they both sit down.

heh

Good one.. :D

{knock, knock}
"Oh dear god, what horrible pestilence have you delivered unto me now!?"
"Alan!?? It's mommy."
"...... good one..."
TWO AND HALF MEN

:D heh

Michale

they both sit down.

In other words, you are not allowed to use YOUR freedom of speech to infringe on someone ELSE's freedom of speech..

It's that simple...

Michale

Yea, if you cherry pick your protesters..

Here's MY example of a protester..

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/17/decorated-marine-vet-attacked-robbed-at-washington-dc-mcdonalds-police-say.html

The problem with the Left Wingery's idea of protesters is that THEY ignore anyone ELSE's right to free speech..

Remember the Left Winger idiot who requested "muscle" to remove a reporter???

The Left Wingery is REPLETE with people trying to muzzle free speech of those they disagree with..

NO ONE here seems to have a problem with it THEN??

So why have a problem with it at a Trump rally???

Michale

"This is why Trump will win..

Because he gets it...

And the American people get that he gets it.."

No, this is exactly why Trump will LOSE. This was absolutely shameful. Just think about it for a moment. This veteran, who supposedly fought for everyone's freedom here at home, is being praised for acting out with violence against someone's who's free speech he disagreed with!!! Contrast this with the Bernie Sander's rally, where the protesters were actually allowed to come up on stage and allowed to state their viewpoint, and Sanders ASKED the crowd to actually LISTEN to them!

So much for Hillary's Nevada Firewall...

NEVADA IS FEELING DA BERN!!! :D

Michale

This is why Trump will win..

Because he gets it...

And the American people get that he gets it..

Michale

"Oh my gods, this is HILARIOUS!!!!

'Who Let the Dogs Out' - featuring Hillary Clinton
https://youtu.be/KgCP9vOUd1o"

Oh that was so bad!!! But I have to agree with you at the same time, too funny!!!

'Who Let the Dogs Out' - featuring Hillary Clinton
https://youtu.be/KgCP9vOUd1o

Michale

"That was damn funny, John M!! :D"

Thank you. :-) I have to admit that I love it when that kind of stuff just seems to write itself. Like when Gary Hart was busted for having an affair on a boat called "Monkey Business." Who could make this stuff up??? :-)

hehehehehehehehehe

Well, that was the way the article phrased it, but yea. I see yer point..

That was damn funny, John M!! :D

Michale

ANOTHER CLINTON LOVER SPILLS; FEARS HILLARY; SLEEPS WITH LOADED GUN

EXCLUSIVE: 'He put on my frilly nightie, and danced around playing his sax.' Former Miss Arkansas says Bill Clinton was so-so in bed and confided Hillary was into sex with women. Now she fears Hillary vendetta and sleeps with loaded semi-automatic
Bill Clinton's lovemaking was largely forgettable, says ex-mistress Sally Miller, but Clinton would rarely disappoint when divulging intimate secrets
Miller, then 44, would leave her back door ajar so her seven-years younger paramour - then Governor of Arkansas - could slip in
Known then as Sally Perdue, she claims during pillow talk he revealed Hillary preferred female lovers
The former singer and radio host, is preparing to dish more secrets of their three-month affair in a tell-all memoir
She is convinced that the Democratic presidential candidate is behind a plot to silence her ahead of November election
Miller insists she has been stalked, spied upon and plagued by anonymous phone calls since word of her memoir leaked out
'There is a vengeful, spiteful ugliness that some women have for other women. Hillary is just one of those women.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3427366/He-frilly-nightie-danced-playing-sax-Former-Miss-Arkansas-says-Bill-Clinton-bed-confided-Hillary-sex-women-fears-Hillary-vendetta-sleeps-loaded-semi-automatic.html#ixzz40MBHve4z

I almost feel sorry for Hillary...

Almost...

Michale

Sounds like you have been watching too much "Galaxy Quest" Michale. GRIN

arh, arh, arh, arh

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

arh, arh, arh, arh

"I didn't inhale.."

arh, arh, arh, arh

:D

Michale

"One of my favorite political ads of all time was a radio ad in rural Arkansas where the announcer said, 'Wouldn't it be great if somebody running for office said something, we could have an immediate reaction to whether it was true or not. Well, we have trained this dog. Well, the dog, if it is not true, he is going to bark,'" Clinton said. "And the dog was barking on the radio and so people were barking at each other for days after that. I want to figure out how we can do that with Republicans. We need to get that dog and follow them around and every time they say these things like, 'Oh, the Great Recession was caused by too much regulation,' arh, arh, arh, arh."
-Hillary Clinton

Awww right.. Awww right...

"I dodged sniper fire in Bosnia"

arh, arh, arh, arh

"I used a private insecure bathroom closet email server solely for convenience."

arh, arh, arh, arh

"I did not send classified information thru my private insecure bathroom closet email server."

arh, arh, arh, arh

"The classified information I sent thru my private insecure bathroom closet email server was not classified at the time."

arh, arh, arh, arh

Hillary is right..

This IS fun!! :D

Michale

“He’s not at home. There are no witnesses to his death, and there was no reported explanation for why a pillow is over his head. So I think under the circumstances it’s not unreasonable to request an autopsy. Despite the fact that he has pre-existing ailments and the fact that he’s almost 80 years old, you want to be sure that it’s not something other than natural causes.”
-Retired NYPD Detective

“I took a look at the report and I almost fell out of my chair. Every death investigation you are handling, you consider it a homicide until the investigation proves otherwise. How do you know that person wasn’t smothered? How do you know it’s not a homicide until you conduct an investigation? You have to do your job. Once you go through that process, you can conclude that this is a naturally occurring death.”
-Retired Homicide Instructor
http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/detectives-question-lack-of-autopsy-in-scalia-death/

Michale

Sounds like the beginning of a bad joke..

A Democrat, a Republican and 3 Independents walk into a bar.

heh

Michale

Michael Bloomberg throws his hat into the POTUS-ial ring as an Independent when it looks like Trump has the nomination and Bernie defeats Clinton in the Dem primary...

Then the GOP pisses off Trump, Cruz is the nominee and Trump ALSO runs as an Independent..

Comments??

Bonus round..

Hillary, still hoping for the White House, ALSO throws in her hat as an Independent...

So, a Democrat, a Republican and 3 Independents all running for President.. :D

Michale

Hillary's firewall in Nevada is fizzling out!

FEEL DA BERN!!!!

:D

Michale

Speaking of tedious and childish...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-hillary-nevada-blowback-219295

What IS it about politicians that they represent the WORST of humanity??

This isn't a Right V Left issue..

Michale

Looks like the rank and file of the Democrat[sic] Party is in revolt..

What do ya'all say???

They've been at each other's throats for months now. It's just like the acrimony in 2007-8 all over again. Frankly I find it tedious and childish. It's all "my candidate is better than your candidate neener neener neener". It's downright embarrassing (and politically foolish) to see adults acting like this.

Personally I'd be fine with an autopsy being done just to put suspicion to rest.

And that's all I am saying.. Like I said above, an autopsy won't shut up conspiracy nuts completely... But it will give them one less thing, one less BIG thing to rail about...

If the President or Vice President were to die in their sleep with absolutely NO SIGN of foul play....

You can bet that an autopsy would be the VERY FIRST thing done...

While the death of a SCOTUS Justice is not a President or a VP, it's still sufficiently high up on the IMPORTANCE scale that an autopsy would be SOP....

At least one would think it would be SOP...

Michale

That we are all that stands between the monsters and the weak....

Obama jumps to the media whenever any two-bit thug is legitimately killed by LEO and security personnel...

But when cops are brutally murdered LOD??

{cchiiiirrrrrppppp}{{chiiirrrrrrpppppppp}}

Nuttin' but crickets...

When was the last time Obama attended a cop's funeral??

Michale

And that's all I am saying...

Considering the circumstances and who is going to catch the fallout, it would behoove the Obama Administration to push the "transparency" model that they so love to claim they cherish...

. If you dispute the call, than bring it up with Texas officials, or maybe the Scalia family.

The FIRST thing an investigator asks themselves is "WHO BENEFITS??"

And, also keep in mind. I am not saying ANYTHING that the Left Wingery wouldn't be saying if it had been Ginsburg who had died and faced these circumstances..

I am just saying it a lot less hysterically... :D

Michale

Why does the Obama Admin have to "hang it's hat" on anything to do with Scalia's cause of death? What part of the Constitution makes POTUS Coroner in Chief? Where is the original intent, as the late Justice might have wondered?

The whole thing was handled badly, but it was just Texas badly, a combination of weak laws and politeness. With a dash or two of loose terminology. "Last rites" implies (in common speech) that the Justice was alive when discovered, the press and local official narratives say he wasn't. Inconsistent narratives feed conspiracy mongering, which took about 10 minutes to get started after the news broke. So does the family's understandable desire for a timely funeral w/o autopsy.

So, if you want to bring up the Russian's, why not bring up Last Rights Rockeller Style, if you catch my drift (any EMT will tell you stories, probably true). The guy was 79 years of age, and he had been putting on weight for 30 public years. In the last few he was beginning to look like Jabba Hut. He was at high risk for sudden death. If you dispute the call, than bring it up with Texas officials, or maybe the Scalia family.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-superdelegates-democrats-219286

What do ya'all say??? :D

Michale

I am equally stunned...

Granted, an autopsy will not END speculation of nefariarity..(an old word I just made up.. :D) But it might prune the hysterical conspiracy theories some..

Incidentally, that article also mentions that the family did not want an autopsy.

And that's likely the biggest thing that the Administration can hang it's hat on..

I just have to wonder. Scalia was energetic and full of life the day before, as reported by those who were with him.. A man of his advanced years, if there were any health issues, they likely would have manifested themselves..

But we're now getting back-tracking on the cause of death. ME was quoted as saying it was a heart-attack.. But then it was, "No, I didn't examine the body so I just said 'natural causes'..."

This is a conspiracy nut's wet dream... I would check for any Russian's in the area.. :D heh

Michale

Agreed...

That being said, McConnell has the authority (and has had this authority for 14 months now) to reverse Reid's decision re the filibuster issue. McConnell has chosen not to reverse it, presumably because he prefers it this way.

Or, being the crass politician he is, McConnell is waiting for the perfect moment to lower the hammer... :D

As far as the issue itself.. If the Democrat Party is so sure that Hillary will win the election, I would think that they wouldn't have a problem with waiting...

I am also constrained to point out that if the POTUS had a '-R' after his name and it was Ginsberg's seat that needed to be filled, do you think the Democrat Party would be screaming for the GOP POTUS to fill the seat??

Of course not.. The Democrat Party would be doing EXACTLY what the GOP is doing right now...

Am I wrong??

Michale

Ahhh.. That makes sense. Thanx :D

You're welcome. :-)

I would think that the sudden death of a such a controversial Supreme Court Justice in such times as we face in the here and now would CRY OUT for an autopsy..

I agree with you! Re The Washington Post:

One of two other officials who were called but couldn’t get to Scalia’s body in time said that she would have made a different decision on the autopsy.

“If it had been me .?.?. I would want to know,” Juanita Bishop, a justice of the peace in Presidio, Tex., said in an interview Sunday

But it was Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara who "pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body — which is permissible under Texas law — and without ordering an autopsy."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-tv-station-scalia-died-of-a-heart-attack/2016/02/14/938e2170-d332-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

I am stunned that any state law would specifically provide for a medically unqualified person to make a determination of death-by-natural-causes without seeing the body or consulting with a medical examiner who has seen the body. I wonder how many other states have this law and why?

Incidentally, that article also mentions that the family did not want an autopsy.

Regardless of who it helps or helped, the simple fact was it was unprecedented..

That it's unprecedented doesn't make it a bad thing. The word "unprecedented" doesn't imply good or bad in its meaning.

That being said, McConnell has the authority (and has had this authority for 14 months now) to reverse Reid's decision re the filibuster issue. McConnell has chosen not to reverse it, presumably because he prefers it this way.

Which was my point to RD regarding having a SCOTUS vacancy for such a long time..

Thus far, the longest time between nomination and confirmation is 125 days. It will no doubt be much longer this time! It's unlikely to be resolved prior to the middle of 2017 and may even take 1000+ days if the next president is Democratic and the Senate majority remains in Republican hands.

That would be unprecedented but not unConstitutional. The Constitution does not stipulate a time frame so there's no legal barrier to the process taking several years.

The only Constitutional stipulation is that it is the sitting president's duty to nominate someone for the vacancy. After that, the ball is in the Senate's court and they can do - or not do - whatever they want and for as many years as they choose to take over the process.

I have no idea if this will have any effect on the 2016 election. I strongly suspect that it won't. Though people are full of the news right now, while it is still new, that will pass and other news will replace it. People forget this kind of stuff really quickly, especially when it doesn't even remotely impact on their lives.

Undercover Video Shows Why New Hampshire Needs Stronger Voter-ID Laws

Anyone can fill out a form, say he’s a resident, and cast a vote.
http://tinyurl.com/zrgp7pv

Yea.. Voting Fraud is a myth.. :^/

Michale

Undercover Video Shows Why New Hampshire Needs Stronger Voter-ID Laws

Anyone can fill out a form, say he’s a resident, and cast a vote.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431205/new-hampshire-voter-id-okeefe

Yea.. Voting Fraud is a myth.. :^/

Michale

Ahhh.. That makes sense. Thanx :D

Michale

And that got a genuine laugh-out-loud from me followed by another huge grin!

Yea, it was a pretty funny blurb...

http://harddawn.com/nimoy-and-obama-killed-scalia/

:D

Nuking the filibuster helps the Senate party holding the majority and that would be... the Republicans! So they have to be happy with the situation.

Regardless of who it helps or helped, the simple fact was it was unprecedented.. Which was my point to RD regarding having a SCOTUS vacancy for such a long time..

Like CW pointed out with regards to no incumbent Party has retained the White House when their POTUS' approval numbers were below 50%..

Things are unprecedented.. Until they are not.. :D

I did read that the family did not give permission for an autopsy but that remains rumor until there's reliable confirmation. Also, does the final decision re autopsy rest with the family? I have heard this is the case in America (I know it doesn't pertain here) but I'm not sure of that.

The county ME can overrule the family on an autopsy if they felt the need..

I would think that the sudden death of a such a controversial Supreme Court Justice in such times as we face in the here and now would CRY OUT for an autopsy..

Like I said to Paula.. If it had been Ginsberg that died under these circumstances, the Left Wingery would be batshit hysterically screaming "MURDER!!!" and "RACISM!!!" and "AUTOPSY!!!"....

Michale

(106) Ah, the seeds of the newest wingnut conspiracy theory are loosed upon the world, seeking friendly soil...

I am only saying what YOU would be saying if it was Ginsberg that died under the same circumstances.. :D

Michale

It then took hours for authorities in remote West Texas to find a justice of the peace, officials said Sunday. When they did, she pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body and decided not to order an autopsy.

Yea.. THAT's not suspicious...

I wouldn't have used the word "suspicious" so much as ineptitude on steroids. Unless the Justice of the Peace has medical qualifications, then I cannot see how that person can possibly be considered qualified to make any such pronouncement.

S/he spoke to Justice Scalia's doctor on the phone and made their determination from that remote consultation? I agree, that's a huge FAIL right there.

I did read that the family did not give permission for an autopsy but that remains rumor until there's reliable confirmation. Also, does the final decision re autopsy rest with the family? I have heard this is the case in America (I know it doesn't pertain here) but I'm not sure of that.

And the Democrat Senate had NO historical support for nuking the filibuster..

And yet, they did...

Nuking the filibuster helps the Senate party holding the majority and that would be... the Republicans! So they have to be happy with the situation.

Certainly McConnell, since becoming majority leader 14 months ago has failed to carry out his threat to reinstate the filibuster rule. And why would that be? Oh yes, it's because a no-filibuster rule (which applies only to the confirmation of judicial nominees) favors the majority party and that would be... McConnell's own party!

the first time the justices have issued a stay before any court heard the merits of the case.

So what happens then, smart people!!

Um... the answer is in what you wrote:

the justices issued a stay

A "stay" is an order to take no further action until there's a decision -- a stay is not a decision in itself, nor is it permanent; it's just a temporary placeholder.

the justices have issued a stay before any court heard the merits of the case.

In other words, the case has not been heard yet. If, after that hearing, the vote is 4-4, the stay is lifted and they return to pre-stay status.

I find it very... rude that Obama would have Scalia assassinated JUST to prove me wrong on another SCOTUS ruling.. :^/

And that got a genuine laugh-out-loud from me followed by another huge grin!

Which is why Scalia was assassinated by the minions of Illuminati led by Leonard Nimoy...

Okay, this got a huge grin from me!

Happy Valentine's Day!

I would argue that point, but it would be nothing more than an informed opinion based on Obama's past and the viciousness of the Left Wingery..

but then, based on the comments of trump and cruz yesterday, even chief justice roberts isn't conservative enough to pass muster. it's the senate's prerogative to reject a moderate nominee, but i don't think it would be a winning strategy for them in the long run.

Unless, it works...

"That was a stupid move."
"Only because it failed. If it would have succeeded, it would have been a brilliant move. Such as it is with those things."
-INFINITE WORLDS OF MAYBE, Lester Del Rey

:D

Michale

Hmmmmmm

ME pronounces Scalia dead of a heart attack OVER the phone and without ordering an autopsy..

Yea.. THAT's not suspicious... :^/

Michale

but then, based on the comments of trump and cruz yesterday, even chief justice roberts isn't conservative enough to pass muster. it's the senate's prerogative to reject a moderate nominee, but i don't think it would be a winning strategy for them in the long run.

And if he is the nominee, then we can revisit the issue.. :D

Michale

let's get specific: sri srinivasan of the dc circuit is generally thought to be the leading candidate for the nomination. he clerked for sandra day o'connor, worked under both bush and obama, is widely regarded as a moderate, and was confirmed to his current position in 2013 by a 97-0 vote in the senate.

JL

And the Democrat Senate had NO historical support for nuking the filibuster..

And yet, they did...

Michale

Considering the arrogance of Obama and the Left Wingery, it's unlikely that Obama will choose anything BUT an absolute flaming liberal...

in my view, a wiser strategy on mcconnell's part would be to ultimately confirm the nominee, but arrange the confirmation battle to play out in a way that lulls the liberal base and motivates the conservative base.

And have a 5-4 FLAMING Liberal court???

Shirley, you jest....

Michale

It certainly shows my points (in #52) are not supported by past occasions and corroborates Pres. Obama's decision last night to name a nominee soon. The Republican Senate has little historical support for resisting a confirmation hearing in Obama's last year.

ok, here goes:

http://tinyurl.com/hwzwav9

JL

that is certainly possible. however, unless the nominee is an absolute flaming liberal, that tactic would be highly likely to backfire on the seven or eight vulnerable senate seats the republicans will be defending in november, as well as the GOP presidential nominee.

i.e. in that scenario the GOP senate leadership would win the battle but lose the war - especially when there are at least two more justices likely to be appointed in the next president's first term.

in my view, a wiser strategy on mcconnell's part would be to ultimately confirm the nominee, but arrange the confirmation battle to play out in a way that lulls the liberal base and motivates the conservative base.

JL

Vice President Biden will attempt to persuade Senate majority leader McConnell to hold a hearing or hearings for the nominee and have an up or down vote in the Senate before the end of the summer.

Considering how badly Reid mangled Senate rules to favor the Democrat Party with regards to the filibuster, there ain't NO WAY that there is going to be ANY vote on Obama's nominee..

Let alone an "up or down" vote...

Democrats made their bed... Now they have to lie it in....

Democrats play with fire.. Democrats get burned...

Choose yer metaphor....

Michale

Postulate a scenario where Scalia knew he was at the end of his life...

In one final big FRAK YOU to the Left Wingery that so hounded him, he ingests poison and leaves a trail to implicate said Left Wingery...

Michale

Unofficially, that is the story coming out of Texas... Until a full tox screen is done, it's all speculation....

Michale

For the record, however...

The thuggery and racism of BLM is well established with concrete and objective facts... Even the black Left Wingery officials in Baltimore condemned the "THUGS" (their word) of the Black Lives Matter racists...

The same cannot be said for the political bigotry which condemns Scalia... Which heralds solely and completely from the afore mentioned Left Wingery...

Michale

There are no indications at all that Scalia died of anything other than a completely natural death.

Yea... That's what they WANT you to think.. :D

However, there is some food for though. What could prevent ANY President from having a political opponent secretly killed, and then pardoning the assassin before the President's own involvement was discovered, if it ever was? Technically, there is nothing legally against that, as far as I can see.

Other than the fact that, if the POTUS knew who it was before it was discovered, that would involve said POTUS as a co-conspirator...

Paula,

Re: 'low blows" -- from the man who scatters "thug" like leaves in a tornado whenever Black Lives Matter's related events are mentioned, please.

So, we're both guilty...

"Yea.. I can live with that."
-Keeanu Reeves, THE REPLACEMENTS

:D

Michale

Here is what I think is more likely ...

Vice President Biden will attempt to persuade Senate majority leader McConnell to hold a hearing or hearings for the nominee and have an up or down vote in the Senate before the end of the summer.

If the vice president is unable to persuade the Senate leader, then - in a thinly veiled threat accompanied by a big and bright smile - he could provide a last-ditch, friendly warning to all of the oppositionists in the Senate that they will oppose President Obama's nominee at their very distinct peril.

If there is still no nominee or confirmation process by the end of the year, then appointing Biden to the SCOTUS makes slightly more sense.

Not surprisingly, that thought had crossed my mind. There are a number of reasons why that would be a good appointment.

What are the chances? I have absolutely no idea. :)

What about appointing Joe Biden to the Supreme Court to fill Scalia's position? Having been in the Senate, being so well know, and having so many Senatorial friends who respect him, what are the chances?

Re: 'low blows" -- from the man who scatters "thug" like leaves in a tornado whenever Black Lives Matter's related events are mentioned, please.

"Yea.. This is a "burn" of Cosmic proportions.. :D
Which is why Scalia was assassinated by the minions of Illuminati led by Leonard Nimoy...
I read it on the Internet so it HAS to be true.. :D"

There are no indications at all that Scalia died of anything other than a completely natural death.

However, there is some food for though. What could prevent ANY President from having a political opponent secretly killed, and then pardoning the assassin before the President's own involvement was discovered, if it ever was? Technically, there is nothing legally against that, as far as I can see.

I don't care about what he believed -- I am remarking on what he did and the results. And even though he is no longer here to defend himself he will be judged. He will be written about, argued about, evaluated, for years to come because of the significance of the position he held and the reach of his decisions.

His death doesn't suddenly turn terrible actions into good actions. By your logic Donald Trump's embrace of torture must equally be accepted because we can't know what's truly in his heart -- or can we? Or is it ok to be horrified at his statements now, but, once he kicks the bucket we have to speak reverently of Mr. Trump and all his works?

So I'll take your quote: "Don't speak ill of the dead" and raise you:
"By their fruits ye shall know them."

(83): Auto-correct -- yep.

Michale [11] -

Bubba's putting Obama down? Got a link for that quote?

ASK... And ye shall receive.. :D

“A lot of people say you don’t understand — it’s rigged now. Yeah, it’s rigged now because you don’t have a president that’s a change-maker.”
http://nypost.com/2016/02/14/bill-clinton-downplays-obama-were-all-mixed-race-people/

Michale

What was auto-corrected??

Chocolate?? Covered?? Or Pickles?? :D

Michale

When in doubt, apostrophe it!! :D

Michale

you must be reading the thread on the previous post. no apostrophe in that usage of LETS! [let us] hope mcconnell [allows] obama to nominate a moderate, which he was probably going to do anyway.

Or was that a typo??? :D

now THAT was ironic!

;)
JL

Now, what have we told you about counting SCOTUS chickens? Remember... you've been burned before!

Ahhhh But I get the last laugh..

In the case of a 4-4 tie, the case is decided as the lower court has ruled..

But in THIS case, there *IS NO* lower court ruling...

So what happens then, smart people!! :D heh

Michale

I disagree.. The actions of the SCOTUS have been INTERPRETED as "intensely political".. Usually by those on the losing side..

It's along the same lines as a gun not being good or evil.. It's simply a tool..

SCOTUS rulings, by and large, have not been political, but rather in accordance with the law as it is understood by the justices...

At least, that's my take..

Obama will nominate a far-right jurist with sterling credentials -

Yea?? On what planet?? :^/

The only way Obama will nominate a far-right jurist is if he let's Mitch McConnell do the choosing.. :D

Or was that a typo??? :D

Michale

Why didn't someone explain that to the Federalists?

In other words, for as long as the Supreme Court as-we-know-it has existed, it has been intensely political. It's just that the politics on the Court have been those of a few decades earlier, as when Federalist justices continued to enact Federalist policy even after the Federalists no longer existed as a quasi-party.

Obama will nominate a far-right jurist with sterling credentials -- but not far-right enough for some Republicans in the Senate (or for Michale). The nomination will be rejected.

Michale

Yea.. This is a "burn" of Cosmic proportions.. :D

Which is why Scalia was assassinated by the minions of Illuminati led by Leonard Nimoy...

I read it on the Internet so it HAS to be true.. :D

Michale

What I mean to say is that, if you want to castigate the dead for their convictions, fine.. It's kinda a low blow, but at least it is logical or rational in that context..

But to castigate someone like Scalia for having "the power to enforce his opinions on the world" is illogical when the liberal justices (whom you approve of) have *AND EXERCISE* that exact same "power"...

You see my point??

Michale

This is the first time in history that the SCOTUS has stayed a regulation after a lower court refused to do so, and the first time the justices have issued a stay before any court heard the merits of the case.

That's a pretty clear indication how the SCOTUS will rule once the case actually makes it to the court..

I appreciate that you didn't know Scalia had died when you wrote this but, given CW's response:

CW [31]

Now, what have we told you about counting SCOTUS chickens? Remember... you've been burned before!

Heh.

It didn't take long for you to get burned this time! :D

Bush won EVERY pre-ruling and POST-ruling count...

Basically, Democrats wanted to count and count and count again and count some more and KEEP counting until the desired result was achieved.. REGARDLESS of the harm that would come to this country...

Bush was the democratically elected President of the United States..

Your guy lost..

Get over it...

Paula, you seem bitter that Scalia would vote with his convictions in court... But what you fail to realize is that the liberal justices ALSO voted their convictions in court...

You castigate Scalia for doing the EXACT same thing that the liberal justices do...

Where is the logic in that??

Michale

Not to be even more crass, but depending on how deep her friendship was with Scalia, his death might effect more than just her personal calculus.. Her health, for example..

Michale

You remind me of someone with your comments in this issue..

:D

One has to wonder what would be said here if someone on the Right made the same type of comments about Ginsberg if Ginsberg had died..

Actually, no.. I don't think we have to wonder at all.. :D

Michale

Oh I am sure.. :D But I was referring to foul play in the death of Justice Scalia.. Not in the aftermath..

As for Biden kicking up his heels ... you still don't understand who Joe Biden is, on the outside or inside, I'm sad to say ...

My mistake.. I thought you were talking about Obama..

Yes, Biden is a class act.. We are in complete agreement on that..

Michale

"Do not speak evil of the dead"
~Chilon of Sparta

"we should be able to have disagreements with opponents about policy etc. without them having to descend into nastiness," is at the heart of what i'm saying. however, i vigorously disagree about having to be nasty to get what you want. anyone who believes you have to be mean to be firm has never successfully taught middle school.

furthermore it behooves us at the very least to show someone on the other side some courtesy when they're no longer around to respond. we don't have to pretend we like or agree with scalia's decisions or their impact, but being as he's gone, we have to believe that he meant well unless we have hard evidence that he didn't.

JL

I agree with you but we'll have to see what they think!

It's late where I am -- g'night!

If you are saying we have to pretend Scalia wasn't disgraceful because he has died, I don't agree. I agree I shouldn't go to his funeral and be disrespectful, or send nasty letters to his family. But I can most certainly continue to believe about him what I believe. His death doesn't change that. He held one of the most consequential positions, literally, that exists on this planet. He felt well-equipped to hold it as well -- no false modesty from him! So poor practice on his part wasn't just a matter of disagreement -- you say tomayto and I say tomahto -- it was cataclysmic. The difference between the importance of his opinions and mine or yours is that he held the power to enforce his opinions on the world. He is accountable, even if only in terms of the way he is thought of and will be remembered, for his use/misuse of that power.

JL

i'm sure many on the right feel the same about president obama's actions. but at some point you have to respect the person - the guy voted his beliefs, no matter how harmful i think they were. i would hope that reasonable people on the other side would treat the president with the same courtesy. although i happen to agree with you that the bush v. gore and citizens united decisions - as well as many others - were harmful, in this country our opinions aren't the only ones that matter. and that's as it should be.

JL

The fact that Justice Ginsberg liked him personally is just peachy for her -- it has nothing to do with me and in no way changes what he did. I'm not sure that enjoying opera and having a sense of humor makes Bush v. Gore more excusable, but I guess cheery, witty partisan hackery, perhaps enacted while humming tunes from La Boheme, is to be preferred over gloomy, humorless hackery enacted by people who don't like music.

agree completely. anyone who seriously suggests we wait for the next president isn't taking into account how long it would take for that president to nominate someone and be sworn in, and how much chaos would result from such a long period with a vacant seat on the highest court in the land. it would be the longest vacancy in over a century, at least. congressional republicans may force that scenario, but they do so at their own peril.

JL

strongly disagree about leaving a scotus vacancy for over a year. like it or not, obama's responsibility as president is to nominate someone to fill the vacancy at the highest level of the judicial branch, and he can likely have a nominee chosen before the end of march. any less and he wouldn't be doing his job.

@paula,

scalia was a hard core conservative, and that was his bias. we who lean to the left tend to believe that conservative rulings are harmful, but intense disagreement on the good or harm done by policy or legal philosophy does not make someone a bad person, much less someone to speak ill of when they've passed. if justice scalia was such a terrible person, was justice ginsberg a traitor for being his friend? like it or not, we need to share this country with people who may think it is we whose policies and rulings are harmful.

JL

SCOTUS gets hundreds of cases on appeal, each term. They (obviously) don't hear all of them. What they do is triage -- they hold a sort of straw-poll vote on whether the case is even worthy of a SCOTUS decision.

As far as I'm aware, it only takes 4 votes to force SCOTUS to take the case up.

Now, think about that in the current scenario.

If the Senate blocks everybody until the next POTUS is sworn in, then we'll likely have a full year-and-a-half of an 8-member court. The 2015/16 term is already pretty set in stone -- they've announced which cases they'll be hearing, and some of them are still left on the schedule for oral arguments, but most are already in the pipeline. They'll be decided by June, the end of the SCOTUS year.

Next year, they'll open the 2016/17 year in October. Half the cases, they'll announce early, and the second half by (roughly) January. That is: "these are the cases we'll hear this term."

The new president, Dem or GOP, will be sworn in at the end of January, 2017. At best, they'll immediately announce their appointment. They'll have to be vetted by the Senate committees, which will likely take at least a month or two. In other words, the earliest possible confirmation would mean the new justice wouldn't even be part of ANY of the 16/17 decisions. Maybe a few, at the tail end of the oral argument calendar, but that's all.

So -- for the entire next term, if a case gets 4 votes, it'll be heard. But also, if a case is decided 4-4, the appellate court ruling will be affirmed.

This could lead to all sorts of partisan mischief -- by BOTH sides.

Something to think about.

-CW

In terms of a political battle -- when won't there be a political battle? Circus-like and lurid? Yep, kinda like tonight's Republican debate.

It's a bomb alright -- it just went off and changed the direction/trajectory of this election. But if we've learned anything about Republicans we've learned we shouldn't wait on anything on the the theory they might be more reasonable given theoretical-situation-that-might-occur-in-future. They take that as surrender and just up the ante. Obama needs to put a solid nominee out there immediately and then we can all step back and watch the tantrums commence. It's what they'll do anyway and even when Hillary or Bernie wins, we'll still likely to have a very tight senate and all the same pressures will still exist.

yes, obama should nominate someone, and it's a chance to change the ideological complexion of the court. but think for a second about the political changes that followed the nomination battle over clarence thomas, when thurgood marshall retired. the hearings were circus-like and lurid. the nomination was a close vote. a year and a half after thomas was confirmed, bill clinton was president and the now legendary conservative hunt for his sexual misdeeds was in full swing. the roles reversed, the gloves were off, sexual foibles were fair game, and the fallout over gary hart's little dalliance in 1988 was about to seem quaint by comparison.

JL

The President has a year to go. Per Charles Pierce: "17 justices have been confirmed during election years, including Roger Taney, which sucks, in 1836, Lewis Powell and William Rehnquist, who were appointed in 1972, and Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed in 1988."

This is just Republicans obstructing like the always do. If a Repub was in office they'd be threatening to arrest Harry Reid if he announced Dems were going to refuse to do their jobs. And if that's going to be the outcome anyway Obama should make sure the country sees, loud and clear, that Republicans should not hold elected office because they continually refuse to carry out the duties inherent in their positions.

May the congressional Republicans follow the example of the Malheur Refuge insurgents -- may they take hold of the ropes offered them and hang themselves, one after another.

In the immortal words of Barack Obama to Mitt Romney: "Proceed."

A new President might well have to consider more than one appointment in her or his first term.