Justice Antonin Scalia, 1936

About

February 2016
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Justice Antonin Scalia, 1936 – 2016

14 February 2016

Our country’s loss, the magnitude of which we will soon suffer. Thank you, and rest in peace Justice Scalia

Posted in Happenings, Our Country

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

fish

14 February 2016

Godspeed Justice Scalia!
I never thought I would find myself in agreement with swinish little lefty homunculi like Bruce Levy?!

brucelevy says:
February 13, 2016 at 9:32 pm
You know what? At this point, with the a**hole dying, the court now leans left. With stalemates the lower court rulings will now hold as law. I hope the right holds up nominations for YEARS. These morons are blinded by their own lunacy. They finally have enough rope to hang themselves and lose both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency.
Reply

Looking forward to some serious harshing of the lefty mellows during the next presidential term.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

14 February 2016

I think I have something in my intestinal track called a “bruce levy” The ailment makes a person a cynical prick and hated by all for its “classless” symptoms.

LikeLike
Gregory

14 February 2016

bork
verb: bork; 3rd person present: borks; past tense: borked; past participle: borked; gerund or present participle: borking; verb: Bork; 3rd person present: Borks; gerund or present participle: Borking; past tense: Borked; past participle: Borked
obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) through systematic defamation or vilification.
“is fear of borking scaring people from public office?”
Let’s remember the entire Bork episode was because Democrats decided Reagan was not to be allowed to change the balance on the court when a moderate retired. It took three tries before the moderate Kennedy was nominated by Reagan and confirmed by the DEM Senate.
Let’s also remember it was a Democrat, Sen Strom Thurmond, who set the precedent that Supremes shouldn’t be nominated and confirmed during Presidential election year silly seasons, and the 2016 Silly Season is in full swing already,
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

LikeLike
George Rebane

14 February 2016

Gregory 122pm – Well said and timely.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

14 February 2016

Justice Scalia also said it well.
https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/a.217983685002343.55586.217926015008110/794388050695234/?type=3&theater

LikeLike
Gregory

14 February 2016

Over at the Purple Pissant blog, one of the blissfully ignorant writes,

brucelevy on February 14, 2016 at 12:34 pm
In a similar situation, with the tables turned, during an election year, the Democrats helped confirm Kennedy to the Supreme Court and the final vote was 97-0. That’s what would and did happen.

Golly, Bruce, for that pattern to be followed this time, Obama should nominate an unqualified leftist, followed by a most highly qualified leftist, and then relenting by finally nominating a respected conservative originalist as the Senate desires. I think the GOP Senate would be happy with that but waiting until 2017 is more likely.
A split decision means the lower court decision stands in that District. That is all. Life will continue.The Union will survive.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

14 February 2016

I think we should all listen to Chucky.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007-dont-confirm-any-bush-supreme-court-nominee/article/2583283

LikeLike
Russ Steele

14 February 2016

COULD OBAMA MAKE A RECESS APPOINTMENT TO REPLACE SCALIA?:
The answer appears to be “yes,” because (once again), the GOP-controlled Senate voluntarily has left itself vulnerable to the exercise of such presidential power. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution gives the President power to fill vacancies “during the recess of the Senate”:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
ooo
But there is another potential wrinkle. Specifically, the Congressional Record of February 12 shows that Senate declared that it would be in pro forma session (where a member of the Senate gavels in and gavels out every few days), declaring:
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that when the Senate completes its business on Friday, February 12, 2016, it adjourn, to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Monday, February 15, 2016, at 11:00 a.m., and Thursday, February 18, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.; and that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, February 18, 2016, it next convene at 3:00 p.m., on Monday, February 22, 2016, unless the Senate receives a message from the House of Representatives that it has adopted S. Con. Res. 31; and that if the Senate receives such a message, it stand adjourned until 3:00 p.m., on Monday, February 22, 2016.
Notice, however, that the pro forma status of the Senate’s recess is made conditional: “unless the Senate receives a message from the House of Representatives that it has adopted S. Con. Res. 31; and that if the Senate receives such a message, it stand [sic] adjourned until 3:00 p.m., on Monday, February 22, 2016.”
This matters because if the Senate is in pro forma session, the Noel Canning majority agreed that such pro forma sessions will block the president’s recess appointment power:
We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.
Unfortunately for the GOP Senate, however, the GOP-controlled House agreed to S. Con. Res. 31 on February 12 without objection. This means that under the plain language of S. Con. Res 31, the Senate is “in recess”–and not in pro forma session.
If this is indeed the case, the Senate is presently in the midst of a 10-day recess (not a pro forma session), and under Noel Canning, President Obama possesses the power to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court until noon on February 22, when the Senate comes back in session.
H/T PJMedia
The question is will Obama try to push through a recess appointment? Since a large segment of the US populations think the Court is already too liberal. Would a recess appointment assure a Republican Presidential Win and stranglehold on the Senate and House? Thoughts?

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

14 February 2016

Who would litigate the case? What a hoot!

LikeLike
Paul Emery

14 February 2016

Word is Obama is going to nominate Condoleezza Rice for the Supreme Court.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

14 February 2016

Paul, didn’t you mean Susan Rice? 🙂

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

14 February 2016

Susan Rice. The liar who said the video caused Benghazi. Those libs always get promoted for the immense incompetence.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

14 February 2016

Well, as long as the rice is authentic.

LikeLike
Larry Wirth

14 February 2016

Condi would be confirmed in minutes. That’s why Paul has Condi confused with the Susan thing… L

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

14 February 2016

That’s Dr. Condi, an excellent concert pianist and avid sports fan. Many talents to add to her brilliant intellect coupled with steadfast intellectual curiosity. And has an abundance of humility and the heart of a servant. Dr. Condi Rice would be a shoo in if she has the appropriate legal background. That I do not know.
However, I see a stumbling block in the path to the nomination:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html

LikeLike
Gregory

14 February 2016

The Purple Pissant himself wrote in apparent response to my 5:11:

Whenever I read [Gregory]’s comments, complete with the personal attacks, in the local hard-right blogosphere, I’m reminded that he’s seems like a fellow who is in a world of personal hurt.

Personal attacks? Moi? You’re the master at that, Jeff.
A world of personal hurt? Sorry, your schadenfreude cravings will have to find someone else to feed on, Jeff. I’m just here reminding readers any GOP refusal to allow Obama to change the balance of the court has been done in the past by the left.

LikeLike
Don Bessee

14 February 2016

Is the Dark Lord of liberal lament land getting all crabby on the day of the Mardi Gras parade?

LikeLike
jon smith

15 February 2016

I’m no doctor but I watched a lot of Perry Mason. Scalia “died of natural causes so no autopsy is needed.” Just HOW do they know he died of natural causes and not an overdose of sleeping pills or a dollop of plutonium in his wine or somebody smothered him with that pillow they found over his head. This rreeks to high heaven. Scalia is one of the highest profile people in this nation and some country doc simply wings cause of death??

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

15 February 2016

Some websites are reporting he was found with a pillow over his face.Yikes!

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

15 February 2016

Boy, this is manna from heaven for Hillary. This great news just wiped with a cloth those IG, State, and FBI nuisances from the campaign news, along with her struggles to get people to like her. She needed a break and man o man, did she ever catch a lifeboat.
Nobody goes lower to make a kill than the Clintons. More slime than Bernie has ever encountered in his long career. Remember, we are talking about the Clintons here. They won’t, unlike Justice Scalia, take losing living down. Poor Scalia never knew what hit him.
If you think I am joking, maybe, maybe not. To repeat, remember we are dealing with the Clintons here. We are yet to see the depths of their boundaries, nor anything too sleazy to be beyond their morals. They be amoral folks. More than one Clinton accuser has fled the country in the dead of night in fear of imminent death, never to be heard of or found again. Guess some people can’t take a joke.

LikeLike
Jon

15 February 2016

LOL x 1,000,000

LikeLike
fish

15 February 2016

Posted by: Jon | 15 February 2016 at 11:41 AM
Nooooo! Not times a million! Not that!
Why must you wound us so????

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

15 February 2016

Well, if it was anybody but the Clintons, I would think that was crazy as well. Obama? No. Sanders’ boys? Nope. Clintons? Hmm. Can’t discount it out of hand.
https://www.facebook.com/forshitzngigglz/photos/a.944176985662980.1073741828.944159288998083/963260750421270/?type=3&theater

LikeLike
Walt

15 February 2016

I’m with Mr. Smith. “deemed dead by natural causes” by a phone call, and no autopsy
is not the way things should be done. Even in Texas.
When my dear Mother passed away at 93 here at home, an autopsy was required by law.
Besides. the ranch is owned by an Obama buddy I hear.
What better way to save “O”‘s legacy that was in deep trouble with the SCOTUS. How many of “O”‘s actions were in front of this court?(Plenty) So off one of the judges to save the day.
Funny how the LIBS are screaming about “Constitutionality”. “O” and the LIBS have given the Constitution the finger as often as possible.

LikeLike
Jon

15 February 2016

Walt, I see there’s a petition around to start an investigation into Scalia’s potential murder…
..LOL x 1,000,000..

LikeLike
fish

15 February 2016

Posted by: Jon | 15 February 2016 at 04:28 PM
Yeah….pretty wacky! Almost as wacky as the petition to nominate Eric Holder to take his place on the court.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

15 February 2016

Well, I have no proof of Hillary getting blood on her yellow cool mod hip poncho. I do see a big disconnect between her actions for the last 25 years and her nothing to see here words, “Its those mean Republicans again who can’t stomach to see an woman as President.”. Sure, it is probably just a coincidence, happens all the time. And I have seen some weird coincidences in my time that are just coincidences. Like,” running over a garden hose has nothing to do with your internet going down at the exact same time, madam.” And they are convicted it was cause and effect and nothing will ever convince them otherwise, in this hypothetical example.
A saying I like is a coincidence is when God does something and chooses to remain anonymous.
Yo Walt, you might like this. Start at the middle of the second page to save time. “I hear what you say, but there are some things that don’t add up.”
https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/hillary-dead-end-campaign/?singlepage=true
.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

15 February 2016

It’s disgusting that the Pubbers are making politics over this while his body is still warm. Vultures circling over road kill is the best analogy.

LikeLike
Jon

15 February 2016

Ginsburg did it, with a pillow…:)

LikeLike
fish

15 February 2016

Posted by: Paul Emery | 15 February 2016 at 06:31 PM
I chuckle everytime you reveal your naiveté about politics.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

15 February 2016

Fish
It’s not about naiveté it’s about common human cf decency.

LikeLike
Walt

15 February 2016

Hay Paul.. How bout the LIBS hypocrisy before he’s even cold? All of a sudden they found Jesus where the Constitution is concerned.
And “jon”… A million? show your work,, common core style. That should keep you busy and quiet for a while.

LikeLike
Walt

15 February 2016

Fish.. Loretta Lynch takes the prize.(GOD help us)

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

15 February 2016

Paul Emery talking about hypocrisy? LOL!

LikeLike
fish

15 February 2016

Posted by: Paul Emery | 15 February 2016 at 06:48 PM
So “common human decency” involves Obama gleefully rubbing his hands together over another potential appointment.
Silly me…..I forgot…..when the democrats do it it isn’t politics……it’s “doing the peoples business”.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

15 February 2016

Fish
we are talking about this specific situation. It is his Constitutional duty and respect for the voters who elected him to make an appointment reflecting his choice. Would you expect anything different from any President in that situation?

LikeLike
drivebyposter

15 February 2016

“It’s disgusting that the Pubbers are making politics over this while his body is still warm.”
The ‘Pubbers’? (I assume this is some diminutive form of ‘Republican’).
Wow, you didn’t check out the more well known Progressive/Democratic websites that day. I’d say there’s equal opportunity poor manners going on out there. The dancing on the grave action was quite a sight to behold.
The hay to be made becomes an interesting sort of metapolitics. There are a ton of blogs, forum posts, and the like carrying on about how the bad guys (‘Pubbers’ in this case) are going to fire up a bunch of conspiracy theories for political gain. This happened before the actual conspiracy theories hit the net to any extent, a form of preemptive shaming I suppose.
As Team Red and Team Blue split the population between them, you can expect more of this demonizing of the other side. IMO, this is less and less about economics and money and more about issues that hit people at deeper levels. These secular cycles can be pretty ugly as asabiyya breaks down.

LikeLike
Gregory

15 February 2016

At the Purple Pissant’s:

stevefrisch says:
February 15, 2016 at 10:39 am
Sometimes it is really difficult to figure out who the most depraved lying POS on Nevada County blogs is…..Todd? George? Walt? Tozer? Fish? Russ?…..who could it be?

I nominate Steven Frisch (aka “Jon”), 6 figure CEO of the wretchedly misnamed Sierra Business Council for the dishonor.

LikeLike
Gregory

15 February 2016

“It’s disgusting that the Pubbers are making politics over this while his body is still warm.”-Paul Emery
Paul, had the Democrats not started squealing with delight the moment it was announced Scalia’s body was at room temperature, Republicans wouldn’t have started reciting the Democratic standard procedure to not go forward with Supremes nominations in election years and not allowing a distinct shift in court balance when the Senate was not held by the President’s party. Had Bork been treated by Democrats the way Sotomayor and Kagan were treated by Republicans, there would have been a lurch to the Right a long time ago.
For the record, I was opposed to Bork on a basic point: he seemed to think Rights were granted by the Constitution rather than reserved by the people unless power was specifically ceded to the Government. By my way of thinking, not a small point.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

15 February 2016

Well spoken Driveby However, the Pubsters may have overstepped by announcing that any nominee is DOA regardless of qualifications. They could have at least gone through the motions and and pretended to give a fair hearing.
so now the Dems can put up someone like Loretta Lynch who has already been thoroughly vetted before being appointed Attorney General would arouse the Dem base this fall. Tom Goldstein, who runs the influential SCOTUS blog writes “Goldstein wrote.
“I think the administration would relish the prospect of Republicans either refusing to give Lynch a vote or seeming to treat her unfairly in the confirmation process,” Goldstein wrote. “Either eventuality would motivate both black and women voters.”
I don’t get it why the Repubs took on such a foolish tactic.

LikeLike
George Rebane

15 February 2016

The Senate’s vetting and passing someone to serve in a President’s cabinet is quite a different matter than doing the same for someone who will hold a lifetime job in the third branch of government. The former has often been done in a pro-forma manner as a courtesy for the President to be able to serve with Cabinet that he wants, since he will ultimately be responsible for all his administration does and fails to do. That is not the case with the SCOTUS justices.

LikeLike
Gregory

15 February 2016

Paul, if Obama nominates a jurist with a similar judicial philosophy as Scalia, they’ll have smooth sailing. Otherwise, sauce for the Democratic goose is sauce for the Republican Gander. The precedent was set by Senate Democrats of the past who believed liberal or moderate justices must be replaced with the same, at least if Democrats were the majority in the Senate.
If it is improper for that to hold when the GOP controls the Senate and a lame duck Democrat is in the Oval Orifice, please, let us know why.

LikeLike
Gregory

15 February 2016

“I don’t get it why the Repubs took on such a foolish tactic.”
Because no Senator up for reelection this cycle will get reelected if they fail to stop a lurch to the left undoing Scalia’s life’s work.
Be honest, Paul. It would be political malpractice for them to not do what Democrats have done with no remorse in the past.

LikeLike
Paul Emery

15 February 2016

Gregory
But Obama was elected to nominate someone with a view similar to his supporters. My main interest is how this plays out politically and the Dems have a decided edge here by using the premature declaration by the Repubs to block any nomination to illustrate that they are obstructionists, something that did not play well when they shut down the gov a couple years ago.

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

15 February 2016

Elected to nominate someone of similar views? Who says? Wasn’t Earl Warren a Republican? And he turned into the biggest leftist ever. Same for the one George H.W. got on th court. The lib always vet correctly while the dopey Republicans just want to get along. Then their picks come back to screw over the country.
I think the game is being played as it should be. The outcomes are the same.

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

15 February 2016

Hypocrisy aside, the Prez should nominate someone to the High Court when his selection process is over.
You know the routine. Vet the next black robed one. Meet with the Prez, have a Senator or two drive him/her around and introduce the future appointee to a select group of Senators. More vetting. Then the arm twisting from the White House and finally the confirmation hearing. Nothing will be done until after March Madness. Priorities and that kind of stuff.
Until O sends out a name of his preferred Honorable Discharge, we will have to wait. But speculation is fun. I think a former judge such as The Honorable Eric Holder would be a good middle of the road choice both the left and right could rally around. He is the right color. Loretta Lynch is another name that would be a good centrist choice. Not only is she the right color, she also is the right gender (on her good days). And there is The Reverend Al. He is the right color and who else can claim he was James Brown’s roadie? Opps, make that road manager. He is qualified enough with that experience.
BTW, as soon as I read the breaking news about Silicia’s passing (before any details were released, aka, soon to be announced), the first article I read was the Dems had already pumped out e-mails to donors and supporters using Silicia’s death as a immediate need to solicite stone coldmoney to ensure the Good Guys would get the right kind of ideologue put into the vacant slot.
Those Dems are all about money. Last I read the DNC had 23 million cash on hand and 26 million in debts, lol. Go Debbi, go! Republican had about 26 million on hand and 3 million in debts. Different way of doing things I suppose. Quick, send money cause Silicia kicked the bucket. It’s an emergency! Keep those cards and pledges coming!

LikeLike
Don Bessee

15 February 2016

PE- The R Senators have the mandate to advise and consent. Consent is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch wishes. How and when they do that is under the rules of the Senate. See Chuck Schumer’s lets wait 17 months video for reference. There is no valid argument that the people who elected the R Senators expect them to give up their power to protect the constitution as they see fit as a separate branch of govt. just so 0 gets one on the way out the door. Let the people vote. 😉

LikeLike
Bill Tozer

15 February 2016

PS. No disrespect intended towards the dearly departed and his loved ones, but I misspelled Justice Antonin Scalia’s name on purpose just to make the FAT ONE think he “got you now” and have him rubs his hands together, start typing furiously while creaming his trousers (made by Ozzie the Tentmaker).. Sorry, but it was too much fun to pass up.
It will all work out. Now, if Lynch throws Hillary in the slammer for 25 to life on concurrent charges, then I might see her in a different light. But, I must say that Lynch may not be an appropriate name for a Supreme Court member. What will historians say?

LikeLike
Gregory

15 February 2016

Paul, Democrats declared prematurely that Reagan WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to replace a moderate with a conservative on the court. Democrats also declared election years were not appropriate for SCOTUS appointments.
Republicans apparently agree.

LikeLike
Gregory

15 February 2016

Paul, here’s Schumer, in 2007, advising blocking any possible Supremes nomination GW Bush might get at the end of his term.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/
Lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court are always a mix of judicial temperment, experience, philosophy and politics. The GOP made nice for Sotomayor and for Kagan. They might have gone along with a liberal had it been Ginsberg checking out. They won’t be making nice for a left-liberal to take the place of Scalia.

LikeLike