Scalia dies on quail hunting trip

[Crown]

Has Dickless Cheney been drinking again?

Fuck you asshole... I wanted to post that joke.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The fact is that the Rethuglican Senaturds hold the cards when it comes to voting Obama's nominee and no matter how "bipartisan" or qualified the nominee, the fuckers will by no means approve them. He could reanimate Antonin Scalia and they would block the nomination. But Obama, not being an idiot, knows it will make the Rethuglican controlled Senate look like the bloated colon it is.

Actually, I am not sure that is true. Keep in mind, the GOP in the senate has less party discipline, still contains a number of elder statesman, and they dont have gerrymandered districts.

Many of their seats are up for grabs in contested states.

The nutbags will bloviate and obstruct. Some of the sane ones will use their support for an Obama appointment to show off how reasonable they are in order to sway the votes of at least SOME moderates, rather than the insane GOP base.

[Zaune]

You know, I kind of feel McConnell has a point here. Would we be so happy about the prospect of an outgoing Republican president appointing a Supreme Court judge, for life, with less than a year to go before they leave office? And it's not as if the Obama administration's record on civil liberties is exactly stellar anyway.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You know, I kind of feel McConnell has a point here. Would we be so happy about the prospect of an outgoing Republican president appointing a Supreme Court judge, for life, with less than a year to go before they leave office? And it's not as if the Obama administration's record on civil liberties is exactly stellar anyway.

We would not be happy about it, but I for one would not bitch about the propriety. For one, Reagan did exactly that in 87/88 with Justice Kennedy. Second, it is his constitutional obligation. You dont leave a gap in the court for the better part of a year. That would be stupid. If it were next October? Sure. Whatever. No way he would get anyone new in before the next president is sworn in anyway. But the election is 7 months away and Obama leaves office 11 months from now.

[Beowulf]

I would expect them to try, but an Associate Justice nomination has never successfully been blocked by the Senate in history. Chief Justice, yes...but not associate. So if the GOP can manage this, it would be an historic first.

That statement isn't really true. Check out Lyndon Johnson's nominations. In '68 Republicans and Senate Dixiecats filibustered a chief justice nominee and the associate who would replace him. The nominee withdrew himself, and Nixon's appointee went through. I'd also remind you that Bush jr. Attempted to put the white house council (Harriet Meyers iirc) on the Supreme Court and she also withdrew herself. So we have appointments to the Supreme Court failing, even if they withdrew and were not voted down.

Bork!

[Simon_Jester]

You know, I kind of feel McConnell has a point here. Would we be so happy about the prospect of an outgoing Republican president appointing a Supreme Court judge, for life, with less than a year to go before they leave office? And it's not as if the Obama administration's record on civil liberties is exactly stellar anyway.

Honestly, I wouldn't be happy, but, and this is important...

Constitutional government has to function in an orderly manner.

The zeroth law that underlies all successful democracies is the existence of a 'loyal opposition.' That is to say, an opposition which may disagree about how the state should act and function, but agrees that the state should act and function.

Obviously, if there is no tolerated opposition party, there is no democracy. But if the opposition party is disloyal, then there won't be democracy for very long in any event.

As soon as a significant party emerges that wishes to actively sabotage the organs of government in order to secure its own power, democracy is in serious danger. This is how the Bolsheviks operated in 1917-era Russia or the Nazis in 1930-era Germany. They saw their participation in democratic governance as merely a means to the long-term end of overthrowing the state, and installing their own leadership as a dictatorship.

Whether I think a given president is right or wrong does not matter. The president still needs to be able to carry out basic duties of their office. Among these duties is appointing officials to fill government posts. Using the power of the opposition party to make it categorically impossible to fill government posts is wrong. It's not wrong to block specific unacceptable appointees. But if I'm saying "any appointee named by the opposing party is by definition unacceptable," I'm not being a loyal opposition.

I'm essentially saying "better that the government not function (and ultimately, better that the country collapse) than that someone other than me get to decide how things will be run."

[Edi]

McConnel said in during Obama's first term that the primary objective of the Republican Congress was to make sure Obama was a one term president. To that end the Republicans have systematically obstructed everything, even things like nominations that enjoyed bipartisan support, just to spite Obama. When Obama was elected to a second term, they have just kept going on that and accused the president of acting beyond the pale for not acceding to all of their demands.

Fuck them. Going forward with a new nomination will be an excellent way to showcase Republican obstructionism and hypocrisy. If it was a Republican in the White House, they'd already be lining up their candidates for nomination and rushing them through at warp speed.

[Welf]

Am I the only one who expected a prostitute involved after reading he died in a resort?

[Dominus Atheos]

Here's a short list of the cases that wil be affected even if Obama doesn't get a replacement confirmed:

Immigration

United States v. Texas concerns the legality of Obama administration immigration policies that, if allowed to take effect, will temporarily enable close to five million undocumented immigrants to remain in the county. It is also the case that presents the most opportunity for chaos if the Court evenly divides on the outcome.

In a highly unusual order, a federal district judge issued a nationwide halt to the policy and refused to stay that decision. A conservative panel of the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld those decisions by the district judge. Thus, if the Court splits 4-4 in the Texas case, the Fifth Circuit’s order will stand.
Where things get complicated is if the Justice Department successfully obtains an order from a different circuit upholding the program, or if an immigrant who hopes to benefit from the program obtains a similar order. The Fifth Circuit is among the most conservative courts in the country, and it is unlikely that every circuit will follow its lead. In that case, there will be competing court orders holding the policies both legal and illegal, and no possibility of Supreme Court review. It is not immediately clear what happens in such a case.

Abortion

Another case out of Texas, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, also could lead to confusion if the Court evenly divides. Whole Woman’s Health is the greatest threat to Roe v. Wade to reach the Supreme Court in a generation. If five justices back the Texas law in this case, it is unclear that there will be any meaningful limits on states’ ability to pass anti-abortion laws.

Without Scalia’s vote, however, the chances that the Supreme Court will uphold the Texas law outright is vanishingly small. Should they split 4-4, however, the Fifth Circuit’s decision upholding the Texas law will stand and states within the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi) will most likely gain broad discretion to restrict abortion while Scalia’s seat remains open. Meanwhile, the fate of the right to choose would rest upon which federal appellate circuit a woman happened to reside in. Women in fairly liberal circuits would likely continue to enjoy the same rights they enjoy under existing precedents, while women in conservative circuits could see their right shrink to virtual nothingness.

Birth Control

Geography could also play a significant role in deciding women’s ability to access birth control. To date, every federal appeals court to consider the question but one, the Eighth Circuit, has upheld Obama administration rules enabling women to obtain health plans that cover birth control even if their employer objects to contraception on religious ground.

There is a good chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who occasionally votes with the Court’s liberal bloc in politically charged cases, could vote to uphold these rules as well, producing a 5-3 vote. If Kennedy votes with the conservatives, however, women’s access to birth control will vary from circuit to circuit. Though it is likely that most circuits will follow the majority rule and uphold the rules, women in the Eighth Circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota) will not be as lucky.

Unions

Public sector unions are saved, at least for now. After oral arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, it appeared likely that an ambitious effort to defund public sector unions would gain five votes on the Supreme Court. Now this effort only has four votes. Moreover, because the plaintiffs in this case lost in the court below, a decision affirming the lower court in an evenly divided vote is effectively a victory for organized workers.

Redistricting

Similarly, the plaintiffs in Evenwel v. Abbott, a case that could have effectively forced many states to redraw their congressional maps in ways that would give more power to white voters and less to communities with large numbers of immigrants, almost certainly will not have five votes. Because the court below ruled against these plaintiffs, states will not have to redraw their maps, for now.

Affirmative Action

One case where Scalia’s absence could matter less is Fisher v. University of Texas, a challenge to affirmative action programs in university admissions. Although the court below upheld the University of Texas’s program, liberal Justice Elena Kagan is recused from this case. Therefore, four votes are enough to make up a majority. If the Court’s remaining conservatives vote against affirmative action, that is enough for them to get their way.
That said, Justice Kennedy did appear somewhat reluctant to kill affirmative action outright at oral arguments (although he may want to task a lower court with the job of killing Texas’ program). In any event, if Kennedy votes with the three liberals who are not recused from this case, what would have otherwise been a 4-4 decision will now be a 4-3 decision in the liberals’ favor.

The Fate of the Earth

As a final note, it’s worth nothing that Scalia’s last act as a Supreme Court justice may have been to supply the fifth vote in a series of orders handed down on Tuesday halting President Obama’s most ambitious effort to fight climate change. If the Court remains evenly divided in this case, it could matter a great deal that the two judges assigned to this case in the court below are Democratic appointees. If they vote to uphold the administration’s policies, that order will stand unless there is a fifth justice who votes to reverse that decision.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm glad Shep returns here with good news, oje.

[Civil War Man]

The nutbags will bloviate and obstruct. Some of the sane ones will use their support for an Obama appointment to show off how reasonable they are in order to sway the votes of at least SOME moderates, rather than the insane GOP base.

There may also be some who see the potential risk in trying to delay an appointment after the election, particularly with who the candidates are still up in the air. They may want to play it safe and let Obama appoint another justice than try to stall, have the Republican candidate lose, and leave the decision to a President Sanders or Clinton.

Hell, even if the Republican candidate wins, some of them may still prefer another Obama appointee over leaving that decision to someone like Trump or Cruz.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Won't comment on how the death of one man improves the overall aspect of humanity by a small but noticeable amount...

Instead I'll leave the thoughts of a more conservative mind on their thoughts behind Scalias death...

The only TRUE Supreme Court Justice who still honors the Constitution and he just suddenly dies of "natural" causes during the most dangerous activity he routinely engages in right at the same time the Democrats are scheming, cheating, and rigging the game so Hillary takes over the White House? Sounds like the first steps to a coup de tat right out of the CIA's playbook in Iran and Latin America in the 70s and 80s. Time for all you blind liberal sheep to wake up and smell the tyranny!

So yeah...

[Lost Soal]

I may be mistaken in this case, but I am reasonably certain that political appointees can be held up by a single senator and there is no way a overiding that other than convincing them to change their mind. Unless SCOTUS appointees have a different procedural requirement then a single jackass, Cruz, got prevent any nominees for the remainder of the term.

[amigocabal]

The nutbags will bloviate and obstruct. Some of the sane ones will use their support for an Obama appointment to show off how reasonable they are in order to sway the votes of at least SOME moderates, rather than the insane GOP base.

There may also be some who see the potential risk in trying to delay an appointment after the election, particularly with who the candidates are still up in the air. They may want to play it safe and let Obama appoint another justice than try to stall, have the Republican candidate lose, and leave the decision to a President Sanders or Clinton.

Hell, even if the Republican candidate wins, some of them may still prefer another Obama appointee over leaving that decision to someone like Trump or Cruz.

The biggest risk is, of course, that a future Democratic-majority Senate would almost certainly return the favor the next chance that they get. Everyone in the Senate knows this- even the senators who have gone senile.

Only the gun rights lobby would have the sufficient political clout to get the Senate Republican leadership to take that risk. You see, there are several 5-4 rulings on civil rights. See See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) , Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), and Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 , 1692-1697 (2014) (Scalia, J., dissenting) In this context, Heller is the most important. The dissent in Melendez-Diaz did not go so far as to suggest a state can do away entirely with the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses- the issue was merely whether the author of a a chemical test must personally testify. The majority in Navarette did not go so far as to claim that the police could pull over anyone for any reason whatsoever- the issue was whether an anonymous tip was sufficient probable cause for a police stop. But the law at issue in Heller was not merely a time, place, and manner regulation on the right to keep and bear arms- it was a total ban on handguns. And four justices thought this was consistent with the Second Amendment. This is what frightens the gun rights lobby.

Obama could defuse the gun rights lobby concern by nominating a justice to their liking, like Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski. See Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 568-570 (9th Cir. 2003) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) Without gun rights lobby pressure, delaying a confirmation hearing is much less politically possible.

[General Zod]

Won't comment on how the death of one man improves the overall aspect of humanity by a small but noticeable amount...

Instead I'll leave the thoughts of a more conservative mind on their thoughts behind Scalias death...

The only TRUE Supreme Court Justice who still honors the Constitution and he just suddenly dies of "natural" causes during the most dangerous activity he routinely engages in right at the same time the Democrats are scheming, cheating, and rigging the game so Hillary takes over the White House? Sounds like the first steps to a coup de tat right out of the CIA's playbook in Iran and Latin America in the 70s and 80s. Time for all you blind liberal sheep to wake up and smell the tyranny!

So yeah...

Quail hunting isn't dangerous unless you happen to be on a trip with Dick Cheney. It's like somebody took a petting zoo and turned it into Auschwitz.

[Edi]

Given the age of the SCOTUS justices like Ginsburg, in the next four years there may well be many more seats there opening up for nomination, so Scalia croaking now just brought that to focus. If for no other reason, everyone should vote even if there is nothing else that interests them.

[Thanas]

Scalia was the arch-troll who actually believed he was serious. His arrogance to legal scholars knew no bounds.

[Elfdart]

I would expect them to try, but an Associate Justice nomination has never successfully been blocked by the Senate in history. Chief Justice, yes...but not associate. So if the GOP can manage this, it would be an historic first.

That statement isn't really true. Check out Lyndon Johnson's nominations. In '68 Republicans and Senate Dixiecats filibustered a chief justice nominee and the associate who would replace him. The nominee withdrew himself, and Nixon's appointee went through. I'd also remind you that Bush jr. Attempted to put the white house council (Harriet Meyers iirc) on the Supreme Court and she also withdrew herself. So we have appointments to the Supreme Court failing, even if they withdrew and were not voted down.

Bork!

Wasn't Scalia Plan B when Von Reagan couldn't get Bork confirmed?

[Beowulf]

That statement isn't really true. Check out Lyndon Johnson's nominations. In '68 Republicans and Senate Dixiecats filibustered a chief justice nominee and the associate who would replace him. The nominee withdrew himself, and Nixon's appointee went through. I'd also remind you that Bush jr. Attempted to put the white house council (Harriet Meyers iirc) on the Supreme Court and she also withdrew herself. So we have appointments to the Supreme Court failing, even if they withdrew and were not voted down.

Bork!

Wasn't Scalia Plan B when Von Reagan couldn't get Bork confirmed?

No. Scalia was on the court when Bork was nominated. The plan B was Douglas Ginsburg, and Kennedy filled the seat.

[Flagg]

You know, I kind of feel McConnell has a point here. Would we be so happy about the prospect of an outgoing Republican president appointing a Supreme Court judge, for life, with less than a year to go before they leave office? And it's not as if the Obama administration's record on civil liberties is exactly stellar anyway.

Would I be happy? No, because there was a Republican POTUS. But Scalias death and replacement would essentially just be a wash, so thems the breaks.

And McCuntall would have "a point" if this weren't more of the same untenable, unconstitutional, and cunt-hair away from traitorous policy of obstruction for obstructions sake where Obama is concerned. Why "cunt-hair away from traitorous?" Because it's actively harming the country, they know it's harming the country, and the only thing that makes it not "dissolve the Republican Party as illegal, arrest its leaders, and throw them in a super-max cell and throw away the key treason" is simply because by word of Constitution and law, if very far from spirit and precedent, they can.

Maybe a sane, rational, and non-obscene and hateful rhetoric spouting fatass who hunts quail that can't fly more than enough to get blasted by rich white douchebags SCOTUS Justice could help do something about that.

[Flagg]

I may be mistaken in this case, but I am reasonably certain that political appointees can be held up by a single senator and there is no way a overiding that other than convincing them to change their mind. Unless SCOTUS appointees have a different procedural requirement then a single jackass, Cruz, got prevent any nominees for the remainder of the term.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the case, and the "best" part is, that Senaturd can remain anonymous. It's the ultimate troll.

[Gaidin]

I'm not exactly sure they want to do that with how hilariously comparatively liberal the courts are now stacked to be right now with how they used to be. This was some amazing timing for the President. Imagine the 9th running wild on Arizona with 4-4 votes. Imagine some others that are more liberal than they used to be running wild with 4-4 votes.

[Zaune]

Point of clarification from someone who has only a very limited grasp of what the US Supreme Court actually does. What would the actual consequences be if President Obama were, in the spirit of compromise, to postpone appointing a replacement until the elections and promise to consult with the President-elect before making an appointment? Would the court have to go into recess for the duration, or could split decisions be left in abeyance until a replacement could give a casting vote, and would anyone be seriously inconvenienced either way?

[Gaidin]

Point of clarification from someone who has only a very limited grasp of what the US Supreme Court actually does. What would the actual consequences be if President Obama were, in the spirit of compromise, to postpone appointing a replacement until the elections and promise to consult with the President-elect before making an appointment? Would the court have to go into recess for the duration, or could split decisions be left in abeyance until a replacement could give a casting vote, and would anyone be seriously inconvenienced either way?

A story I read...

If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway

After Justice Antonin Scalia’s death Saturday at 79, the Supreme Court is now evenly divided between four liberal justices and four conservatives, even with Anthony Kennedy’s occasional swings. What a moment for Scalia to depart: The court faces a wild array of closely divided decisions. It is an election year. And President Obama has stacked the lower circuit courts with Democrats. Obama has been chewing on his legacy for months. Fate has handed him the opportunity of any presidency — to swing the balance of the Supreme Court from conservative to liberal.

Scalia weighed heavily on the conservative tilt of the current court, registering as more conservative even than other Republican justices in every field except on international and defense issues. There is no other justice whose replacement would more profoundly affect the court’s orientation. The court’s docket this term shows a clear intent to rule on some of the most contentious issues in the society: abortion, unionization, presidential power, affirmative action, political representation. Nothing in the presidential election in the fall matters more than the ability to shape the court. Now everyone should know that, including an incumbent who once taught constitutional law.

Any nominee, of course, would have to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Leaders there, and also most GOP presidential candidates, are already making clear that they intend to block Obama. But they may not realize that leaving Scalia’s seat vacant plays right into his hands.

The court is not yet halfway through the 80 or 90 cases it deals with each term, but many of the most contentious have already been heard. Normally, justices meet the week a case is argued, and vote on the outcome. So they have most likely already voted on pending cases on apportionment and affirmative action, for example. But weeks or months can go by while the justice assigned the opinion circulates drafts. Any justice can change his or her vote at any point during that process, and often does. It’s all very hush-hush, so there is no way to tell how far along the cases Scalia heard are in the pipeline.

There is no constitutional provision, no case law and no official policy about what the court should do with cases that have been argued and voted on when a justice dies. If the vote in a case that hasn’t yet been handed down was 5 to 4, as one might expect with these controversial rulings, can Scalia cast the deciding vote from beyond the grave to change the way America chooses every legislature in the land or integrates its public universities? A court that cares about its image and constitutional role will not rule in the name of a majority that counts on a dead justice, especially on the core issues of American social life. Such posthumous decisions are so unprecedented they would make Bush v. Gore look like responsible judicial behavior. Chief Justice John Roberts, who in matters entirely internal to the court like this wields some extra power, is known for his concern for institutional prestige, and he would be right to weigh in against issuing opinions based on what Scalia did in past conferences.

So in the cases that Scalia was already a part of, what’s most likely is that the court will do what it has done in the rare, similar circumstances in the past, when important cases like abortion were argued and the personnel on the court changed or where a predictable swing justice was out sick: They will order the cases argued again and voted on again.

Of course, the justices will also continue to hear future arguments, but upcoming closely decided cases — such as the abortion case out of Texas also widely predicted to lead to a 5 to 4 vote — will now be tied, 4 to 4. In this term’s contentious, controversial docket, split decisions are inevitable. The court can reargue the pending cases and hear the upcoming ones, but they will be too divided to decide anything truly sweeping. Unresolved cases will stack up.

That means only Congress and the White House can resolve the deadlock. And Obama has the power there, even though Republicans control the Senate. By Saturday evening, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had already said the vacancy shouldn’t be filled until the next president is in office, 11 months from now. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

But the GOP might soon reconsider if they see the implications of refusing to allow Obama to replace Scalia: A divided court leaves lower court rulings in place. And the lower courts are blue. Nine of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals have a majority of Democratic appointees. That means liberal rulings conservatives were hoping the Supreme Court would overturn remain law. So if Scalia had cast the deciding vote on a case before he died, but the court rehears it and divides 4 to 4, that would leave the lower court decision in place. That’s what would happen with a proposal to apportion Congress in an entirely new way that would heavily favor Republican districts, which was argued recently. The lower court (in this case a district court which went directly to the Supreme Court for technical reasons) tossed the plan out; conservatives had been hoping the justices would restore it.

The situation is not always good for liberals. Abortion, in a case that has not yet been argued, was subjected to the most onerous restrictions by the normally conservative Fifth Circuit. If the court deadlocks, most of the abortion clinics in Texas would close. On immigration, the court had announced it would take up another case from the conservative Fifth Circuit over whether Obama has the power to stop breaking up families by ordering the government not to deport millions of undocumented immigrants; the lower court ruling blocked Obama’s executive order, so a tie wouldn’t change that.

Most of the country, though, is governed by appeals courts dominated by Democrats. The suit against Obama’s environmental initiative, which the Supreme Court just stayed, came from the liberal D.C. Circuit, which had unanimously refused to grant the stay. Now the Obama administration can simply have the Environmental Protection Agency come up with a slightly different new plan and run to the liberal D.C. courts to bless it and refuse to stay it. It’s unlikely the now-divided Supreme Court would come up with a majority to stay the new rules: The vote to stay the old ones was (naturally) 5 to 4.

That’s why the effect of an equally divided court has enormous potential to strengthen Obama’s hand in dealing with the Republican Senate in picking a replacement: Even if the GOP blocks his nominee, the policy outcomes would be very similar to what they’d be if the court had a liberal majority. The institutional cues for Obama are completely different than for the court. The Constitution clearly assigns the task of nominating judges to the president — with the Senate’s advice and consent, to be sure, but for most of American history, presidents got a fair amount of deference. Acting politically is consistent with occupying elected office, so that’s what Obama should do. Political considerations, after all, are what motivate Republicans to pledge to block nominees before any have been announced. This is the moment for Obama to assert his political prerogatives as firmly as his opponents always seem to do.

Right now, McConnell sounds like he doesn’t recognize the peril his party is in. If Obama signals that he’s willing to take advantage of the situation by taking actions like passing new environmental rules or moving for rehearing in the pending cases, he’ll put pressure on the Senate by getting what he wants without his court pick. Two-thirds of the people in the country live in blue-court America.

So maybe someone like D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan —confirmed 97 to 0 just three years ago — will look better to the Senate than nearly a year of living with the appellate courts going wild while the cat’s away. Imagine the glee in the most-reversed circuit court in the nation, the liberal Ninth, which will now be able to tell Arizona and Alaska what to do without fear of contradiction. If Obama really cares about that legacy, nothing would establish it more firmly than using his unexpected advantage to appoint someone who will one day be as much of a hero to liberals as Scalia was to conservatives.

[Highlord Laan]

You know, I kind of feel McConnell has a point here. Would we be so happy about the prospect of an outgoing Republican president appointing a Supreme Court judge, for life, with less than a year to go before they leave office? And it's not as if the Obama administration's record on civil liberties is exactly stellar anyway.

Doesn't fucking matter. The President appoints Judges for the Supreme Court, not the teeming masses of shit-flinging howler monkeys driven by soundbytes that is the general population.