# Justice Antonin Scalia has died



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Feb 13, 2016)

Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch - San Antonio Express-News


----------



## Church2224 (Feb 13, 2016)

I find it incredibly weird that Asher said the other day in his thread we need Scalia off of the Supreme Court as soon as possible, and now he is dead...


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Feb 13, 2016)

Church2224 said:


> I find it incredibly weird that Asher said the other day in his thread we need Scalia off of the Supreme Court as soon as possible, and now he is dead...



So what you're saying is: I owe Asher a beer? 

On a more serious note, while someone's passing should never be a happy, celebrated event, I can't help but think, big picture, this is a good thing for our country.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Feb 13, 2016)

What is this jiggery-pokery?! Pure applesauce!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm a @$$hole.


----------



## Church2224 (Feb 13, 2016)

MaxOfMetal said:


> So what you're saying is: I owe Asher a beer?



No I am just saying don't piss of Asher!


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Feb 13, 2016)

I never said anything good about him while he was alive and I won't start now that he's dead.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Feb 13, 2016)

Church2224 said:


> I find it incredibly weird that Asher said the other day in his thread we need Scalia off of the Supreme Court as soon as possible, and now he is dead...



Literally the first thing I thought of when I read the headline...



asher said:


> I try really, really hard to never wish ill upon people, but God do we need Scalia Alito and Thomas off the Court as soon as possible. Kennedy too.



Chilling. Did he find the death note or something?


----------



## asher (Feb 13, 2016)

MaxOfMetal said:


> So what you're saying is: I owe Asher a beer?
> 
> On a more serious note, while someone's passing should never be a happy, celebrated event, I can't help but think, big picture, this is a good thing for our country.



I totally forgot I posted that until I saw Steve quote it in the other thread, because I buggered off SSO yesterday because I got way more worked up than I meant.

...  I do not want such power! 

I'm with you. This is absolutely a good thing for our politics, but I'm having a really hard time celebrating.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Feb 13, 2016)

Well damn asher. We got our wish haha.


----------



## Church2224 (Feb 13, 2016)

I can understand not agreeing with the man's politics but some people are online celebrating the fact he is dead period and thanking God that he is rotting in hell....

Yeah real Christian of you to be celebrating the death of a man who you disagreed with....


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Feb 13, 2016)

^Even though he had the power to use his politics to affect the people of our country, which he has done.

But yeah, like Max said; not celebrating. Although I'm not mourning either, given how his politics have impacted the lives of minorities, LGBTs, etc...


----------



## ferret (Feb 13, 2016)

McConnell already pushing that a new justice shouldn't be picked till post-election. :/

I'm not all that optimistic that Obama will manage to get a pick in.


----------



## asher (Feb 13, 2016)

ferret said:


> McConnell already pushing that a new justice shouldn't be picked till post-election. :/
> 
> I'm not all that optimistic that Obama will manage to get a pick in.



Chances of the lunatics in the Senate _approving_ a nominee are... exactly 0%.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Feb 13, 2016)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the longest a justice has ever taken to get approved and stuff was Brandeis at 125 days. Obama has 341. He could get one through and the public perception of the blocking party wouldn't do well for very long, imo. Eventually it would be _very_ bad for that party's presidential candidate. 

Although, this is a particularly sh1tty Congress so I wouldn't be surprised if they relished setting a new record.


----------



## Dog Boy (Feb 13, 2016)

Someone out of the cabinet might be a good choice. They've already been thru the Senate process. Someone not TOO partisan? Ashton Carter maybe?


BTW Rest in Peace ya old douche bag...


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Feb 13, 2016)

I just hope this doesn't turn out to be as big a political .... storm as I'm thinking it will be- with the timing and all.

EDIT: who am I kidding, it already is... Republicans are crying out "wait until the next president!" Translation: give us a chance to put a conservative in there!

Man fVck this. I joked about it, sure, but that was a human fVcking being that died- he left people behind who loved him.


----------



## Hollowway (Feb 13, 2016)

Hot damn! I know it's not considered PC to be happy about someone dying, but I am very happy. This is a man who said it was constitutional to execute innocent people, because there was no precedent stating it was not constitutional. Many, many people have been harmed by his exceptionally one-sided and twisted interpretation of law and the constitution. I consider myself a centrist, and even I think this guy was off his rocker. Finally, Justice Scalia is an oxymoron we no longer have to live with.

Edit: And I will add- I see nothing wrong with being happy that he has died. He lived to 79, and died a natural death. I'm sure his family mourns him, and I feel bad for them, but I am in no way unhappy about his time having come. And to say otherwise would be a lie.


----------



## Smoked Porter (Feb 13, 2016)

Yeah, I won't be going around gloating or saying vicious things on facebook/twitter etc, but I'd be lying if I said this didn't perk up my mood a little. Not because his death itself makes me happy or any weird crap like that, just because he won't be an influence anymore. I dunno, maybe that's kind of ....ty, but oh well.


----------



## Grindspine (Feb 14, 2016)

I, for one, am glad that a Justice who openly said that atheists do not belong in this country is no longer acting on the Supreme Court.

His ideals and his position of power to push those ideals were nothing short of scary to anyone who was not a conservative Christian adhering to his personal belief system.


----------



## StevenC (Feb 14, 2016)

Grindspine said:


> I, for one, am glad that a Justice who openly said that atheists do not belong in this country is no longer acting on the Supreme Court.



"Unwavering defender of the written Constitution" excluding the 1st Amendment.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 14, 2016)

StevenC said:


> "Unwavering defender of the written Constitution" excluding the 1st Amendment.



That's exactly what I was thinking when I read that letter.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Feb 14, 2016)

Church2224 said:


> I can understand not agreeing with the man's politics but some people are online celebrating the fact he is dead period and thanking God that he is rotting in hell....
> 
> Yeah real Christian of you to be celebrating the death of a man who you disagreed with....



Being christian (which I am not) has nothing to do with it. The man actively tried to to take people's rights and make this country a worse place. Just because someone dies doesnt mean I have to be respectful of anything. He was a bad dude.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Feb 14, 2016)

The Onion did a funny piece on him yesterday and all the people who I've regularly seen complaining about the world pussifying and becoming overly PC were now getting upset over the article. Oh, sweet irony.


----------



## Hollowway (Feb 14, 2016)

Yeah, I'm thinking even a lot of conservatives thought he was pushing his interpretation too far. I'm more liberal now than u used to be, but even then I always had the feeling you get when your team cheats and wins. You're glad they won, but you're also like, "holy ...., I can't believe they did that!" I primarily have a problem with people playing with the rules, regardless of where they stand on issues. I respect a lot of staunch conservatives, libertarians, socialists, and democrats. But I cannot stand those who bend the rules to make it work for them. That's why I hate Hillary Clinton. It's also why I didn't like Scalia.


----------



## tacotiklah (Feb 14, 2016)

Not celebrating his death, but by no means mourning it either. That man made himself the enemy of pretty much anyone that isn't a white christian cis male. His targeting of women, LGBTs, and other minorities is unprecedented in recent times and he often proved that he was willing to ignore the law in favor of conservative politics and I wouldn't be surprised if he took some "christian donations" in exchange for more favorable rulings like such as Hobby Lobby and Citizens United.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Feb 15, 2016)

asher said:


> Chances of the lunatics in the Senate _approving_ a nominee are... exactly 0%.



Not that it matters though, but on the news they pointed out that the last time we had a situation where a president nominated a SCJ against a Senate that was lead by the opposing party during an Election year was, surprise surprise, during the Reagan administration with Anthony Kennedy. And Mitch McConnell, the man who said an outgoing President shouldn't be able to nominate a SJC, for voted for him. And Kennedy got elected. 

Just goes to show more Republican kicking and screaming, hypocrisy and political do-nothingness. If anything I think them continually shooting down a nomination will hurt them for the Presidency more than help them.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Feb 15, 2016)

Can you imagine if they did delay until after the election and Bernie Sanders was president? Their worst fears of a pot-smoking Mexican muslim trans woman hippie communist zombie put in the SCOTUS would come to fruition!

...or maybe just someone who'd overturn Citizens United. But I like my version better.


----------



## celticelk (Feb 15, 2016)

JPhoenix19 said:


> Can you imagine if they did delay until after the election and Bernie Sanders was president? Their worst fears of a pot-smoking Mexican muslim trans woman hippie communist zombie put in the SCOTUS would come to fruition!
> 
> ...or maybe just someone who'd overturn Citizens United. But I like my version better.



Yeah, I think the Senate might have a thing or two to say about that.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Feb 15, 2016)

JPhoenix19 said:


> Can you imagine if they did delay until after the election and Bernie Sanders was president? Their worst fears of a pot-smoking Mexican muslim trans woman hippie communist zombie put in the SCOTUS would come to fruition!
> 
> ...or maybe just someone who'd overturn Citizens United. But I like my version better.



Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia - The Onion - America's Finest News Source


----------



## RustInPeace (Feb 16, 2016)

Extreme right winger who had too much power and influence dies? Praise Cthulhu!


----------



## Randy (Feb 16, 2016)

I don't typically besmirch or speak ill of the dead, but what a weird looking guy he was.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Feb 16, 2016)

It's funny how those on the Right are more or less telling Obama to put the gun down calmly. The suggestion that a President leaving office shouldn't appoint a replacement makes literally no sense - he's still IN office, so where is the line drawn? Isn't he always leaving office then? Are his presidential duties now simplified or lessened because we're all focused on the upcoming election? Saying these things demonstrates the liberal (ironic pun) use of BS logic by those on the Right, and is most likely going to hurt them in the short run. The President should be the one to appoint Scalia's replacement, and Obama is the President.


----------



## celticelk (Feb 16, 2016)

^^^ Here's what I don't get: the Republicans control the Senate. They can easily throw up a ton of procedural hurdles to delay any nominee that Obama advances, and they've got the votes to defeat a nominee in a straight up-or-down vote if it comes to that. What's the advantage to arguing that it would be inappropriate for him to nominate someone? Is this just part of the "executive overreach" narrative that they keep trying to spin around his presidency? Is it a tactic to fire up the base in advance of the general election (they hardly seem to need it)?


----------



## TheStig1214 (Feb 16, 2016)

celticelk said:


> ^^^ Here's what I don't get: the Republicans control the Senate. They can easily throw up a ton of procedural hurdles to delay any nominee that Obama advances, and they've got the votes to defeat a nominee in a straight up-or-down vote if it comes to that. What's the advantage to arguing that it would be inappropriate for him to nominate someone? Is this just part of the "executive overreach" narrative that they keep trying to spin around his presidency? Is it a tactic to fire up the base in advance of the general election (they hardly seem to need it)?



Pretty much. I think they know it would be a bit of political suicide for the party to just shoot down nominees left and right for the sake of being difficult so they want to convince everyone that he shouldn't be nominating anyone anyway.


----------



## kmanick (Feb 17, 2016)

but when Bush was in office Schumer and Obama tried to fillibuster his nominee in 2006?
But this was "different" right because it was the Dems blocking? 
Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee | Washington Examiner
I get Scalia was a polarizing figure and the left hated him...I get that, but the political play Obama made 
yesterday about calling out the Repubs is as hypocritical as it gets
10 Times Democrats Vowed To Block Republican Nominees


----------



## celticelk (Feb 17, 2016)

kmanick said:


> but when Bush was in office Schumer and Obama tried to fillibuster his nominee in 2006?
> But this was "different" right because it was the Dems blocking?
> Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee | Washington Examiner
> I get Scalia was a polarizing figure and the left hated him...I get that, but the political play Obama made
> ...



Of the 10 instances given in that link, eight of them involve opposition to a *specific* nominee, rather than opposing nominations in general, which is what the GOP is doing now. The remaining two include a statement by a single senator (Chuck Schumer) about an *entirely hypothetical* vacancy during the remainder of the Bush presidency, and a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolution from 1960, which was an objection to further use of the *recess* appointment, rather than an objection to *any* nomination in a president's final year in office (more info at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415). I don't see the equivalence here.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 17, 2016)

Since when are either parties not hypocritical at one point or another. Bush's nominee's made it through despite all the nonsense and people abusing their position doesn't make it an acceptable activity just because more than one individual has done so now or in the past. Obama is not in the wrong here, hypocritical or not. He is the president, it's essentially the beginning of the year, and it's his job to nominate someone. The republicans are trying to avoid a $hit show by making it seem like Obama is behaving unethically if he nominates someone because they know if they just continually shoot him down, or tell the public they're just going to shoot him down, it'll hurt their party, since everyone already considers this group 'do nothing congress'. If they can convince people the nominations are unethical by sheer existence it makes them look less horrible to naive people. The Democrats weren't in the right in 2007 either, but that hardly means this should just become the norm. That sets quite a bad precedent. This is one of the very few powers a president is allowed to exercise. He won his election both terms by popular vote. There isn't a valid argument for waiting IMO.



> *&#8220;We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,&#8221; Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. &#8220;The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.&#8221;*
> 
> ...
> 
> *Breyer has publicly raised concerns that conservative justices were violating stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave precedents undisturbed.*



A bit of semantics, but they were displeased with his nominee, not that he nominated in general. Semantics because they likely would have disapproved of any of his choices for his second nominee since Bush pushed hard for evangelicals in his second term. Still quite a bit different than the thinly veiled threat of obstructionism that has come to define today's Republican party with anything Obama related.



> The "nuclear option":
> 
> As a result of these ten filibusters, *Senate Republicans began to threaten to change the existing Senate rules by using what Senator Trent Lott termed the "nuclear option".* This change in rules would eliminate the use of the filibuster to prevent judicial confirmation votes. However, with only a two vote majority, the Republicans were in a weak position to implement this procedural maneuver.
> 
> ...



This also paints an entirely different picture of the events at hand during the time.


----------



## asher (Feb 17, 2016)

Objections to specific nominees are highly different than a categorical ban _announced the day of the vacancy before any names are announced_.

It's really not hypocritical.


----------



## asher (Feb 17, 2016)

TheStig1214 said:


> Obama Compiles Shortlist Of Gay, Transsexual Abortion Doctors To Replace Scalia - The Onion - America's Finest News Source



For maximum trollage, so the Republicans can scream more about having things "rammed down their throats."

I'm not kidding, that phrase is used a LOT for a group so fiercely homophobic. The jokes write themselves.

(I'd vote for anyone who will make Justice Takei happen, lack of legal experience be damned)


----------



## TheStig1214 (Feb 18, 2016)

asher said:


> (I'd vote for anyone who will make Justice Takei happen, lack of legal experience be damned)



Yes.


----------



## Cloudy (Feb 20, 2016)

asher said:


> (I'd vote for anyone who will make Justice Takei happen, lack of legal experience be damned)



Now this is the kind of thinking thats needed


----------

