64 responses to “Justice Antonin Scalia, 1936 – 2016”

1. 

   Bill Tozer

   15 February 2016

   Paul, Obama will select somebody. To expect that a cage match fight to the death will not occur is pure fantasyland. There is too much at stake for both sides. Way too much. Right now it is all bluster talk and posturing on both sides. Let’s see what goes down, instead of the usual “it’s not fair” or they did it first”, or in this case “they did it too.” It’s politics, Paul, not collegiate debating teams trying to win an argument. Bloody politics at its finest and best. You aren’t one of those fossils that believe we send people to Washington to get along, are you? Nah, nobody is that naive.
   If it makes you take some comfort, the vast vast vast majority of Dems and Repubs hate the other side more than they like their party and would NEVER vote for the other party’s candidate. This is true for independents as well. If you are a Right leaning Indie, curses on the Left’s nominees.. If you are a Left leaning Indie, you ain’t going to ever like the Right.
   Wake up. This is what both sides are expected to. Then, when the dust settles after a brawl, both sides will still hate the other side more than they like their own party, be it win, lose, or draw. Reality is what it is and it is not a manual you pull off the shelf.
   Let the games begin.

   LikeLike

2. 

   George Rebane

   16 February 2016

   To the middle-road reader of an independent mind, I point out the evidence in these pages over the years that the Left never acknowledges reciprocal behavior on their part. They have learned from gurus like Saul Alinsky that you only attack with charges fitting the narrative that the Right is the only villain in Washington while the Left is there to serve the people from whom the rich regularly steal their wealth. The Scalia replacement debate is a classic example of this.
   BTW, if you want to see the ‘balance’ on rightwing media, just look at Chris Wallace interviewing Marco Rubio last Sunday on Fox. Rachel Maddow could take notes on how to go after someone with gratuitous broadsides and no substantive questions – unheard of on MSNBC.

   LikeLike

3. 

   Gregory

   16 February 2016

   An interesting hysterical perspective… “His Accidency”, elected as Vice President to the short lived President Harrison, 10th President John Tyler, the first President to have a veto overturned, had two SCOTUS vacancies to fill, was allowed to fill only one (just barely before his term ended), with one blocked for well over two years. Four of his nominees were rejected.
   The Senate is charged with advice and CONSENT.

   LikeLike

4. 

   Bill Tozer

   16 February 2016

   AS
   https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208407554203719&set=a.1485860103765.66994.1151776259&type=3&theater

   LikeLike

5. 

   Bill Tozer

   16 February 2016

   Antonin Scalia’s shoes will be hard to fill.
   http://patriotpost.us/articles/40698

   LikeLike

6. 

   Bill Tozer

   17 February 2016

   Go Senator Obama, go!
   https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10204132089341082&set=a.1054655265226.8374.1791166376&type=3&theater

   LikeLike

7. 

   Barry Pruett

   17 February 2016

   Remember also that nothing in the Constiution requires the President to make a nomination. There is no required number of justices on the Supreme Court.

   LikeLike

8. 

   George Rebane

   17 February 2016

   BarryP 318pm – Now that is an interesting and relevant observation Barry.

   LikeLike

9. 

   Gregory

   18 February 2016

   One more:

   [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court…

   The Senate is not charged with merely determining the competence of the appointee, in fact, the Constitution does not specify any requirements; it’s all what the President and the Senate want. If Obama wants to appoint someone this Senate will consent to, I suggest he find the most liberal Originalist he can find. Isn’t there even one left-liberal jurist who believes in original intent?
   Otherwise, a new Justice can wait until next January or February, a fraction of the time the Sentate waited for Tyler, the Hero of Tippecanoe, to vacate the office.

   LikeLike

10. 

    Bill Tozer

    19 February 2016

    Ah, a history lesson for our liberals breathing hard into brown paper bags.
    https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/a.217983685002343.55586.217926015008110/795858937214812/?type=3&theater
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/eight-is-enough-for-now/article/2001151

    LikeLike

11. 

    Barry Pruett

    19 February 2016

    Great history lesson. Thank you.

    LikeLike

12. 

    Jon

    19 February 2016

    Worst case scenario- Obama will get his nominee in the first 20 days of January 2017 (Senate is then majority Democrat).
    Otherwise, there will be a Progressive justice seated within the next year.
    Original intent doctrine is total BS and most Americans, and nearly all millennial voters know it.

    LikeLike

13. 

    George Rebane

    19 February 2016

    Jon 757pm – Claiming to share the ‘knowledge of the millennials’ is a dubious place to be, but so noted.

    LikeLike

14. 

    Todd Juvinall

    19 February 2016

    Honestly, the “jon” truly is a dumbass about all the issues here. The Senate is R and if it turns D there still is the filibuster and 60 votes. A reading of the Constitution must be too difficult for the “:jon” as he has no idea what those words mean. I truly feel sorry for the dope.

    LikeLike