SCALIA DEAD!!!!!!!

[89Hen]

FIFY.

In your donk infested dreams.

[kalm]

FIFY.

In your donk infested dreams.

I agree...it IS difficult for a conk to muster up the compassion to appreciate the struggle towards freedom that others fight for.

[AZGrizFan]

As a straight / White / Male with no Religious affiliation
or desire to restrict anybody else's freedom... I don't care who's on the supreme court

I will go the rest of my days (as the above described)
and never have to give a rats ass about the supreme court or there rulings

ZERO Effect on ME

Jesus H. Christ for a Harvard grad you sure are naive.

[Chizzang]

As a straight / White / Male with no Religious affiliation
or desire to restrict anybody else's freedom... I don't care who's on the supreme court

I will go the rest of my days (as the above described)
and never have to give a rats ass about the supreme court or there rulings

ZERO Effect on ME

Jesus H. Christ for a Harvard grad you sure are naive.

I've been called a lot of thing... but naive (Really)
Please educate me on all the things the Supreme Court will take away from me...



This is a classic example of both parties rhetoric wildly out pacing reality
Again considering:
White / Straight / Non-Religious / Not wishing for others freedoms to be restricted / Etc...

Sure - if I was a Black, Gay, Hispanic, Female, Evangelical, Fundamentalist
Then sure... I'd be invested in the whole thing

[CID1990]

As a straight / White / Male with no Religious affiliation
or desire to restrict anybody else's freedom... I don't care who's on the supreme court

I will go the rest of my days (as the above described)
and never have to give a rats ass about the supreme court or there rulings

ZERO Effect on ME

*their

[kalm]

An article on odds of who gets nominated (at least first) by Obama. It also brings up an interesting point for us constitutional dummies....

Who Will Obama Nominate To Replace Scalia — A Gambler’s Guide

Note that these odds cover only who will be nominated — and nominated first in case someone gets Borked — and not who will eventually get the job. While the Constitution contemplates that the President will fill the Supreme Court vacancy with the advice and consent of the Senate, a number of high-profile conservatives have decided that the Constitution is a “living breathing document” after all and written into it the notion that it doesn’t contemplate them fulfilling their duties to provide a fair hearing and an honest vote to a president barred by term limits. It’s gotten so silly that President Obama got tagged with the “lame duck” title even though the term explicitly doesn’t apply until after November 8th. And thus we now stand on the precipice of a rump Supreme Court for over a year when you consider the 11 remaining months of Obama’s term and the several months the next president will have to expend on the nomination process.

In any event, let’s get gambling.

JSO, what say you?

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/who-will ... ntent=link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

I've been called a lot of thing... but naive (Really)
Please educate me on all the things the Supreme Court will take away from me...



This is a classic example of both parties rhetoric wildly out pacing reality
Again considering:
White / Straight / Non-Religious / Not wishing for others freedoms to be restricted / Etc...

Sure - if I was a Black, Gay, Hispanic, Female, Evangelical, Fundamentalist
Then sure... I'd be invested in the whole thing

You may not be personally impacted but there are plenty of things that can happen to a white/straight/non-religious/not wishing for others freedoms to be restricted person due to the general evolution of the role of th Supreme Court.

Such a person could miss out on admission to the university they would like to attend because the university has a "diversity" policy that calls for having less objectively qualified "under-represented miniority" students admitted at the expense of more objectively qualified White and Asian students. The Supreme Court has a role in deciding whether or not such policies are to be allowed.

Such a person who owns a business is not completely free to hire and fire people as he or she wishes because the Supreme Court in the past has ruled so as to create a paradigm by which the Federal government can interfere in that process.

I could come up with many other scenarios. Also, btw, I suspect that when you reference "others freedoms to be restricted' you're referring to things that aren't really freedoms being restricted. Things like a culture opting not to recognize homosexual relationships as marriages; which does not restrict freedom at all.

Instead, the restriction of freedom comes when someone who does not believe in homosexual marriage decides they would rather not do business related to it. Then government may come in and force them to either do business related to it or give up their business. THAT'S restriction of freedom and it's the kind of thing Courts can become involved in. A scenario in which the US Supreme Court rules that such a restriction of freedom must be imposed is very plausible. That does not affect you personally, but if you really don't want other peoples freedoms to be restricted you should be against it and you should be concerned about the potential that the Supreme Court will one day make it national policy or at least fail to strike down some Federal Civil Rights law that is totally out of bounds with respect to the original understanding of the Constitution.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO, what say you?

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/who-will" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ntent=link

I'd say the author was asserting a false implication when he wrote the language you emphasized:

... a number of high-profile conservatives have decided that the Constitution is a “living breathing document” after all and written into it the notion that it doesn’t contemplate them fulfilling their duties to provide a fair hearing and an honest vote to a president barred by term limits.

There is nothing in the Constitution to support the implication made there. This kind of thing is why the separation of powers is there. If a majority in Congress wants to make sure that any Justice seated believes in proceeding according to the original understanding of the Constitution Congress has every right to deny seating to any Justice who does not. It's the only opportunity anybody other than the President is going to have to have input into who is going to take that seat.

I also think that when the Constitution was written then ratified the people involved did not anticipate the evolution of the role of the Judiciary into one that impacts social policy. I think they thought of it as the least powerful of the three branches and I don't think they thought that who got appointed to the Supreme Court would make a difference in how great social issues would be decided. I don't think, for instance, that in their wildest dreams they thought that a future Supreme Court would do something like decide for the society whether or not homosexual relationships would be recognized as marriages or even something like whether or not States could restrict abortion.

The Constitution says the Senate must consent and deciding they are not going to consent because they think doing so would take the nation in a direction they don't agree with is completely consistent with original understanding. Nobody is writing anything into the Constitution by virtue of taking the referenced position.

[kalm]

JSO, what say you?

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/who-will" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ntent=link

I'd say the author was asserting a false implication when he wrote the language you emphasized:

... a number of high-profile conservatives have decided that the Constitution is a “living breathing document” after all and written into it the notion that it doesn’t contemplate them fulfilling their duties to provide a fair hearing and an honest vote to a president barred by term limits.

There is nothing in the Constitution to support the implication made there. This kind of thing is why the separation of powers is there. If a majority in Congress wants to make sure that any Justice seated believes in proceeding according to the original understanding of the Constitution Congress has every right to deny seating to any Justice who does not. It's the only opportunity anybody other than the President is going to have to have input into who is going to take that seat.

I also think that when the Constitution was written then ratified the people involved did not anticipate the evolution of the role of the Judiciary into one that impacts social policy. I think they thought of it as the least powerful of the three branches and I don't think they thought that who got appointed to the Supreme Court would make a difference in how great social issues would be decided. I don't think, for instance, that in their wildest dreams they thought that a future Supreme Court would do something like decide for the society whether or not homosexual relationships would be recognized as marriages or even something like whether or not States could restrict abortion.

The Constitution says the Senate must consent and deciding they are not going to consent because they think doing so would take the nation in a direction they don't agree with is completely consistent with original understanding. Nobody is writing anything into the Constitution by virtue of taking the referenced position.

Agree on their constitutional rights to vote down an nominee but several congressmen and candidates have said they simply won't allow Obama any appointee. Hmmmm, does the constitution address that contingency?

You're a convenient constructionist.

[Ivytalk]

An article on odds of who gets nominated (at least first) by Obama. It also brings up an interesting point for us constitutional dummies....

Who Will Obama Nominate To Replace Scalia — A Gambler’s Guide

Note that these odds cover only who will be nominated — and nominated first in case someone gets Borked — and not who will eventually get the job. While the Constitution contemplates that the President will fill the Supreme Court vacancy with the advice and consent of the Senate, a number of high-profile conservatives have decided that the Constitution is a “living breathing document” after all and written into it the notion that it doesn’t contemplate them fulfilling their duties to provide a fair hearing and an honest vote to a president barred by term limits. It’s gotten so silly that President Obama got tagged with the “lame duck” title even though the term explicitly doesn’t apply until after November 8th. And thus we now stand on the precipice of a rump Supreme Court for over a year when you consider the 11 remaining months of Obama’s term and the several months the next president will have to expend on the nomination process.

In any event, let’s get gambling.

JSO, what say you?

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/02/who-will ... ers-guide/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?
_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

Damn you, Klam, you set him off!

[GannonFan]

Good article (of which there are many) of the friendship between Ginsburg and Scalia. They represented what should happen a lot more in government and the courts - people of extremely high intellect debating and discussing their differences of opinion and learning from each other as they go about their jobs. And not vilifying either side as "evil" or "destined to rot in hell". We could use a lot more of the former and much less of the latter in political discussions today. Shame on anyone who would be joyful of the death of a fantastically intelligent and coherent justice as Scalia - whether they argue points that favor the left or the right, we should strive to make sure that we have people of the intelligence of a Scalia (or a Ginsburg if you will) on the bench at all times. I'll take intelligence over partisanship every day.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/14/10990156/s ... rg-friends

Oh, and here are comments from many other justices, current and retired. Every one of these seem to be genuine and heartfelt, even if they disagreed at times on particular decisions. And not once does anyone say anything about rotting in hell.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... 80375976/#

[GannonFan]

And another good read on Scalia, this time from David Axelrod on the time when Scalia advised him to tell Obama to nominate someone "smart" to the Supreme Court and told them to pick Elena Kagan.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/ ... index.html

[89Hen]

In your donk infested dreams.

I agree...it IS difficult for a conk to muster up the compassion to appreciate the struggle towards freedom that others fight for.

Fishing hole closed.

[Skjellyfetti]

Good article (of which there are many) of the friendship between Ginsburg and Scalia. They represented what should happen a lot more in government and the courts - people of extremely high intellect debating and discussing their differences of opinion and learning from each other as they go about their jobs. And not vilifying either side as "evil" or "destined to rot in hell". We could use a lot more of the former and much less of the latter in political discussions today. Shame on anyone who would be joyful of the death of a fantastically intelligent and coherent justice as Scalia - whether they argue points that favor the left or the right, we should strive to make sure that we have people of the intelligence of a Scalia (or a Ginsburg if you will) on the bench at all times. I'll take intelligence over partisanship every day.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/14/10990156/s ... rg-friends

Oh, and here are comments from many other justices, current and retired. Every one of these seem to be genuine and heartfelt, even if they disagreed at times on particular decisions. And not once does anyone say anything about rotting in hell.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... 80375976/#

The fact that justice don't have to run for reelection helps a great deal.

If Scalia had to answer to a crazy right wing base every 4 years or Ginsburg had to win over a crazy left wing base every 4 years - their public statements would sound much more like politicians'.

The vitriol spewed across the aisles is mostly a show to appeal to each side's base. Justices (thanksfully... unless you're JSO) aren't answerable to the public.

There are plenty of relationships, platonic and romantic, between conservatives and liberals in DC. The most famous being James Carville and Mary Matlin. But, also... people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are actually friends.

[89Hen]

Good article (of which there are many) of the friendship between Ginsburg and Scalia. They represented what should happen a lot more in government and the courts - people of extremely high intellect debating and discussing their differences of opinion and learning from each other as they go about their jobs. And not vilifying either side as "evil" or "destined to rot in hell". We could use a lot more of the former and much less of the latter in political discussions today. Shame on anyone who would be joyful of the death of a fantastically intelligent and coherent justice as Scalia - whether they argue points that favor the left or the right, we should strive to make sure that we have people of the intelligence of a Scalia (or a Ginsburg if you will) on the bench at all times. I'll take intelligence over partisanship every day.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/14/10990156/s ... rg-friends

Oh, and here are comments from many other justices, current and retired. Every one of these seem to be genuine and heartfelt, even if they disagreed at times on particular decisions. And not once does anyone say anything about rotting in hell.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... 80375976/#

The fact that justice don't have to run for reelection helps a great deal.

If Scalia had to answer to a crazy right wing base every 4 years or Ginsburg had to win over a crazy left wing base every 4 years - their public statements would sound much more like politicians'.

The vitriol spewed across the aisles is mostly a show to appeal to each side's base. Justices (thanksfully... unless you're JSO) aren't answerable to the public.

There are plenty of relationships, platonic and romantic, between conservatives and liberals in DC. The most famous being James Carville and Mary Matlin. But, also... people like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are actually friends.

Kind of like a professor.

[Chizzang]

I've been called a lot of thing... but naive (Really)
Please educate me on all the things the Supreme Court will take away from me...



This is a classic example of both parties rhetoric wildly out pacing reality
Again considering:
White / Straight / Non-Religious / Not wishing for others freedoms to be restricted / Etc...

Sure - if I was a Black, Gay, Hispanic, Female, Evangelical, Fundamentalist
Then sure... I'd be invested in the whole thing

You may not be personally impacted but there are plenty of things that can happen to a white/straight/non-religious/not wishing for others freedoms to be restricted person due to the general evolution of the role of th Supreme Court.

Such a person could miss out on admission to the university they would like to attend because the university has a "diversity" policy that calls for having less objectively qualified "under-represented miniority" students admitted at the expense of more objectively qualified White and Asian students. The Supreme Court has a role in deciding whether or not such policies are to be allowed.

Such a person who owns a business is not completely free to hire and fire people as he or she wishes because the Supreme Court in the past has ruled so as to create a paradigm by which the Federal government can interfere in that process.

I could come up with many other scenarios. Also, btw, I suspect that when you reference "others freedoms to be restricted' you're referring to things that aren't really freedoms being restricted. Things like a culture opting not to recognize homosexual relationships as marriages; which does not restrict freedom at all.

Instead, the restriction of freedom comes when someone who does not believe in homosexual marriage decides they would rather not do business related to it. Then government may come in and force them to either do business related to it or give up their business. THAT'S restriction of freedom and it's the kind of thing Courts can become involved in. A scenario in which the US Supreme Court rules that such a restriction of freedom must be imposed is very plausible. That does not affect you personally, but if you really don't want other peoples freedoms to be restricted you should be against it and you should be concerned about the potential that the Supreme Court will one day make it national policy or at least fail to strike down some Federal Civil Rights law that is totally out of bounds with respect to the original understanding of the Constitution.

Wow...
So that's ^ the strongest you can come up with

I might have to work harder to get into my favorite University
because black people might be getting easier admissions testing
and something vague about unenforceable hiring practices and homosexuals



God Bless you - you're adorable - You've got nothin' - but hang in there buddy
I'll stick with my original assessment (Thanks)

[YoUDeeMan]

You may not be personally impacted but there are plenty of things that can happen to a white/straight/non-religious/not wishing for others freedoms to be restricted person due to the general evolution of the role of th Supreme Court.

Such a person could miss out on admission to the university they would like to attend because the university has a "diversity" policy that calls for having less objectively qualified "under-represented miniority" students admitted at the expense of more objectively qualified White and Asian students. The Supreme Court has a role in deciding whether or not such policies are to be allowed.

Such a person who owns a business is not completely free to hire and fire people as he or she wishes because the Supreme Court in the past has ruled so as to create a paradigm by which the Federal government can interfere in that process.

I could come up with many other scenarios. Also, btw, I suspect that when you reference "others freedoms to be restricted' you're referring to things that aren't really freedoms being restricted. Things like a culture opting not to recognize homosexual relationships as marriages; which does not restrict freedom at all.

Instead, the restriction of freedom comes when someone who does not believe in homosexual marriage decides they would rather not do business related to it. Then government may come in and force them to either do business related to it or give up their business. THAT'S restriction of freedom and it's the kind of thing Courts can become involved in. A scenario in which the US Supreme Court rules that such a restriction of freedom must be imposed is very plausible. That does not affect you personally, but if you really don't want other peoples freedoms to be restricted you should be against it and you should be concerned about the potential that the Supreme Court will one day make it national policy or at least fail to strike down some Federal Civil Rights law that is totally out of bounds with respect to the original understanding of the Constitution.

Wow...
So that's ^ the strongest you can come up with

I might have to work harder to get into my favorite University
because black people might be getting easier admissions testing
and something vague about unenforceable hiring practices and homosexuals



God Bless you - you're adorable - You've got nothin' - but hang in there buddy
I'll stick with my original assessment (Thanks)

You forgot to mention that you are childless.

[Ibanez]

With the amount of animosity JSO holds for Trumps and Gays, i'm starting to think he's a closet Homosexual and Trump supporter.

[Ibanez]

Wow...
So that's ^ the strongest you can come up with

I might have to work harder to get into my favorite University
because black people might be getting easier admissions testing
and something vague about unenforceable hiring practices and homosexuals



God Bless you - you're adorable - You've got nothin' - but hang in there buddy
I'll stick with my original assessment (Thanks)

You forgot to mention that you are childless.

Sure, pour salt in that wound!

[AZGrizFan]

Jesus H. Christ for a Harvard grad you sure are naive.

I've been called a lot of thing... but naive (Really)
Please educate me on all the things the Supreme Court will take away from me...



This is a classic example of both parties rhetoric wildly out pacing reality
Again considering:
White / Straight / Non-Religious / Not wishing for others freedoms to be restricted / Etc...

Sure - if I was a Black, Gay, Hispanic, Female, Evangelical, Fundamentalist
Then sure... I'd be invested in the whole thing

Denial is a river in Egypt, pal.

[houndawg]

You may not be personally impacted but there are plenty of things that can happen to a white/straight/non-religious/not wishing for others freedoms to be restricted person due to the general evolution of the role of th Supreme Court.

Such a person could miss out on admission to the university they would like to attend because the university has a "diversity" policy that calls for having less objectively qualified "under-represented miniority" students admitted at the expense of more objectively qualified White and Asian students. The Supreme Court has a role in deciding whether or not such policies are to be allowed.

Such a person who owns a business is not completely free to hire and fire people as he or she wishes because the Supreme Court in the past has ruled so as to create a paradigm by which the Federal government can interfere in that process.

I could come up with many other scenarios. Also, btw, I suspect that when you reference "others freedoms to be restricted' you're referring to things that aren't really freedoms being restricted. Things like a culture opting not to recognize homosexual relationships as marriages; which does not restrict freedom at all.

Instead, the restriction of freedom comes when someone who does not believe in homosexual marriage decides they would rather not do business related to it. Then government may come in and force them to either do business related to it or give up their business. THAT'S restriction of freedom and it's the kind of thing Courts can become involved in. A scenario in which the US Supreme Court rules that such a restriction of freedom must be imposed is very plausible. That does not affect you personally, but if you really don't want other peoples freedoms to be restricted you should be against it and you should be concerned about the potential that the Supreme Court will one day make it national policy or at least fail to strike down some Federal Civil Rights law that is totally out of bounds with respect to the original understanding of the Constitution.

Wow...
So that's ^ the strongest you can come up with

I might have to work harder to get into my favorite University
because black people might be getting easier admissions testing
and something vague about unenforceable hiring practices and homosexuals



God Bless you - you're adorable - You've got nothin' - but hang in there buddy
I'll stick with my original assessment (Thanks)

He's become the Regimental Sweetheart here.

It's not that he has nothing, that's a given to anybody who has been here more than a month, but that he has nothing at such length and frequency.

[JohnStOnge]

Agree on their constitutional rights to vote down an nominee but several congressmen and candidates have said they simply won't allow Obama any appointee. Hmmmm, does the constitution address that contingency?

You're a convenient constructionist.

I guess if you think Obama might potentially appoint a nominee who is going to be a strict constructionist you could quibble with saying ahead of time that they'll vote down any Obama nominee. But, realistically, that's not going to happen. Obama is going to nominate people who do not believe in following the original understanding of the Constitution. So if you want they could play the game of saying they'll consider each on a case by case basis but won't accept anybody that's not an original understanding person. But the outcome would be the same.

[JohnStOnge]

I might have to work harder to get into my favorite University
because black people might be getting easier admissions testing

Like I said, it may not affect you personally. But it's not a matter of "you might have to work harder" for some people. For some people it's a matter of working very hard and earning the shot then being denied that shot because of the games universities play in order to implement "affirmative action."

And it's not that "under represented minority" applicants get "easier testing." It's that they aren't held to as high a standard with respect to that testing.

There's more in any case. Like right now there are cases involving the question of whether or not illegal aliens will be counted in apportioning Congressional districts and whether or not workers will be forced to pay union dues even if they want no part of unions. Perhaps those things are not important to you personally. But they are important.

[Pwns]

You may not be personally impacted but there are plenty of things that can happen to a white/straight/non-religious/not wishing for others freedoms to be restricted person due to the general evolution of the role of th Supreme Court.

Such a person could miss out on admission to the university they would like to attend because the university has a "diversity" policy that calls for having less objectively qualified "under-represented miniority" students admitted at the expense of more objectively qualified White and Asian students. The Supreme Court has a role in deciding whether or not such policies are to be allowed.

Such a person who owns a business is not completely free to hire and fire people as he or she wishes because the Supreme Court in the past has ruled so as to create a paradigm by which the Federal government can interfere in that process.

I could come up with many other scenarios. Also, btw, I suspect that when you reference "others freedoms to be restricted' you're referring to things that aren't really freedoms being restricted. Things like a culture opting not to recognize homosexual relationships as marriages; which does not restrict freedom at all.

Instead, the restriction of freedom comes when someone who does not believe in homosexual marriage decides they would rather not do business related to it. Then government may come in and force them to either do business related to it or give up their business. THAT'S restriction of freedom and it's the kind of thing Courts can become involved in. A scenario in which the US Supreme Court rules that such a restriction of freedom must be imposed is very plausible. That does not affect you personally, but if you really don't want other peoples freedoms to be restricted you should be against it and you should be concerned about the potential that the Supreme Court will one day make it national policy or at least fail to strike down some Federal Civil Rights law that is totally out of bounds with respect to the original understanding of the Constitution.

Wow...
So that's ^ the strongest you can come up with

I might have to work harder to get into my favorite University
because black people might be getting easier admissions testing
and something vague about unenforceable hiring practices and homosexuals



God Bless you - you're adorable - You've got nothin' - but hang in there buddy
I'll stick with my original assessment (Thanks)

Aren't you one of those abortion-is-no-different-than-an-appendectomy guys, Chizz?

An anti-choice SCOTUS could take away your woman's right to crush the skull of a 20-week old fetus.

[BDKJMU]

As a straight / White / Male with no Religious affiliation
or desire to restrict anybody else's freedom... I don't care who's on the supreme court

I will go the rest of my days (as the above described)
and never have to give a rats ass about the supreme court or there rulings

ZERO Effect on ME

Not in the future if you, a family member, or someone you know becomes the victim of a crime or auto accident by an illegal who has been allowed to stay as one of the millions receiving Obama'a amnesty if it isn't overturned by SCOTUS and Clinton wins in Nov..