141–150 of 382 posts
This will likely result in a major political shift of the court. Even if Obama places a staunch centrist, it will be a net left swing, as Scalia was perhaps the second most conservative justice beside Thomas. There have been a great deal of 5-4 decisions since Sotomayor's nomination that in the future could easily fall the other way.
There has been some discussion here about whether or not Obama has time to get a replacement nominated and confirmed, or whether the Republicans can slow things down enough to push it to the next President (who they hope will be one of them). I wonder if it might be better for the Democrats to not even try to get a nominee through before the next election. From what I've seen liberal/progressive leaning younger voter…
Senator McConnell has announced that the Senate will not take up a Supreme Court nomination this year. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIYaMiW4AIU4ZB.jpg
He did an excellent job over the two day proceedings. It was fascinating to watch in person.
In a parallel event in the evening, I watched Scalia take questions in an open air pavilion lawn (with no security whatsoever, just an open event on campus). At one point an audience member asked him, "What's the most difficult area of law for you personally to judge?"
After seriously furrowing his brow and mind, he finally and sincerely proffered up ... "Indian (Native American) law".
My take on his answer - he found that area of law truly difficult as a strict constructionist.
There has been some discussion here about whether or not Obama has time to get a replacement nominated and confirmed, or whether the Republicans can slow things down enough to push it to the next President (who they hope will be one of them). I wonder if it might be better for the Democrats to not even try to get a nominee through before the next election. From what I've seen liberal/progressive leaning younger voter…
If they get through, great! A Democratic appointment on the Court!
If they don't, it can be a call to arms and a constant rallying cry showing how different the Right and Left are. We are not just electing the next President for four years but the next Justice for the next 30.
If there is anyone with any motivation to vote whatsoever they will vote and demographics show that is good for Democrats.
My guess is that Republicans are scrambling right now to posture for a fight but actually trying to get a moderate they can live with nominated so they can confirm them and not face that and tout themselves as reasonable and willing to work across the aisle despite their well earned reputation of late.
Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint, who believed that the further the Courts stretched interpreting law, the more vulnerable the Courts become to the animosities of the Executive and Legislative branches. The Judiciary, Scalia understood, was the least powerful and most vulnerable of the three branches of government, and its strength and influence rests in its artful and judicious use of its very,…
I don't think that's accurate. There is a position, albeit more in the academy than on the bench, that holds that judges should only in the rarest of circumstances hold that the actions of the other branches are unconstitutional. Scalia can't fairly be described as being an adherent of that school.
Rather Scalia was foremost an originalist, it's a school of legal thought that he helped pioneer as a law professor. Today judges and legal scholars needs to grapple with originalism -- agree or disagree you need to speak to it. And with Balkin and Amir's spin on it, to borrow a quote, we are increasingly all originalists now. It's can be hard to believe it now but it wasn't always like this. When Scalia was going to law school no one was poring over the diaries of the founders or the records of the reconstruction congress looking for clues.
Scalia was by no means the sole person responsible for the rise of originalism, nor the purest advocate for it, but he was certainly a major major contributor to it. That's what he will ultimately be remembered for, I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlikely to be correct re: nomination, though it's difficult to know how the election will effect the confirmation process, and vice versa. Kagan was nominated May 2010 and confirmed August 2010; Sotomayor was nominated May 2009 and confirmed August 2009. I'm inclined to expect a nomination sooner rather than later, potentially of a candidate with very strong Democratic support. If Republicans oppose the nomination,…
> 5. Citizens United was 5-4 with Scalia supporting the decision (this is what created superPACs), so potentially this could result in a limitation of corporate personhood I think that phrasing is deceptive. The question isn't whether corporations are people with rights, but whether people retain their rights when they coordinate the exercise thereof through a corporation, which includes non-profit groups. It should…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint When convenient.
Totally agree. The stay he supported on the Florida recount was rampant federal interference in a state matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Stay_of_the_Flori... Indirectly, he gave us eight years of incompetence and Iraq, a horrible farce of a war.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To my knowledge, the precedent is to replace "whoever left the bench" with "whoever is likely to agree with the current President's party". Are there any examples where a liberal president nominated a conservative or vice-versa? (I'm not talking about situations where someone was appointed as a conservative and moved gradually left, which actually happens to all justices.)
Do you think Scalia moved gradually left? I've always considered him to be insanely consistent.
As tptacek said, political labels aren't necessarily objective, so this graph would differ depending on the methodology. It's also a little harder to measure justices' leanings because there are so few data points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We will have to wish you to burn in hell when you pass also then. As a gesture of our compassion and humanity.
Please stop.
Is it the difference between saying someone is in hell, versus wishing someone were in hell? Or is it the difference between attacking another user vs a third party? Or is it because you think Scalia is a legitimate target of hatred?
