Antonin Scalia's death

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Is someone like Scalia, who interprets the Constitution literally, necessarily advocating for conservatism? I don't think so. WDMSO wants to elect a POTUS who gets to decide what he thinks the Constitution really means.

He clearly, to my eye, interpreted the Constitution with a conservative mindset. I think his decisions and particularly his public speeches bear that out. But this is no different than Ginsberg, who interprets the Constitution through a more liberal lens.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

He clearly, to my eye, interpreted the Constitution with a conservative mindset. I think his decisions and particularly his public speeches bear that out. But this is no different than Ginsberg, who interprets of the Constitution is done through a more liberal lens.

Can you cite an example of conservative activism on his part? If one says "the Constitution is what it says, and nothing more", how is that right-leaning, unless you concede that it's the liberals who are more likely to try to ignore the constitution to further their agenda - a notion I wholeheartedly agree with. But it's conceivable that a uber conservative could be a fascist, in which case I still want a guy like Scalia to reign that person in.

Scalia has said that his personal views are conservative, but he doesn't advocate that way when deciding cases. I am no expert, but I wonder what true right-wing advocacy you'd find in his legal opinions.

If Obama nominates a moderate, the Senate should consider that person. Trouble is, to Obama, Josef Stalin is a moderate. That's what you get from a guy whose spiritual advisor is Rev Wright. Sonja Sotomayor wrote somewhere that in her opinion, a Latina female, because of her life experience, can reach superior legal opinions than anyone else. That bigoted sentiment would rightly preclude her from serving in jury duty, yet there she is on the highest court in the land, for the next 4 decades. She also had multiple opinions get reversed in higher court (Bork had none).

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Can you cite an example of conservative activism on his part? If one says "the Constitution is what it says, and nothing more", how is that right-leaning, unless you concede that it's the liberals who are more likely to try to ignore the constitution to further their agenda - a notion I wholeheartedly agree with. But it's conceivable that a uber conservative could be a fascist, in which case I still want a guy like Scalia to reign that person in.

Scalia has said that his personal views are conservative, but he doesn't advocate that way when deciding cases. I am no expert, but I wonder what true right-wing advocacy you'd find in his legal opinions.

If Obama nominates a moderate, the Senate should consider that person. Trouble is, to Obama, Josef Stalin is a moderate. That's what you get from a guy whose spiritual advisor is Rev Wright. Sonja Sotomayor wrote somewhere that in her opinion, a Latina female, because of her life experience, can reach superior legal opinions than anyone else. That bigoted sentiment would rightly preclude her from serving in jury duty, yet there she is on the highest court in the land, for the next 4 decades. She also had multiple opinions get reversed in higher court (Bork had none).

No, I'm not a legal scholar, and don't claim to be one. I think from what I recall, as I'm not getting into a long pissing match today and looking this up, were his Heller opinion was a more conservative interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel the same about his recent comments on affirmative action. I also recall some pretty Conservative (respectfully, I am sure rooted in his faith) opinions regarding DOMA. You can think he had legal opinions not based in a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, but you are a conservative, so I'm not sure how objective you are being on it, just like I as a liberal sees him as conservative.

If rumors were true, and the Indian-American who I mentioned above were nominated, he seems at first glance to be a 'moderate'

I think it will be interesting, and ugly moving forward. Obama will nominate someone, and the Senate should to do their job, even if that means not appointing anyone, and we'll see how it plays out.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

No, I'm not a legal scholar, and don't claim to be one. I think from what I recall, as I'm not getting into a long pissing match today and looking this up, were his Heller opinion was a more conservative interpretation of the Constitution, and I feel the same about his recent comments on affirmative action. I also recall some pretty Conservative (respectfully, I am sure rooted in his faith) opinions regarding DOMA. You can think he had legal opinions not based in a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, but you are a conservative, so I'm not sure how objective you are being on it, just like I as a liberal sees him as conservative.

If rumors were true, and the Indian-American who I mentioned above were nominated, he seems at first glance to be a 'moderate'

I think it will be interesting, and ugly moving forward. Obama will nominate someone, and the Senate should to do their job, even if that means not appointing anyone, and we'll see how it plays out.

As always, your points are thoughtful and respectful. You know how to disagree with someone in a way that no one could be offended by, I could learn that from you...

On affirmative action, the constitution says that racial discrimination is illegal, right? It doesn't say "unless the person being victimized, is white".

[wdmso]

WDMSO, were you complaining when the Democrats blocked Bork's nomination? If not, you have zero legitimate beef here


yes they blocked bork and the other guy withdrew and yet someone was appointed to the seat during Regan's last year in office thru negotiations

The Dems never told Regan you Must wait until the election is over or Dont even try it ?? your a lame duck ... and he hasn't even given a Name Thats the difference you choose to disregard

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

WDMSO, were you complaining when the Democrats blocked Bork's nomination? If not, you have zero legitimate beef here


yes they blocked bork and the other guy withdrew and yet someone was appointed to the seat during Regan's last year in office thru negotiations

The Dems never told Regan you Must wait until the election is over or Dont even try it ?? your a lame duck ... and he hasn't even given a Name Thats the difference you choose to disregard

"The Dems never told Regan you Must wait until the election is over "

Schumer tried selling exactly that. It didn't come up.

I don't hide the fact that I am horrified at the potential shifting of the balance. I wouldn't say I'm all that "worried" about it, because Obama can't do it without Senate approval, and as the Senate stands now, they won't approve. So it's not a real concern.

Unlike most here, I proudly admit my bias.

What I can't stand, is the hypocrisy. When Democrats obstruct and filibuster, they are heroes (see Wendy Davis in Texas).

John R is, unlike me, not a diehard partisan. He said that what the GOP I saying they will do, is no different than what the Dems have done repeatedly. My favorite was when Ted Kennedy was grilling Clarence Thomas about the way Thomas treated women. Because Ted Kennedy has a lot of moral authority in that area, right?

[wdmso]

Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration when a Vacancy opened .. Technically this hasn't happen yet but the Republicans have hinted as much


Historical precedence :Reagan appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States ..

But OMG Obama might appoint One



2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The president followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration when a Vacancy opened .. Technically this hasn't happen yet but the Republicans have hinted as much

The only times in history when a President has APPOINTED (temporarily) a Supreme Court Justice were those times when the Senate was in recess. And for those Judges to be able to retain their appointments, the Senate had to approve them when it came back in session.

You keep repeating the same mistake because you don't seem to grasp the simple notion that the President NOMINATES a potential Judge who must then be APPOINTED by the advice and consent of the Senate. Appointment is a process in which the Senate has at least as much, if not more, say as the President. The President cannot unilaterally APPOINT, except temporarily in extreme circumstance, a Supreme Court Justice. The Founders would NEVER have given one person the power to summarily and permanently APPOINT someone to such a high and fundamental position as a Supreme Court Judge. That would be outside their fundamental concept of separation of powers with its checks and balances. It would create a tyrannical power of one branch of the Federal Government over the others. It would strip The People of any say over those who would judge them. It would be a despotism which totally destroyed the Constitution they wrote.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The only times in history when a President has APPOINTED (temporarily) a Supreme Court Justice were those times when the Senate was in recess. And for those Judges to be able to retain their appointments, the Senate had to approve them when it came back in session.

You keep repeating the same mistake because you don't seem to grasp the simple notion that the President NOMINATES a potential Judge who must then be APPOINTED by the advice and consent of the Senate. Appointment is a process in which the Senate has at least as much, if not more, say as the President. The President cannot unilaterally APPOINT, except temporarily in extreme circumstance, a Supreme Court Justice. The Founders would NEVER have given one person the power to summarily and permanently APPOINT someone to such a high and fundamental position as a Supreme Court Judge. That would be outside their fundamental concept of separation of powers with its checks and balances. It would create a tyrannical power of one branch of the Federal Government over the others. It would strip The People of any say over those who would judge them. It would be a despotism which totally destroyed the Constitution they wrote.

I incorrectly used appointment rather than Nomination as you said... but it dosn't change my question > but thanks for the Civics lesson.. I in no way shape or form have I suggested what you have written I never mentioned recess appointments.. I incorrectly used a term.. you caught that but couldn't figure the context of my question?

. I have only expressed where in History? Has a Sitting president be told don't even forward a nomination ( not appointment ) for advice and consent...

you dont think this is the kinda of behavior that creates that tyrannical power of one branch which you wrote ^^^^

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate should not confirm a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia until after the 2016 election

yet historically: from the NY times The Senate has never taken more than 125 days to vote on a successor from the time of nomination; on average, a nominee has been confirmed, rejected or withdrawn within 25 days. When Justice Antonin Scalia died, 342 days remained in President Obama’s term.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration when a Vacancy opened .. Technically this hasn't happen yet but the Republicans have hinted as much


Historical precedence :Reagan appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States ..

But OMG Obama might appoint One



2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The president followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet

He has 2 justices appointed to the Supreme Court.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...y_Barack_Obama
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration when a Vacancy opened .. Technically this hasn't happen yet but the Republicans have hinted as much


Historical precedence :Reagan appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States ..

But OMG Obama might appoint One



2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The president followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet

"Please show me in history when a sitting POTUS was threatened to be Denied the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Judge for consideration "

Never, I believe, including now. Has a Republican senator said he would "take away" Obama's ability to nominate someone? Not sure the Constitution allows that. Obama is free to nominate anyone he wants, the Senate is then free to reject them, just like the Dems did when they controlled the Senate under Bush, correct, or no? What McConnell sais, is the same thing Schumer said when there was 18 months left in Bush's presidency. Were you equally appalled by that?

This is politics at its ugliest, and most hypocritical. Both sides are critical of each other, knowing full well that if the situation were reversed, they'd be doing the same thing.

Let me say this...you were very dismissive of the 2014 midterms, and the effect they should have. Seems like you only think that "elections have consequences" when your side wins? Our republic was deliberately set up so that the legislative branch was the most powerful. In the most recent federal elections, the American people voted resoundingly to give control of the Senate to the GOP. No sane person can say they are surprised when the Senators do the job they were elected to do. I doubt any of the newly-elected GOP Senators ran on the pledge to tilt the balance of the SCCOTUS to the left.


"Reagan appointed three Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States ..

But OMG Obama might appoint One "

Reagan didn't give the Senate all the reason they needed, to hate him. This is the most insulting, dismissive President of my lifetime, in terms of how he treats those who disagree with him. Now he expects them to play ball on something of this magnitude? You reap what you sow.