Antonin Scalia, 1936-2016

-->
Supreme Court

I’m struggling to maintain my composure.

From now on, poor Clarence Thomas will need to consult a Ouija board to write his opinions.

Share Button
23 Comments

23 Comments

  1. Tom_b  •  Feb 13, 2016 @7:42 pm

    “Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the intellectual cornerstone of the court’s modern conservative wing,”

    cough, cough.

    Now what? Kagan and Sotomayor joined the court 2009 and 2010. Confirmation requires a Senate vote. At this time, the United States does not have a Senate.

  2. Doug  •  Feb 13, 2016 @8:01 pm

    I won’t rejoice in his passing, but I hold the decisions and statements of Sclaia in contempt.

    What’s interesting is how the wagons are circling. Cruz (and others) are claiming Obama can’t make a nomination until after the election. I’ve been reading up on the confirmation powers of the Senate and the authority of the president to make interim appointments while the Senate is not in session. On wonders, after five months (hypothetically) of the Senate refusing to consider an Obama appointment, where will the SCOTUS be if the president makes an interim appointment in violation of the previous decision. (That decision ruled that the pro-forma sham sessions of the Senate while the Senate is in recess CAN block the president’s power to make appointments.) Will the USSC affirm the right of the Senate to leave the USSC a deadlocked and impotent body for as long as it takes for the Senate majority to change to the president’s party OR the reverse?

    Roberts has been unpredictable on purely Constitutional questions – and this one is a doozie. The Senate can refuse an appointment in a timely fashion, and that’s not something the court can review – but will the Roberts court allow the Senate to dither forever for partisan reasons? If Obama makes an interim appointment after the Senate has declared a purely partisan position of obstruction…. will the High Court confirm it as a Constitutional process?

  3. c u n d gulag  •  Feb 13, 2016 @8:38 pm

    If either the Senate, or Roberts, allows Obama to make either a permanent or even an interim repacement, the shock of that will put me in about the same place where Scalia now resides – if you believe in that sort of thing – just not in as low a ‘Circle of Hell!’
    At least I hope not…

    And right about now, our Founding Fathers are schooling Scalia via exteremely long-distance, just how wrong he and his cabal of idiotic “Originalist’s” in the Federalist Society have been all along!

    We are about to see battles in DC that might make the ones in that area during the Civil War, seem tame!

    I guess it’ll be Alito with his hand up that puppet, Clarence Thomas’, ass from here on out.

  4. Buckyblue  •  Feb 13, 2016 @9:11 pm

    I’m sorry. Me and my family whooped praises on hearing of Scalia’s passing. Most have earned some sense of decorum, but not him. His damage had been deep and long lasting. Thank the Great Spaghetti Monster he’s dead.

  5. Doug  •  Feb 13, 2016 @9:15 pm

    CUND Gulag – How are the originalists going to justify a year of obstruction when the intent of the framers is clear with the provision of interim appointments – which more than suggests to me that the original intent was that appointments and confirmations be made fairly quickly?

    Second – if the USSC confirms obstruction as Constitutional policy, they make themselves as a body, a mere appendage of the Senate, instead of independent of it. That’s a VERY bad precedent to set if you place any priority at all on your own survival.

  6. c u n d gulag  •  Feb 13, 2016 @10:23 pm

    Doug,
    I don’t know how, but McConnell and Roberts, and a sea of socio/psycho-paths in the Senate, the Federalist Society, and every conservative pundit, and anyone even loosely associated with the legal profession, will try to do whatever they can to obstruct any nomination by Obama.

    The SCOTUS is too critical to their long-term plans to turn this representative democracy into a Theocratic “Christian” Fascistic Plutocracy, for the Court to be any less than even.
    They’ll settle for a 4-4 tie in the meantime, in the hopes of winning the Presidincy, and keeping the Senate.
    That obstruction will not look too good for non-aligned voters, but, you know the MSM will do the “both sides do it,” by bringing up Bork.

    I hope, just to f*ck with ’em, the first name Obama brings up as a repacement, will be Anita Hill!

    And then, Obama can look for another SC nominee, one to replace Clarence Thomas, whose head will have exploded at mere mention of her name!!!

    I kid.
    President Obama is too responsible a person, for tom-foolery like that.
    Too bad…

  7. DRickard  •  Feb 13, 2016 @11:12 pm

    Anyone want to open a pool for how long before Trump/Cruz/Limbaugh/Breitbrats accuse Obama of having Scalia assassinated? I’m betting before noon Sunday….

  8. Bill Bush  •  Feb 13, 2016 @11:13 pm

    At least tonight’s Republican SC debate is showing them for what they are: the political equivalent of WWW/WWE.

  9. janinsanfran  •  Feb 13, 2016 @11:23 pm

    Unfortunately, Justice Thomas is quite capable of trying to promote his own jurisprudence without Nino. I just hope this means he is less successful.

  10. uncledad  •  Feb 13, 2016 @11:56 pm

    “Justice Thomas is quite capable of trying to promote his own jurisprudence without Nino”

    Really, he hasn’t said two words since he’s been on the bench and has never not once differed from Scalia. His wife is pretty smart (evil) Clarence is a stump? A friend of mine asked: “what is Clarence Thomas gonna do now”? I said he should climb in the casket with his buddy!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sbN0-mcjoQ

  11. uncledad  •  Feb 14, 2016 @12:08 am

    “Cruz (and others) are claiming Obama can’t make a nomination until after the election”

    Is that in Ted’s pocket constitution somewhere? I don’t recall reading that a president in his second term loses executive authority in the last year, that sounds like something new?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6FZwVvS8_8

  12. uncledad  •  Feb 14, 2016 @12:25 am

    The climbing in the casket, maybe not, but I’m excited to live in a world without Antonin Scalia.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTG7ZxO3-sE

  13. Swami  •  Feb 14, 2016 @12:36 am

    I’m not broken up..At 79 years old he wasn’t cheated a day. I feel for his wife and children, but for our country..it’s good riddance.

  14. uncledad  •  Feb 14, 2016 @1:19 am

    “I feel for his wife and children”

    I wonder? Think about it. Is it possible for a person to be so loathed by the masses but loved by a few? The only strangers that like him do so because he irritates people they hate. No one really likes him do they?

  15. Swami  •  Feb 14, 2016 @2:14 am

    uncledad… For me it’s not a personal thing. It’s the power that they yield and and the spirit in which they yield it. In Scalia’s case it was the haughtiness, both spiritually and intellectually, he exuded that I’m glad to see go to the grave.
    I guess what I’m trying to express is a secular variant of the Christian proverb of hate the sin, but love the sinner.

  16. Swami  •  Feb 14, 2016 @2:28 am

    Clarence is going to be lost..I suppose he’s going to attach himself to Alito.

    Woe is me, woe is me! Whats I’m gonna do, Ginny?

  17. Procopius  •  Feb 14, 2016 @3:18 am

    I don’t think Thomas is going to have any problem. He’ll continue to be in perfect sync with Alito and Roberts (except when Roberts does something weird). He never says anything during oral arguments, but he writes his share of opinions. I think it’ll be interesting to see if Roberts changes in any way. How much did “Short Time” influence the chief? And, of course, Kennedy. But I’m sure the Republicans will refuse to approve any nominee from Obama, even if another Democrat wins in November. That’s not a sure thing; I think we’re going to have a bad economy all year, which is bad for the Dems.

  18. grannyeagle  •  Feb 14, 2016 @11:33 am

    Chinese New Year was 2/8, the year of the monkey. Already we have monkey shines. Expect spontaneous and unexpected events. Monkeys are intelligent, playful and they throw poop.
    The cycle of life and death goes on as the world turns. Everyone dies and it appears Scalia had a full life and he died in his sleep. Who doesn’t want to go that way? Initially, I thought, good, now Obama can nominate someone. However, I realized that rejoicing over someone’s death for my own selfish desires is wrong. Scalia’s life is over and wherever he is, he can reflect on his life. There were people who loved him and I’m talking about his family. They will be grieving and that is not an easy process. I have said this before but will repeat myself. Humans are all united, at least spiritually and we come from one source. Call it God, Tao or Cosmos. Maybe his death will be good for the country and maybe not. It really depends on the behavior of those left behind. And so far, IMO, they are behaving badly. With the exception of the President who said he will fulfill his constitutional duty and expect Congress to fulfill theirs. Looks like it will be an interesting summer.

  19. c u n d gulag  •  Feb 14, 2016 @11:53 am

    At least our Reich-wingers are consistant!

    I was not aware that either Obama or Hillary had Scalia killed, were you?

    My question is, if Obama did, then why did he wait until NOW!?!?

    Yeeesh!

  20. Lynne  •  Feb 14, 2016 @12:13 pm
  21. Tom_b  •  Feb 14, 2016 @12:57 pm

    “My question is, if Obama did, then why did he wait until NOW!?!?”

    A week earlier might have saved the planet. The SCOTUS just stayed the clean power plant rule. Sure, they could allow the rule later, but time’s a-Wastin’ for the climate.

    Going pre-Obama, a 2006 departure would have literally saved hundreds of thousands of lives; that’s when Scalia magically created an individual right to bear arms.

    A departure before he disenfranchised the entire state of Florida (Gore/Bush) would also have been much appreciated.

    Not even talking Citizen’s United.

  22. paradoctor  •  Feb 14, 2016 @8:18 pm

    “Constitutional Originalism” is the legal doctrine that a Supreme Court justice must interpret Constitutional questions by standards ostensibly original to the Founders but in fact original to himself.

  23. Swami  •  Feb 15, 2016 @12:42 am

    paradoctor ….Exactly!
    If you can cloak yourself in the mantle of textualism and originalism you create an intellectual buffer of infallibility and unassailability. What better defense in an argument then the ghosts of the past.
    You see that dynamic constantly at work in Christian circles when they defend their scriptures.. “Don’t disagree with me, this is what God says, so go disagree with him.”



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile