I hate to wish anybody dead; I would have been fine with Scalia retiring to spend time with his family, but I'll take whatever I can get. I think he was the worst SC justice in history, the first to openly and flagrantly disrespect the ethical code of the court that says justices don't openly support one political party over another, or make overtly political public statements of any kind. He lowered the respectability of the court significantly. There won't be a vote in the Senate on the replacement, because Mitch McConnell has already proclaimed that the midterm elections of 2014, which had a very low voter turnout, sent a clear message that America didn't want Obama making any more decisions. Unfortunately, he seems to have found a major loophole in the Constitution. The "advise and consent" paragraph doesn't penalize the Senate in any way for failing to act in a reasonable amount of time, so McConnell can get by with saying that the Republicans don't consent to having any more Supreme Court justices appointed by Democrats, EVER. They can hold seats open for five years, or nine years. If all eight of the remaining justices die, we may have to do without a Supreme Court until the voters elect either a Republican president or a Democratic senate. :wall:
The consensus that was in the minds of Americans after the 1968 Democrat Party riots in Chicago has nearly been forgotten. After 1968 the Hippies were left alone to live and live as weird as they wished, because the nation had finally accepted their liberty. In the summer of 1969, the celebration of that liberty was Woodstock. The Hippies did not win their liberty with guns, as the Oregon Standoff crowd attempted to do. The Hippies did it with peace and understanding. So, the Hippies had showed the rest of the nation that libertarian political philosophy made sense. Today, many Tea Party Republicans and their supporters in the supreme court seem to fail in understanding that liberty means you must let others live in freedom, if you wish to be left alone to live in your freedom. It is people like Scalia who think Liberals must obey, must not have abortions, must observe Christianity, must like gunslingers, must like billionaires who make money while they pollute the air and water, and must permit an environment conducive for big business.
Here's one. Say Bernie or Hillary get elected-----then they promptly nominate OBAMA FOR THE SUPREME COURT!! That would drive some of the repubs clean over the edge snarling, snapping and frothing at the mouth. Which would be a welcome sight, of course.
True, but remember if our people win the big house again, The Repukes still hold the congress. A nomination by Bernie Sanders would still get the same reception from the Repukes. Things are going in the direction of a complete grid-lock. My head is spinning and I want to go and hide in the woods.
I've read a lot of online opinions basically saying to respect the deceased, etc. I'm not even bothered a little bit by this jackass dying. In fact, honestly....my first reaction to hearing the news was "No shit? Good." Fuck him and I hope McConnell is right behind him. I'm sick of these assholes and I'll not fake my respect for someone who doesn't deserve it. Good riddance.
Sorry Shale---you mentioned nominating Obama 1st----------------. Or nominate one of the Clintons if you REALLY want to see heads litterally explode!!!!!!
He is quite qualified in law. This was discussed months earlier about him being nominated eventually after leaving the Oval Office.
I hadn't heard of such talks of anything regarding Obama after presidency. So I thought I'd ask. Wouldn't put it past Hillary to nominate him. But if Bernie nominated him, that would just go to prove that Bernie is just an establishment crony and break every image of him being someone different.
It’s too bad the president couldn’t nominate himself for later consideration once out of office (et postea ipse nominare potest) Hotwater
I kind of see the points about Hillary and Bernie but I'd have to spend some time thinking and doing some homework before I could agree with it. Obama not only has a law degree but he is a constitutional scholar and professor. He actually may be more qualified to be a SCOTUS justice than he may have been to be president at the time he was elected (without casting judgement on his presidency). I don't think there is much of a question about whether he is qualified but maybe there might be something to the cronyism claim upon further consideration...but maybe not. I'm just thinking out loud here.
That said....Obama clearly has the authority to nominate a new justice and all this crap about it being his last year, etc. is pure bullshit. He not only has the authority but he has the obligation so let's not make every single fucking thing a fight like it's WW3. Seriously. Scalia died. Obama gets to nominate someone. Get over it, people.
why would obama want to be a supreme court justice? i don't really think he needs the additional income. if he did, he would probably be happier as a walmart greeter at this point.
i hadn't really paid much attention to him, other then noting his name having been all over a lot of insanely illogical decisions. but now that i've reviewed some of his arguments, i have to ask, how the hell did he ever get into a courtroom other then as a defendant.
Good Question. He was nominated by Ronald Wilson Reagan (Use all the letters in Reagan’s name just once and you come up with Insane Anglo Warlord) – Interesting Hotwater
Obama's law and education history of being a constitutional scholar doesn't mean shit when all we've seen him do was tear the constitution to shreds these last 7 years.
which happens to be more complete of a falsehood, then saying the same thing of any u.s. president in my life, with very few exceptions. (and none of those exceptions being republicans, just as a by the way.)
Yes but the only point I'm trying to make is that the only people who should be eligible for the job of Supreme Court justice, should only be those who have a proven track record of respecting and upholding the constitution ( despite the contrary always seems to happen).
