Scalia dead
 

Just saw, 79. Omg

Gonna get real interesting NOW!

Wow......

The right is shivering

Hello Duval Patrick

An intellectual giant, I disagreed with most of his decisions but he was a good man and will be missed. Sadly the robots on both sides will spew their ideological dog crap making his passing into a continuation of the current political circus.

Well spoken and well written. In my opinion an intellectual giant doesnt let his religious beliefs factor into decisions in a country that is supposed to seperate those beliefs from governing the country. Do you think an Intellectual Giant would come to this conclusion?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...iversity-texas

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinio...iref=obnetwork

An interesting article on scalia.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scali...-v-king-2013-6

This link, to scalias dissent in md vs king. I agreed with him on that case.

Everyone knew he was quite conservative....it is an issue, when the legislative and executive are both controlled by one party. I am glad that the current balance is how it is, as we most likely will get a more middle of the road judge, as they all should be.

Notable cases where Scalia sided with the majority:

Bush v. Gore

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (highlight): "“Well, religious beliefs aren’t reasonable. I mean, religious beliefs are categorical. You know, it’s God tells you. It’s not a matter of being reasonable. God be reasonable? He’s supposed to have a full beard.”

And one of his big dissents:

Lawrence v. Texas (highlight): "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home,” he wrote. “They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”

And, of course, he didn't consider the execution of an innocent person to be cruel and unusual punishment:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...estion_is.html

:tro: Well said.

Supreme Court Justices Weigh in on Antonin Scalia's Death:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...alia/80375976/

I thought the Notorious RBG's tribute to him was very sweet.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2531910

I'm jus sayin;)

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/16...ww.google.com/

The obstreperous republicans at it again. But hey, why let the eighth year be any different than the other seven?

Savage, trump evidently read your link and said why not?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-t...been-murdered/

Oh, what short memories the Democrats have:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/fl...t-nominations/

Obviously what schumer proposed was wrong. I no more agree with his take then than i do mcconnells now.
Also, schumers idea was a hypothetical-what mcconnell is suggesting is REAL. There is NO reason to expect the scotus to be short for a year. The voters did get to choose the president who would make this selection, remember?

On what constitutional basis can there be a delay?

And do note, re schumer...


'A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.'

And mcconnell didnt suggest a thing.

Oh, I agree that the president has every right to nominate a candidate justice, and the Senate has the right to set the hearing date, or not.

Same as if there was a Republican president and a Democrat Senate.

Now it would be best if there was a compromise, but the president said that he most likely would not choose a moderate, so exhortations to give him exactly who he wants will likely fall on deaf ears.

Ideally there is an acceptable candidate for both sides, moderate, who by definition would not be politicized since this is judicial work. It gets this off the to do list and removes it as a constant distraction.