Justice Scalia's death could shift the balance of power on the US high court, allowing President Barack Obama to add a fifth liberal justice to the court. The court's conservative majority has recently stalled major efforts by the Obama administration on climate change and immigration. Justice Scalia, 79, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. Justice Scalia was one of the most prominent proponents of "originalism" - a conservative legal philosophy that believes the US Constitution has a fixed meaning and does not change with the times.
Justice Scalia was one of the most prominent proponents of "originalism" - a conservative legal philosophy that believes the US Constitution has a fixed meaning and does not change with the times.
Don;t tell anyone as it's a secret. The constitution has a fixed meaning and can be changed with an amendment. The other way as done today, ignore it.
We shall see how conservative the senate really is. All they have to do is just say no and not approve a new justice. I suspect Mitch will as always bend over for Obama.
Mitch said he won't..... but it is the constitutional duty of the Congress to fill vacancies on the supreme court in a reasonable amount of time. let's see if the constitution really means anything to conservatives or if it is just political spin to use in certain circumstances that favor the conservative agenda. I suspect that is what we will find out. The court has never went a year in modern times with a vacancy. I feel we might see that this time. Oh well we can just let Hilary or Bernie make the nomination
Mitch will pull his pants down and lay face down over the edge of the bed for Obama just like Ryan did before Christmas.
I'm changing my Cruz-Carson vote and now supporting Sanders-Warren. I want to be on the correct side of history and align myself with the smart people.
After all, if the country is going to collapse anyway I want to be first in the bread line.
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “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.”
Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.
I find this view that McConnell is a lap dog for Obama very curious. And William, I think it was Boehner who rolled for Obama so that Ryan wouldn't have to deal with the budget in his first year. The passing of Scalia truly marks the end of.....something. What exactly, I'm not sure yet. I don't really agree with Scalia's views, obviously, but there was something genuine about him that was similar to Reagan before the Alzheimer's took over. And that's part of what worries me.
The way Republicans talk about Reagan today is kind of ridiculous to me. I don't think the man from the 80's matches the stuff that is cast on him today. I've said for awhile, his memory has become a caricature. Scalia's basic view, it seems, is that the constitution is a "dead" document and therefore all cases must be viewed through that lens without any consent given to views and attitudes that have changed. Beyond that basic premise, he is a political conservative which also shapes his decisions. It's pretty easy to figure out which way he is going to rule on something, just look at conservative thought, and there ya go. Still, he an RBG seemed to be the most curious judges and still at least asked questions. And that leads to my main point.
It's easy to find another person who will act like Scalia and give the conservatives the rulings they want. Look no further than Justice Thomas, who can't even be fucking bothered these days to ask a single question or even look like he gives a shit (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomass-disgraceful-silence) Thomas, like the distorted memories of Reagan today, is a caricature. He's just a blob who will sit there, go through the motions, and ultimately side with the conservatives. Whether I agreed with Scalia or not, I accept him as a man who took the job seriously. Like all the judges these days, it was predicable how he was going to rule, which is right down political lines. I think conservatives say they want another Scalia, but I think they would be just as happy with an empty suit like Thomas who does nothing but guarantee a conservative vote without an ounce of effort or semblance of respect for the process.
I find it amusing that the Republican candidates all praise the Constitution as an unwavering document until it doesn't suit them. Then they try to subvert it by legislative slight of hand.
I find it disgusting that both parties use the constitution as toilet paper unless it meets their political needs.
One might say politics and both parties in America are completely broken. However it seems to be what the voters want as we always seem to end up with more of the same.
Perhaps there is something to: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
The SCOTUS, to me, is just another partisan branch of government. I hesitate to say much here in case TS is still reading because he would choke on anything he is eating or drinking if I stated my full, allegedly utopian, illogical and completely incorrect views. Still, I feel like society has changed and evolved far beyond anything the founding fathers could have imagined. The absolute view is great, as long as we are addressing the world as it existed and the thinking that existed in the late 1700's. We don't live in that world today.
Unfortunately, both parties today, to one extent or another, operate under a philosophy that the the constitution allows them to do whatever they want as long as they stack the deck in their favor, whether by gerrymandering voting districts, or filling the supreme court with justices who will ultimately adhere to some political ideology.
By having only about 30% of all possible voters show up. But for the record, I understand gerrymandering is a congressional versus senate issue. It doesn't change my point. The prevailing view today is that if you can gerrymander a majority in the congress, you need not pass any legislation that allows true participation from the minority party. In the senate, the view seems to be that if you can get a 60 vote majority, the constitution grants you magical powers to silence all debate and pass whatever you want. And yeah, I know you will now remind me of every Democrat bill pushed through the senate without Republican participation because maybe you truly believe I don't understand that.
It's interesting to here the same story. Gerrymandering. You do know it happens on the left as well as the right don;t you?
The time of compromise left us some time ago when we developed the my way or the highway prospective in politics. The next president is faced with a terrible problem of trying to unite a fractured nation where it's us against them on so many fronts. Poor vs wealthy. Middle class vs wealthy. Government vs business. City population vs the rest of the country.
I can honestly say not 1 candidate is up to the task so far. Today I can see nothing but more divisiveness.
The Federal court has determined that the conservatives here in NC have drawn at least 2 congressional districts based on race. They have been ordered to correct it immediately even before our March 15th primary. Yes Lou they all do it the right is just dirtier about it.
They divided our congressional district anc combined half with the city of Aurora the liberal bastion and sanctuary city. The attempt was to swing the 6th congressional district from solid Republican to Democrat. Failed the last 2 elections and the courts refuse to address it.
Justice Scalia's death could shift the balance of power on the US high court, allowing President Barack Obama to add a fifth liberal justice to the court.
ReplyDeleteThe court's conservative majority has recently stalled major efforts by the Obama administration on climate change and immigration.
Justice Scalia, 79, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.
Justice Scalia was one of the most prominent proponents of "originalism" - a conservative legal philosophy that believes the US Constitution has a fixed meaning and does not change with the times.
Justice Scalia was one of the most prominent proponents of "originalism" - a conservative legal philosophy that believes the US Constitution has a fixed meaning and does not change with the times.
ReplyDeleteDon;t tell anyone as it's a secret. The constitution has a fixed meaning and can be changed with an amendment. The other way as done today, ignore it.
We shall see how conservative the senate really is. All they have to do is just say no and not approve a new justice. I suspect Mitch will as always bend over for Obama.
Mitch said he won't..... but it is the constitutional duty of the Congress to fill vacancies on the supreme court in a reasonable amount of time. let's see if the constitution really means anything to conservatives or if it is just political spin to use in certain circumstances that favor the conservative agenda. I suspect that is what we will find out. The court has never went a year in modern times with a vacancy. I feel we might see that this time. Oh well we can just let Hilary or Bernie make the nomination
ReplyDeleteMitch will pull his pants down and lay face down over the edge of the bed for Obama just like Ryan did before Christmas.
DeleteI'm changing my Cruz-Carson vote and now supporting Sanders-Warren. I want to be on the correct side of history and align myself with the smart people.
After all, if the country is going to collapse anyway I want to be first in the bread line.
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
Delete“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “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.”
Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.
A bit hypocritical of the Demobots isn't it.
It's theater, nothing more. If it were reversed, Republicans would be demanding the right to put another judge on the bench.
DeleteYes and the show is about to begin.
DeleteObama will nominate a progressive and the Republicons will certainly reject it if it gets to the floor.
I find this view that McConnell is a lap dog for Obama very curious. And William, I think it was Boehner who rolled for Obama so that Ryan wouldn't have to deal with the budget in his first year. The passing of Scalia truly marks the end of.....something. What exactly, I'm not sure yet. I don't really agree with Scalia's views, obviously, but there was something genuine about him that was similar to Reagan before the Alzheimer's took over. And that's part of what worries me.
ReplyDeleteThe way Republicans talk about Reagan today is kind of ridiculous to me. I don't think the man from the 80's matches the stuff that is cast on him today. I've said for awhile, his memory has become a caricature. Scalia's basic view, it seems, is that the constitution is a "dead" document and therefore all cases must be viewed through that lens without any consent given to views and attitudes that have changed. Beyond that basic premise, he is a political conservative which also shapes his decisions. It's pretty easy to figure out which way he is going to rule on something, just look at conservative thought, and there ya go. Still, he an RBG seemed to be the most curious judges and still at least asked questions. And that leads to my main point.
It's easy to find another person who will act like Scalia and give the conservatives the rulings they want. Look no further than Justice Thomas, who can't even be fucking bothered these days to ask a single question or even look like he gives a shit (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomass-disgraceful-silence) Thomas, like the distorted memories of Reagan today, is a caricature. He's just a blob who will sit there, go through the motions, and ultimately side with the conservatives. Whether I agreed with Scalia or not, I accept him as a man who took the job seriously. Like all the judges these days, it was predicable how he was going to rule, which is right down political lines. I think conservatives say they want another Scalia, but I think they would be just as happy with an empty suit like Thomas who does nothing but guarantee a conservative vote without an ounce of effort or semblance of respect for the process.
I find it amusing that the Republican candidates all praise the Constitution as an unwavering document until it doesn't suit them. Then they try to subvert it by legislative slight of hand.
ReplyDeleteI find it disgusting that both parties use the constitution as toilet paper unless it meets their political needs.
DeleteOne might say politics and both parties in America are completely broken. However it seems to be what the voters want as we always seem to end up with more of the same.
Perhaps there is something to:
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
The SCOTUS, to me, is just another partisan branch of government. I hesitate to say much here in case TS is still reading because he would choke on anything he is eating or drinking if I stated my full, allegedly utopian, illogical and completely incorrect views. Still, I feel like society has changed and evolved far beyond anything the founding fathers could have imagined. The absolute view is great, as long as we are addressing the world as it existed and the thinking that existed in the late 1700's. We don't live in that world today.
DeleteUnfortunately, both parties today, to one extent or another, operate under a philosophy that the the constitution allows them to do whatever they want as long as they stack the deck in their favor, whether by gerrymandering voting districts, or filling the supreme court with justices who will ultimately adhere to some political ideology.
Just how do you gerrymander a senate seat??
DeleteBy having only about 30% of all possible voters show up. But for the record, I understand gerrymandering is a congressional versus senate issue. It doesn't change my point. The prevailing view today is that if you can gerrymander a majority in the congress, you need not pass any legislation that allows true participation from the minority party. In the senate, the view seems to be that if you can get a 60 vote majority, the constitution grants you magical powers to silence all debate and pass whatever you want. And yeah, I know you will now remind me of every Democrat bill pushed through the senate without Republican participation because maybe you truly believe I don't understand that.
DeleteIt's interesting to here the same story. Gerrymandering. You do know it happens on the left as well as the right don;t you?
ReplyDeleteThe time of compromise left us some time ago when we developed the my way or the highway prospective in politics. The next president is faced with a terrible problem of trying to unite a fractured nation where it's us against them on so many fronts. Poor vs wealthy. Middle class vs wealthy. Government vs business. City population vs the rest of the country.
I can honestly say not 1 candidate is up to the task so far. Today I can see nothing but more divisiveness.
The Federal court has determined that the conservatives here in NC have drawn at least 2 congressional districts based on race. They have been ordered to correct it immediately even before our March 15th primary. Yes Lou they all do it the right is just dirtier about it.
DeleteYour perspective.
DeleteThey divided our congressional district anc combined half with the city of Aurora the liberal bastion and sanctuary city. The attempt was to swing the 6th congressional district from solid Republican to Democrat. Failed the last 2 elections and the courts refuse to address it.
Your dirtier is democrats here.
Lou,
DeleteI would not lose my mind if Kasich won.
I liked Jim Webb as he represented the middle and not the extremes.
DeleteHaven't really warmed up to any of the GOP candidates.
I'm all in for Bernie-Liz. I'm retiring in Havana anyway.
DeleteThe weather there might do you some good.
Delete