Supreme court justice Scalia dead!

Ludo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So close to an election it does make sense for the American people to have a say on what the supreme court will look like,

They did have their say...in the last election. They elected someone to govern for 4 years..not govern for 3 and sit on his ass for one.
Tis a stupid concept that the next president should get the pick. Why not the one after that in case you dont like the next one either.

LuckyLloyd

Shurimgreat wrote: »

America has a great democracy but its many checks and balances can be infuriating at times. I think its fair the next president has a say in what the supreme court should look like. The will of the American people selects the president and by extension its the will of the American people to pick the supreme court.

So close to an election it does make sense for the American people to have a say on what the supreme court will look like, as opposed to Obama filling the role with no doubt one of his cronies.

There's a well established tradition that presidents don't pick supreme court judges in their final year in office for the reasons I stated above. The American people deserve a say, whether some people like it or not.

16 Supreme Court judges appointed in election years. Never had a vacancy in US history longer than 8 months. There is no precedent here sir other than an elected President having the right to nominate a qualified person and have them confirmed by due process.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you applaud it when the GOP do it, but not when the DNC do it.

Figures.

You keep trying to twist my words, but it won’t work. I said I would expect it and support the GOP’s actions, because of Bork. When one party successfully utilizes a tactic to their advantage, it would be political suicide for the other party not to use the same tactics when the opportunity presents itself. When the democrats threatened to block any nomination by a republican president, republicans warned them they would face the same when party control shifts. But they did it anyway. Unfortunately history doesn’t start today, as much as ya'll on the Left wish it would, eh?

Remember when the democrats recently used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades? Even though republicans confirmed 99% of Obama’s judicial selections, democrats wanted the courts stacked with all of Obama’s controversial choices, especially to the D.C. Circuit. Republicans vowed to reciprocate when they reclaim the majority. And when the GOP reclaims the presidency and keeps their promise, I fully expect those on the Left will condemn republicans for it... just like now.

Amerika

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

16 Supreme Court judges appointed in election years. Never had a vacancy in US history longer than 8 months. There is no precedent here sir other than an elected President having the right to nominate a qualified person and have them confirmed by due process.

I believe a nomination to the SCOTUS of Zachary Taylor's took 14 months to confirm and fill.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

They had a say when they voted Obama in for another 4 years. They didn't vote him in for 3 years of work and 1 year to look pretty.

The people voted for the President to work with Congress for the betterment of the country... not to be king. We must accept the fact that these days it will be extremely difficult for a president to get a nominee of his/her choice to SCOTUS in the final year when the Senate is controlled by the other party. A good president would meet with Senate leaders of the opposing party and work out a pick, together, that would be acceptable to both parties. Unfortunately, we don’t have a good president at the current time.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thanks for the info (but wouldn't that have made Millard Fillmore 152 years old. )

And again, if the rolls were reversed, is there little doubt the democrats would do the exact same thing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

You keep trying to twist my words, but it won’t work. I said I would expect it and support the GOP’s actions, because of Bork. When one party successfully utilizes a tactic to their advantage, it would be political suicide for the other party not to use the same tactics when the opportunity presents itself. When the democrats threatened to block any nomination by a republican president, republicans warned them they would face the same when party control shifts. But they did it anyway. Unfortunately history doesn’t start today, as much as ya'll on the Left wish it would, eh?

Remember when the democrats recently used a rare parliamentary move to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can advance to confirmation votes by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote supermajority that has been the standard for nearly four decades? Even though republicans confirmed 99% of Obama’s judicial selections, democrats wanted the courts stacked with all of Obama’s controversial choices, especially to the D.C. Circuit. Republicans vowed to reciprocate when they reclaim the majority. And when the GOP reclaims the presidency and keeps their promise, I fully expect those on the Left will condemn republicans for it... just like now.

So it's just a race to the bottom? The other side did it so we must do it? Seems like a never ending, ever devolving spiral of childishness does it not? And if I'm not mistaken, Bork wasn't filibustered before his name was even put forward, he got hearings and the whole 9 yards.

It's a bit like Sanders provzing just because everyone else has a PAC and rubs negative ads doesn't mean you need to as well in order to contend in an election. Similarly why does the GOP not insist on trying to be the adult party in the room? No instead when they get into power they immediately obstruct not because it's in the country's best interest but because "they did it to us now we're doing it to them".

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

So it's just a race to the bottom? The other side did it so we must do it? Seems like a never ending, ever devolving spiral of childishness does it not? And if I'm not mistaken, Bork wasn't filibustered before his name was even put forward, he got hearings and the whole 9 yards.

It's a bit like Sanders provzing just because everyone else has a PAC and rubs negative ads doesn't mean you need to as well in order to contend in an election. Similarly why does the GOP not insist on trying to be the adult party in the room? No instead when they get into power they immediately obstruct not because it's in the country's best interest but because "they did it to us now we're doing it to them".

I answered that before and my answer is still the same. If the democrats utilize a tactic to their benefit, which was successful and tolerated by the public, it would be political suicide for the other party not to act in kind. I understand the majority here would prefer the GOP to go the way of the Dodo, but it ain’t gonna happen by being foolish.

InTheTrees

Overheal wrote: »

So it's just a race to the bottom? The other side did it so we must do it? Seems like a never ending, ever devolving spiral of childishness does it not? And if I'm not mistaken, Bork wasn't filibustered before his name was even put forward, he got hearings and the whole 9 yards.

And also Reagan's second choice Kennedy wasnt opposed at all and is still serving on the court.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

And also Reagan's second choice Kennedy wasnt opposed at all and is still serving on the court.

Sorry, but I think even Elmer Fudd would tell you “Yabut” season closes during the last year of a president.

Overheal

In Reagan's own words: http://www.mediaite.com/online/ronald-reagan-has-a-message-for-obama-blocking-republican-senate/

LuckyLloyd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well okay, the Fortas one is an outlier post 1900 (my information was incorrect mind) but ultimately he didn't pass confirmation hearings for Chief Justice so it was a pretty extraordinary situation.

Amerika

Here’s Obama admitting that he filibustered Alito because he needed to pander to his Democratic base. So republicans shouldn’t satisfy their own base by blocking Obama’s new nominee… why exactly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHdSMxlec0

Anyway, Senator Chuck Grassley (R), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has come out and said he had not ruled out holding hearings on Mr. Obama’s eventual nominee to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. So I guess all this talk about republican obstructionism is a moot point now, correct?

Fr Tod Umptious

I like a good story like this.

Too often people around here wish to portray the GOP and their supporters are the gaffe ridden idiots and that the Dems are so articulate, measured etc.

I know its only a state senate candidate in MA but I still laughed.

State senate candidate sorry for 'happy' post on Scalia's death

(Sent from Boston.com)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2016/02/17/state-senate-candidate-sorry-for-happy-post-scalia-death/9Gb3XMfdMs8qQ52W4PKGzO/story.html

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Here’s Obama admitting that he filibustered Alito because he needed to pander to his Democratic base.

Except Samuel Alito is a judge on the Supreme Court now isnt he?

MightyMandarin

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I like a good story like this.

Too often people around here wish to portray the GOP and their supporters are the gaffe ridden idiots and that the Dems are so articulate, measured etc.

I know its only a state senate candidate in MA but I still laughed.

State senate candidate sorry for 'happy' post on Scalia's death

(Sent from Boston.com)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2016/02/17/state-senate-candidate-sorry-for-happy-post-scalia-death/9Gb3XMfdMs8qQ52W4PKGzO/story.html

Yet another stupid generalisation on here, to say that the likes of myself or other democrat supporters view all republicans as idiots and all democrats as articulate and good politicians.

There's good and bad politicians on each side and I'd always support a good republican over a bad democrat. The problem is that the likes of you take my disagreement as a personal insult to republicans when in reality I just disagree with their beliefs.

I think it's fitting to add that while Scalia and Ginsburg were most certainly at opposite ends in their political beliefs, they were good friends outside of the SC. Perhaps some of the posters on here, and indeed republicans and democrats in general, should take a leaf from their book.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fr Tod Umptious

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Yet another stupid generalisation on here, to say that the likes of myself or other democrat supporters view all republicans as idiots and all democrats as articulate and good politicians.

There's good and bad politicians on each side and I'd always support a good republican over a bad democrat. The problem is that the likes of you take my disagreement as a personal insult to republicans when in reality I just disagree with their beliefs.

I think it's fitting to add that while Scalia and Ginsburg were most certainly at opposite ends in their political beliefs, they were good friends outside of the SC. Perhaps some of the posters on here, and indeed republicans and democrats in general, should take a leaf from their book.

Why so touchy ?

I find many a "stupid generalisation" in Ireland when it comes to US politics.
And it usually goes under the stereotype
GOP candidate/supporter = dumb, redneck, war mongering, racist, sexist, insular, greedy, homophobic etc.
Dem candidate/supporter = smart, open minded, articulate, understanding, peace loving etc.

I was just highlighting an example that goes against that generalisation taken from a publication I read regularly.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Yet another stupid generalisation on here, to say that the likes of myself or other democrat supporters view all republicans as idiots and all democrats as articulate and good politicians.

There's good and bad politicians on each side and I'd always support a good republican over a bad democrat. The problem is that the likes of you take my disagreement as a personal insult to republicans when in reality I just disagree with their beliefs.

I think it's fitting to add that while Scalia and Ginsburg were most certainly at opposite ends in their political beliefs, they were good friends outside of the SC. Perhaps some of the posters on here, and indeed republicans and democrats in general, should take a leaf from their book.

Why do you assume we aren't friendly towards each other? I like all the posters here even though I disagree with just about all of them when it comes to politics.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Except Samuel Alito is a judge on the Supreme Court now isnt he?

Interesting argument that Republicans should not attempt to obstruct the process because the Democrats were unsuccessful in their efforts to obstruct the process. Makes no sense, but interesting nonetheless.

The Randy Riverbeast

Amerika wrote: »

The people voted for the President to work with Congress for the betterment of the country... not to be king. We must accept the fact that these days it will be extremely difficult for a president to get a nominee of his/her choice to SCOTUS in the final year when the Senate is controlled by the other party. A good president would meet with Senate leaders of the opposing party and work out a pick, together, that would be acceptable to both parties. Unfortunately, we don’t have a good president at the current time.

Can't work with someone who is acting like a child and throws a tantrum when they don't get what they want.

I'm sure you can find an event from decades ago to justify pathetic behavior now, we wouldn't want to risk one side acting like adults for a change. Attitudes like this just encourage the parties focusing more on screwing over the other side rather than leading the country.

MightyMandarin

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Why so touchy ?

I find many a "stupid generalisation" in Ireland when it comes to US politics.
And it usually goes under the stereotype
GOP candidate/supporter = dumb, redneck, war mongering, racist, sexist, insular, greedy, homophobic etc.
Dem candidate/supporter = smart, open minded, articulate, understanding, peace loving etc.

I was just highlighting an example that goes against that generalisation taken from a publication I read regularly.

I'm not touchy, it just annoys me when you generalise the democrat-supporting posters on here as if we believe that generalisation you mentioned.

There might be some who do believe it, as there might be some republican supporters who think all democrats are communists. The vast majority of us disagree with conservative supporters merely on the issues and without questioning their character.

Shurimgreat

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

They had a say when they voted Obama in for another 4 years. They didn't vote him in for 3 years of work and 1 year to look pretty.

He's on his lap of honour, and he's a bit of a lame duck at this stage.

As for him sitting there looking pretty, there's a lot he can do day to day. But nominating to the Supreme Court is a huge decision. It can decide the shape of major supreme court decisions for years or possibly decades to come. Obama is like I said on his way out the door and it would be churlish to give the next president a headache.

At some stage someone has to break the immature tit for tat rancour in Washington. People working against each other has ground the whole thing to a virtual halt and turned it into a circus.

The mature decision is to leave the Supreme Court nomination to the next president. Sadly when it comes to US politics, maturity usually goes out the window and it becomes a case of cheap point scoring.

Manic Moran

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

16 Supreme Court judges appointed in election years. Never had a vacancy in US history longer than 8 months. There is no precedent here sir other than an elected President having the right to nominate a qualified person and have them confirmed by due process.

In addition to the others mentioned, it took over two years between when Henry Baldwin died (April 1844) until his replacement was appointed in May 1846. (Robert Grier). President Tyler was not on good terms with Congress (Congress tried to impeach him, and he was nominally the same party), and the Whigs refused to countenance any of his nominations. After Tyler left office and was replaced by Polk, a Jacksonian Democrat, the Whigs didn't like anything much he had to say either. (Consider the Whig/JD relationship to be about the same as left-democrat/tea party) It wasn't until a very uncontroversial judge (Grier) was nominated that they finally let the appointment happen.

The mature decision is to leave the Supreme Court nomination to the next president

I disagree. The mature decision is to have the Supreme Court operate instead of leaving it in a state of dysfunction for most of a year. It's one of the three branches of government, and it's actually quite an important organ to have running. Where's the dividing line? One year? Two years? Any year in the last term of office? The vacancy is open, the man's the President, he gets to nominate the replacement and let at least one part of this government structure work something like it's supposed to. Lord knows, Congress isn't working.

Of course, he doesn't have to nominate someone favourable to the left, and the senate doesn't have to confirm him/her. There were -two- elections, not just one recently. The one which confirmed Obama as President, and the other which gave the Republicans the control of Congress. The real 'mature decision' which reflects the will of the voters is that Obama nominates a fairly neutral judge and that the senate confirms the fairly neutral judge, and we can all get on with life until the next round of obstructionism on whatever government decides to sit on and break next.

Amerika

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Can't work with someone who is acting like a child and throws a tantrum when they don't get what they want.

That pretty much describes Obama to a tee.

I'm sure you can find an event from decades ago to justify pathetic behavior now, we wouldn't want to risk one side acting like adults for a change. Attitudes like this just encourage the parties focusing more on screwing over the other side rather than leading the country.

Well then... lets look at just today and what is best for the country. One thing not discussed is it would probably be beneficial to the country to delay a Obama nominee as his last two picks indicate he would move the SCOTUS to the left. I don’t see much indication that the country does not continue to be a right-of-center nation overall. So the voters don’t really want a more progressive court. Most of the knowledgeable voters realize progressives rely heavily on the courts to institute the change they can’t get through legislation. A poll taken by CNN in 2015 showed 37% of Americans thought the Supreme Court was already too liberal. And 40% found it just right. Therefore 77% of the voters would be happy with keeping the Supreme Court at a status quo. So the GOP not confirming the type of pick most could assume he would choose is actually good for the nation.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t see much indication that the country does not continue to be a right-of-center nation overall. So the voters don’t really want a more progressive court.

I dont think its entirely correct to describe your view of what the nation wants as accurately reflecting the wishes of "the voters".

We've elected a black president, Gay marriage is now legal, Bernie sanders a (gasp) socialist is a serious contender for the presidency. The country is certainly making a shift to the left, and the makeup of the supreme court will reflect that. That's what the founding fathers intended and that's the way it is working.

If the the voters didn't want Obama to make appointments to the supreme court then why did they elect him? Its one of the most important duties of the president. They had a choice to pick Mccain and Palin or four years later another opportunity to choose Romney and ryan.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

I dont think its entirely correct to describe your view of what the nation wants as accurately reflecting the wishes of "the voters".

We've elected a black president, Gay marriage is now legal, Bernie sanders a (gasp) socialist is a serious contender for the presidency. The country is certainly making a shift to the left, and the makeup of the supreme court will reflect that. That's what the founding fathers intended and that's the way it is working.

If the the voters didn't want Obama to make appointments to the supreme court then why did they elect him? Its one of the most important duties of the president. They had a choice to pick Mccain and Palin or four years later another opportunity to choose Romney and ryan.

As I also noted, the CNN poll gives credence to my contention regarding the “reflection” of voters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/the-supreme-court-too-liberal/2015/07/26/5e31c988-320f-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html

Amerika

For the first time in the last 65 years a current US President will not be attending the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice. I wonder if the golf courses recently opened in Washington D.C.?

eire4

vetinari wrote: »

RIP to the man.
Didn't agree with his views in general.

Will be interesting to see what happens with Obama nominates a replacement.
Republicans won't want to confirm a nomination but could be harmful in an election year to spend the year blocking a nomination.

You make a good point there. If the Republicans dig their heels in and block whomever Obama nominates that could really hurt them with independent voters come November.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

You make a good point there. If the Republicans dig their heels in and block whomever Obama nominates that could really hurt them with independent voters come November.

Yeah according the media, maybe. Odd that you hear all over the media about Republican Obstructionism, but do we ever hear from the media questioning whether Democrats will pay a price in the election if the president nominates another hard-left ideologue? Of course not.

We’ve been hearing from the media that the GOP would pay the price in each election for not rubber-stamp progressive reforms since Obama became President. We heard it about in regard to Obamacare, about gun registration, and about Cap-and-trade. But what has actually happened you might ask. The reality is the GOP took control of the House, and then control of the Senate, and plenty of governorships and state legislative spots. No wonder no one trusts the media much anymore, well except for the left, that is.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah according the media, maybe. Odd that you hear all over the media about Republican Obstructionism, but do we ever hear from the media questioning whether Democrats will pay a price in the election if the president nominates another hard-left ideologue? Of course not.

We’ve been hearing from the media that the GOP would pay the price in each election for not rubber-stamp progressive reforms since Obama became President. We heard it about in regard to Obamacare, about gun registration, and about Cap-and-trade. But what has actually happened you might ask. The reality is the GOP took control of the House, and then control of the Senate, and plenty of governorships and state legislative spots. No wonder no one trusts the media much anymore, well except for the left, that is.

Wow that is quite the anti media rant. I assume your don't include Fox News or the Wall Street Journal etc in your anti media rant.


But beyond that I could care less what any media outlet has to say the above is what my opinion is. I think if the Republicans really dig in their heels and block Obama's nomination that it will back fire on them given how many vulnerable senate seats the Republicans have to defend this November.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Wow that is quite the anti media rant. I assume your don't include Fox News or the Wall Street Journal etc in your anti media rant.


But beyond that I could care less what any media outlet has to say the above is what my opinion is. I think if the Republicans really dig in their heels and block Obama's nomination that it will back fire on them given how many vulnerable senate seats the Republicans have to defend this November.

What you call a media rant, I call the media truth. Yes, Fox News and the WSJ favors the right, as do a couple of little know others. I take it you think 500 to 5 is a fair fight. So, I guess we need to agree to disagree on this one.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

As I also noted, the CNN poll gives credence to my contention regarding the “reflection” of voters.

Except that the poll didnt ask voters whether they wanted to amend the constitution to prevent the president from nominating judges did it?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

As I also noted, the CNN poll gives credence to my contention regarding the “reflection” of voters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/the-supreme-court-too-liberal/2015/07/26/5e31c988-320f-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html

I like polls

http://www.mediaite.com/online/majority-in-fox-news-poll-say-obama-senate-should-fill-scotus-vacancy-immediately/

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Except that the poll didnt ask voters whether they wanted to amend the constitution to prevent the president from nominating judges did it?

I don't understand what you're getting on about.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I don't understand what you're getting on about.

Simple: the constitution says the president puts forth a nominee and the senate advises and consents.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Simple: the constitution says the president puts forth a nominee and the senate advises and consents.

Okay, but I don’t understand what it had to do as a response to my post that he quoted. One could have easily said ‘Except that the poll didn’t ask voters whether they wanted the Senate to rubber-stamp any nominee put forth by Obama.’ It would have been equally as perplexing a response to my post.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

What you call a media rant, I call the media truth. Yes, Fox News and the WSJ favors the right, as do a couple of little know others. I take it you think 500 to 5 is a fair fight. So, I guess we need to agree to disagree on this one.

Ah yes a rant because you don't like what you hear from some outlets.


As for your 500-5 I am not sure but I am thinking that is a classic hyperbolic claim of how outguned conservative media is in your world view. Reality is the MSM in the US is part of the problem as they benefit from the current system continuing in its corrupt and dysfunctional manner. They have benefited massively from citizens united with huge sums poured into ads and propaganda as an exmaple. They have in general little interest in anything other then ratings so the myth that the big bad media is some massive liberal conspiracy is just that a myth.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, but I don’t understand what it had to do as a response to my post that he quoted. One could have easily said ‘Except that the poll didn’t ask voters whether they wanted the Senate to rubber-stamp any nominee put forth by Obama.’ It would have been equally as perplexing a response to my post.

Let me jump in here and explain. You seemed to be under the impression that a "CNN poll" that concludes some people asked thought the supreme court was "just about right" and some thought it was "too liberal", is reason for the President to put aside one of his most important constitutional duties. What nonsense.

There was a poll on whether the President should or should not appoint supreme court justices and it took place in 2008 and again in 2012.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Let me jump in here and explain. You seemed to be under the impression that a "CNN poll" that concludes some people asked thought the supreme court was "just about right" and some thought it was "too liberal", is reason for the President to put aside one of his most important constitutional duties. What nonsense.

There was a poll on whether the President should or should not appoint supreme court justices and it took place in 2008 and again in 2012.

You’re awfully loose with the “nonsense,” stuff aren’t you? Your contention that “So the voters don’t really want a more progressive court” is actually stating “reason for the President to put aside one of his most important constitutional duties” sure is painting things with a broad brush. The president can do as he wishes, but if he chooses to move the court decidedly Left with his pick, I don’t believe the majority of people will be supportive of his choice.

Elemonator

The vibe I'm getting from my law lecturers is that he wasn't exactly popular with the younger crowd for his views. A judges job is to deliver justice, sometimes maybe some of judgments were questionable. RIP anyway.

Manic Moran

Elemonator wrote: »

some of judgments were questionable

You can make that argument for either side of the court.

There was nothing really flawed with the logic in his (in)famous dissent on the gay marriage case, for example, the question really becomes just how much priority you put on that form of logic vs others. Unfortunately, at that level, it's not really a case of black and white, as if it was, the lower courts would have sorted it out with no need to get up to SCOTUS in the first place. He was not inherently wrong in saying that the text should be read as the text was intended and nothing more than the text. The majority, also, were not inherently wrong in thinking that the text needs to be coloured by the real, modern word.

A judges job is to deliver justice,

Disagreed. A judge's job in the US is not to deliver justice. That's what juries are for. A judge's job is to interpret and clarify the application of laws. In effect, the jury determines matters of fact, the judge determines matters of law.

Elemonator

Manic Moran wrote: »

You can make that argument for either side of the court.

There was nothing really flawed with the logic in his (in)famous dissent on the gay marriage case, for example, the question really becomes just how much priority you put on that form of logic vs others. Unfortunately, at that level, it's not really a case of black and white, as if it was, the lower courts would have sorted it out with no need to get up to SCOTUS in the first place. He was not inherently wrong in saying that the text should be read as the text was intended and nothing more than the text. The majority, also, were not inherently wrong in thinking that the text needs to be coloured by the real, modern word.



Disagreed. A judge's job in the US is not to deliver justice. That's what juries are for. A judge's job is to interpret and clarify the application of laws. In effect, the jury determines matters of fact, the judge determines matters of law.

His judgments may have been legally sound but where he couldn't win by his reasoning or the legal precedent that came before, he relied on personal ridicule. Very nasty individual. He even attacked the judgments of his peers openly, notably Anthony Kennedy.

With regards to the judges role, you are right. But the point I was trying to get across was judges are impartial decision-makers in the pursuit of justice (my bad). Scalia didn't do that.

InTheTrees

Manic Moran wrote: »

You can make that argument for either side of the court.
There was nothing really flawed with the logic in his (in)famous dissent on the gay marriage case, for example, the question really becomes just how much priority you put on that form of logic vs others.

In 2003 the Supreme Court finally put an end to laws that made homosexual sex illegal. There were some states where you could still be put in prison for it. Scalia voted against the decision. He wrote:

“Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

You’re awfully loose with the “nonsense,” stuff aren’t you? Your contention that “So the voters don’t really want a more progressive court” is actually stating “reason for the President to put aside one of his most important constitutional duties” sure is painting things with a broad brush. The president can do as he wishes, but if he chooses to move the court decidedly Left with his pick, I don’t believe the majority of people will be supportive of his choice.

Perhaps a bit loose with it. Sorry.

The founding fathers feared change. They came to power through revolution but they also recognized that if the society they built was to survive far into the future then sudden change in government, rapid swings in power, etc, were to be guarded against. They really designed it so that change would happen slowly and carefully.

Thats why the constitution has a system of checks and balances that can produce a president with one ideology that has to pass legislation through a body that is opposed to it. And why a president's supreme court appointments are for life.

So expecting the president to shirk his constitutional duty on the whim of a CNN poll seems...well...a bit nonsensical.

The Court will swing to the left. Scalia by any account was very far right wing and its extremely unlikely that even if Obama's nominee is blocked, and a republican wins the next election, that his replacement would be as extreme.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

...homosexuals... promoting their agenda...

Indeed.