NFT: REPORTED: Supreme Court Justice Scalia Found Dead

this is going to affect voter turnout in the POTUS election, probably on both sides. Ironically, if Obama gets a nominee through, it helps the Republicans. If he puts up a strong nominee who gets rejected, it helps the Democrats. There are going to be massive "get out the vote" drives in either case

And anyone who thinks that disagreeing with Scalia's viewpoint is by definition a follower of the daily KOS is a sad individual. Scalia was an extremely conservative jurist whose political views affected his judicial views. There are some on the other side as well. The fact remains that with Kennedy mostly going with the 4 conservative jurists, there were many decisions that were more conservative than a majority of Americans would have liked. There is particularly the case on business decisions. Article on that, and the whole idea of "strict constructionism," linked.

Now, if Obama can get a nominee through, it swings the other way. Yes, he will nominate a relative liberal. He's allowed. One way or the other, there is going to be a political war, and it will be very high profile right up to the election whether a nominee gets in or not.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama nominates someone like Tribe--liberal but incredibly well respected. He had a benign brain tumor a while back. I don't know if that would affect his desire to accept a nomination.
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 12813824 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 12813818 Deej said: Quote: His legacy is going to be interesting. He's a guy whose legacy could really go either way. 15 years ago I think he looked like a guy who would be remembered as a titan but his influence diminished on the Roberts Court IMO. He'll still be remembered as a titan because nobody played so big a role in changing the conversation. But some of his more acerbic dissents, particularly Lawrence, will probably not be judged favorably by posterity.

I think Rehnquist is much more entitled to the credit. This is the problem with Scalia's legacy. He was not willing to do the work or bend the opinion to get more votes. Rehnquist on the other hand knew how to count to 5.

We're too close to him to fully assess his legacy. Which of his major opinions have lasting power, which of his dissents become law. I think he will end up having undermined his popular legacy by the acerbic comments, but his legacy among lawyers will probably not turn much on that. I'd guess that his most lasting legacy will be originalism, whether it disappears with this generation or not.

Is being handled with the civility and grace I expected of BBI.

Supreme Court justices, regardless of their perspective, are generally among the best and brightest of their profession. Almost to a person, they serve this country thoughtfully and selflessly.

A brilliant public servant has died and since most of you mutants don't know anything about him other than that some dullard on radio or TV told you to either hate him or love him, maybe keep the douchebaggery to a minimum and show some respect?

That's impressive.

Ginsburg is 82, Kennedy is 79 and Breyer 77. There could be a lot of appointments for the next POTUS.

I've said in the past that we should do away with lifetime appointments for the SC. They should have 18 year terms with each presidential term getting two appointments

I wonder if Garland is.

is whether Connecticut is really big enough for both Randy and Carl.

Doubtful. What Connecticut lacks is a proper 53rd Street and Park Avenue to work this out.

In comment 12813838 GMenLTS said:

Quote:

Your first post was just bullshit and you never should have hit submit. Someone likely would have come along anyway to make a similarly dumb remark but you probably should have known better

It was tongue in cheek...def not 100% serious. And I really could not care less about a spanking from some of the posters who I generally get into it with on here. I was just incredulous that Randy (who tells Paulie Walnuts to go fuck himself whenever his posts even when not directed at him) ha the nerve to tell me not to post about politics when literally some of the dumbest assertions and opinions I've ever read have followed his handle and I never call him for it. Whatever I'm done. Carry on

a Supreme court nomination. That's like one of the main perks that comes with the position. I don't care where you fall ideology but that request is asinine.

But I will say the election just got a bit more interesting for a number of reasons. Obama will appoint someone, the Senate will not take a vote and it will roll over to the next Prez to make a decision. At that point if the Dems regain the Senate(likely) and there's a Dem Prez any nom will get through, however, if there's a Rep Prez and a Dem Senate, look out! We may have 8 Justices for a long, long time(and yes, you can have 8 under the Constitution).

In comment 12813840 Deej said:

Quote:

In comment 12813824 Dunedin81 said: Quote: In comment 12813818 Deej said: Quote: His legacy is going to be interesting. He's a guy whose legacy could really go either way. 15 years ago I think he looked like a guy who would be remembered as a titan but his influence diminished on the Roberts Court IMO. He'll still be remembered as a titan because nobody played so big a role in changing the conversation. But some of his more acerbic dissents, particularly Lawrence, will probably not be judged favorably by posterity. I think Rehnquist is much more entitled to the credit. This is the problem with Scalia's legacy. He was not willing to do the work or bend the opinion to get more votes. Rehnquist on the other hand knew how to count to 5. We're too close to him to fully assess his legacy. Which of his major opinions have lasting power, which of his dissents become law. I think he will end up having undermined his popular legacy by the acerbic comments, but his legacy among lawyers will probably not turn much on that. I'd guess that his most lasting legacy will be originalism, whether it disappears with this generation or not.

I think Rehnquist deserves a lot of credit, no doubt, but Scalia's status as a "celebrity" jurist (ironically one that RBG has cultivated in the last few years too), his bombast, helped cement textualism and originalism as viable alternatives to the reigning interpretations of law and the constitution in legal academia and, by extension, on the bench.

In comment 12813839 manh george said:

Quote:

this is going to affect voter turnout in the POTUS election, probably on both sides. Ironically, if Obama gets a nominee through, it helps the Republicans. If he puts up a strong nominee who gets rejected, it helps the Democrats. There are going to be massive "get out the vote" drives in either case And anyone who thinks that disagreeing with Scalia's viewpoint is by definition a follower of the daily KOS is a sad individual. Scalia was an extremely conservative jurist whose political views affected his judicial views. There are some on the other side as well. The fact remains that with Kennedy mostly going with the 4 conservative jurists, there were many decisions that were more conservative than a majority of Americans would have liked. There is particularly the case on business decisions. Article on that, and the whole idea of "strict constructionism," linked. Now, if Obama can get a nominee through, it swings the other way. Yes, he will nominate a relative liberal. He's allowed. One way or the other, there is going to be a political war, and it will be very high profile right up to the election whether a nominee gets in or not. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama nominates someone like Tribe--liberal but incredibly well respected. He had a benign brain tumor a while back. I don't know if that would affect his desire to accept a nomination. Link - ( New Window )

I agree with this. If he gets to appoint a radical liberal now where's the dire need next election? It's a net loss because Ruth Bader Ginsburg will just get replaced by a conserative.

As noted above, Scalia tended to be extremely ascerbic, and even sarcastic, in public forums. While usually not talking baout specific cases, he aired his legal philosophy in ways that gave his opponents lots of ammo--with lots of venom, as if opponents were by definition stupid.

He even came pretty close to this in the tone of some of his dissenting views. For a SC justice, he was a very lousy loser.

the only thing the righties can think of is "can we drag this out 12 months till after the election." Not caring at all that they have to decide on cases this July. The country and the government be damned as long as they get THEIR people and ONLY their people in.

In comment 12813849 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 12813840 Deej said: Quote: In comment 12813824 Dunedin81 said: Quote: In comment 12813818 Deej said: Quote: His legacy is going to be interesting. He's a guy whose legacy could really go either way. 15 years ago I think he looked like a guy who would be remembered as a titan but his influence diminished on the Roberts Court IMO. He'll still be remembered as a titan because nobody played so big a role in changing the conversation. But some of his more acerbic dissents, particularly Lawrence, will probably not be judged favorably by posterity. I think Rehnquist is much more entitled to the credit. This is the problem with Scalia's legacy. He was not willing to do the work or bend the opinion to get more votes. Rehnquist on the other hand knew how to count to 5. We're too close to him to fully assess his legacy. Which of his major opinions have lasting power, which of his dissents become law. I think he will end up having undermined his popular legacy by the acerbic comments, but his legacy among lawyers will probably not turn much on that. I'd guess that his most lasting legacy will be originalism, whether it disappears with this generation or not. I think Rehnquist deserves a lot of credit, no doubt, but Scalia's status as a "celebrity" jurist (ironically one that RBG has cultivated in the last few years too), his bombast, helped cement textualism and originalism as viable alternatives to the reigning interpretations of law and the constitution in legal academia and, by extension, on the bench.

Strategic conservatives like Rehnquist and Roberts who operate without a strict jurisdiction philosophy but generally advocate some not strictly defined notion of judicial restraint are much more influential over the long term but again it's debatable.

In comment 12813851 manh george said:

Quote:

He even came pretty close to this in the tone of some of his dissenting views. For a SC justice, he was a very lousy loser.

Bloviating blowhards usually are.

Judicial

He is going to appoint someone with moderate liberal leanings and enormous legal respect, who will make the Republicans squirm. He would be foolish not to, and he is mopre savvy than you give him credit for being.

In comment 12813858 manh george said:

Quote:

He is going to appoint someone with moderate liberal leanings and enormous legal respect, who will make the Republicans squirm. He would be foolish not to, and he is mopre savvy than you give him credit for being.

I don't think the Rs will let him appoint anyone.

In comment 12813844 Ash_3 said:

Quote:

I wonder if Garland is.

Garland is also from the tribe, if that's what you're asking?
And they don't want to go through this again during the nomination process! - ( New Window )

In comment 12813851 manh george said:

Quote:

As noted above, Scalia tended to be extremely ascerbic, and even sarcastic, in public forums. While usually not talking baout specific cases, he aired his legal philosophy in ways that gave his opponents lots of ammo--with lots of venom, as if opponents were by definition stupid. He even came pretty close to this in the tone of some of his dissenting views. For a SC justice, he was a very lousy loser.

It's fabulously you can speak authoritatively on what drives people's opinions. What you should have written was that you didn't like him, and you believe your basis for that view to be reasonable, and are extending that to anyone that agrees with you.

I've been meaning to say that it is good to have you back, but the brevity of your retirement left those of us that defended you on that thread in a little bit of an awkward position.

In comment 12813858 manh george said:

Quote:

He is going to appoint someone with moderate liberal leanings and enormous legal respect, who will make the Republicans squirm. He would be foolish not to, and he is mopre savvy than you give him credit for being.

Right. And if the R's drag their feet, then the election has just got the top issue dropped at its feet.

In comment 12813862 Rob in CT/NYC said:

Quote:

In comment 12813851 manh george said: Quote: As noted above, Scalia tended to be extremely ascerbic, and even sarcastic, in public forums. While usually not talking baout specific cases, he aired his legal philosophy in ways that gave his opponents lots of ammo--with lots of venom, as if opponents were by definition stupid. He even came pretty close to this in the tone of some of his dissenting views. For a SC justice, he was a very lousy loser. It's fabulously you can speak authoritatively on what drives people's opinions. What you should have written was that you didn't like him, and you believe your basis for that view to be reasonable, and are extending that to anyone that agrees with you. I've been meaning to say that it is good to have you back, but the brevity of your retirement left those of us that defended you on that thread in a little bit of an awkward position.

That's right but there are perfectly good historical arguments for why Scalia's jurisprudence was hopelessly blinkered despite his immense rhetorical skill and historical nous.

In comment 12813859 RobCarpenter said:

Quote:

In comment 12813858 manh george said: I don't think the Rs will let him appoint anyone.

I guess they might but Id love to see how they pull that off. Its at least 9 months to the election and even if a republican wins it would be until next February where someone can be confirmed. Its also VERY likely that the Dems take back the Senate anyway. So I really don't see the gain in waiting. What if you lose both the White House and the Senate and they can appoint someone REALLy liberal as opposed to someone who is a moderate with liberal leanings like Obama probably will do.

You're absolutely right that Rehnquist and Roberts have been or are more effective at moving the needle on particular cases. But I think Scalia's role in influencing a couple generations of lawyers - future legal academics, future jurists - probably exceeds his role in actually getting desired outcomes from SCOTUS.

In comment 12813846 chopperhatch said:

Quote:

In comment 12813838 GMenLTS said: Quote: Your first post was just bullshit and you never should have hit submit. Someone likely would have come along anyway to make a similarly dumb remark but you probably should have known better It was tongue in cheek...def not 100% serious. And I really could not care less about a spanking from some of the posters who I generally get into it with on here. I was just incredulous that Randy (who tells Paulie Walnuts to go fuck himself whenever his posts even when not directed at him) ha the nerve to tell me not to post about politics when literally some of the dumbest assertions and opinions I've ever read have followed his handle and I never call him for it. Whatever I'm done. Carry on

Chop; we'll never agree on politics (well, maybe never) but I've always respected your viewpoint and your consistency. I see that you intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but it turned out to be a clinker in the grate. No harm, no foul.

his jurisprudential philosophy (which a lot of people think was more show than conviction) and the celebrity status may be the legacy. I think that's somewhat of a black mark on his legacy. He was happy writing a dissent rather than trying to win 5 votes, even when he had a conservative court. In particular he alienated the moderately conservative O'Connor just for shits and giggles.

IMO, Scalia thought his job was to write opinions and ask questions that like minded folks off the bench loved him for. Rehnquist understood that the job was to get 5 votes.

I should note my bias -- I think the celebrity justice is a bad thing. Scalia, RBG etc. I think Thomas's decision not to ask questions is probably the right call at this point. There is really no need for oral argument at that level.

not by his conservatism since I recognize that intelligent people can be found in all political camps but for his switching ideological gears. In some matters he was a "strict constructionist" but when it came to gun rights he conveniently overlooked the phrase "in a well regulated militia." I'm an advocate for gun rights but it is blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a strict constructionist and then ignore phrases that don't support your position.

As a lifelong advocate of state's rights, he should have thrown gay marriage back on the states. But he wanted the federal government to outlaw it because "people have the right to find things morally repugnant." Pure opportunism.

But the thing about Scalia was he was so mentally quick and rhetorically adept that he could make a plausible case that 2 + 2 wasn't always 4. Definitely a great legal mind even if he did more harm than good. All Americans should mourn his passing, regardless of whether you agreed with him.

In comment 12813869 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

You're absolutely right that Rehnquist and Roberts have been or are more effective at moving the needle on particular cases. But I think Scalia's role in influencing a couple generations of lawyers - future legal academics, future jurists - probably exceeds his role in actually getting desired outcomes from SCOTUS.

Given how the legal profession at its highest ranks is largely dominated by people from the left, that's a good point. Brandeis, for instance, got the last laugh when a generation of justices influenced by his viewpoints dominated the the academy and eventually came to sit on the bench.

that RBG's celebrity turn is something removed from her decision making. It's a hipster/feminist conceit. Whereas Scalia's celerity is entirely tied up in his decisions and acerbic style.

Scalia's earlier work was better. Like Burnham. When it was about the music and not the fame. His best later work was probably on statutory construction. That will be part of his legacy.

?

In comment 12813877 Deej said:

Quote:

that RBG's celebrity turn is something removed from her decision making. It's a hipster/feminist conceit. Whereas Scalia's celerity is entirely tied up in his decisions and acerbic style. Scalia's earlier work was better. Like Burnham. When it was about the music and not the fame. His best later work was probably on statutory construction. That will be part of his legacy.

The Notorious RBG memes make me lol.

In comment 12813872 Deej said:

Quote:

his jurisprudential philosophy (which a lot of people think was more show than conviction) and the celebrity status may be the legacy. I think that's somewhat of a black mark on his legacy. He was happy writing a dissent rather than trying to win 5 votes, even when he had a conservative court. In particular he alienated the moderately conservative O'Connor just for shits and giggles. IMO, Scalia thought his job was to write opinions and ask questions that like minded folks off the bench loved him for. Rehnquist understood that the job was to get 5 votes. I should note my bias -- I think the celebrity justice is a bad thing. Scalia, RBG etc. I think Thomas's decision not to ask questions is probably the right call at this point. There is really no need for oral argument at that level.

I think the celebrity jurist is an outgrowth of the Court being so consequential. And while I certainly have issues with it, I'm not sure whether it's better or worse than the idea of cloistered hermits rendering decisions on the future of the country without significant explanation (outside their published opinions) of what does and doesn't drive them.

In comment 12813868 Zepp said:

Quote:

In comment 12813859 RobCarpenter said: Quote: In comment 12813858 manh george said: I don't think the Rs will let him appoint anyone. I guess they might but Id love to see how they pull that off. Its at least 9 months to the election and even if a republican wins it would be until next February where someone can be confirmed. Its also VERY likely that the Dems take back the Senate anyway. So I really don't see the gain in waiting. What if you lose both the White House and the Senate and they can appoint someone REALLy liberal as opposed to someone who is a moderate with liberal leanings like Obama probably will do.

I'm with you (especially on the Senate flipping) but I don't see them being logical here.

See attached article on Senate Rs wanting to wait until next election.
Link - ( New Window )

In comment 12813883 RobCarpenter said:

Quote:

In comment 12813868 Zepp said: I'm with you (especially on the Senate flipping) but I don't see them being logical here.

Wow that would be a really risky strategy for them the more I think about it. The Dems are a little divided right now with Bernie and Clinton. What a way to unite the party behind whoever the nominee is by demonstrating that the REpublicans will go so far as to hold up a SCOTUS nomination a year for partisan purposes.

In comment 12813882 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

In comment 12813872 Deej said: Quote: his jurisprudential philosophy (which a lot of people think was more show than conviction) and the celebrity status may be the legacy. I think that's somewhat of a black mark on his legacy. He was happy writing a dissent rather than trying to win 5 votes, even when he had a conservative court. In particular he alienated the moderately conservative O'Connor just for shits and giggles. IMO, Scalia thought his job was to write opinions and ask questions that like minded folks off the bench loved him for. Rehnquist understood that the job was to get 5 votes. I should note my bias -- I think the celebrity justice is a bad thing. Scalia, RBG etc. I think Thomas's decision not to ask questions is probably the right call at this point. There is really no need for oral argument at that level. I think the celebrity jurist is an outgrowth of the Court being so consequential. And while I certainly have issues with it, I'm not sure whether it's better or worse than the idea of cloistered hermits rendering decisions on the future of the country without significant explanation (outside their published opinions) of what does and doesn't drive them.

Except we have 2 celebrity justices, and RBG's celebrity doesnt have that much to do with her decision making.

In comment 12813859 RobCarpenter said:

Quote:

In comment 12813858 manh george said: Quote: He is going to appoint someone with moderate liberal leanings and enormous legal respect, who will make the Republicans squirm. He would be foolish not to, and he is mopre savvy than you give him credit for being. I don't think the Rs will let him appoint anyone.

The question I have regarding obstructionism/disagreement is, how will that affect the respective brands?

SFNNCGF:
ERIC HOLDER.

In comment 12813889 old man said:

Quote:

SFNNCGF: ERIC HOLDER.

There have got to be many better candidates than Eric Holder.

In comment 12813838 GMenLTS said:

Quote:

Your first post was just bullshit and you never should have hit submit. Someone likely would have come along anyway to make a similarly dumb remark but you probably should have known better

It's fucking cumhatch, what else did you expect? He's a fucking moron.

If the republicans mess around imagine a scenario where the Dems take back the senate, which is likely due to the numbers of seats the R's are defending, a Dem wins the White House and nominates Barack Obama to the SCOTUS LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In comment 12813884 RobCarpenter said:

Quote:

See attached article on Senate Rs wanting to wait until next election. Link - ( New Window )

The practical effect of that is no conservative decisions for at least a year. A lot of 4-4 cases getting thrown back(only to return when there are 9 again).

In comment 12813777 chopperhatch said:

Quote:

Now our misfit POTUS can appoint a radical Muslim cleric to the Supreme Court as his final dagger of his two terms.

if you are however being serious you've probably never met a muslim or actually listened to anything O said without calling him a rag head. It's probably something you've never even thought of i know.

On a nomination, they'll have the GOP over a barrel for the next 10 months.

If he nominates a well respected moderate-enough liberal, the Congress will either have to accept the appointment (Obama wins) or deal with relentless talking point that they are holding the SCOTUS hostage on partisan grounds (Obama/HRC wins)

In comment 12813835 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

I don't understand why Eric doesn't allow political threads?

LOL

The bigot is gone.

In comment 12813927 Ben in Tampa said:

Quote:

On a nomination, they'll have the GOP over a barrel for the next 10 months. If he nominates a well respected moderate-enough liberal, the Congress will either have to accept the appointment (Obama wins) or deal with relentless talking point that they are holding the SCOTUS hostage on partisan grounds (Obama/HRC wins)

Ben, I concur. It'll be fascinating to see how McConnell handles this.

In comment 12813836 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

Discussing important issues without sinking into the partisan swamp? Seriously.

if so, BBI would be the ONLY forum that didn't sink into partisan bullcrap. so, not likely.

In comment 12813869 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

You're absolutely right that Rehnquist and Roberts have been or are more effective at moving the needle on particular cases. But I think Scalia's role in influencing a couple generations of lawyers - future legal academics, future jurists - probably exceeds his role in actually getting desired outcomes from SCOTUS.

I agree with this. What's being overlooked in a lot of the reporting I've seen is his influence on statutory interpretation. Thanks to him, it's now unheard of not to begin analysis of any question of statutory interpretation without a fulsome review of the text of the statute. (And in many cases, to stop right there.) Didn't always used to be like that.

The interesting question for Republicans is: do you take a moderate justice now, or risk losing the election and then having super liberal justices rammed down your throat? The Republicans tend to be confident in their electoral chances, so I'm guessing the latter.

I don't get this strategy. Saying this stuff even before Obama has made selection?