what constitutes pornography, "you just know it when you see it." And even you know Obama is a lame duck. We're in the thick of the primaries and any hope of substantive legislative action has all but shut down for the election year.

Chances you'd be saying if it was President Romney? 0.0%

[wetwillie]

If Clinton gets elected they should wait to appoint a justice until 2020.  It's what Scalia would have wanted.

[Dugout DickStone]

If Clinton gets elected they should wait to appoint a justice until 2020.  It's what Scalia would have wanted.

She would be a lame duck after all

[star seed 7]

I'd love to see the point by point. Another thread maybe?

[CNS]

He's going to nominate Cruz, giving trump the primary and hill the pres. 

[Kat Kid]

How could a conservative possibly think Obama was more destructive than FDR or LBJ?

Because Social Security and the Civil Rights Act are incredibly popular and Obamacare isn't yet.

[michigancat]

How could a conservative possibly think Obama was more destructive than FDR or LBJ?

Because Social Security and the Civil Rights Act are incredibly popular and Obamacare isn't yet.

Yeah, but they're incredibly destructive if you stand for what conservatives say they stand for. And they did way more that should be considered destructive.

You could make the argument that Lincoln was more destructive, too. I mean he started the federal income tax, for goodness sake. Also drastically centralized power away from the states and into the federal government and expanded executive power.

[420seriouscat69]

Pretty disgusting that some are pumped over this.

[renocat]

Dear Borkers, Pay back is the shitness.

[Trim]

How long until Trump publicly says Obama had Scalia murdered? Did it already happen and is waiting for me in the Trump thread?

Why wouldn't republicans take the high road on the nomination/confirmation thing and then whack the new guy (or gal!) when they know it'd be their guy (no gal) picking the next guy?  Or whack one of the existing judges they don't like when it's time?

SC Judge'n is gonna be some hunger games crap.

[MakeItRain]

Btw, being appointed rather than elected is a strength of the Supreme Court, not a weakness (@MIR).

Agreed