http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php
QuoteSenior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.
Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa.
According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.
Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, of the Western Judicial District of Texas, was notified about the death from the U.S. Marshals Service.
U.S. District Judge Fred Biery said he was among those notified about Scalia's death.
"I was told it was this morning," Biery said of Scalia's death. "It happened on a ranch out near Marfa. As far as the details, I think it's pretty vague right now as to how," he said. "My reaction is it's very unfortunate. It's unfortunate with any death, and politically in the presidential cycle we're in, my educated guess is nothing will happen before the next president is elected."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html
Wow. RIP Justice Scalia.
Looks like Wing posted it already.
Only by a mere 2 minutes.
Oh damn.... one of the most brilliant legal and conservative thinkers of our time. If you thought the Presidential election was a knife fight already, just wait.....
Merged the threads. It's why I make the big bucks :buck2:
It's an unfortunate circumstance, but the job that he did immediately brings to mind consequences. I agree with Steelgrave. It's going to be pretty ugly.
RIP Justice Scalia
No matter what one may think of his legal theories, it's impossible to deny that he charted his own course.
oh fudge, may he RIP...
RIP.
Marxist everywhere will be celebrating.
Should be inter sting to watch the confirmation process. Obama will want a young hard core liberal and people like Cruz and Rubio will need to do everything to stop it.
So the Senate can not go into recess, since that'll give The O an opening, correct? Sure hope they can hold out on confirmation hearings for 9 months. The 2016 elections just got major complicated... ???
Recess appointments to the SC are not permanent.
The politicking has already started
http://www.nytimes.com/live/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/ted-cruz-president-obama-should-not-name-scalias-successor (http://www.nytimes.com/live/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/ted-cruz-president-obama-should-not-name-scalias-successor)
There is zero chance a Republican senate will confirm a new Supreme with Obama having less than a year remaining in office. My personal regard for Justice Scalia aside, what this does is gives the incoming President a major plum appointment right off the bat. Expect the remaining candidates to use this opening as a reason to vote for them or against the other guy.
And why am I not surprised that Cruz would be first out the gate before Scalia's even in the ground..... :P
It's not just Cruz.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/13/fight-over-antonin-scalia-replacement-heats-democr/
Even if Obama puts forth a nomination, which I expect he will do, the Senate won't pass the nominee. I expect the process to look like a two-minute drill by the Democrats with the Republicans running time off the clock at every opportunity. And in the end, the Dems won't have the votes anyway.
I agree that the Senate will not confirm an Obama nominee. This will become the driving issue of the 2016 presidential election. Both sides are going to be motivated by it. The stakes are huge.
Quote from: mirth on February 13, 2016, 06:41:05 PM
I agree that the Senate will not confirm an Obama nominee. This will become the driving issue of the 2016 presidential election. Both sides are going to be motivated by it. The stakes are huge.
+2
I was having visions of Obama trying to do his best to pack the court after the election (or before) but this is definitely the 2:00 minute warning.
For better or worse discussion of the scotus has just risen to the top five.
Looks like I probably owe Bison a beer.
RIP Mr. Scalia.
God Bless Justice Scalia.
Quote from: mirth on February 13, 2016, 06:41:05 PM
I agree that the Senate will not confirm an Obama nominee. This will become the driving issue of the 2016 presidential election. Both sides are going to be motivated by it. The stakes are huge.
Especially when you consider Ginsberg and Kennedy are both 79 as well. It's easy to believe the next President may have three appointments in his first term.
Quote from: Bison on February 13, 2016, 06:46:46 PM
God Bless Justice Scalia.
+1 Condolences to his friends and family.
I find Scalia's death (sad) a real loss for the application and preservation of the constitution. It had to happen on the watch of this presidents watch. Obviously he will try to enter another who does not try to follow the constitution as closely.
A terrible loss for the nation.
Its a risk for the Republicans to not have a nomination for 11 months either. There is no guarantee they will win the senate and if just because Scalia died doesn't mean that the SCOTUS wont stop working. Just now there is one less judge and that can impact how the decisions are made. I found this already written "When the Supreme Court justices split evenly on how to rule, the decision of the lower court stands."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/what-antonin-scalias-death-means-for-the-supreme-court-and-the-country-20160213
Maybe Obama will nominate Bernie Sanders to give Hillary a helping hand. She might be able to win against herself.
Quote from: Con on February 13, 2016, 10:28:52 PM
Its a risk for the Republicans to not have a nomination for 11 months either. There is no guarantee they will win the senate and if just because Scalia died doesn't mean that the SCOTUS wont stop working. Just now there is one less judge and that can impact how the decisions are made. I found this already written "When the Supreme Court justices split evenly on how to rule, the decision of the lower court stands."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/what-antonin-scalias-death-means-for-the-supreme-court-and-the-country-20160213
It's a risk they are going to have to take. The alternative is to allow Obama to make another liberal nomination. Beyond the effect that would have on decades of future SCOTUS decisions, it would pretty much guarantee a huge backlash from GOP voters.
Of course, if Obama thinks a Dem will win, he may be willing to delay the nomination so he can be nominated. :)
Quote from: zap on February 13, 2016, 08:57:57 PM
I find Scalia's death (sad) a real loss for the application and preservation of the constitution. It had to happen on the watch of this presidents watch. Obviously he will try to enter another who does not try to follow the constitution as closely.
A terrible loss for the nation.
Agreed.
We certainly don't need more Justices with agendas who feel they need to re-interpret long established laws and "rule from the bench" to achieve that agenda. The citizens have elected representatives for that.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/supreme-court-vacancies-in-presidential-election-years/
It's not that politicians have failed to take advantage of opportunities to advance their party's agenda, it just seems that bi-partisanship nowadays is so entrenched in "us versus them." And the ability to appoint and confirm a Supreme Court Justice doesn't come around often enough for this seat NOT to be politically charged.
Quote from: Steelgrave on February 13, 2016, 06:33:17 PM
Even if Obama puts forth a nomination, which I expect he will do, the Senate won't pass the nominee. I expect the process to look like a two-minute drill by the Democrats with the Republicans running time off the clock at every opportunity. And in the end, the Dems won't have the votes anyway.
Agreed the Senate would not pass any nominee The O puts forth, but this president has a history of ignoring the rules and bypassing the law, etc. I would not be surprised if he tries to get a liberal judge on the court, even if its only for the remainder of his reign. A 5-4 liberal leaning SC could do a lot of damage in 10-11 months >:(
Quote from: OJsDad on February 14, 2016, 12:54:06 AM
Of course, if Obama thinks a Dem will win, he may be willing to delay the nomination so he can be nominated. :)
That would be scary, but seems he has ambitions towards becoming Sec-Gen of the UN (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/11/report-claims-obama-wants-to-be-u-n-secretary-general-opposed-by-netanyahu/).
Quote from: steve58 on February 14, 2016, 08:47:29 AM
That would be scary, but seems he has ambitions towards becoming Sec-Gen of the UN (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/11/report-claims-obama-wants-to-be-u-n-secretary-general-opposed-by-netanyahu/).
That's a great idea. Let Obama go to the UN where he can continue to be irrelevant and do the least damage.
Quote from: MetalDog on February 14, 2016, 08:41:05 AM
It's not that politicians have failed to take advantage of opportunities to advance their party's agenda, it just seems that bi-partisanship nowadays is so entrenched in "us versus them." And the ability to appoint and confirm a Supreme Court Justice doesn't come around often enough for this seat NOT to be politically charged.
Exactly. And that's going to make the fight for a new Supreme a bloody, messy affair between parties.
Quote from: Steelgrave on February 14, 2016, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: MetalDog on February 14, 2016, 08:41:05 AM
It's not that politicians have failed to take advantage of opportunities to advance their party's agenda, it just seems that bi-partisanship nowadays is so entrenched in "us versus them." And the ability to appoint and confirm a Supreme Court Justice doesn't come around often enough for this seat NOT to be politically charged.
Exactly. And that's going to make the fight for a new Supreme a bloody, messy affair between parties.
All the fights over the past 8 years are going to be nothing in comparison.
Quote from: mirth on February 14, 2016, 01:54:23 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on February 14, 2016, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: MetalDog on February 14, 2016, 08:41:05 AM
It's not that politicians have failed to take advantage of opportunities to advance their party's agenda, it just seems that bi-partisanship nowadays is so entrenched in "us versus them." And the ability to appoint and confirm a Supreme Court Justice doesn't come around often enough for this seat NOT to be politically charged.
Exactly. And that's going to make the fight for a new Supreme a bloody, messy affair between parties.
All the fights over the past 8 years are going to be nothing in comparison.
Get ready for Obama to slip a recess appointment in there for some extra hilarious antics.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 14, 2016, 02:05:55 PM
Quote from: mirth on February 14, 2016, 01:54:23 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on February 14, 2016, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: MetalDog on February 14, 2016, 08:41:05 AM
It's not that politicians have failed to take advantage of opportunities to advance their party's agenda, it just seems that bi-partisanship nowadays is so entrenched in "us versus them." And the ability to appoint and confirm a Supreme Court Justice doesn't come around often enough for this seat NOT to be politically charged.
Exactly. And that's going to make the fight for a new Supreme a bloody, messy affair between parties.
All the fights over the past 8 years are going to be nothing in comparison.
Get ready for Obama to slip a recess appointment in there for some extra hilarious antics.
From the little I have read, that is doable, but, they still need to be confirmed in the end.
Quote from: MetalDog on February 14, 2016, 02:20:05 PM
From the little I have read, that is doable, but, they still need to be confirmed in the end.
Yeah, but think of the antics in the mean time.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 14, 2016, 03:36:12 PM
Quote from: MetalDog on February 14, 2016, 02:20:05 PM
From the little I have read, that is doable, but, they still need to be confirmed in the end.
Yeah, but think of the antics in the mean time.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freactiongifs.us%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2Fpopcorn_stephen_colbert.gif&hash=1db79608044a22142e1d9b1560824adac4b2db5f)
More hypocrisy on display:
FLASHBACK: 1st POTUS In History To Have Voted To Filibuster A SCOTUS Nominee Now Hopes for Clean Process... (http://www.weaselzippers.us/256744-flashback-1st-potus-in-history-to-have-voted-to-filibuster-a-scotus-nominee-now-hopes-for-clean-process/)
Quote
Via ABC:
President Obama's expressed hope today in his weekly address "that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this (Supreme Court nomination) process, and Congress, in the past" runs against another historical first for the 44th president: his unique role in history as the first US President to have ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.
*Continued At Link*