Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead at 79

Scalia is dead! That is great news for the nation! Hopefully, he will be replaced with a more reasoned, intelligent, and moral justice who actually respects the law. I'm thrilled. God blessed the United States today. Hopefully, Scalia will be replaced by a justice who will not use the court to advance a political ideology at the expense of the rule of law and the common man. Hopefully Scalia will be replaced by a person who respects the rule of law over the rule of ideology. Hopefully, we can get a better Supreme Court. Scalia and his so called "conservative" cohorts (i.e. Koch brother sycophants) on the court have set a very low bar. It's now safe to say, Scalia will never again attend another Koch brother secret political strategy session. Thank God for that!

The question is will the Republican controlled Senate approve Obama's nomination? I suspect it won't. But if the Senate doesn't approve Obama's nomination, it's very possible the court could become deadlocked. Scalia's death may well place the Supreme Court at the forefront of the general election this year.

The wicked witch is dead! The US Supreme Court is no longer just an appendage of the Republican Party! That's great news for Americans and for the world.

joepistole said:

... The question is will the Republican controlled Senate approve Obama's nomination? ... ...

Click to expand...

Probably yes, if he named Hillary C. They are confident they could beat "socialist" Bernie. She might accept - it is a life-time job of great importance, not only an uncertain chance at becoming POTUS.

One of the first great things she could help do is to reverse "citizen united" (I think it is called) - The high courts damaging ruling that “money is free speech” and thus can not be limited even though it is killing democracy - making US government one for the rich, by their lobbyists and for the benefit of the 1% PTB.

Billy T said:

Probably yes, if he named Hillary C. They are confident they could beat "socialist" Bernie. She might accept - it is a life-time job of great importance, not only an uncertain chance at becoming POTUS.

One of the first great things she could help do is to reverse "citizen united" (I think it is called) - The high courts damaging ruling that “money is free speech” and thus can not be limited even though it is killing democracy - making US government one for the rich, by their lobbyists and for the benefit of the 1% PTB.

Click to expand...

I don't think Hillary would accept it if it were offered. And I don't think the Senate would approve. But it's certainly an interesting prospect. Republicans would then be free to run against their preferred candidate, Bernie.

The Senate majority leader and senior Republicans have already said there will not be a vote and the nomination should be left to the next POTUS, even though the nation will not have a new POTUS for another year.

And the White House has said it intends to nominate a new justice. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

There are a number of important issues before the court which could easily result in a deadlocked supreme court.

Let me get this system of voting/elections in the USA clear......
[1] Voting is voluntary correct? It's compulsory in Oz.
[2] Each state votes for their party's candidate for President.
[3] So those that want to vote democrat also vote for a Republican candidate? Or you vote for the candidate in your party of choice?
[4]Whoever gets the most votes in the 54 states, in each party is the winner so to speak.
[5]Then the nation as a whole, votes either Republican or Democrat and the elected nominee for President?

So what about the Senate elections?
Also in Australia if the sitting government cannot get legislation passed because of a hostile senate, the PM is able to call a double dissolution for both the House of Reps and Senate.
Anything similar in the states?
Am I on the mark?

As an outsider, my party would be Democrat and nominee Hillary Clinton.

paddoboy said:

Let me get this system of voting/elections in the USA clear......
[1] Voting is voluntary correct? It's compulsory in Oz.
[2] Each state votes for their party's candidate for President.
[3] So those that want to vote democrat also vote for a Republican candidate? Or you vote for the candidate in your party of choice?
[4]Whoever gets the most votes in the 54 states, in each party is the winner so to speak.
[5]Then the nation as a whole, votes either Republican or Democrat and the elected nominee for President?

So what about the Senate elections?
Also in Australia if the sitting government cannot get legislation passed because of a hostile senate, the PM is able to call a double dissolution for both the House of Reps and Senate.
Anything similar in the states?
Am I on the mark?

Click to expand...

voting is voluntary
each state is different, some give all electoral college votes to one candidate, some divide them by disrict.
in the primaries you can only vote in one party, not both
not 54 states
...
senate elections are statewide, lower house representatives are by district
we have no royal nor pm who can dissolve congress and call for a no confidence vote
............
you are close to the mark
sometimes i think the parliamentary system can be a tad more chaotic
but, then again(bta) I am a product of this polity and it's education system.

Paddoboy said:

Let me get this system of voting/elections in the USA clear......
[1] Voting is voluntary correct? It's compulsory in Oz.
[2] Each state votes for their party's candidate for President.
[3] So those that want to vote democrat also vote for a Republican candidate? Or you vote for the candidate in your party of choice?
[4]Whoever gets the most votes in the 54 states, in each party is the winner so to speak.
[5]Then the nation as a whole, votes either Republican or Democrat and the elected nominee for President?

Click to expand...

(1) Yes.

(2) Each state plays a role in determining the parties' candidates. Once the candidates are selected, the presidential race is essentially a competition to win state elections. The result is that apportioned electors are then given to the winning candidate in that state. The first candidate to collect a majority of electors wins.

(3) In the primary process, it depends on how the states' rules work. In some cases, Democrats and Republicans can vote in each others' primaries. In the general election, people tend to vote for their party's candidate, but there is some small crossover. There is also a bloc that tends to call itself independent, but sorts out with pretty consistent votes. But a voter can cast a ballot for whoever they want.

(4) The apportioned electors are the total number of a state's congressional delegation. Two for each state to count for the Senate, and then however many each state has in the House. There are 538 voting electors to be assigned. Whoever wins enough states' electors to achieve two hundred seventy electors or more wins the presidential election.


(5) Democrats and Republicans are a market outcome.

So what about the Senate elections?
Also in Australia if the sitting government cannot get legislation passed because of a hostile senate, the PM is able to call a double dissolution for both the House of Reps and Senate.
Anything similar in the states?
Am I on the mark?

Click to expand...

Senators serve six-year terms; each even-year election, one-third of the Senate is up. These are divided into Class 1, 2, and 3, and as I recall the extra seat is in Class 3. This is a Class 3 cycle; there are thirty-four U.S. Senate seats up for election.

The executive cannot dismiss the legislature; The legislature can remove the executive through impeachment; the history and significance of Article II, Section 3↱―"... he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper ..."―is exactly unclear to me.

→ Edit notes: Correction ― 13 Feb 2016: Account for District of Columbia electors. 3 March 2016: Strike grievous factual error, add reference to correct information, and then settle back in embarrassment.

sculptor said:

voting is voluntary
each state is different, some give all electoral college votes to one candidate, some divide them by disrict.
in the primaries you can only vote in one party, not both
not 54 states
...
senate elections are statewide, lower house representatives are by district
we have no royal nor pm who can dissolve congress and call for a no confidence vote
............
you are close to the mark
sometimes i think the parliamentary system can be a tad more chaotic
but, then again(bta) I am a product of this polity and it's education system.

Click to expand...

Tiassa said:

(1) Yes.

(2) Each state plays a role in determining the parties' candidates. Once the candidates are selected, the presidential race is essentially a competition to win state elections. The result is that apportioned electors are then given to the winning candidate in that state. The first candidate to collect a majority of electors wins.

(3) In the primary process, it depends on how the states' rules work. In some cases, Democrats and Republicans can vote in each others' primaries. In the general election, people tend to vote for their party's candidate, but there is some small crossover. There is also a bloc that tends to call itself independent, but sorts out with pretty consistent votes. But a voter can cast a ballot for whoever they want.

(4) The apportioned electors are the total number of a state's congressional delegation. Two for each state to count for the Senate, and then however many each state has in the House. There are 535 voting electors to be assigned. Whoever wins enough states' electors to achieve two hundred sixty-eight electors or more wins the presidential election.

2012 ― Obama defeats Romney: How the states voted in 2012, by electoral college votes. (Photo via Wikimedia)​

(5) Democrats and Republicans are a market outcome.



Senators serve six-year terms; each even-year election, one-third of the Senate is up. These are divided into Class 1, 2, and 3, and as I recall the extra seat is in Class 3. This is a Class 3 cycle; there are thirty-four U.S. Senate seats up for election.

The executive cannot dismiss the legislature; the legislature can remove the executive.

Click to expand...

Thanks fellas..a bit more clued up now!
What's the general feeling with regards to compulsory voting as it is in Australia?

paddoboy said:

Let me get this system of voting/elections in the USA clear......
[1] Voting is voluntary correct? It's compulsory in Oz.
[2] Each state votes for their party's candidate for President.
[3] So those that want to vote democrat also vote for a Republican candidate? Or you vote for the candidate in your party of choice?
[4]Whoever gets the most votes in the 54 states, in each party is the winner so to speak.
[5]Then the nation as a whole, votes either Republican or Democrat and the elected nominee for President?

So what about the Senate elections?
Also in Australia if the sitting government cannot get legislation passed because of a hostile senate, the PM is able to call a double dissolution for both the House of Reps and Senate.
Anything similar in the states?
Am I on the mark?

Click to expand...

That's not how the US selects a president. Granted, it can be confusing and especially to those do not live inside the US. There are a few requirements to become the POTUS of the US, assuming one meets those conditions, they file notices of their candidacy with federal officials and election officials in all 50 states and the political party of their choice. There are effectively two political parties in the US, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Candidates then begin campaigning for office. Each state holds either a primary election or a caucus in which votes are cast for the candidates. And the rules vary by state. In some states anyone can vote for anyone in others, people can only vote based on your previously declared party affiliation. Based on those votes, delegates are awarded to represent each candidate at the party's convention which is usually held late in the Summer. The political parties control the nomination process. Once each party selects a single candidate, the become the party's nominee. The nominee then campaigns for POTUS against the opposing party's candidate. A national election is held in November and anyone can vote and they can vote for any candidate. That election elects "electors" who cast their votes in the Electoral College and it is the Electoral College who casts the final vote and elects the POTUS.

The US Congress has two houses. The senate and the house of representatives. US Senators are directly elected by residents of a state. Every state is entitled to 2 senators. House members are elected by congressional districts (portions of a state). Congressional districts change, usually every 10 years. Congressional districts are suppose to be awarded to states based on population. Alaska has one congressional district. The state in which I live has 3 congressional districts.

The American POTUS cannot dismiss congress for any reason. He cannot dismiss the senate or the house. He can only recall congress if congress isn't in session. With the increasing radicalization of the US senate, deadlock in congress has become very common.

The US Supreme Court rules on existing law. It's the highest court in the land. Based on early comments, Republicans appear to want to extend deadlock to the US Supreme Court. In recent years the US Supreme Court has become an appendage of the Republican Party. Republicans have controlled 5 of 9 justices on the Supreme Court. With Scalia's death, the court is now balanced. Republicans now only have 4 votes on the US Supreme Court. Given there are a number of highly political cases before the court this year, it is very likely the court could become deadlocked if another Supreme Court justice isn't selected. The president appoints Supreme Court justices but the Senate must approve his nomination. Normally, it is a big deal, but a justice is replaced in a timely fashion. But with the increasing radicalization of the Republican Party, it is becoming more and more difficult and may well result in the position not being filled. It's unprecedented.

paddoboy said:

Thanks fellas..a bit more clued up now!
What's the general feeling with regards to compulsory voting as it is in Australia?

Click to expand...

It's been discussed, but it will never fly in the US. Democrats usual do better with high voter turnout. Republicans generally do less well when voter turnout is high. So Republicans will, tooth and nail, resist compulsory voting. In fact, Republicans have taken extraordinary measures to disenfranchise voters.

joepistole said:

In some states anyone can vote for anyone in others, people can only vote based on your previously declared party affiliation.

Click to expand...

??? The essence of politics in Australia is what we call the "swinging voter" or those that vote according to how the standing parties perform in each's personal opinion.
A complicated system from what I can gather, although politics in Oz is far more cut throat as is evident in having 5 PM's in as many years.

paddoboy said:

??? The essence of politics in Australia is what we call the "swinging voter" or those that vote according to how the standing parties perform in each's personal opinion.
A complicated system from what I can gather, although politics in Oz is far more cut throat as is evident in having 5 PM's in as many years.

Click to expand...

Each state sets up voting requirements for that state. In some states voters can chose to vote for Democratic candidates or Republican candidates without declaring a party affiliation. In others, one must have declared and affiliated with a particular party for a period of time (usually several months) before being allowed to vote in that party's primary. In my state, Democrats can declare a party affiliation on primary day and vote in the Democratic primary. But Republicans must declare a party affiliation 3 months before a primary election in order to participate in the Republican Party primary.

Here is something for Republicans to think about, if Democrats win the general election this year and if Republicans lose the senate as is expected, the next POTUS will be free to nominate a very liberal replacement. Democrats will not be constrained by a Republican senate. With a Supreme Court justice seat on the table, election turnout will surely be high, and Republicans don't do well in high turnout elections.

Thanks all for filling me in somewhat on what I see as a very complicated system.

I did see someone mention royalty somewhere.
Let me say that while officially the Queen and her rep in Australia the Governor General, is the head of state, as she and her reps are for all commonwealth countries, the GG in general is a mere formality in endorsing what the sitting government of the day decrees.
With one very notable exception back in 1975. I don't ever see that happening again, and most probably we may have a referendum on dumping the monarch anyway.
How successful would that be?
Not sure, as mostly Australians are fairly laid back in that regard from what I have personally observed.
Me?, yes, I would vote to make it official and agree with the present PM, Malcolm Turnbull that the referendum be held on the passing of the present British Monarch.

Thanks all for filling me in somewhat on what I see as a very complicated system

Click to expand...

It's not that complicated as a system, noting two things:

1) the States make a lot of their own rules, the US really is a Union of separate States
2) nothing involving the Parties is officially part of the system. The Parties don't need to exist, in theory. They came along later, and everything they do is on their own tick. All these Primaries, for example, are essentially internal Party affairs - although each State has found it necessary to regulate and formalize their behavior.

iceaura said:

1) the States make a lot of their own rules, the US really is a Union of separate States

Click to expand...

As they do also in Australia and with our own system of state governments.

joepistole said:

Scalia is dead! That is great news for the nation! Hopefully, he will be replaced with a more reasoned, intelligent, and moral justice who actually respects the law. I'm thrilled. God blessed the United States today. Hopefully, Scalia will be replaced by a justice who will not use the court to advance a political ideology at the expense of the rule of law and the common man. Hopefully Scalia will be replaced by a person who respects the rule of law over the rule of ideology. Hopefully, we can get a better Supreme Court. Scalia and his so called "conservative" cohorts (i.e. Koch brother sycophants) on the court have set a very low bar. It's now safe to say, Scalia will never again attend another Koch brother secret political strategy session. Thank God for that!

The question is will the Republican controlled Senate approve Obama's nomination? I suspect it won't. But if the Senate doesn't approve Obama's nomination, it's very possible the court could become deadlocked. Scalia's death may well place the Supreme Court at the forefront of the general election this year.

The wicked witch is dead! The US Supreme Court is no longer just an appendage of the Republican Party! That's great news for Americans and for the world.

Click to expand...

Wow dude, really?

I am as left as they come and I was never a fan of the man's decisions, but to celebrate someone's death like that and to claim it is great news? That's not cool at all. In fact, it falls into being morbid. How can you be thrilled that he passed away? Even though he was an ultra-conservative and you disagreed with him doesn't mean you should be acting like this because he died.

He was always clear in the reasons he gave for his decisions. He didn't give them based on his personal beliefs, he was an originalist in that he did not view the Constitution as a living document that grew with the times. I may not have agreed with him, but I respected his sticking to how he interpreted the Constitution and how he viewed it and as awful as his decisions may have been, I think the Supreme Court is poorer because of his loss. He had said in the past that he found many of his decisions personally awful and he did not personally agree with them, but he read the Constitution as it was written. In regards to abortion, gay marriage, etc, he felt that legalising or banning it should be done democratically, through legislation, because the Constitution does not discuss or deal with it directly. He feels that people should vote on such matters.

Ginsburg, for one, will be devastated by his death. They were best friends and they would go out together often and would spend New Years Eve together, not to mention holiday together with their respective families. On a legal standpoint, they challenged each other and he would send her his decision first, so that she could structure her argument against him, because that is what they did best. They rarely agreed, but his respect of her will be forever remembered. And their close friendship is the stuff of legends. He openly wept on the bench when Ginsburg's husband's death was announced and he openly wept when she returned to read her opinion to the Court on a case, because he understood her pain because their families were so close. They didn't agree, but she certainly saw something in him that resulted in an enduring close friendship and bond that saw them holiday together often and spend much time together outside the Court and I defer to her judgement in regards to who he was as a person when out of the limelight of the Court and when he was not trying to insult everyone in anger when he felt he was forced to hear cases that should never have been heard by the SC.

He wasn't a bad man. He wasn't an evil man. He just never believed that the Court should decide on things that he felt should be left to the people to decide. And outside of the Court, he spoke his mind deliberately to get people riled up. It doesn't matter that I disagreed with him on every point and I found his comments offensive. I don't celebrate his death. I don't think anyone should. Despite what many say, he was a great legal mind and he never bowed to pressure to change the Constitution. In that sense, he was a purist. It doesn't matter that I am a polar opposite to Scalia and that I found his comments offensive.

And I think celebrating his death is in poor taste.

Bells said:

Wow dude, really?

Click to expand...

Wow dudette....really?

Bells said:

I am as left as they come and I was never a fan of the man's decisions, but to celebrate someone's death like that and to claim it is great news? That's not cool at all. In fact, it falls into being morbid. How can you be thrilled that he passed away? Even though he was an ultra-conservative and you disagreed with him doesn't mean you should be acting like this because he died.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed, you are as far left as they come. But this isn't about ideology, is it? It's about your ego and the bruises you have sustained over the course of our previous discussions. Isn't it?

Bells said:

He was always clear in the reasons he gave for his decisions. He didn't give them based on his personal beliefs, he was an originalist in that he did not view the Constitution as a living document that grew with the times. I may not have agreed with him, but I respected his sticking to how he interpreted the Constitution and how he viewed it and as awful as his decisions may have been, I think the Supreme Court is poorer because of his loss. He had said in the past that he found many of his decisions personally awful and he did not personally agree with them, but he read the Constitution as it was written. In regards to abortion, gay marriage, etc, he felt that legalising or banning it should be done democratically, through legislation, because the Constitution does not discuss or deal with it directly. He feels that people should vote on such matters.

Click to expand...

Except, that just isn't true. And it's blatantly untrue. Scalia was first and foremost a partisan who attempted to masquerade his partisanship under the "originalist" banner. Scalia was only an originalist when it suited his partisan interests. If Scalia was an originalist, he never would have taken Bush v. Gore. Because according to tradition (i.e. originalism) Baby Bush didn't have legal standing to bring a law suit. If Scalia truly believed in "originalism" he would have accepted the Florida Supreme Court ruling based on "states rights". States have the right to regulate and conduct their election processes per the US Constitution. If Scalia was an originalist, he wouldn't have gutted the Voting Rights Act and severely disable Obamacare (e.g. Medicare expansion). For an "originalist" Scalia made some very unusual unoriginal rulings. The truth is Scalia was a partisan, first,last, and always. He wasn't an originalist.

Bells said:

Ginsburg, for one, will be devastated by his death. They were best friends and they would go out together often and would spend New Years Eve together, not to mention holiday together with their respective families. On a legal standpoint, they challenged each other and he would send her his decision first, so that she could structure her argument against him, because that is what they did best. They rarely agreed, but his respect of her will be forever remembered. And their close friendship is the stuff of legends. He openly wept on the bench when Ginsburg's husband's death was announced and he openly wept when she returned to read her opinion to the Court on a case, because he understood her pain because their families were so close. They didn't agree, but she certainly saw something in him that resulted in an enduring close friendship and bond that saw them holiday together often and spend much time together outside the Court and I defer to her judgement in regards to who he was as a person when out of the limelight of the Court and when he was not trying to insult everyone in anger when he felt he was forced to hear cases that should never have been heard by the SC.

Click to expand...

Well, I find it interesting you think you can predict what Ginsburg will be and how she will react to his death. By all accounts, Scalia was a charismatic individual. I can thing of a number of serial killers who were also charming and charismatic individuals. Charisma and charm doesn't make someone moral or worthy of respect. Just because Ginsburg and Scalia had a friendship, it doesn't mean Scalia was a moral person or a good person.

Bells said:

He wasn't a bad man. He wasn't an evil man. He just never believed that the Court should decide on things that he felt should be left to the people to decide. And outside of the Court, he spoke his mind deliberately to get people riled up. It doesn't matter that I disagreed with him on every point and I found his comments offensive. I don't celebrate his death. I don't think anyone should. Despite what many say, he was a great legal mind and he never bowed to pressure to change the Constitution. In that sense, he was a purist. It doesn't matter that I am a polar opposite to Scalia and that I found his comments offensive.

And I think celebrating his death is in poor taste.

Click to expand...

Well, you are entitled to your beliefs. But I do not agree. He disgraced his office. Now you may think attending secret political planning and strategy meetings with conservative billionaires is a noble thing for a US Supreme Court judge to do as Scalia did, I don't. I find it apropos Scalia died a guest of one of his billionaire patrons. Scalia was a bad man. Scalia was first last and always a partisan. The best predictor of Scalia's decisions was Fox News, not originalist doctrine.

And based on our prior discussions, I doubt the your veracity and sincerity here. Scalia was a blatant partisan in job that isn't suppose to be partisan.

joepistole said:

(1) I don't think Hillary would accept {An Obama nomination to the Supreme Court} if it were offered. (2) And I don't think the Senate would approve. But it's certainly an interesting prospect. {Presented in post 2} ...

Click to expand...

On (1) Why? It would be a life time appointment to a very powerful position, not an uncertain chance to become POTUS during a very difficult time (global recession). She could still run for POTUS while current Republican Senate delays confirmation. They certainly will and will not confirm any other Obama nominee.

On (2) If polls indicate Hillary would beat any Republican candidate, especially Trump, the current Republican Senate would very likely confirm her into the Supreme Court so the Republican candidate for POTUS (Trump?) gets to run against SOCIALIST Bernie. (or independent Bloomberg).

The Republican candidate will mention that Bernie is a long time socialist in ever other sentence of his campaign, and that Bernie wants to make a revolution in the US. Thus I think the Republicans will realize that confirming Hillary into the Supreme Court is a guaranteed ticket for some Republican becoming POTUS. Then, in control of the White House, they can pack the court to make it more to their liking.

joepistole said:

Wow dudette....really?



Yes indeed, you are as far left as they come. But this isn't about ideology, is it? It's about your ego and the bruises you have sustained over the course of our previous discussions. Isn't it?



Except, that just isn't true. And it's blatantly untrue. Scalia was first and foremost a partisan who attempted to masquerade his partisanship under the "originalist" banner. Scalia was only an originalist when it suited his partisan interests. If Scalia was an originalist, he never would have taken Bush v. Gore. Because according to tradition (i.e. originalism) Baby Bush didn't have legal standing to bring a law suit. If Scalia truly believed in "originalism" he would have accepted the Florida Supreme Court ruling based on "states rights". States have the right to regulate and conduct their election processes per the US Constitution. If Scalia was an originalist, he wouldn't have gutted the Voting Rights Act and severely disable Obamacare (e.g. Medicare expansion). For an "originalist" Scalia made some very unusual unoriginal rulings. The truth is Scalia was a partisan, first,last, and always. He wasn't an originalist.



Well, I find it interesting you think you can predict what Ginsburg will be and how she will react to his death. By all accounts, Scalia was a charismatic individual. I can thing of a number of serial killers who were also charming and charismatic individuals. Charisma and charm doesn't make someone moral or worthy of respect. Just because Ginsburg and Scalia had a friendship, it doesn't mean Scalia was a moral person or a good person.



Well, you are entitled to your beliefs. But I do not agree. He disgraced his office. Now you may think attending secret political planning and strategy meetings with conservative billionaires is a noble thing for a US Supreme Court judge to do as Scalia did, I don't. I find it apropos Scalia died a guest of one of his billionaire patrons. Scalia was a bad man. Scalia was first last and always a partisan. The best predictor of Scalia's decisions was Fox News, not originalist doctrine.

And based on our prior discussions, I doubt the your veracity and sincerity here. Scalia was a blatant partisan in job that isn't suppose to be partisan.

Click to expand...

while i agree with your assessment of the man bells does have a point. can we at least what for the man's body to be cold before we start talking politics over his death. your showing all the lack of class the republicans are known for( who should be noted definitely didn't wait for the body to be cold before they started trying to go political). the man was a heinious asshole but his family does deserve the time to grieve without this macabe conversation happening around them.