Antonin Scalia dead?

[B-Man]

Article by Senator Mike Lee............March 14, 2012

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=27dac90e-11a3-48d1-b970-19c2894530a5

 

 

FTA:

 

It is a matter of historical record that beginning in 2001, Senate Democrats dramatically changed the confirmation process. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats actively sought to block numerous judicial nominees, forcing more than 30 cloture votes as Republicans tried to end persistent Democratic filibuster efforts.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), voted against cloture a record-setting 27 times. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), cast 26 votes to filibuster Bush nominees and, in 2003, defiantly declared: “Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.”

Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who now claims to have been “respectful of President Bush’s appointments,” repeatedly joined with Democratic colleagues in attempting to filibuster judicial confirmations, including seven separate votes against cloture for the nomination of Miguel Estrada—one of the nation’s leading appellate lawyers—to the D.C. Circuit.

Not to be outdone, Reid took virtually every opportunity to block Bush nominees, voting against cloture on 26 separate occasions. In his view there was no amount of time—“not a number in the universe”—that would be adequate for debate on the filibustered nominees.

During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito.

 

More at the link:

 

 

 

 

So history has already shown that the democrats believe that the "advise and consent" responsibility has included filibustering.

 

 

 

 

 

.

TOM MAGUIRE: The Next Supreme Court Nominee.

 

“Yes, Obama was in the minority when the cloture motion to end debate failed by 72-25. Joining him on the short end were Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry (Sanders joined the Senate in January 2007). We can expect a lot of phony posturing from these folks about how the President’s choice deserves an up or down vote.”

 

He also reminds us that the Kennedy nomination was in the FALL of 1987, the vacancy occurred in June of 87, SEVENTEEN months before the election.

 

The Bork nomination was blocked and the Douglas Ginsberg nomination was withdrawn, Kennedy was then voted on in the spring of 88

 

Hardly the same situation as today...............no matter what fools such as Gator suggest.

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited February 14, 2016 by B-Man

[TakeYouToTasker]

It's provided for equal protection and segregation violated that

No, it did not.

 

Conceptually, "separate but equal" provides equal protection to all under the law.

 

An argument could be made that in many instances "equal" didn't actually rise to the standard of equal, and improvements must be made to ensure true equality of accomodations; and that would have been within the proper purview of the Court.

[Juror#8]

as a legal mind i respect, and many others here...

 

what is the take that he likely derived his process as you stated by reversing his decision from the back end; segregation bad so i must find legal disqualifications and qualifications to support this?

Brother you're putting me in a strange place on this ... where I'm acknowledging the incoherence of an argument while at the same time lauding its outcome.

 

I haven't read Brown in a while so I may be rusty on some details.

 

At the end of the day, when the 14th Amendment was passed, there existed contemporaneous school segregation which wasn't on the path to ending or that was at all impacted by Congressional commitment to the amendment's ratification. That tells you all you need to know about the intent and the meaning of the 14th amendment vis a vis "school segregation."

 

Faced with that dilemma, the court in Brown relied on a host of sociological explanations to basically attack the idea that separate could ever be equal even though testimony, during Brown, demonstrated that the resources, facilities, and teacher competencies in the black schools were decidedly equal to the white schools - and not just nominally, but actually as evidenced by cost and metrics.

 

The naacp had people going around with black and white dolls and **** asking kids "which ones do you like more ..." They used the black kids preference for "white," as demonstrated in these cultural doll tests, as part of their demonstration that blacks felt that "white" was better, ostensibly because whites were hierarchically preferred due to blacks not being able to go to their schools. And that was part of the case for "inherent inequality" being the natural corollary to forced separation.

 

There were many other such sociological type tests. But read the court's unanimous opinion, the entire thing was grounded in sociology; because from the standpoint of pure and dispassionate structural constitutional jurisprudence, there was no sound argument for ending "separate but equal." None.

 

And anyone telling you otherwise is lying.

 

And I'm black.

 

But there was plenty of reason from the "is it the right thing to do" side of the coin.

 

Incidentally it wasnt just Scalia's paradox, Rehnquist had the same issue. For 50 years he equivocated with his thoughts around Brown because the law is suspect but the ends were justified. It wouldn't have happened for another 25 years otherwise. Because with Blacks struggling to be able to vote in statewide congressional elections, the wheels of legislative change would have been nearly non-existent or at a snail's pace.

 

So the court acted basically like a third legislative body. Scalia knew it. Rehnquist knew it. And that's why as articulate and demonstrative and loquacious as Scalia was, he was very much not so when discussing brown except to say that he agreed.

 

So back to my original point, there are circumstances when all justices, even the most conservative and constitutionally pure, will agree to legislate. Brown isn't technically sound jurisprudentially. It's just not. It represents the court's decision to basically act de jure.

 

And so voilah.

 

I kind of look at it like "baby come to me." "Congress" was James Ingram, muddling along somewhat insignificantly. And then about 1:43 into the song Patti Austin (scotus) saves him with that beautiful run that can best be described as borderline sensual.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

Rob, mahfukka, I see you in the gallery chillin. I'm sure you have **** to say to my post #123. What are your thoughts broham? Where do you stand on this shiznit?

Edited February 14, 2016 by Juror#8

[Tiberius]

Juror #8

 

I'd just add the thought that though segregation may have existed at the time o

At the end of the day, when the 14th Amendment was passed, there existed contemporaneous school segregation which wasn't on the path to ending or that was at all impacted by Congressional commitment to the amendment's ratification. That tells you all you need to know about the intent and the meaning of the 14th amendment vis a vis "school segregation."

Faced with that dilemma, the court in Brown relied on a host of sociological explanations to basically attack the idea that separate could ever be equal even though testimony, during Brown, demonstrated that the resources, facilities, and teacher competencies in the black schools were decidedly equal to the white schools - and not just nominally, but actually as evidenced by cost and metrics.

The naacp had people going around with black and white dolls and **** asking described as borderline sensual.

 

I don't agree with this. I'm pretty sure the NAACP used that way of attacking Segregation just as a strategy because they were affriad that the court might rule the school were not separate and equal had therefore had to be made so. That would have been a disaster because it would have let the states still separate children. The schools were not equal at all. A few may have been, but blacks were not allowed to vote. They had no representation on school boards. Great explanation on the sociological Brandise like approach to presenting the case though.

 

 

As to the schools being segregated in 1868, that may have been true but I think it does not matter that much. Society had changed in so many ways that schools for many reasons became more more important institutions to society and the citizen that they fell under the equal protection clause. The invention of the school bus, for instance, made schools much more multi-community institutions instead of the typical one room school house structures before them. Since they changed the constitutional interpretation of them also did. Not saying that was attired, but just saying that's how I view it and see Brown as fully constitutional.

Ignore that top part...

[unbillievable]

Obama for Scjotus!

[Dante]

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/urgent-calls-begin-for-scalia-autopsy/

 

No autopsy for a man of this importance? I know he was 79 but c'mon. Possible murder.

[DC Tom]

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/urgent-calls-begin-for-scalia-autopsy/

 

No autopsy for a man of this importance? I know he was 79 but c'mon. Possible murder.

 

That's awesome. A coverup of an assassination as a liberal plot to take over the country via the Supreme Court.

[B-Man]

REMINDERS:

 

SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in '14 that the Senate, not the president, decides when it's in recess, 10+ days are required to trigger recess appt. clause.

 

 

 

A Supreme Court seat was once vacant for 835 days. Tyler had nine nominees rejected by Senate. http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/ …

 

 

 

 

Do they forget that we have the internet now ?...............

 

 

Senator Schumer in mid-*2007* (not yet an election year): We Democrats should not confirm another Bush SCOTUS appointee.

 

 

Hypocrisy anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay............ so remember when you post about the political implications of this. The GOP bottling up judicial nominees may be a bad idea-- or a reason to vote for Democrats-

 

- but it's not a constitutional crisis.

 

 

 

 

.

 

[keepthefaith]

Don't know if this thought has been posted, but my worst nightmare is Obama appointing Holder during recess.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Don't know if this thought has been posted, but my worst nightmare is Obama appointing Holder during recess.

 

If Eric Holder ends up on the supreme court, we are literally DOOMED.

[Dorkington]

It's fun seeing this (generally more conservative) forum largely blame Democrats for being hypocritical, and another (more progressive) forum largely blame Republicans for being hypocritical.

 

I don't understand how anyone can be surprised, or outraged, that an opposing party controlled senate would hinder, delay, or block a President's SCJOTUS nominee.

 

I mean, its pretty predictable at this point, no?

Edited February 15, 2016 by Dorkington

[B-Man]

Dems in Senate passed a resolution in1960 against election year Supreme Court appointments

David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh blog:

 

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”

 

Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

 

 

 

As it should this time.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40FbrgDjH

 

 

 

 

 

It’s Only Reckless Partisanship When the Other Guys Do It, Huh?

 

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell should just give this speech:

 

We should not confirm any Obama nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.

They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not . . .

This is just a prologue considering the constitutional harm and dramatic departures that are in store if those few are joined by one more ideological ally. We have to, in my judgment, stick by the precepts that I’ve elaborated.

I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining Sotomayor and Kagan on the court.

 

 

 

 

That, of course, is a speech from Chuck Schumer from June 2007, with “Bush” replaced with “Obama” and “Roberts and Alito” changed to “Sotomayor and Kagan.”

 

Watch the video; the audience at the American Constitutional Society gave it roaring applause at the end. No one booed. No one shouted this was an assault on the Constitution and rule of law. No one tore their hair out claiming that this was an obstinate ideological litmus test, and that it represented an assault on an independent judiciary.

 

So we’ve already established that in the minds of the American legal community, it is perfectly legitimate and fair for an opposition party to refuse to confirm a president’s nominees to the Supreme Court unless the nominee meets that opposition party’s definition of “mainstream.”

 

 

Goose, meet gander.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

Edited February 15, 2016 by B-Man

[Tiberius]

Chuck Schumer was only one person and the Dems did not follow his advice. And leaving a deadlock on the court for well over a year would leave one brach--or another branch really--unable to properly function, it could be argued.

 

It will come down to politics though. If Senators running for reelection are hurt by this they will not go along with the obstructionism

[B-Man]

"If anyone thinks the center of the electorate is clamoring for Obama to name another left-wing jurist they’re nuts."

"The liberal left will be as loud as they ever have been, but the reality is that the consternation will be confined to the activist left."

I think this assessment is correct, especially coming after years of Obama's pushing the limits of executive power (one of the issues in a pending Supreme Court case right now).

Why wouldn't the Senate make its vigorous claim to power and exert it? That, to my mind, fits the most fundamental idea about separation of powers, expressed in Federalist 51:

To explain why the GOP controlled Senate can reject the nomination of an Obama appointee,

allow me to quote the wise words of the DNC

Prior to becoming Ambassador to South Africa, Gaspard was most well known for his time at the White House and as the day-to-day leader of the Democratic Party headquarters. He served as the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee from 2011 to 2013, overseeing the party committee's efforts to re-elect President Obama.

.

[keepthefaith]

Obama has the opportunity to nominate someone who will make strict constitutional legal judgements and if he does so he should have no problem getting that person confirmed. If he wants more justices like the 2 he has already appointed, then he'll be in for a long fight and justifiably so.

[Nanker]

 

That's awesome. A coverup of an assassination as a liberal plot to take over the country via the Supreme Court.

Now they're saying he was found with a pillow over his head.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php

[Deranged Rhino]

Now they're saying he was found with a pillow over his head.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php

It is an odd choice not to do an autopsy -- if for no other reason than to dispel any sort of speculation by the conspiracy minded.

[B-Man]

Antonin Scalia: A Tribute to a Great Justice. The nation has lost an important intellect, a fair jurist, and a great and good man.

 

 

 

 

Emily Zannoti: Scalia’s relationships with opponents should serve as a model in US politics.

 

 

 

 

Glenn Reynolds: My USA Today column: Antonin Scalia left us wisdom in dissent.

 

 

 

 

A Jurist of Colossal Consequence

by George Will
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/

 

[Nanker]

It is an odd choice not to do an autopsy -- if for no other reason than to dispel any sort of speculation by the conspiracy minded.

True. Very true.