Justice Scalia leaves opening

[cc]

lol - You posted as I was typing "or doesn't work"



But it is what it is and this year will go as it goes

[Bricktop]

Thus, shall the US continue its downward spiral...

[Anonymous]

There's no spin to it. As to last year of office, there has been no person nominated and selected in almost 80 years .. fact.



There was no will for any party in 80 yrs  and there sure is no will now for the GOP to approve a 3rd "agenda loaded"  judge for him.



"it's presidential duty to appoint." true.  Also true is that it is not  the senates duty to approve any specific person.



As all appointees are "agenda loaded" that's how the system works

Obama can nominate, but it will be the next president that gets the senate to approve the nominee. Hey, it could be Bernie Sanders making that nomination.

[Bricktop]

Its insane.



The President gets to appoint a JUDGE to the Supreme/High Court that accords with HIS political persuasion???



How is that NOT political corruption?

[Anonymous]

Its insane.



The President gets to appoint a JUDGE to the Supreme/High Court that accords with HIS political persuasion???



How is that NOT political corruption?

When I worked in the states, I met Americans who were pissed at how political the process of picking supreme court justices is.

[Bricktop]

That's no surprise.



I saw that the recently departed judge was an Italian Catholic who rejected abortion.



Apparently, he ruled against abortion issues while on the Supreme Court based on his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.



That is the exact opposite of democracy.

[Anonymous]

That's no surprise.



I saw that the recently departed judge was an Italian Catholic who rejected abortion.



Apparently, he ruled against abortion issues while on the Supreme Court based on his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.



That is the exact opposite of democracy.

Impartiality on the American supreme court is unknown from nomination to the rulings of sitting justices. That's the US supreme court. Justices are nominated based on how closely their politics aligns with the sitting president. Their confirmation is dependent on whether the politics of the nominee aligns with the majority party in the senate.

[Bricktop]

Unbelievable.

[Renee]

That's no surprise.



I saw that the recently departed judge was an Italian Catholic who rejected abortion.



Apparently, he ruled against abortion issues while on the Supreme Court based on his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.

That is the exact opposite of democracy.

WTF are you prattling about now?



The SCOTUS presides over constitutional law ONLY. The US Consitution does not cover issues such as the right to an abortion. Scalia was one of those rare individuals that understood that abortion was NOT a constitutional issue.



Any of his is opinions on the issue were based on the fact that there is nothing in the US consitution to base a ruling upon. Any ruling on abortion from the SCOTUS such as Roe v Wade (which btw was before Scalia's tenure) was a "pulled out of the ass" interpretation just as the recent ruling on gay marriage was. Scalia recognized this and wasn't afraid to to write a dissenting opinion stating that fact and wasn't afraid of criticism he received for it. THAT is what is required of a Supreme Court Justice.



In the context of the US Consitution rulings on issues such as abortion or gay marriage are politicized interpretations. Those justices that found some kind of dubious grounds to base a ruling upon so they could legislate from the bench are ones perverting the concept of democracy; Scalia WASN'T one of them. Scalia was a strict follower of the letter of the law as it was written in the Consitution.



Enough with your blind criticism of a man that you know nothing about. I will give you a pass on this because your opinions of anything pertaining to the US are riddled with your  teenage like angst and thus tainted with negatively and a lack of real world objectivity.



So just STFU already because you make me sick with your endless, uninformed, overly opinionated, bullshit.

[Anonymous]

I completely agree with Renee.

[Anonymous]

Why do people constantly assume the pro life stance is exclusive to religion?  There are huge secular anti abortion, as well as pagans and "atheists against abortion".  Abortion is not a religious issue. It's a humanity issue. Period.

[Bricktop]

That's no surprise.



I saw that the recently departed judge was an Italian Catholic who rejected abortion.



Apparently, he ruled against abortion issues while on the Supreme Court based on his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.

That is the exact opposite of democracy.

WTF are you prattling about now?



The SCOTUS presides over constitutional law ONLY. The US Consitution does not cover issues such as the right to an abortion. Scalia was one of those rare individuals that understood that abortion was NOT a constitutional issue.



Any of his is opinions on the issue were based on the fact that there is nothing in the US consitution to base a ruling upon. Any ruling on abortion from the SCOTUS such as Roe v Wade (which btw was before Scalia's tenure) was a "pulled out of the ass" interpretation just as the recent ruling on gay marriage was. Scalia recognized this and wasn't afraid to to write a dissenting opinion stating that fact and wasn't afraid of criticism he received for it. THAT is what is required of a Supreme Court Justice.



In the context of the US Consitution rulings on issues such as abortion or gay marriage are politicized interpretations. Those justices that found some kind of dubious grounds to base a ruling upon so they could legislate from the bench are ones perverting the concept of democracy; Scalia WASN'T one of them. Scalia was a strict follower of the letter of the law as it was written in the Consitution.



Enough with your blind criticism of a man that you know nothing about. I will give you a pass on this because your opinions of anything pertaining to the US are riddled with your  teenage like angst and thus tainted with negatively and a lack of real world objectivity.



So just STFU already because you make me sick with your endless, uninformed, overly opinionated, bullshit.

Take your pass and shove it up your ass.



You think I sit here and make this shit up?



"Scalia was a proponent of originalism, believing that the constitution's meaning is fixed, and should be interpreted in the way the framers originally intended. He was decidedly anti-progressive: Scalia wanted to overturn Roe v Wade, voted against protecting equal pay, wanted states to be able to outlaw gay sex, and sometimes said things outside of the courtroom about these issues that raised eyebrows."



This statement comes from the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/15/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-justice-women">http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb ... tice-women">http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/15/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-justice-women). So, don't argue with me, argue with the good folks at The Guardian, whom you will no doubt accuse of subversion and anti Americanism.



And this from the NY times...



"In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 5-to-4 ruling upheld women's right to an abortion but allowed states to impose some restrictions on the procedure. Justice Scalia, along with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, dissented. He argued that while the states had a right to permit abortions, they were not required to do so. He further insisted that the issue should be resolved by the democratic process, instead of through the courts. Justice Scalia's death comes just weeks before the Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments on another abortion-related case, Whole Woman's Health v. Cole."



Now, IF said honourable justice was utterly impartial, why such a furore over who appoints a successor. You see a point of dissent and drop on it like John Goodman on a free slider, completely bypassing the central cause of my amazement; that a judge is appointed based on an ideological bias.



Or are you going to tell me that the Republicans want to wait because they are quite busy at the moment and besides they're worried about Donald Trump and how they will beat ISIS?



Your judges are appointed on the basis of ideology. That in itself is a farce, but one that hardly surprises, given that it occurs in the world's dumbest democracy. They are, as Scalia observed, not there to legislate..but the fact is that legislation has been forwarded to them for a ruling. On his dumbshit principle, any decision that affects law should not be taken but referred back to the legislature.



This asswipe is anti-gay, pro gun and anti abortion. That in itself would be enough to exclude him from ANY judicial hearing on those matters, not just the highest court in your land.



I'm sorry that you feel sick. If I were as dumb, ignorant, blind, egotistical and overbearing as you, I'd feel slightly nauseous when I'm made to look like a fool by an Australian, too.



Need a bucket?

[Renee]

That's no surprise.



I saw that the recently departed judge was an Italian Catholic who rejected abortion.



Apparently, he ruled against abortion issues while on the Supreme Court based on his personal RELIGIOUS beliefs.

That is the exact opposite of democracy.

Your judges are appointed on the basis of ideology. That in itself is a farce, but one that hardly surprises, given that it occurs in the world's dumbest democracy. They are, as Scalia observed, not there to legislate..but the fact is that legislation has been forwarded to them for a ruling. On his dumbshit principle, any decision that affects law should not be taken but referred back to the legislature.



This asswipe is anti-gay, pro gun and anti abortion. That in itself would be enough to exclude him from ANY judicial hearing on those matters, not just the highest court in your land.



I'm sorry that you feel sick. If I were as dumb, ignorant, blind, egotistical and overbearing as you, I'd feel slightly nauseous when I'm made to look like a fool by an Australian, too.



Need a bucket?

 

Wrong again shithead, our judges are nominated on the basis of ideology. They are then vetted and approved on the basis of their legal qualifications and their historical  conduct as it pertains to the law.



Have the intellectual courtesy of getting it right for a change.



I'm not talking about whether or not the Republican controlled Senate has the right to delay approval of a nominee or what rational they may employ. Your attempt at defection of my argument is noted and duly ignored.



Once again the leftard toady (which deep down is what you really are) comes out to play and shows off your level of moronic ineptitude.



I guess you missed where I said Scalia was a strict proponent of constitutional law AS IT IS WRITTEN in the Consitution. Again reading comprehension.....Hard.



Like many Americans, Scalia believed that many issues brought before the supreme court where not constitutional issues and should be left up to the individual states as the framers intended. You like many of the droolers living and breeding out there can't fathom that interpretation of consitutional law is limited to issues found inside the document itself. Regardless of personal feelings and beliefs, Scalia never wavered from that premise no matter what the issue.



The way you flap your gums on this, one would think you are related to Romero.



As far as his stance on gay sex was concerned it followed the same principles. Gay marriage and gay sex is NOT covered in the US Consitution and thus there is no legal basis for a ruling . All the recent ruling on gay marriage did was created yet ANOTHER protected class of people and force another portion of the leftwing political agenda onto the American public. Scalia was a dissenting voice in that obvious power grab by the left in federal government.



I believe it was Justice Roberts who stated in his opinion that the pro gay marriage ruling should be celebrated BUT do not celebrate the US Consitution at the same time. Justice Roberts was also of the opinion that gay marriage was not an issue governed in the Consitution and he was correct just as Scalia was.



Justice Ginsberg, who was the political polar opposite of Justice Scalia had nothing but glowing admiration for the man as a professional colleague and a close friend. As much as I do not like to woman's politics, I will take her opinion and description of Scalia over the left-wing smear coming out of the NY pro-Odumbo Times . You can do what your obviously uninformed ass pleases.



Let me explain something to you and try to get it through the ossification of the brain that your advanced age sometimes brings. Social issues such as abortion and gay marriage are pushed thru the courts for political purposes. Any favorable supreme court ruling on any of these so-called important issues means one thing......the qualification and distribution of federal taxpayer dollars. In the US special interest groups all have their hands out and they they are all jockeying for a place at the government trough. Making pet hot button issues the "law of the land" guarantees a place at that trough and I for one am sick and tired of seeing the Romero's of this world use the US Consitution are a means to facilitate their fucking ideological greed. I thank the Gods for individuals like Justice Scalia who are there at least as a token road block to this perverted process.



BTW, since when are you worried about someone being anti gay sex? I guess judging from that limp wrist we all saw along with your ugly car, we now have a good idea why.



That last pathetic attempt to counter my argument was the final straw showing that you no longer have the chops to hang with me in a rational argument, (some might say you never had them to begin with). So you go back on ignore where you obviously belong.

[Romero]

As far as his stance on gay sex was concerned it followed the same principles. Gay marriage and gay sex is NOT covered in the US Consitution and thus there is no legal basis for a ruling . All the recent ruling on gay marriage did was created yet ANOTHER protected class of people and force another portion of the leftwing political agenda onto the American public. Scalia was a dissenting voice in that obvious power grab by the left in federal government.

"Traditional" marriage isn't covered in the Constitution either. Same-sex marriage bans were ruled unconstitutional because they are unconstitutional. Can't keep a basic right away from some citizens.



"Another protected class"? Only heterosexuals should be allowed rights and protections?



"Political agenda"? Is the heterosexual right to marriage a political agenda?



People thought the same kind of nonsense about interracial marriage. The Supreme Court rightfully had to strike down those bans too.



Homophobe.

[Romero]

Sandra Day O'Connor Says Obama Should Get To Replace Justice Scalia



Sandra Day O'Connor, the retired Supreme Court justice appointed by President Ronald Reagan, said on Wednesday that President Barack Obama should get to name the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.



O'Connor, in an interview with a Fox affiliate in Phoenix, disagreed with Republican arguments that the next president, and not Obama, should get to fill the high court vacancy.



"I think we need somebody there to do the job now and let's get on with it," said O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court.



O'Connor, 85, agreed it's unusual for a Supreme Court vacancy to open in an election year, which "creates much talk around the thing that isn't necessary."



But she said the president still has an important responsibility to fulfill.



"You just have to pick the best person you can under the circumstances, as the appointing authority must do," she said. "It's an important position and one that we care about as a nation and as a people. And I wish the president well as he makes choices and goes down that line. It's hard."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-day-oconnor-scalia_us_56c5313be4b0c3c55053c6d9">//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-day-oconnor-scalia_us_56c5313be4b0c3c55053c6d9

The President is supposed to perform his presidential duty? What a libtard!