Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch

[Rob L 3,811]

We shall see how it plays out. I fully expect Obama to nominate someone as is his right, and who knows how the Senate will treat the nominee. We must remember that Justice Kennedy was a replacement for Robert Bork who was nominated in July 1987. Kennedy was confirmed in November of 1987 which technically was within the election year, but more than 14 months before Reagan left office. I fully suspect the Senate will drag things out as long as possible much like the libs and Dems did for Bork just as Nature Boy suggested. Maybe then we will end up with a moderate justice in the same mold as Kennedy. However, that was a time when they actually compromised in Washington, something Obama has rarely done.

But do you agree that regardless of history the Constitution does not have a clause that says: during the election year the President and the Senate do not have to do their duty because it might become too political?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

But do you agree that regardless of history the Constitution does not have a clause that says: during the election year the President and the Senate do not have to do their duty because it might become too political?

I think we all agreed on that point

[jam2016 10]

If the POTUS doesn't nominate the replacement SCOTUS justice or the Congress blocks the nomination, then the SCOTUS will mostly just sit idle on most issues for about a year or more which would be a real insult to the tax payers yet again!

The solution is probably really easy to get done than saying it out loud.

If any nominee and elected persons for any branch of the Government will do the job they are nominated / elected for regardless of their political carrier and background, the U.S. of A would be a supreme power for another few hundred years!

Any liberal, conservative or democrat can leave their party coat at home and wear the duty coat that they swear to serve when they get to work.

All the bickering and division among the parties will be simply resolved if they don't put their partisanship before the duty they are paid to serve by the Taxpayers dime!

I would be a little concerned if a liberal could clearly set the line straight for what duty they are to serve at first but I am sure it can be done with a few extra efforts, and trials and errors.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Totally agree, but you know if the roles were reversed the outcome wouldst be the same.

For the last hundred years or so, it's been a partisan process, but never more so than right now. At one time, there was actually more concern given to getting the most qualified candidate rather than the most partisan one.

[ExPatty 502]

RIP Justice Scalia!

Whoever replaces Scalia, I sure hope he/she is

1. Someone who reads and understands the Constitution the way it was meant to.

2. A Non-partisan who does the job of upholding the law.

3. Someone with a heart who can sees both sides of the coins while preserving our Constitution.

4. Someone who remembers why the separation of power was devised more than 228 years ago.

I hope a unicorn comes to visit me tonight and its horn falls into my hands and is made of pure gold.

I'm being honest. You are also, but we have equal odds of getting what we want. The SCOTUS is just legislation from the bench, has been for a long time. The constant falling along party lines is proof of what a tragedy it is.

A conservative justice dying right now is something that personally affects me. I don't really care when celebrities die, and even presidents can be replaced. This would be hugely tempered and more than negated by a republican winning the presidency this year but I don't see good odds of that.

But do you agree that regardless of history the Constitution does not have a clause that says: during the election year the President and the Senate do not have to do their duty because it might become too political?

I'm not saying Obama shouldn't nominate. I'm saying the senate should summarily reject everybody without consideration if there is any reasonable chance of a republican taking office next year. If he wants to play ball the republican senate should as well.

I doubt it will. I expect a new justice to be identified this year because the republican party is weak.

[ExPatty 502]

For the last hundred years or so, it's been a partisan process, but never more so than right now. At one time, there was actually more concern given to getting the most qualified candidate rather than the most partisan one.

I think we all know the odds of Obama not putting somebody in office who is either a minority or a woman or both are about .02%. Maybe he can go out saying he nominated the first trans justice or the first handicapped one or something. Anything he can do to show how progressive he is.

[Dakine10 5,452]

We shall see how it plays out. I fully expect Obama to nominate someone as is his right, and who knows how the Senate will treat the nominee. We must remember that Justice Kennedy was a replacement for Robert Bork who was nominated in July 1987. Kennedy was confirmed in November of 1987 which technically was within the election year, but more than 14 months before Reagan left office. I fully suspect the Senate will drag things out as long as possible much like the libs and Dems did for Bork just as Nature Boy suggested. Maybe then we will end up with a moderate justice in the same mold as Kennedy. However, that was a time when they actually compromised in Washington, something Obama has rarely done.

Obama's best option would be similar. Nominate a more moderate but well qualified candidate, and then the ball is in the senate's court. Scalia was as conservative as they come, but he was affirmed 98-0. The president's job is to put the best candidate forth then let the senate do their job. If they won't, that's on them.

[Dakine10 5,452]

I think we all know the odds of Obama not putting somebody in office who is either a minority or a woman or both are about .02%. Maybe he can go out saying he nominated the first trans justice or the first handicapped one or something. Anything he can do to show how progressive he is.

Obama has to know he'll only get one shot at it. I don't think he's going to waste it on someone who won't make it, even if that person is otherwise qualified. Nobody knows how the election will turn out; there is some risk for both sides in rejecting a moderate candidate is is qualified. Might do worse next time around. Hard to say if Washington is too far gone to realize that.

[Rob L 3,811]

I doubt it will. I expect a new justice to be identified this year because the republican party is weak. ineffective

Fixed

[Pitaya 2,577]

Lot of interesting scenarios regarding filling of the now vacant seat at the SCOTUS. If the lame-duck POTUS nominates a progressive-liberal, the chances of confirmation by the GOP-controlled Senate are likely nil-to-none. However, if the POTUS were to nominate a accomplished centrist jurist, it may prove to be an interesting confirmation hearing - hat dance in the Senate. Yes, the GOP controls the Senate now, but there are several seats in that slim majority that are up for grabs in this election cycle. Say that the GOP loses, or keeps the Senate majority this November, and loses or wins the POTUS. What then?

There is a recent precedent where a lame-duck POTUS (Reagan) nominated a SCOTUS justice (Anthony Kennedy). That justice is widely recognized as an important swing vote in several recent important cases heard before the SCOTUS. Wonder what the political pundits were saying then about Reagan's lame-duck nomination? Ask that hack McConnell, he was in the Senate at that time. Now the shoe is on the other foot for Mitch. Then there is that political aspirant from the Lonestar State that would do well to get his facts straight before he spews out more of his spiteful rhetoric.

Let the POTUS perform his due diligence and nominate a replacement justice, and then sit back with your pop corn and favorite beverage, and watch the stuff get slung around inside the Beltway. Heck, this election cycle is just starting to get interesting. Thanks Antonin, and may you rest in peace.

[Rob L 3,811]

The SCOTUS is just legislation from the bench, has been for a long time. The constant falling along party lines is proof of what a tragedy it is.

I don't totally share your opinion. I think there have always been moments when political pressures forced the Justices out of their designed role, the bumbled intervention in the Florida recount comes to mind, but overall the direction of the country was being driven changes in the population. In the end the political and parctical realities from the impact of undoing the ACA guided the court to uphold the law as written.

Justice Scalia embodied that optimism, don't like my judgements? the law gives you many remedies ( and not just constitutional amendment)

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I think we all know the odds of Obama not putting somebody in office who is either a minority or a woman or both are about .02%. Maybe he can go out saying he nominated the first trans justice or the first handicapped one or something. Anything he can do to show how progressive he is.

You know its coming. It will be based on anything but accomplishment

Obama has to know he'll only get one shot at it. I don't think he's going to waste it on someone who won't make it, even if that person is otherwise qualified. Nobody knows how the election will turn out; there is some risk for both sides in rejecting a moderate candidate is is qualified. Might do worse next time around. Hard to say if Washington is too far gone to realize that.

Good point. Turning down a moderate could bite both in the hind end

[Rob L 3,811]

You know its coming. It will be based on anything but accomplishment

The only Justice I know who is not qualified to sit on the court is Thomas probably one of the worst justices ever. Not appointed by the sitting president.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

The only Justice I know who is not qualified to sit on the court is Thomas probably one of the worst justices ever. Not appointed by the sitting president.

So you saying affermative action does not work

[Rob L 3,811]

So you saying affermative action does not work

Who says Thomas appointment was affirmative action? I think it was his reputation as a ladies man that sealed the deal