All I can say is "WOW". He will be missed by the conservative wing of the party and people in this nation. I can see conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill shaking their heads like “this is a nightmare come true". I'm a moderate in politics and I do think Scalia bought balance to the Supreme Court.
On the other side, Liberals and other people center left are secretly happy in their heart about this news. Not that they are celebrating Scalia's death, but the birth of a New Left wing totalitarianism that will last for decades to come.
On the other side, Liberals and other people center left are secretly happy in their heart about this news. Not that they are celebrating Scalia's death, but the birth of a New Left wing totalitarianism that will last for decades to come.
Scalia is dead & I hope Obama will choose a candidate as far to the left as Scalia was far to the right. And as Scalia so callously told us after he installed Dubya as President in Bush v. Gore - "Get over it!"
3
GET READY FOR THE SPARKS TO FLY: I can't say that I'm glad that Justice Scalia has died. But I am glad he is no longer on the court.
I know one justice on the court who will be lost now that he doesn't have anybody to tell him how to vote.
And how about politics? Just as the presidential primary contest is beginning to heat up we now have to concern ourselves with the process of Mr Scalia's replacement. This issue might be the most contentious one in the coming days of the presidential campaign. I can't wait to see the sparks fly.
I know one justice on the court who will be lost now that he doesn't have anybody to tell him how to vote.
And how about politics? Just as the presidential primary contest is beginning to heat up we now have to concern ourselves with the process of Mr Scalia's replacement. This issue might be the most contentious one in the coming days of the presidential campaign. I can't wait to see the sparks fly.
Scalia was the definition of sophistry. Not the worst justice in the history of the US Supreme court--that distinction belongs to Clarence Thomas-- he ranks a close second.
11
After a day reading about what has been said here about scalia's demise it is clear that people tend to confuse turning a phrase and the inclusion of obscure (and often irrelevant) words in one's missives with the appearance of a towering intellect. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nino (a diminutive used by his family in understanding he wasn't as smart as he thought he was) used his time to research how to say what he was saying rather than to delve into understanding what he was saying and what he wanted to say. A fancy talkin' obstructionist is still a fancy talkin' obstructionist and dying in Texas ironically endows him with the label popular there......"All hat, no cattle"!
8
I'd like to thank the authors for a thoughtful obituary. I understand more about the man, regardless of my opinions on some of his rulings. However I may view his service, he did serve the nation and I thank him for that service.
My condolences to his family and friends. RIP.
My condolences to his family and friends. RIP.
3
Scalia's arguments in favor of originalism are reactionary and illogical.
There is nothing in the constitution that says I have the right to wear a blue shirt. Nevertheless, I think I will don a blue shirt tomorrow. According to Scalia's straight-jacketed jurisprudence, if the state of New York had criminalized the wearing of a blue shirt, I could go to jail.
Scalia has been peddling that ancient theory that only those rights, which are specifically and explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, are real. He is wrong. One: The Constitution is a short document. It is less than 15 pages. Rules of interpretation provide that when a document is short it means to pain the broad brush strokes of a compact and doesn't discuss things in detail. Therefore, it cannot be seen as an exhaustive recitation of rights. Two (And more importantly): The Ninth Amendment, as majestic as Beethoven's 9th symphony, provides that other rights, not enumerated in this constitution belong to the States or the people. This 9th amendment is rarely argued by liberals. When I was in law school, and tried to use the 9th Amendment, my argument was dismissed with the notion that I was proffering a tautology. (Now some legal jurists have revised their views and recognize the utility of the 9th).
In any event, as the greatest champion for Robber Barron Jurisprudence goes into the earth, hopefully his dastardly and restrictive conceptions of liberty will soon expire.
There is nothing in the constitution that says I have the right to wear a blue shirt. Nevertheless, I think I will don a blue shirt tomorrow. According to Scalia's straight-jacketed jurisprudence, if the state of New York had criminalized the wearing of a blue shirt, I could go to jail.
Scalia has been peddling that ancient theory that only those rights, which are specifically and explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, are real. He is wrong. One: The Constitution is a short document. It is less than 15 pages. Rules of interpretation provide that when a document is short it means to pain the broad brush strokes of a compact and doesn't discuss things in detail. Therefore, it cannot be seen as an exhaustive recitation of rights. Two (And more importantly): The Ninth Amendment, as majestic as Beethoven's 9th symphony, provides that other rights, not enumerated in this constitution belong to the States or the people. This 9th amendment is rarely argued by liberals. When I was in law school, and tried to use the 9th Amendment, my argument was dismissed with the notion that I was proffering a tautology. (Now some legal jurists have revised their views and recognize the utility of the 9th).
In any event, as the greatest champion for Robber Barron Jurisprudence goes into the earth, hopefully his dastardly and restrictive conceptions of liberty will soon expire.
12
Hear! Hear!
6
Who will justice Thomas look to for guidance now that Scalia is gone?
7
Absolutely OUTRAGEOUS that Republicans would be suggesting that we defer this until a year from now.
10
It boggles the mind that so many Republicans praise Scalia's Originalist insistence on following the text of the Constitution as written, then demand with the next breath that the President's constitutional prerogative to name his successor be denied for the balance of his term.
What arrogance. What naked, narrow partisanship. What appalling, nonsensical hypocrisy. If Originalism - and Scalia's judicial legacy - means anything at all, the President must nominate a successor to Scalia, and the Senate must vote, conscientiously according to their duty to "advise and consent", whether or not to confirm.
What arrogance. What naked, narrow partisanship. What appalling, nonsensical hypocrisy. If Originalism - and Scalia's judicial legacy - means anything at all, the President must nominate a successor to Scalia, and the Senate must vote, conscientiously according to their duty to "advise and consent", whether or not to confirm.
13
Regretfully, as someone who voted Republican from 1976 until 2008, I must say I am totally lost to understand how our country is better for the man.
Look around. With eyes open. Really, look around…
Our country has been dominated by the Republican party and new conservatives (these are not your father’s conservatives, son) since Reagan (unfortunately until recently with my the help of my vote), and has become a bastion of crassness, hubris, avarice, narcissism, and inequality.
Finally, I have no doubt the Founding Fathers would be horrified, as I am, by today’s Supreme Court and any notion of a “Dead Constitution.” I do believe the Constitution of the United States of America was predicated on change, and allowed for it (but not giving human standing to the non-human).
Hopefully this is an opportunity for the country to take a better, more civil, more humane path to, frankly, a better state of governance. We sure need it, plus a dose of humbleness, as we all won the lottery by being born here--thanks to our Founding Fathers and those that died fighting for the founding our country.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
Look around. With eyes open. Really, look around…
Our country has been dominated by the Republican party and new conservatives (these are not your father’s conservatives, son) since Reagan (unfortunately until recently with my the help of my vote), and has become a bastion of crassness, hubris, avarice, narcissism, and inequality.
Finally, I have no doubt the Founding Fathers would be horrified, as I am, by today’s Supreme Court and any notion of a “Dead Constitution.” I do believe the Constitution of the United States of America was predicated on change, and allowed for it (but not giving human standing to the non-human).
Hopefully this is an opportunity for the country to take a better, more civil, more humane path to, frankly, a better state of governance. We sure need it, plus a dose of humbleness, as we all won the lottery by being born here--thanks to our Founding Fathers and those that died fighting for the founding our country.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
16
It is deemed inappropriate to speak ill of the dead. I won't speak ill of Justice Scalia.
Let me make 2 comments. Anyone who thinks that "interreting the law" is not the same thing as "enforcing the law" is simply deluded. president Reagan and everybody else who thinks that judicial decisions do not make law are delusional.
Justice Scalia was part of 2 decisions that will be seen as embarrassments. The first was their involvement in the Bush-Gore election. They should have never intervened. The other is their decision in the Citizens United Case. This is clearly an example of interpreting the law resulting in making the laws.
R.I.P. Justice Scalia.
Let me make 2 comments. Anyone who thinks that "interreting the law" is not the same thing as "enforcing the law" is simply deluded. president Reagan and everybody else who thinks that judicial decisions do not make law are delusional.
Justice Scalia was part of 2 decisions that will be seen as embarrassments. The first was their involvement in the Bush-Gore election. They should have never intervened. The other is their decision in the Citizens United Case. This is clearly an example of interpreting the law resulting in making the laws.
R.I.P. Justice Scalia.
7
I apologize for the misprints. Change "interreting" to "interpreting", capitalize "President" and change "laws" to the singular.
Finally, I worry that Justice Scalia's religious principles often intruded into his legal views.
Finally, I worry that Justice Scalia's religious principles often intruded into his legal views.
5
I would be happy with a less politicized SC.
6
My wife came up with a very simple solution to this latest example of Republican obstructionist shenanigans. The two Democratic candidates for president need to simply pledge that if the Republicans insist on running out the clock on Obama's attempt to rightfully appoint a new justice, should either of them win, they will immediately nominate Obama to fill the vacancy himself. If that won't scare them into fulfilling their obligation under the constitution, nothing will.
8
Oh yes! That would be ever so lovely.
3
Sounds like the Republicans are going to give America a full blow constitutional crisis, as s gift, to go along with all the other gifts like the Iraq War, Citizens United, and Wall Street deregulation.
Why the slow reveal? Just hit us all in the head with a hammer.
Why the slow reveal? Just hit us all in the head with a hammer.
14
Then, your friend Charles Schumer precipitated a constitutional crisis less than a decade ago. Do liberals not have ANY memory of the recent past?
2
Scalia is widely regarded as being brilliant. His language and logic, his academic pedigree and his ability to convince all seem to be part of this brilliant aura.
Yet when he spoke of science, he was a malaprop who could not be counted on to handle the first law of thermodynamics. This made him a loose cannon in the climate discussion.
It is inexcusable to empower people to make decisions that gravely impact the sustainability of our species who are too lazy to master the basic laws that govern our physical universe. Anybody who can follow Verdi can follow Boltzmann. Grow up lawyers.
Yet when he spoke of science, he was a malaprop who could not be counted on to handle the first law of thermodynamics. This made him a loose cannon in the climate discussion.
It is inexcusable to empower people to make decisions that gravely impact the sustainability of our species who are too lazy to master the basic laws that govern our physical universe. Anybody who can follow Verdi can follow Boltzmann. Grow up lawyers.
14
I really wonder about why I feel reticent about searching for a way to honor this man. He was a champion of some of the most divisive, selfish and damaging aspects of modern America. It is hard to find merit in a man who saw libertarianism as something our founders would have wished to promote and who did more to make himself the anti-Brandeis: a man who failed to understand that great and unequal wealth cannot co-exist with democracy. Privilege has run amuck in great part due to this person and the Citizens United case he championed, as well as the decision that resulted in super PACs. If we ever return to democracy and one-person, one vote, this judge will not be remembered kindly. If we continue toward the pit of oligarchy and politics dominated by plutocrats, then he will be a hero to those he too often rubbed elbows with, not caring a whit whether he was perceived as disinterested or not. Judicial activism indeed masquerading as original intent.
28
When Scalia responded questions about "Bush vs Gore", America should have told him abortion is legal and to get over it.
13
Something being legal by one vote is an issue begging to be revisited as clearly as the cases overturned by Brown vs Topeka Board of Education.
All he king's horses and all the king's men couldn't made made a president out of extremist freak Al Gore. Even the state that sent him to Congress repeatedly could see anything they liked in him, which would have rendered Florida a moot point.
If you are still reading haters mad about Gore getting himself clearly defeated, you are wasting your reading time.
All he king's horses and all the king's men couldn't made made a president out of extremist freak Al Gore. Even the state that sent him to Congress repeatedly could see anything they liked in him, which would have rendered Florida a moot point.
If you are still reading haters mad about Gore getting himself clearly defeated, you are wasting your reading time.
The many commentaries on Justice Scalia's impact on the bench unfailingly mention how his novel theories of constitutional originalism became a major theme in court decisions.
But why?
Is it just because he wrote incisively and humorously? One hopes that that is not the basis for accepting an interpretive framework for the constitution. How are we to evaluate whether his arguments strengthened or weakened the role of the constitution in jurisprudence without some clarity about the reasoning behind these influential arguments.
His arguments clearly had an impact, but it would be a real service to your readers to explain the basis for this interpretation. An enlightened electorate needs to have this information to make good decisions about the next round of elections, when statements about candidates' (both presidential and senatorial) stance on this issue and how it will play into their plans on handling judicial appointments will be a vital factor in voters' choices.
But why?
Is it just because he wrote incisively and humorously? One hopes that that is not the basis for accepting an interpretive framework for the constitution. How are we to evaluate whether his arguments strengthened or weakened the role of the constitution in jurisprudence without some clarity about the reasoning behind these influential arguments.
His arguments clearly had an impact, but it would be a real service to your readers to explain the basis for this interpretation. An enlightened electorate needs to have this information to make good decisions about the next round of elections, when statements about candidates' (both presidential and senatorial) stance on this issue and how it will play into their plans on handling judicial appointments will be a vital factor in voters' choices.
3
I urge you to watch videos of him being interviewed, even by dedicated liberals.
2
In no other democracy in the world does the death of a judge cause such political upheaval. It tells you just how politicized the US judiciary is. The combination of judicial review (India has this) and lifelong tenure (no one else has this) does the trick: an unelected, unaccountable political organ pretending to mete out justice.
22
Our nation, based on the future in plain sight, would be far better served if the focus and accolades went to the competent Scientists that understand reality and its impact on the human endeavor. The nation vest far too much energy and attention on Lawyers -- a profession founded on conjectures that flow with seeming unlimited capacity from the non-scientific, and frequently irrational, portion of the human brain.
13
Here's an interesting detail: I expect that Obama was prepping to nominate replacements for perhaps two of the sitting justices - elder liberals/moderates who didn't want to die during a Republican president's tenure. So Scalia's a third seat to be filled What's the correct strategy for nominating to fill three vacancies? I don't know. But we have a busy year ahead!
2
Given the overt dislike that the Republicans have expressd for anything President Obama wishes to do, I sincerely doubt that he planned to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court if he did not have to do so.
5
In 2004, Justice Scalia went on a duck-hunting trip with Dick Cheney, who was then vice president and a litigant in a case before the court. When the trip came to light, Justice Scalia issued a 21-page defense of the trip and refused to disqualify himself from the case. "I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned... If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheaply, the Nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," he wrote.
This makes me wonder, who paid for his trip to the Cibola Ranch (at which politics and jurisprudence were not discussed)?
This makes me wonder, who paid for his trip to the Cibola Ranch (at which politics and jurisprudence were not discussed)?
9
The last political party in the history of mankind which needs to broach the issue of judges have monumental conflicts of interest in today's Democrats in the U.S.
Would it have been okay for Scalia to have led the Heritage Foundation?
Ms. Ginsburg led the ACLU.
Would it have been okay for Scalia to have led the Heritage Foundation?
Ms. Ginsburg led the ACLU.
2
ACLU is a legal entity, an not a political one, regardless of what the right says about it. It has defended those on the right on numerous occasions. The Heritage Foundation is an extension of the Koch brothers, who insist on a quid pro quo for employment. Is that clear enough?
15
Non-teacher,
Do you recall a previous President of the ACLU shouting, ''Communism now and forever!''?
Do you recall a previous President of the ACLU shouting, ''Communism now and forever!''?
Antonin Scalia, a Constitution originalist. What that means in his case is that he was able to interpret the original intentions of the authors of the Constitution in his, Scalia’s, own original way. I find it peculiar that so many discussions of the original authors’ original meanings and intentions in regards to the Constitution rarely make any reference to the Federalist Papers. Those books, usually published in two volumes, presents the original authors’ thoughts regarding their original words as used to construct an original Constitution. No where have I been able to find any evidence that Justice Scalia had any special means of communication with those original authors that would allow him some special ability to divine their original intentions when having written that original document. I assume that he has at some time in the past read the Federalist Papers, but I could find no such references in his word product. How then did he come to develop his original ideas about the original intentions of those original authors of the Constitution?
12
Fully agree. If Scalia really was an "originalist' then he would have to made his decisions based on 16th century English law. Instead he made decisions based on his religious dogma. He was very bad for the SCOTUS and the US.
14
As a young minority law student, I am quite honestly conflicted on how to receive Justice Scalia's teachings. In some ways, as a student I grant a certain amount of respect and tolerance to each justice's ideology. They are all so different in style and add color to the courtroom, and that's what made legal education fun.
But I often found Justice Scalia's tone to be too colorful as his years progressed in court. Some say he is simply passionate in his beliefs, and Justice Ginsburg, and even Justice Breyer, routinely mentions in interviews that nothing any particular justice says is taken personally and that they are all civil and friendly with one another. They sometimes preemptively make this point. I happen to think that Justice Ginsburg and Breyer are also as passionate in their beliefs and are as intelligent as any member of the court, yet they still make their strong points without belittling the other side. I find it unfortunate that they are having to defend a colleague in public's eyes to save face on behalf of the court.
Although I am only a student, I have not encountered a time during legal writing, when I felt the need to refer to the opposing counsel or his argument as stupid and unworthy of attention. Because it's not about me nor the opposing counsel. Lawyers advocate a position using legal principles. I often found Justice Scalia's message lost in the tone, and I wonder perhaps he is a one time deal and not the best example to follow in legal writing.
But I often found Justice Scalia's tone to be too colorful as his years progressed in court. Some say he is simply passionate in his beliefs, and Justice Ginsburg, and even Justice Breyer, routinely mentions in interviews that nothing any particular justice says is taken personally and that they are all civil and friendly with one another. They sometimes preemptively make this point. I happen to think that Justice Ginsburg and Breyer are also as passionate in their beliefs and are as intelligent as any member of the court, yet they still make their strong points without belittling the other side. I find it unfortunate that they are having to defend a colleague in public's eyes to save face on behalf of the court.
Although I am only a student, I have not encountered a time during legal writing, when I felt the need to refer to the opposing counsel or his argument as stupid and unworthy of attention. Because it's not about me nor the opposing counsel. Lawyers advocate a position using legal principles. I often found Justice Scalia's message lost in the tone, and I wonder perhaps he is a one time deal and not the best example to follow in legal writing.
12
May he rest in peace. He was a brilliant intellect, a maverick, and like most conservatives, a thorn in the side of progressives.
That said, the GOP nonsense that the President should not appoint a replacement just punctuates their philosophy that if you can't beat your opponent in the arena of good ideas, then find a way to disqualify them.
That said, the GOP nonsense that the President should not appoint a replacement just punctuates their philosophy that if you can't beat your opponent in the arena of good ideas, then find a way to disqualify them.
8
I can really see why people really think he was an amazing guy.
Just watching him interact with RBG shows this quite clearly.
Scalia was quite a gifted individual.
I can see if you were one of his rich and powerful friends, it would really be a joy to be around him.
But when I see his display of "gifts" I feel saddened to see that he was about himself and his friends. He was selfish, opinionated, and unwilling to see that people who were different from him deserved just as much. He seemed to feel that those who were different from him were somehow defective, and in need of repair. This was his dark side. And while he brought light to those who were of his people, he brought darkness to the lives of those who were different. This is a horrendous trait for a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Just watching him interact with RBG shows this quite clearly.
Scalia was quite a gifted individual.
I can see if you were one of his rich and powerful friends, it would really be a joy to be around him.
But when I see his display of "gifts" I feel saddened to see that he was about himself and his friends. He was selfish, opinionated, and unwilling to see that people who were different from him deserved just as much. He seemed to feel that those who were different from him were somehow defective, and in need of repair. This was his dark side. And while he brought light to those who were of his people, he brought darkness to the lives of those who were different. This is a horrendous trait for a Justice of the Supreme Court.
25
Justices should be as close to the middle of the scales as possible. I expect judges to be as fair and as free of politics as possible. Unfortunately, the Republicans of today believe that if justices do not share their (sometimes radical) beliefs, they are not being fair. The practice of this belief has resulted in the call to appoint justices that share a political bent of the party in power. This follows with the belief that an overbalanced court needs to be corrected appointments that will balance out the radicals. Just appoint a fair judge and things will work well.
4
Pleasure to hear him speak at Duquesne University 100th Anniversary September 11, 2011 and blessed we had people like him in our courts.
A proud , good, hard working true American !
A proud , good, hard working true American !
3
There are plenty of proud, good, hard working true Americans in heaven and in hell.
5
He came a long way and has tainted with his biases many aspects of American life :
The unforgivable Bush v. Gore discrediting of of the electoral process .
Pro gun ownership opinions.
Pro PAC supposed free speech decisions .
The man was obviously biased from the get go and spent the entirety of his career arguing his narrow point of view while not showing any flexibility or movement in the present .
He needs no additional accolades which he has garnered from his own
allies
The unforgivable Bush v. Gore discrediting of of the electoral process .
Pro gun ownership opinions.
Pro PAC supposed free speech decisions .
The man was obviously biased from the get go and spent the entirety of his career arguing his narrow point of view while not showing any flexibility or movement in the present .
He needs no additional accolades which he has garnered from his own
allies
8
I'd like to know more about the salaries of the SCOTUS as civil servants if they can afford ultra-elite luxury retreats. If not, I'd like to know who's paying.
10
I'm pretty sure he could afford. While $1,000 for one night stay may be high for many people there are plenty of others that can afford.
My first feeling at reading Scalia had passed away was joy, my first thought was "Obama can nominate his replacement!", and then felt incredibly guilty for rejoicing at the death of anyone. In my ensuing conversation with God, I questoned if it is ever okay to feel happy rejoice at the death of someone--I don't know.
Scalia's Supreme Court rulings, along with those of his conservative colleages, politicized the Supreme Court to such an extent that they literally elected George W. Bush as President, re-jecting a recount of ballots, which likely would have seen Al Gore become the next President. They made a ruling which should rightly have been returned to the State of Florida for ballot recount.
Their ruling ushered in the Bush administration, the Iraq War over non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the destabilization of the Middle East, permitting the Taliban and ISIS to thrive, allowing untold suffering and too much death.
Scalia and colleagues gave the U.S. a new definition of personhood with its Citizens United ruling by permitting large corporations to influence elections with enormous contributions to Super Pacs. In doing so, the Court gave an unequal voice to those who support greed, and not the people of the U.S.
These two decisions alone have had far-reaching, negative consequences to the people of the U.S. Scalia's rejection of precedent and his right wing interpretation of the Constitution will not be missed. Nevertheless, condolences to his family
Scalia's Supreme Court rulings, along with those of his conservative colleages, politicized the Supreme Court to such an extent that they literally elected George W. Bush as President, re-jecting a recount of ballots, which likely would have seen Al Gore become the next President. They made a ruling which should rightly have been returned to the State of Florida for ballot recount.
Their ruling ushered in the Bush administration, the Iraq War over non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the destabilization of the Middle East, permitting the Taliban and ISIS to thrive, allowing untold suffering and too much death.
Scalia and colleagues gave the U.S. a new definition of personhood with its Citizens United ruling by permitting large corporations to influence elections with enormous contributions to Super Pacs. In doing so, the Court gave an unequal voice to those who support greed, and not the people of the U.S.
These two decisions alone have had far-reaching, negative consequences to the people of the U.S. Scalia's rejection of precedent and his right wing interpretation of the Constitution will not be missed. Nevertheless, condolences to his family
15
I know how you feel. I am sure he was loved by his family and friends and this is sad and shocking for them. But on the other hand, he was a polarizing and figure whose personal biases colored every opinion he wrote.
6
Sorry, but free speech is free speech. Limit it the wrong way and you wake up on Animal Farm.
2
"Towering legal figure"--"intellectual giant"--??? Dear Gussie, how people throw around sanctimonious words. As for obstructing Obama's constitutional duty--to quote one of Scalia's wittiest and most endearing intellectual arguments--"Get over it."
7
Some are suggesting that President Obama nominate Hillary for the Supremes. I'm not sure if they be friend or foe. Sure Hillary would make a great Supreme, but she'll be busy the next eight years as president, something Barack wants to preserve his legacy, a third and fourth term so to speak, just like FDR.
Now me thinks Republican moles are encouraging this to occur because it would get rid of Hillary and with Bernie the nominee Republicans would actually have a chance, bombarding the Bern by painting him a Red Diaper Baby Pinko Stalinist Communist. After months of this, it may work, at least the GOP hopes it does. But Barack won't appoint Bernie either.
President Obama is too savvy a poker player to forfeit this God-given opportunity presented him. One of the only things George W. Bush did to help the GOP was to nominate fairly young Justices. They, God-willing, be around well into this century. President Obama has followed Dubya's formula to a tee, doing that with his two appointments.
When Barack met Justice Ginsburg at a social function recently he asked her, "So how do you like that I brought you some sisters to the bench?", Ginsburg replied, "Bring me some more". Now he has been granted from an even Higher Authority another chance. Look forward to Barack picking a black woman or man. No matter his choice be assured whomever it is will be young by the Supreme standards. He wants his legacy to last a very long time indeed.
DD
Manhattan
Now me thinks Republican moles are encouraging this to occur because it would get rid of Hillary and with Bernie the nominee Republicans would actually have a chance, bombarding the Bern by painting him a Red Diaper Baby Pinko Stalinist Communist. After months of this, it may work, at least the GOP hopes it does. But Barack won't appoint Bernie either.
President Obama is too savvy a poker player to forfeit this God-given opportunity presented him. One of the only things George W. Bush did to help the GOP was to nominate fairly young Justices. They, God-willing, be around well into this century. President Obama has followed Dubya's formula to a tee, doing that with his two appointments.
When Barack met Justice Ginsburg at a social function recently he asked her, "So how do you like that I brought you some sisters to the bench?", Ginsburg replied, "Bring me some more". Now he has been granted from an even Higher Authority another chance. Look forward to Barack picking a black woman or man. No matter his choice be assured whomever it is will be young by the Supreme standards. He wants his legacy to last a very long time indeed.
DD
Manhattan
10
A lot of classless comments here. If Jim Obergefell has the dignity, the wherewithal to thank Scalia for his service and offer his condolences to the family, then some of the NYT commenters should think about what has happened to their own frame of mind.
2
He was a self-serving, divisive figure who lived in an elitist bubble. He recently stated (not hinted) that black people may not be fit for college because they can't "keep up". That is just one example of how he shirked his duty as a representative of blind justice.
If you'd like to finger wag about "class" you might start with the truly reprehensible vitriol that has been posted about Obama (and his wife and two kids) from the day he took office. Or the conservative's current standard bearers of Trump and Cruz. Nasty political discourse didn't just magically appear with Scalia's death.
If you'd like to finger wag about "class" you might start with the truly reprehensible vitriol that has been posted about Obama (and his wife and two kids) from the day he took office. Or the conservative's current standard bearers of Trump and Cruz. Nasty political discourse didn't just magically appear with Scalia's death.
12
"He recently stated (not hinted) that black people may not be fit for college because they can't "keep up".
He didn't say that, or anything like it. Educate yourself by googling the transcript or the audio.
He didn't say that, or anything like it. Educate yourself by googling the transcript or the audio.
3
I suggest you read his statement, it is pretty clear concerning black students belonging at "slower-track schools" and not in elite colleges. It's not really defensible.
7
Antonin Scalia worked hard to destroy the America I grew up in. He set back the cause of civil rights, helped bust unions, handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush and sat by while Bush and Scalia's friend Dick Cheney undermined the Constitution with lawless wars, torture, and government spying on citizens. Scalia helped enable Guantanamo Prison and helped the banksters loot the savings and investments of millions of Americans. He also worked hard to impose Roman Catholic religious values on all Americans. Only right wing extremists will miss having him on the court.
26
How did he help "bust unions" and "help banksters loot the savings and investments of millions of Americans"? Which cases were those?
1
I fully agree with this comment and I do not know how on earth torture can be considered inconstitutional because does not spefically say so. WAO
"He preferred bright-line rules to legal balancing tests, and he was sharply critical of Supreme Court opinions that did not provide lower courts and litigants with clear guidance."........I very much like this guidance by the eminent Supreme Court Justice Mr. Antonin Scalia. This kind of guidance is highly helpful NOT exclusively to USA but to all democratic countries of the world & to their respective judiciaries. If any higher court is unable to give guidance to lower courts, litigants and the man in the street the whole purpose of the functioning of 'judiciary' becomes questionable. I consider it a valid point. My most humble appreciations to Justice Mr. Antonin Scalia, then the US Judiciary and NY Times. My condolences to the loved ones, but his 'judgments' will remain ever showing light.
"Mandakolathur Subramanian"
"Mandakolathur Subramanian"
It is remarkable to me that there is such vitriol raised against Justice Antonin Scalia on the occasion of his death. It is not fitting.
One doesn't have to agree with every legal position that Justice Scalia took to recognize that he possessed a great legal mind and made a substantial contribution to US jurisprudence.
His disdain for the use of legal history in the interpretation of statutes and strict interpretation of the language of the US Constitution was legendary.
The advantage of originalism in the interpretation of the US Constitution preserves our liberty because it depends on the written word not interpretation.
Most of the issues that are disputed in our Constitution are the result of insufficient clarity of language. We all benefit from bright lines in law.
There is a mechanism for revising Our Constitution and it is a high bar intentionally. Until it is amended it is better to depend a strict interpretation of the written word than contemporary interpretation and current political fashion.
Justice Scalia was a legal giant and true American. We should all honor his life and his service to his country whether we always agreed with him on every decission or not.
One doesn't have to agree with every legal position that Justice Scalia took to recognize that he possessed a great legal mind and made a substantial contribution to US jurisprudence.
His disdain for the use of legal history in the interpretation of statutes and strict interpretation of the language of the US Constitution was legendary.
The advantage of originalism in the interpretation of the US Constitution preserves our liberty because it depends on the written word not interpretation.
Most of the issues that are disputed in our Constitution are the result of insufficient clarity of language. We all benefit from bright lines in law.
There is a mechanism for revising Our Constitution and it is a high bar intentionally. Until it is amended it is better to depend a strict interpretation of the written word than contemporary interpretation and current political fashion.
Justice Scalia was a legal giant and true American. We should all honor his life and his service to his country whether we always agreed with him on every decission or not.
5
No, because we are in America, and that means we don't have to honor his life and service just because he is dead.
8
He strictly interpreted the constitution as it suited his personal, biased agenda.
11
How on earth can you -- or anyone else -- separate "the written word" and "interpretation"? Language by its very nature requires interpretation by the reader or listener. To posit that the Constitution was written in some sort of crystal clear, divine language that requires no interpretation is ludicrous.
3
The President does not have the unrestricted "right" to appoint "his" choice of judges to any federal court, including the Supreme Court.
Under the Constitution, the President "shall" appoint the judges,
but only "with the advice and consent of the Senate".
So, the Senate advises, but if the President ignores the Senate's advice,
then the Senate simply can refuse to consent.
It's a two-way street.
The President can negotiate with the Senate.
The Senate can negotiate with the President.
They can find a compromise appointee.
Obama does not want to negotiate seriously with the Senate?
Nobody can force him.
The Republicans do not want to rubber stamp his choice?
Nobody can force them.
If no compromise, then the vacancy remains.
That would not be the end of the world.
Then the other eight Justices can act, or not act, according to their rules.
The delay might continue.
Who dies (or resigns) next?
Ginsberg? Kennedy? Both in their 80s.
Even as few as five Justices ought to be able to manage.
This year, the voters will choose a President and one third of the Senators.
Let the issue simmer and percolate until November.
Let those campaigning put the issue front and center.
That's where it ought to be anyway.
High stakes?
Maybe.
Too high?
Probably not.
But even if too high, the better solution is not for one side to cave in now.
Instead, do a Constitutional Amendment reducing the power of individual Justices by increasing their total number (11) and capping tenure (ten years).
Under the Constitution, the President "shall" appoint the judges,
but only "with the advice and consent of the Senate".
So, the Senate advises, but if the President ignores the Senate's advice,
then the Senate simply can refuse to consent.
It's a two-way street.
The President can negotiate with the Senate.
The Senate can negotiate with the President.
They can find a compromise appointee.
Obama does not want to negotiate seriously with the Senate?
Nobody can force him.
The Republicans do not want to rubber stamp his choice?
Nobody can force them.
If no compromise, then the vacancy remains.
That would not be the end of the world.
Then the other eight Justices can act, or not act, according to their rules.
The delay might continue.
Who dies (or resigns) next?
Ginsberg? Kennedy? Both in their 80s.
Even as few as five Justices ought to be able to manage.
This year, the voters will choose a President and one third of the Senators.
Let the issue simmer and percolate until November.
Let those campaigning put the issue front and center.
That's where it ought to be anyway.
High stakes?
Maybe.
Too high?
Probably not.
But even if too high, the better solution is not for one side to cave in now.
Instead, do a Constitutional Amendment reducing the power of individual Justices by increasing their total number (11) and capping tenure (ten years).
1
"They can find a compromise appointee." If you truly believe the Republicans would in any way compromise with the President regarding a Supreme Court nominee, then I have a bridge to sell you.
4
Scalia was the worst type of justice...ranting about constitutional originalism as if the founders who wrote the constitution could have in any way anticipated the country that would exist more than two centuries later. He was an utter failure in recognizing that the constitution could not possibly address issues that did not exist when it was written or were not considered issues then.
He will not be missed by those who aren't hopelessly conservative and lost in an ideology that doesn't solve problems but continues to enable them. He may not have been evil in intent but he certainly was in result. He did his country no service with his belligerence and caustic assertions.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
He will not be missed by those who aren't hopelessly conservative and lost in an ideology that doesn't solve problems but continues to enable them. He may not have been evil in intent but he certainly was in result. He did his country no service with his belligerence and caustic assertions.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
15
I don't rejoice in anyone's passing [I didn't even like the way the nation cheered over Bin Laden]. If we are leaders of the free world then we have a higher standard of character and ethics for others to follow. NYT is a left bent paper and it's readership is among the more astute of all. But it bugs me to see these posts by people who are "happy" over this... not necessarily happy over a death- but happy that he's gone. Our system isn't perfect and may be we need to realize that these imperfections are what lead us into discourse and disagreement to inspire change. Conflict and resolution strengthens our Democracy, not jeering over one's passing simply because they held views different from us. For better or worse let's not forget we're Americans first and foremost!
RIP Justice Scalia.
RIP Justice Scalia.
3
After Scalia become an SC Justice I made it a habit of reading his dissents whenever there was a notable decision. What I found was that his citations were typically to opinions he had written, usually in the minority. I could not understand why he treated minority opinions as if they were settled law when he was on the losing side. But it demonstrated that he was enthralled with his own words, and was constantly trying to relitigate and justify the past.
His legacy is hardly one as a great legal scholar or jurist in my mind.
His legacy is hardly one as a great legal scholar or jurist in my mind.
18
Politicians have increasingly delegated conflicts that should be decided by voters to Supreme Court, to hang onto their offices.
This kind of cowardice is not what the founding fathers were about.
And for serving this up, time and again, I thank Justice Scalia.
This kind of cowardice is not what the founding fathers were about.
And for serving this up, time and again, I thank Justice Scalia.
4
Th graph of justices' "liberal-conservative" leanings with link to this article is corrupt.
1. "Center" is so right-wing it makes Douglas appear further off than Thomas.
2. It shows the oligarch-nutball right as plus, and the Forces of Good as minus.
Kills Americans' respect for the views of Martin and Quinn, the reported source of the scores.
And increases Americans' disregard for the political team at the New York Times, which has been providing us an issues-and-priorities-free Entertainment-Tonight view of the coming-election campaign.
1. "Center" is so right-wing it makes Douglas appear further off than Thomas.
2. It shows the oligarch-nutball right as plus, and the Forces of Good as minus.
Kills Americans' respect for the views of Martin and Quinn, the reported source of the scores.
And increases Americans' disregard for the political team at the New York Times, which has been providing us an issues-and-priorities-free Entertainment-Tonight view of the coming-election campaign.
2
So hypocritical of commentators here to suggest that Scalia was political, when it is their fervent desire to have a hyper partisan "progressive" to take his place. ALL the left leaning justices are hyper political whose decisions are based on their "progressive" beliefs rather than the constitution of the US. Given that fact Obama should not be allowed to choose another one.
5
Justice Scalia's passing is going to reverberate across the halls of justice for generations to come. Unfortunately, I see his flawless adherence to originalism and his acute awareness of the moral compass disappearing with his legacy. I hope I am wrong- truly- but the American political landscape is on a fast-track to the extreme left and so I am a bit hard-pressed to believe otherwise. God speed, great man. R.I.P.
4
If the US suddenly found itself in a military emergency, would the Republicans say that the next president should deal with it? Their logic on the court is absurd and self serving. Barack Obama is the twice elected president until January. This is his responsibility.
33
This is a terrible time for the family and friends of Justice Scalia, and I respect that.
My thoughts, however, also go to the family and friends of the many, many people on this planet whose lives will be improved and extended if there is a chance that the current Clean Power Act survives to support the Paris Agreement on climate change.
The most current observation: 0 degrees to 50+ in New York in a few days. We just don't have the time to delay or "stay" moving forward.
My thoughts, however, also go to the family and friends of the many, many people on this planet whose lives will be improved and extended if there is a chance that the current Clean Power Act survives to support the Paris Agreement on climate change.
The most current observation: 0 degrees to 50+ in New York in a few days. We just don't have the time to delay or "stay" moving forward.
13
Does anyone know why the SCOTUS protective detail was not with Justice Scalia at the ranch when he died? I cannot believe that SCOTUS is not protected (at least from a respectful distance) in this day and age of terrorist threats. Can you?
Do we know for certain that it wasn't? And given that he passed away in his sleep, it seems unlikely that any protective detail could've done anything - presumably they do not hover over a napping Justice. It is possible, of course, that he did have US Marshals with him, or had traveled with friends or colleagues, and it simply hasn't been disclosed given what little impact it likely has on his death and its circumstances.
2
During my lifetime, Scalia demonstrated that the Supreme Court (the Judiciary in general) is as political as any power, just about 20 years behind the cycle and while that could mean "constitution, shmonstitution", it is helpful to have some checks and balances over time - it makes the system more stable. The Republicans are going to filibuster every nomination Obama makes, which will increase turn-out - good for Democrats, who will be able to fill another 3 seats soon.
9
Just one question: What had he done for the U.S.? I cannot think of a positive answer.
18
Scalia was a fundamentalist. His legal decisions caused more harm to people than good. His recent comments on affirmative action were racially tinged. His decision in Bush vs Gore set the country up for the "conservative" disaster, the 2 useless wars in the Middle East that destabilized the region and caused death and suffering to tens of thousands, inaction on climate change, and the Great Recession. It makes one wonder how the world would have worked out if Scalia never was a Supreme Court Justice.
If Scalia never stopped debate with the 4 justices that opposed, Gore would have been President.
Gore would have continued Clinton's strategy to take out Osama Bin Laden and thus probably prevented 911. Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Gore would have taken immediate action on climate change. The economy would be much better.
The world would be a much better and sane place today.
If Scalia never stopped debate with the 4 justices that opposed, Gore would have been President.
Gore would have continued Clinton's strategy to take out Osama Bin Laden and thus probably prevented 911. Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Gore would have taken immediate action on climate change. The economy would be much better.
The world would be a much better and sane place today.
20
I won't try to predict what Al Gore would have done. But one thing I will say for certain: the election of 2000 was stolen from the American people. I still wonder why Americans didn't riot after that Supreme Court decision.
3
As you can see I am from other country and still can not believe that the Supreme Court of Justice allowed GW Bush to become president of the USA. Also I thought it was Judge Thomas vote that did it.
I was not a fan, but couldn't you have chosen a more dignified picture of him for your front page?
2
Every time I heard Scalia's arrogant response when asked about Gore v Bush "get over it" I couldn't help but wish some family member of a military personnel killed in the unnecessary Iraq war would speak up and say "My family and I have not gotten over losing our loved one!" This election is more like a pandemic than a political election. The disease is hatred, suppression, lies, racism etc., and now the gop will unleash their well-trained attack dogs at President Obama - yet again - he has every right to nominate whom ever he sees fit for the SCOTUS. Shame on the gop! Shame on them all!
26
Everything the Scalia detractors are accusing Scalia of doing are exactly what Obama does. The only difference is what they believe in.
2
President Obama never did the disgraceful act of deciding a presidential election rather than letting the voters decide.
5
Mr. Scalia's understanding of the Constitution is not much different from religious fanatics understanding of the Bible or their book of reverence. It was by no means ever subject to interpretation. According to Scalia, Americans must live as in the 18th century, just like the Koran tells radical Muslims how to live in the 6th century, the Bible 2,000 years ago and the Torah 5,000 years ago.
Like other animals, humans are subject to biological mutations and evolution. Humans and their societies have evolved over the last 5,000 years, thus the need for a new book of reverence every few hundred years. It is inhumane and overzealous to tell anyone they must live by dogmas of an era long gone. The Constitution is a living document, so much so that there have been over two dozen amendments. Other amendments must be incorporated and some existing ones should be repealed as they are no longer applicable. Mr. Scalia allowed for none of that and was very hypocritical about it. Had he really believed it was a dead document, he should not accept any amendment, including the 1st and 2nd.
While I regret the passing of a fellow human, I will not miss him, shed a tear or waste a second of sleep over him.
Like other animals, humans are subject to biological mutations and evolution. Humans and their societies have evolved over the last 5,000 years, thus the need for a new book of reverence every few hundred years. It is inhumane and overzealous to tell anyone they must live by dogmas of an era long gone. The Constitution is a living document, so much so that there have been over two dozen amendments. Other amendments must be incorporated and some existing ones should be repealed as they are no longer applicable. Mr. Scalia allowed for none of that and was very hypocritical about it. Had he really believed it was a dead document, he should not accept any amendment, including the 1st and 2nd.
While I regret the passing of a fellow human, I will not miss him, shed a tear or waste a second of sleep over him.
17
It seems that the only logical replacement for Justice Scalia in the last year of President Obama's term will be a progressive the Republicans would support. I think the only one they would support at this juncture would be Hillary Clinton. Is this a trade off they would be willing to make?
1
Dreamer!
3
We'd have been better off if he hadn't been on the court and had a leading role in two decisions which irreparably harmed most of us and which have made form of government dysfunctional and us at risk in many ways.
Those two were:
Bush versus Gore-- would we have had the Iraq war, our present level of turmoil in the Mid-East and elsewhere, plus diminished faith in our electoral process and impartiality of the court, and so on if Scalia had not lead the court into preempting voters?
Citizen's United - would our political system be as dysfunctional today if Scalia and other biased judges had not taken up the case and put all up for sale via dark money.
Those two were:
Bush versus Gore-- would we have had the Iraq war, our present level of turmoil in the Mid-East and elsewhere, plus diminished faith in our electoral process and impartiality of the court, and so on if Scalia had not lead the court into preempting voters?
Citizen's United - would our political system be as dysfunctional today if Scalia and other biased judges had not taken up the case and put all up for sale via dark money.
15
Visceral comments related to former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (evident mostly in Ross Douthat’s related and well-reasoned article) speak volumes about the seemingly omnipresent, sophomoric, intellectual shallowness of the left. Respect for Scalia’s intellect, integrity and highly principled character would be a mark of a civilized adult despite having a more liberal understanding of jurisprudence. But alas, a liberal is too often incapable of respectfulness and tolerance of one who dissents from a liberal narrative.
Justice Scalia had close personal friendships with Justices Ginsberg and Kagan, two justices who are polar opposites jurisprudence-wise. He did not allow intellectual differences cloud his personal admiration, and visa versa. This is too often a lost attribute in our increasingly course society, again all too clearly evident in so many disrespectful, crude and simplistic liberal commentaries, many of which are cruel ad hominem attacks.
Oh, by the way, I consider myself quite liberal. We should all hope for an equally distinguished replacement rather than a lock-step-voting conservative or liberal of lesser integrity.
The NYTimes reporting on the departure of this great jurist has been exemplary - well balanced and respectful. Too bad its readers can’t rise to the occasion as well.
Justice Scalia had close personal friendships with Justices Ginsberg and Kagan, two justices who are polar opposites jurisprudence-wise. He did not allow intellectual differences cloud his personal admiration, and visa versa. This is too often a lost attribute in our increasingly course society, again all too clearly evident in so many disrespectful, crude and simplistic liberal commentaries, many of which are cruel ad hominem attacks.
Oh, by the way, I consider myself quite liberal. We should all hope for an equally distinguished replacement rather than a lock-step-voting conservative or liberal of lesser integrity.
The NYTimes reporting on the departure of this great jurist has been exemplary - well balanced and respectful. Too bad its readers can’t rise to the occasion as well.
5
I know that this is a difficult, painful time for Justice Scalia's family, friends, colleagues, and admirers and I do feel for their loss, especially in its unexpectedness. A terrible shock, and I never wish that kind of pain or loss on anyone.
But for me, who truly opposed Justice Scalia's jurisprudence (and his very blatant agenda, no matter how much he denied having one by hiding behind the advantageous concept of ‘originalism’), it somehow seems so unfair that he has left us just as we are truly seeing the ugly results of his democracy-destroying Citizens United decision. The decision that has made our elections an astronomically expensive, fact-and-civility-free farce unlike any amongst our peer nations; and legitimized corruption, propaganda, and the bribery of politicians, the blatant sale of elections to lobbyists and corporations and foreign entities, at the expense of nearly all of the voting citizens of this country.
Justice Scalia left us as his last legacy a volatile social and political landscape that he long had a hand in creating, and for now, a struggle over a future in which the US may well continue its transformation into a corporate feudal system with fascist tendencies and become even more dysfunctional than it is at present. But now, as he rests in peace, he doesn't have to bear the brunt of it in any way -- or even bear witness to what he has helped wrought.
While we do.
But for me, who truly opposed Justice Scalia's jurisprudence (and his very blatant agenda, no matter how much he denied having one by hiding behind the advantageous concept of ‘originalism’), it somehow seems so unfair that he has left us just as we are truly seeing the ugly results of his democracy-destroying Citizens United decision. The decision that has made our elections an astronomically expensive, fact-and-civility-free farce unlike any amongst our peer nations; and legitimized corruption, propaganda, and the bribery of politicians, the blatant sale of elections to lobbyists and corporations and foreign entities, at the expense of nearly all of the voting citizens of this country.
Justice Scalia left us as his last legacy a volatile social and political landscape that he long had a hand in creating, and for now, a struggle over a future in which the US may well continue its transformation into a corporate feudal system with fascist tendencies and become even more dysfunctional than it is at present. But now, as he rests in peace, he doesn't have to bear the brunt of it in any way -- or even bear witness to what he has helped wrought.
While we do.
32
The best yet.
6
Republicans can block an Obama nomination for the rest of his term. And then face a Clinton nomination they can't block because, by then, so many Republican lawmakers up for re-election will have been defeated when Cruz or Trump scares off voters from the Republican party. Or, the Republicans can approve a moderate nominee by Obama before his term ends. Either way, lose/lose for the Republicans.
10
Scalia will no doubt be an influential and controversal figure for years to come. Those on the right will lionize him; those on the left will say good riddance. My only feeling is his own words are very telling. When asked about his conservative leanings, Scalia basically admitted he was a conservative so why be surprised by his constant rulings that was in lock step with Republicans. The problem is that justice is supposed to be blind in having no such bias. By his own words he has betrayed the basic tenant that political philosophy should have no place on the Supreme Court. While we all know this is not the reality; Scalia basically became an agent for conservative causes that was completely biased. He therefore failed in fairness!
12
The Washington Post has run a story involving a balanced assesment of Justice Scalia's tenure on the Supreme Court. I hope the New York Times manages something similar.
No responsible person would suggest that the President should leave Justice Scalia's replacement to the next president, possibly letting the seat sit vacant for up to a year-and-a-half - until the next nominee is vetted, confirmed and finally starts hearing cases on the first Monday in October, 2017. Almost any nominee will inevitably move the court to the left. It's not impossible to find a candidate ideologically to Justice Scalia's right, but a Republican president would have to work hard to stack the Court in that direction and counter the interest of a public whose political ideologies are more broadly dispersed.
2
The acid test used by Constitutionalists is to ask "What would the founding fathers think?"
In the case of Citizens United, I suspect that the fathers would be disturbed to hear that corporations have the same legal rights as individual citizens.
If there is a heaven, and Scalia makes the grade, he has lots of explaining to do.....Jefferson, et. al. may be a tough sell.....
In the case of Citizens United, I suspect that the fathers would be disturbed to hear that corporations have the same legal rights as individual citizens.
If there is a heaven, and Scalia makes the grade, he has lots of explaining to do.....Jefferson, et. al. may be a tough sell.....
10
Brilliant, convivial, a wonderful friend, articulate--all this but still, fundamentally wrong in his approach to the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court. His influence has resulted in much damage to the rights of the individual under the tyranny of the majority. Apparently a concept he just didn't grasp, and which permitted him to support discrimination, religious dogmatism as a right of the majority, etc. He was just a fundamentalist who was fundamentally wrong.
9
This will be a great opportunity for all of us to see what the Congress is made of, will we see the action of grown serious legislators whose interest are the citizen of this great country, or will they demonstrate pure political and partisan behavior.
Will the legislators step up to the task of selecting someone to replace Judge Scalia or will they shrink away and show their disrespect for the Constitution and the President. How often can the Republicans oppose the President only because they dislike him and disrespect him, and how long will we the people take this from the legislators whose only goal is to be reelects.
Will the legislators step up to the task of selecting someone to replace Judge Scalia or will they shrink away and show their disrespect for the Constitution and the President. How often can the Republicans oppose the President only because they dislike him and disrespect him, and how long will we the people take this from the legislators whose only goal is to be reelects.
10
Although not a fan of Justice Scalia's interpretations of the Constitution, I find it extremely sad that someone so brilliant was not smart enough or did not care enough to take better care of his own health. Every time I saw a photo of him, I wondered when the heart attack or stroke would occur.
1
Justice Scalia is a perfect example of the Catholic Church's influence over those of us who were taught religion prior to John 23rd. I call it brain washing and, even as a logical progressive who disagrees with the church on many issues, I still revert back to those early years. And I saw the same thing from Scalia. He never seemed to come to grips with the fact that there are many gay men in the Catholic clergy. He was much too black and white in his rulings, as eloquent as they were.
6
reviewing the long list of accomplishments and brilliant intellect of a man like Justice Scalia makes you also realize what a lightweight Obama is
2
Or what a bad judge Scalia was.
15
Do you have any opinion about the intellect of President Obama's predecessor?
11
In remembering Justice Scalia I would like to defend his words on affirmative action. If you are admitted to a university for your mind, that is fine, because your mind will help you reach success. If you are admitted for your work ethic, that's fine, for your work ethic will help you reach success. But if you are admitted with any consideration for the color of your skin - I'm sorry, but that will not help you with any aspect of your education. Admission should only be about who you are - inside.
5
The Supreme Court and "interpretation of the Constitution" has become a "joke". It is blatantly split according to partisan lines, wherever the wind blows: and that has been in favor of Republicans since Reagan.
8
Exactly why abortion is still legal, and the ACA is the law of the land. Is that in favor of Republicans?
1
He maintained an in-your-face partisanship that has contributed to the unfortunate political climate we have today.
His activities off the bench......consorting exclusively with one political party and their special interests......should be illegal.
Whatever happened to the principle that sitting judges should refrain from any appearance of impropriety?
His activities off the bench......consorting exclusively with one political party and their special interests......should be illegal.
Whatever happened to the principle that sitting judges should refrain from any appearance of impropriety?
8
The problem with this whole "Originalist" line of thinking is that it can be used to undercut the entire concept of judicial review! After all, the "Originalists" seem to have unshakeable faith that the words of the framers are binding for all time; by this standard, the clear omission of a right of juridical review of Executive and Legislative branch actions in the Constitution must be taken as a clear statement that the framers did not intend for there to be one.
4
Of all of the decisions that Justice Scalia participated in, does anyone know of the percent in which he was in the majority/minority? I've not been able to find this bit of information, which, I think, would be one measure of his legal renderings relative to those of other qualified parties.
1
The good Justice was a flamboyant and aggressive legal thinker and writer but was far less logically coherent than his certitude would lead one to believe.
3
My impression is that Scalia was unique, and so labels such as "Conservative" should be eschewed when referring to his memory, his legacy. Conservationist would be more like it, considering his idiosyncratic attitude towards the interpretation of the Constitution. He seemed very innovative, and quite able to bridge the gap between conjecture and fact, especially when it came to the public interest. It is said that Italians generally are filled with hubris; perhaps he was no exception, but the character trait of pride transmogrified into arrogance certainly did not apply to him. If he seemed like an entertainer it was only because he implemented the rhetorical devises he did in order to make successful (literary) appeals. The country desperately needed and needs men like him. RIP.
2
I agree that we need people (not necessarily men) like him, but please, not on the SCOTUS.
2
Scalia was one of a kind. His focus was upon the law, his conscious mind was determined to be consistent and rational, his unconscious mind was focused upon preserving a vision of jurisprudence which would ensure a conservative's preferences in the rule of the law. The Republicans in Congress are forced by the facts of campaign financing and core constituents to give the cultural conservative and traditional plutocrats what they want rather than the majority of the people would prefer. The Republican candidates are all repeating the tired old policies that compromise both democratic institutions and equal opportunities which have led to the current gross inequality of wealth which is giving the very wealth a dominating influence over our governments local and national. If the Justice to replace Scalia is not chosen, now, there is good chance the replacement will not resemble Scalia but will be a reactionary right winger who votes that way. If a replacement is chosen, now, the Justice will be less partisan and less likely to vote either liberal or conservative.
Justice Scalia always insisted that his motivation was to adhere to the "original intent" of the Constitution's Framers. This, like biblical literalists, is impossible, and thus calls for self-proclamation of the equivalent of the "I know because God spoke to me" brand of carnival barker theism.
He possessed an incisive intellect, but it was clouded by his own ego and a dismissiveness of those harmed by laws that reward the powerful.
Here's hoping his replacement puts people who's lives are affected by law at the center of his/her judicial philosophy.
He possessed an incisive intellect, but it was clouded by his own ego and a dismissiveness of those harmed by laws that reward the powerful.
Here's hoping his replacement puts people who's lives are affected by law at the center of his/her judicial philosophy.
5
Something for the Republicans to think about as they call for a duly elected president with nearly a year left in his term not to fulfill his constitutional duty to forward a nomination to the Senate:
The Republican Senate is successful in blocking President Obama's choice. In January 2017 President Clinton (or Sanders) nominates President Obama to the seat and the Democratic Senate votes to confirm. I hope both candidates make it clear that President Obama would be their choice!
The Republican Senate is successful in blocking President Obama's choice. In January 2017 President Clinton (or Sanders) nominates President Obama to the seat and the Democratic Senate votes to confirm. I hope both candidates make it clear that President Obama would be their choice!
6
I hope so too that would ensure a Republican victory. Though a republican victory is all but ensured anyway.
1
Respectfully, Justice Scalia used "originalism" only when it suited his conservative views. He was not intellectually consistent except in his conservatism, certainly not in constitutional originalism. Conservative Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit effectively pointed that out and in their surrogates' very public debates.
3
Citizens United will forever stain the record of Scalia's term.
Where did strict constructionist fine corporations were people?
Where did strict constructionist fine corporations were people?
13
didn't Jefferson want the Constitution to be a living, breathing document that should be re made every 19 years.
at one point the U.S. Constitution was a model used by emerging nations to write their own Constitution but with time, as health care and education became considered universal rights, our Constitution was not looked to as a model anymore.
at one point the U.S. Constitution was a model used by emerging nations to write their own Constitution but with time, as health care and education became considered universal rights, our Constitution was not looked to as a model anymore.
5
Scalia's effect upon the Court has been interesting but his view of the Constitution being restricted to the minds of people who were living in the last decade of the 18th century should define our jurisprudence in country that is not at all like that time was and is not reasonable in terms of the purposes of the law in any society. Actually, Scalia wanted the country to follow law and customs which please a cultural conservative and plutocratic elite set of preferences rather than one which enabled the equality and personal liberties needed to make a liberal democracy work for all.
I think that any nominee that Obama could select and be approved by the Senate would not result in a clear liberal or conservative majority of the Supreme Court but someone who would likely align with both liberals and conservatives would be the best chance for achieving a balanced one. Waiting until the next President is elected would assure a conservative majority if the Republicans win the Presidency, and a neutral new Justice if the next President is Democratic. So unless you want a Court with a very strong conservative majority, it's probably a good time to fill the position.
I think that any nominee that Obama could select and be approved by the Senate would not result in a clear liberal or conservative majority of the Supreme Court but someone who would likely align with both liberals and conservatives would be the best chance for achieving a balanced one. Waiting until the next President is elected would assure a conservative majority if the Republicans win the Presidency, and a neutral new Justice if the next President is Democratic. So unless you want a Court with a very strong conservative majority, it's probably a good time to fill the position.
5
There are few individuals in American history who have been so destructive to individuals and to the fabric of this nation. Fortunately, history will move past this partisan stew, and evaluate the clear negative impact this one man's life and career have had on our nation.
16
Republicans circling the wagons to forgo a replacement nomination till after the elections? What makes them think they'll even come close to winning the election? Talk about sheer arrogance and hubris. With the memory of government shut downs in mind, such actions may drive voters to other camps.
10
If the Democrats aren't united behind their nominee, the Republicans have a good chance of winning the Presidency with one of their crazy candidates.
1
How about a IKE choice like Wm Brenan or a HW Bush choice like David Suetor?
"Justice Scalia was a champion of originalism." That was Scalia's problem but more importantly it is becoming America's problem in the 21st century.
As far as I am concerned being a strict "origianalist" is the equivalent of being a creationist in the face of reality, science and other religions besides Christianity.
However he also torqued the clear intent of 2nd Amendment to fit his view; to wit; ignoring the Amendment's straight forward words tying need for ownership of firearms to the need of a well regulated militia that no longer exists and conveniently failing to acknowledge the threat to our very freedom live created by the technology of mass killing machines versus single shot firearms of yesteryear.
Strictly applying his originalist logic, blacks should still be segregated if states so choose and a raft of Civil Rights are not needed. I want no part of an America guided by such logic.
The Preamble is the only part of the Constitution that should not be interpreted any other way than as it was originally written. The rest is only a framework to get there and when necessary it must be interpreted or amended accordingly.
Given the situation, if the current Senate GOP leadership refuses to allow an up or down vote on nominations by the sitting President before he leaves office for no other reason than to just say no to Obama, they are traitors to the Constitution and to the American People. That abuse could lead to violence and revolution.
As far as I am concerned being a strict "origianalist" is the equivalent of being a creationist in the face of reality, science and other religions besides Christianity.
However he also torqued the clear intent of 2nd Amendment to fit his view; to wit; ignoring the Amendment's straight forward words tying need for ownership of firearms to the need of a well regulated militia that no longer exists and conveniently failing to acknowledge the threat to our very freedom live created by the technology of mass killing machines versus single shot firearms of yesteryear.
Strictly applying his originalist logic, blacks should still be segregated if states so choose and a raft of Civil Rights are not needed. I want no part of an America guided by such logic.
The Preamble is the only part of the Constitution that should not be interpreted any other way than as it was originally written. The rest is only a framework to get there and when necessary it must be interpreted or amended accordingly.
Given the situation, if the current Senate GOP leadership refuses to allow an up or down vote on nominations by the sitting President before he leaves office for no other reason than to just say no to Obama, they are traitors to the Constitution and to the American People. That abuse could lead to violence and revolution.
14
If we all embraced Scalia's 'Orginalism' - interpreting the Constitution as the Founders did - women and blacks would still be treated as second-class citizens - as the Founders wanted!!
12
In the wake of the death of Antonin Scalia and all the words that are being flung about both in favor of and in opposition to the man's legacy, the ones that I have the hardest time getting my head around are these: that he was a leader of a "conservative intellectual Renaissance."
What's one to make of the phrase "conservative intellectual Renaissance?" What valuable new ideas have been "reborn" as a result of this so-called movement?
That the free-market should be given free-rein to operate unencumbered by government regulation? That women's reproductive health choices, in contrast, should be restricted by government regulation in spite of the extraordinarily personal nature of such decisions? That gays and lesbians should be prosecuted under archaic anti-sodomy laws that call for their being imprisoned for engaging privately in consensual sexual activities?
These ideas in no way represent a rebirth. They are nothing more than a continuation of centuries-old conservative affronts to human dignity.
Better to recognize Antonin Scalia for what he was, a leader of a last-gasp effort to slow the inevitable advance of human progress. Renaissance my foot!
What's one to make of the phrase "conservative intellectual Renaissance?" What valuable new ideas have been "reborn" as a result of this so-called movement?
That the free-market should be given free-rein to operate unencumbered by government regulation? That women's reproductive health choices, in contrast, should be restricted by government regulation in spite of the extraordinarily personal nature of such decisions? That gays and lesbians should be prosecuted under archaic anti-sodomy laws that call for their being imprisoned for engaging privately in consensual sexual activities?
These ideas in no way represent a rebirth. They are nothing more than a continuation of centuries-old conservative affronts to human dignity.
Better to recognize Antonin Scalia for what he was, a leader of a last-gasp effort to slow the inevitable advance of human progress. Renaissance my foot!
7
I am struck by the last paragraph: “We don’t sit here to make the law, to decide who ought to win,” Justice Scalia said. “We decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. And very often, if you’re a good judge, you don’t really like the result you’re reaching.”
His actions show him to have failed to carry out this credo, and to have put it aside at his personal whim, on several occasions.
The refusal of the court to tally the votes for Al Gore must stand at the top of a heap of harmful acts this man has caused, with a glaring disregard for the citizens of this country and its most basic laws. We will not "get over it," as he suggested we all do, until the harm he has caused has been repaired, if it is ever repaired within our lifetimes.
Jeb Bush's repeated notion that President Bush "kept us safe"is surely one of the most laughable comments in the presidential debate. Our current Republican candidates conveniently lay aside the fact that President Obama was elected by American citizens, not once, but twice. These candidates have no basis for demanding that he do nothing regarding a nomination. They routinely ignore the separation of church and state, in their peculiar definition of "religious liberty," as Scalia has done. That's not what the Constitution is about. And as many have also expressed, it's time for a re-examination of the true intent of the Second Amendment. If not, it should be abolished.
His actions show him to have failed to carry out this credo, and to have put it aside at his personal whim, on several occasions.
The refusal of the court to tally the votes for Al Gore must stand at the top of a heap of harmful acts this man has caused, with a glaring disregard for the citizens of this country and its most basic laws. We will not "get over it," as he suggested we all do, until the harm he has caused has been repaired, if it is ever repaired within our lifetimes.
Jeb Bush's repeated notion that President Bush "kept us safe"is surely one of the most laughable comments in the presidential debate. Our current Republican candidates conveniently lay aside the fact that President Obama was elected by American citizens, not once, but twice. These candidates have no basis for demanding that he do nothing regarding a nomination. They routinely ignore the separation of church and state, in their peculiar definition of "religious liberty," as Scalia has done. That's not what the Constitution is about. And as many have also expressed, it's time for a re-examination of the true intent of the Second Amendment. If not, it should be abolished.
8
There are no Constitutional laws that cannot be twisted to meet pragmatic concerns. But few would want to admit that truth. Scalia claimed to be an originalist but there was nothing original as he flip flopped to his supporters. Important cultural issues as abortion and homosexual rights should be put up to local voters not to poweful people as Justice Scalia.
4
No - our laws don't allow voters to revoke rights.
1
Let's put your rights up to a vote, and see how you like it.
2
Decorum demands that we not speak ill of the dead, so I will limit my comment on Justice Scalia's death to the following: I hope and trust that President Obama will nominate, and the Senate will confirm, a new justice who will not use his or her position of power to make pronouncements consigning LGBTQ people to second-class status and, even if not intentionally, contributing to the epidemic of LGBTQ youth suicide.
6
On the issue of whether our current President should nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia and whether the Republican-led senate ought to act on the nomination: what would Justice Scalia say? Wouldn't he say to read the U.S. Constitution? President Obama has one-fourth of his current term remaining and our constitution is clear on how to proceed in the aftermath of Justice Scalia's unexpected death. Republican obstructionism would be anti-constitution. Go figure.
10
Yes he would agree that the President can nominate a replacement. The 80 year thing is a smokescreen for a bald power play by Republicans in the Senate. Democrats arent the only ones who can assert power in contravention of procedure and tradition. Who was it who said elections have consequences?
1
Like him or don't, whatever side he was on Mr. Scalia always created meaningful, friction and debate on cases in the Supreme court this the highest court in the land. We are a people of laws and I always felt the court is well served by Justices of diverse backgrounds, leanings and opinions. His eulogies by those who liked him and those who did not, I am sure, will all contain respect for the man, dedication and his intelligence. I think we lost a significant person in our society.
2
As Richard Posner wrote in the New Republic in 2012, Judge Scalia's adherence to textual originalism always yielded outcomes that reflected his strongly felt views on such matters as abortion, homosexuality, illegal immigration, states’ rights, the death penalty, and guns. On gay rights in particular, he had, to put it kindly, a blind spot. Though he may have had a towering intellect, it says something about the man's presumption when he ridiculed viciously decisions by Justices O'Conner and Kennedy that went against his views.
7
If the Republicans are successful in wasting an entire year obstructing whoever President Obama nominates as Scalia's successor, then when the Democrats win the presidency and the Senate in November, Hillary should begin her new term by nominating Obama to the Supreme Court. That ought to teach the Republicans a lesson.
8
Once you allow a court to tamper with the meaning of the Constitution, it ceases to be a real limit on government power. Government can do what it wants, in spite of the plain language of the Constitution, because it can always be reinterpreted to fit what a government wants to do. That's suicide, playing Russian roulette with your basic liberties. Perhaps legislatures shouldn't dictate morality, but I would rather have accountable elected officials do it who can be voted out of office than a court that is not accountable to anyone.
3
I know one thing - if anyone has the intelligence, wisdom and political skill to outmaneuver the obstructionist GOP at this critical juncture, it is President Obama. He might not get the outcome he and we who elected and reelected him deserve and want, but he will definitely get the best outcome possible in this difficult, sick political environment. I believe in destiny and it was no accident that Scalia died now.
6
Obama could do what's best for the country and nominate a moderate.
His choice will define his legacy determine how the Senate responds.
Heal the country of continue dividing.
His choice will define his legacy determine how the Senate responds.
Heal the country of continue dividing.
I believe it's time for President Obama to nominate Anita Hill to the Court. She would no doubt be a highly qualified justice, and it would offer the mostly white, male Republican senators who so nastily and falsely disparaged her in 1991, a chance to redeem themselves.
7
It wont be Barack deciding this one, it will be his wife.
and what exactly are her qualifications? An undistinguished legal academic career at lower tier colleges without a single piece of notable scholarship after 25 years?
2
Thats Right! So you think that's going to stop it from happening
Justice Scalia was a self proclaimed Divine Right monarchist who saw the State as the instrument of God's will, a kind of l'etat without the moi (as I butcher Louis XIV's narrative while retaining the sentiment). Scalia, who also believed the Devil was a real presence, walking among us, never believed that the American people were sovereign - only our wholly imperfect and purposeful organizations; so that he could actually rule that "actual innocence" is not a sufficiently compelling argument in the face of the State's prerogative to execute a prisoner. He may have been a brilliant jurist, but he certainly didn't understand on the most fundamental level, the experimental purpose of the country whose laws he aspired to interpret.
10
I hope the President promptly nominates a moderate, middle of the road justice. The idea would be to fill the vacancy in a way that would not tilt one way or the other. If the Republicans deny a hearing or filibuster the nominee, this will make the Supreme Court a huge election issue.
My guess is that per comments we have already heard [Cruz, as an example] a focal point would be abortion rights. Most likely, the election will be decided by purple states; and my guess is that despite a strong Republican core most of the voters in these purple states would favor abortion rights and be fearful that appointing a hard line "strict constructionist" or supporter of "original intent" would constrain the freedom of choice and potentially cut into other "mainstream" rights.
My guess is that per comments we have already heard [Cruz, as an example] a focal point would be abortion rights. Most likely, the election will be decided by purple states; and my guess is that despite a strong Republican core most of the voters in these purple states would favor abortion rights and be fearful that appointing a hard line "strict constructionist" or supporter of "original intent" would constrain the freedom of choice and potentially cut into other "mainstream" rights.
1
I struggle to understand how a Supreme Court Justice can be conservative when the US constitution is as liberal as they come. Sad loss for the family, but assuming that Obama will successfully bring in a liberal Justice, it's good news for the US.
15
To Republicans who plan to block Pres. Obama's next appointment to fill this vacancy:
In the words of Justice Scalia, "Get over it!"
Oh, and wait 'til you see whom Bernie will appoint!
In the words of Justice Scalia, "Get over it!"
Oh, and wait 'til you see whom Bernie will appoint!
9
If you're an ultra-conservative judge, you're a Constitutional scholar, a preserver of American tradition. If liberal, you're a bomb-throwing political radical, a person ruled by ideology and not legal reasoning.
That is the conservative position, though Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Rehnquist all gave that the lie through their speech-making, remarks, written opinions, and staff selections (conservative credentials, a must).
It would be unprecedented for a sitting President NOT to select for a vacant seat on the highest court.
Sorry, my conservative brethren, your God has ruled against you on this. Go examine your consciences.
That is the conservative position, though Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Rehnquist all gave that the lie through their speech-making, remarks, written opinions, and staff selections (conservative credentials, a must).
It would be unprecedented for a sitting President NOT to select for a vacant seat on the highest court.
Sorry, my conservative brethren, your God has ruled against you on this. Go examine your consciences.
13
My condolences to Justice Scalia's family and thank you for lending him to the country in his role at the Supreme Court.
The legacy of Scalia, for anyone who cares to ponder our 3 branches of government, is to constrain the judiciary to rule inside the laws as reflected in the Constitution and as passed by the COTUS and signed by the POTUS. It's really not about any specific case but fundamentally how our government institutions are constructed, their focus and process.
Partisans, businesses, etc from all sides want SCOTUS to rule in their favor on any number of issues and Scalia's consistent message was to go to Congress and pass a law enabling the SCOTUS to rule in their favor. Thus the COTUS actions would reflect the will of the citizens and SCOTUS would support those laws as written provided no other Consitutional objections could be made.
An activist court disturbs this balance of powers and then the legislative process is distorted and the election process along with it. Going to the Supreme Court to creatively interpret law to an outcome satisfactory to a partisan/business interest then politicizes the SCOTUS and dilutes the power and importance of the COTUS. The end does not justify the means because the means destroy the mechanics of government and the Democracy.
We are now living with the impact of this phenomena as we describe justices as conservative or liberal which is the same terminology we use for political figures.
The legacy of Scalia, for anyone who cares to ponder our 3 branches of government, is to constrain the judiciary to rule inside the laws as reflected in the Constitution and as passed by the COTUS and signed by the POTUS. It's really not about any specific case but fundamentally how our government institutions are constructed, their focus and process.
Partisans, businesses, etc from all sides want SCOTUS to rule in their favor on any number of issues and Scalia's consistent message was to go to Congress and pass a law enabling the SCOTUS to rule in their favor. Thus the COTUS actions would reflect the will of the citizens and SCOTUS would support those laws as written provided no other Consitutional objections could be made.
An activist court disturbs this balance of powers and then the legislative process is distorted and the election process along with it. Going to the Supreme Court to creatively interpret law to an outcome satisfactory to a partisan/business interest then politicizes the SCOTUS and dilutes the power and importance of the COTUS. The end does not justify the means because the means destroy the mechanics of government and the Democracy.
We are now living with the impact of this phenomena as we describe justices as conservative or liberal which is the same terminology we use for political figures.
4
1. Money = speech
2. Corporations = people
3. Cessation of Florida vote recount, handing election to GW Bush
4. Gun ownership is an individual right
5. Most recently, stay of implementation of EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.
6. He would undoubtedly have voted to uphold the right of states to gerrymander congressional districts (even though counting votes was not a right of states).
What individual's actions have been more destructive of American democracy than Justice Scalia's?
2. Corporations = people
3. Cessation of Florida vote recount, handing election to GW Bush
4. Gun ownership is an individual right
5. Most recently, stay of implementation of EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.
6. He would undoubtedly have voted to uphold the right of states to gerrymander congressional districts (even though counting votes was not a right of states).
What individual's actions have been more destructive of American democracy than Justice Scalia's?
22
Excessive use of executive orders. Congress votes to make or change laws. POTUS has to get votes to enact laws he wants.
This is more damaging that Scalia's.
This is more damaging that Scalia's.
It took no time at all for the Republican Party to once again show it's heartlessness and utmost willingness to inject division and rancor into politics at a time that civility requires reflection and condolences. Every time that I think that Republicans can sink no lower, they prove me wrong.
11
Republicans, who love the Constitution soooooo much, should take a look at Article II, Section 1. It provides for four-year terms for a president, not three. Pretty sure that's the reading that Scalia would have given it too, by the way.
11
You should also be aware of article II, section 2 that the president shall nominate judges of the Supreme Court "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." It's called checks and balances, for those who forget.
And if the Senate is unwilling to bring a nominee to a vote throughout the remainder of 2016 then they are not doing their job. But what's new?
Scalia (along with his clone, Thomas) repeatedly reduced the voting rights of average citizens, so that the few, such as himself and the .00001% could choose our President, our "representatives". There is nothing honorable about the kinds of "convictions", he bragged about. History will show, his narcissism and arrogance caused untold misery for generations of Americans. This is not unlike the death of a dictator.
12
I'm guessing Scalia was cursing himself in his last moments for realizing his life was going to end with Barack Obama as U.S. president. He should have quit 10 years ago and taken that Fox News offer as legal "analyst" which Rupert Murdoch was surely offering him.
You can damn well bet right now that Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and maybe Kennedy are all plotting ways to either 1) become the most super-healthy bunch of men over the age of 60 if a Democrat is inaugurated as president next January or 2) just retire one after the other between 2017 and 2019 if a Republican is inaugurated.
And yes, I know that Breyer and Ginsburg are thinking similar thoughts. But they don't fantasize about taking health insurance away from low-income people or making the Vatican's laws on abortion and contraception the laws of the United States, so whatever it is they are planning to do bothers me a lot less.
You can damn well bet right now that Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and maybe Kennedy are all plotting ways to either 1) become the most super-healthy bunch of men over the age of 60 if a Democrat is inaugurated as president next January or 2) just retire one after the other between 2017 and 2019 if a Republican is inaugurated.
And yes, I know that Breyer and Ginsburg are thinking similar thoughts. But they don't fantasize about taking health insurance away from low-income people or making the Vatican's laws on abortion and contraception the laws of the United States, so whatever it is they are planning to do bothers me a lot less.
7
How quickly was Thomas selected to fill Marshall's boots?
2
Obama is the president for the next 11.5 months and must appoint the next SC justice, and the Senate must vote. If the nominee doesn't pass, and there's a Republic win in 2016, the Democrats must make it clear that they'll filibuster the next nominee until 2020
14
Scalia did not have a keen intellect. He had a disingenuous intellect which he used as a bully to force his regressive conservative and Catholic agenda down the throats of Americans. He was one of the most partial judges in US history
32
Yes, he flip flopped about States rights and the importance of the Founding Father's vision, in order to suit his extremely personal agenda. Then humiliate those who did not agree with the vision for his world. A hugely destructive force in America.
16
"Jesuitical" is the word that springs to mind.
5
Intellect, what intellect? If he were intelligent he would have learned from history. Let's face it. When you "appoint" a president by refusing to let a state count its votes, you are putting the entire body of SCOTUS on the scales against democracy. The results were disastrous. George W Bush was the worst president in my lifetime. Scalia learned nothing from this bad decision.
4
Loved his radical rants on Gore v Bush, but he never once mentioned who was gov of Floriduh at the time. Weird. Regarding his demise, many will have no problem getting over it.
4
It is rather humorous to read the comments of those who don't think that the Senate can, or should, block the Pres. Obama's appointing a replacement for Scalia. In 1988, the Democrats blocked two appointments by Reagan before finally allowing Kennedy, so there is precedence for this. Additionally, you may recall that the Democrats in their infinite wisdom allowed the filibuster to be extended to Supreme Court justices.
I am very much an Independent politically (socially liberal, fiscally conservative, leave most decisions on issues not explicitly reserved to the federal government to the states), and the though of either Clinton or Sanders (or Obama) getting to appoint another Supreme Court justice truly scares me. (Although I must admit that a Cruz or Trump presidency is just as if not more scary!)
I am very much an Independent politically (socially liberal, fiscally conservative, leave most decisions on issues not explicitly reserved to the federal government to the states), and the though of either Clinton or Sanders (or Obama) getting to appoint another Supreme Court justice truly scares me. (Although I must admit that a Cruz or Trump presidency is just as if not more scary!)
5
Yes, they did block Bork, but that nomination came to a vote of the full Senate after a thorough vetting! This crowd of Republicans is pledging to block the next nomination simply because Obama will make it, without so much as proper consideration. That is borderline treason, and they should pay at the polls this November (assuming their voter-suppression mechanisms don't mute the voices of the people).
4
They didn't block Douglas Ginsburg. He withdrew after his prior drug use had come to light. And ... they did confirm Kennedy. That's the real point.
1
Antonin Scalia was a one-man establishment of religion, and the nation is worse off as a result.
18
The lead commentary on Justice Scalia misrepresents the legal philosophy that guided his tenure on the court. He focused on the text as an object independent of its framers once established. Of course, no text can be completely divorced from its time and history. Nonetheless, Justice Scalia's "originalism" refers to interpreting the text before one, the text in its own right, apart from the subjective views of this or that legislator at the time it was framed.
1
How symbolic that Scalia should die in a luxury retreat. Cibolo Creek Ranch is as out of reach for the average American as his decisions were out of touch for us.
18
The majority conservative court has done more than enough to undermine our democracy.The day the Supreme court,manipulated by one Jeb!!Bush,handed the Presidency to his idiotic bro,was one I remember vividly and with an accompanying sense of horror.To have the GOP instantly start jockeying[MCConnell,you have done quite enough to highlight your grotesque bigotry]to deny our sitting President this appt.is typical and disgusting.Elisabeth Warren,too bad you're not black..you could really make
'em squirm but squirm they will if you are appointed. Will you do it????
bigotry
'em squirm but squirm they will if you are appointed. Will you do it????
bigotry
6
How does Mitch McConnels statements make him a bigot?
If anyone fights opposing views it makes jthey are bigot?
If anyone fights opposing views it makes jthey are bigot?
My condolences to Clarence Thomas. Without Scalia, he won't know how to vote. Poor guy.
19
He can rely on "originalism".
2
If the right wing was truly as devout and religious as it claims, then it would realize that the Good Lord called Justice Scalia home on Pres. Obama's watch so that he could pick the next justice. Everything according to God's plan, they often say. So, perhaps they need to accept this as "his will."
9
Strange that every single comment disagrees with Scalia's interpretations of the law and most also say he will not be missed - but then goes on to respectfully characterize him as resolute, brilliant, incisive, and more.
No, he was Not Great in any way. He was a small-minded ideological thinker without the mental capacity to think outside his cramped far right world view. He used his high position to give dependable cover to the 1 percent.
If anyone thinks his writing was brilliant, they have been conned. The so-called brilliance was just his masterful attempt to twist logic around an ideological position. He never reached a conclusion by a balanced analytical progress, but artfully started with a conclusion and rationalized backwards.
How can anyone conclude that any Jurist who is so consistently one-sided is thoughtful or fair or balanced? Scalia was petty, mean, nasty, vituperative, hypocritical, sneering, and narrow - a little man with a small mind - just like the right-wing buddies he loved to hang around with. He most enjoyed being a valued member of that smug club and disdained the true role of a Supreme Court Justice as a champion and defender of the People.
Since the vast majority "didn't like, and mostly disagreed with his opinions" how can Scalia - even remotely - be considered Great? His opinions were essentially written by the 1 percent for the 1 percent - not for any of us.
Not once did he fail to stick it to us - and he did so gleefully.
No, he was Not Great in any way. He was a small-minded ideological thinker without the mental capacity to think outside his cramped far right world view. He used his high position to give dependable cover to the 1 percent.
If anyone thinks his writing was brilliant, they have been conned. The so-called brilliance was just his masterful attempt to twist logic around an ideological position. He never reached a conclusion by a balanced analytical progress, but artfully started with a conclusion and rationalized backwards.
How can anyone conclude that any Jurist who is so consistently one-sided is thoughtful or fair or balanced? Scalia was petty, mean, nasty, vituperative, hypocritical, sneering, and narrow - a little man with a small mind - just like the right-wing buddies he loved to hang around with. He most enjoyed being a valued member of that smug club and disdained the true role of a Supreme Court Justice as a champion and defender of the People.
Since the vast majority "didn't like, and mostly disagreed with his opinions" how can Scalia - even remotely - be considered Great? His opinions were essentially written by the 1 percent for the 1 percent - not for any of us.
Not once did he fail to stick it to us - and he did so gleefully.
38
i have never said this about a comment, but this should be recommended 1000 times and should be NYT pick.
13
Thank you. I have always been mystified by the reverence shown his written decisions. To me it always appeared that he had made up his mind before the case ever got to court, then backfilled with rationales for his position.
That, plus wearing his Catholicism like a giant scapular while consistently coming down on the side of the wealthy and well-connected, the racist and the homophobe, made it awfully hard to listen to the praise heaped upon him, now and in the past.
In the Gospel according to Tony, states were free to criminalize homosexuality, make the voting booth off-limits to some voters and deny women basic reproductive health care. Any attempt at the federal level to protect the rights guaranteed to those persons by the Constitution was "judicial activism," but conferring personhood on businesses was not. These are not the products of a brilliant mind but the work of an enforcer for bullies.
That, plus wearing his Catholicism like a giant scapular while consistently coming down on the side of the wealthy and well-connected, the racist and the homophobe, made it awfully hard to listen to the praise heaped upon him, now and in the past.
In the Gospel according to Tony, states were free to criminalize homosexuality, make the voting booth off-limits to some voters and deny women basic reproductive health care. Any attempt at the federal level to protect the rights guaranteed to those persons by the Constitution was "judicial activism," but conferring personhood on businesses was not. These are not the products of a brilliant mind but the work of an enforcer for bullies.
4
I did not always agree with Justice Scalia, but his reasoning was impeccable and his deep love of our Constitution was obvious. I would have loved conversing with him for a few hours. I hope that President Obama appoints someone who will equally irritate me in future.
2
Scalia was not "brilliant" because a really intelligent person does not deceive him/her self to the degree he appeared to be self deluded. First than anything do not ignore that reality.
7
“No man is an island… Any man’s death diminishes me,…” John Donne
Sincere condolences to the loved ones of Antonin Scalia, and also to all those men and women whose loved ones suffered and even died because of him.
What I most hoped for, but knew was very unlikely, was that Scalia change and express his regrets for the harm he did, or at least resign from the Court. While I take no joy at all in his death, my heart rises when I think of one byproduct of it, all the damage Scalia will not be able to do in the many pending cases, such as the California teacher’s case. I still hope that wherever he is that Antonin Scalia regrets the harm that he did.
Sincere condolences to the loved ones of Antonin Scalia, and also to all those men and women whose loved ones suffered and even died because of him.
What I most hoped for, but knew was very unlikely, was that Scalia change and express his regrets for the harm he did, or at least resign from the Court. While I take no joy at all in his death, my heart rises when I think of one byproduct of it, all the damage Scalia will not be able to do in the many pending cases, such as the California teacher’s case. I still hope that wherever he is that Antonin Scalia regrets the harm that he did.
2
Now that Scalia is gone, who will the left hate? It's hunting season for their next great enemy.
3
February 14, 2016
To reflect of Justice Scalia as a American legal scholar that made his fecundate supreme mark – RIP
T S Eliot
“Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.”
James Joyce
Does nobody understand? Last words (January 1941)
Jja Manhattan, N. Y.
To reflect of Justice Scalia as a American legal scholar that made his fecundate supreme mark – RIP
T S Eliot
“Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.”
James Joyce
Does nobody understand? Last words (January 1941)
Jja Manhattan, N. Y.
2
"Scalia Led Court’s Conservative Rebirth"
And, unfortunately, not for the better for either the Court or the Country. His was conservatism for conservatism's sake as an ideology. The law and what the legislative body who wrote the law meant was second to what Scalia and his ideology meant it to be.
And, unfortunately, not for the better for either the Court or the Country. His was conservatism for conservatism's sake as an ideology. The law and what the legislative body who wrote the law meant was second to what Scalia and his ideology meant it to be.
1
It's no accident that Antonin Scalia is so loved by right-wing political radicals; he was not actually a Justice, but a right-wing politician wearing a robe. Scalia nearly single-handedly destroyed true judicial conservatism: He abused his position, issuing right-wing legislation from the bench. Scalia's damage to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Judiciary, and the American system of government, is incalculable. Judicial conservatism is not political conservatism, though you'd never know it by how people discuss Scalia. True Judicial Conservatives are champions of core legal doctrines meant to limit the Judiciary's power by deferring to the Legislative and Executive branches and adhering to precedent. True Judicial Conservatives place the highest priority on legal doctrines such Judicial Restraint, Judicial Temperament, Avoiding Any Appearance of Impropriety, and Stare Decisis. Scalia blatantly disregarded all such doctrines doing everything in his power to overrule long settled precedents which he personally disagreed with and delivering tirades from the bench stating how he would rule on cases not yet before the court, but which very likely would be. He was an active member and advisor to right-wing political groups whose members had regular business before the Court. He refused to recuse himself from cases in which he had clear and undeniable conflicts of interest. These were the actions of a corrupt politician, direct violations of the Code of Ethics, and Impeachable Offenses.
12
Regretting that this must be said 24 hours after his death, but one of Scalia's enduring legacies will be his contribution to the highly partisan reaction of the Republicans in the Senate upon his death. Among the many things I might wonder, I wonder what how many month's prior to the end of the president's term in office the R's would have found it acceptable for a nomination to go forward. I hate to say it, but Trump had the right answer.
1
There is nothing more partisan than the left's reaction to every single Scalia opinion. They have behaved like sore losers every time.
3
It is telling and characteristic that the first public statements about Scalia's death were made by Democrats who talked about him with great respect--and Republicans announcing that they will block any attempt by the president to nominate his successor. Not so much as an RIP, after all Scalia had done for them.
3
If the Right Wing was truly as devout and faithful as it claims to be, then it would realize that the Good Lord must have called justice Scalia home on Pres. Obama's watch so that he could choose the next justice. Everything according to God's plan, as they often say. Perhaps they should accept this as "god's will".
13
Scalia was one of the architects of the stolen national election that turned the country backward in so many ways. I'm curious to know what flag is flying above the Cibolo Creek Ranch? Interesting that Scalia didn't die under an American flag.
7
@Big Ten Grad,
Coincidentally, your first sentence is just about verbatim what I said to a family member last night, particularly the word "architect."
@Bob Laughlin,
WELL SAID!
2-14-16@2:02 pm
2-14-16@2:02 pm
Coincidentally, your first sentence is just about verbatim what I said to a family member last night, particularly the word "architect."
@Bob Laughlin,
WELL SAID!
2-14-16@2:02 pm
2-14-16@2:02 pm
1
"Justice Antonin Scalia, a champion of interpreting the Constitution as it was understood at the time of its adoption, was found dead on Saturday."
Fact: it wasn’t until 1821 that Connecticut passd the first law in the United States prohibiting abortion.
How do you square THIS with with your holier-than-thou proper-interpretation-strategy, Justice Scalia?
Should we still be doing in murders by firing squad, the guillotine, hanging by the neck until dead?
Yup! Them was the days!!
Oops! How about this one: SLAVERY!
:)
Yeah, well -- it wasn't a very bid deal, right?
Look, he is lauded by the Right because they lapped up what he gave them: direct access to the ignorant's most vulnerable prejudices.
Best that can be said of his is he was a man of the (Right) folks.
A real lollapa-loozer
RIP
Fact: it wasn’t until 1821 that Connecticut passd the first law in the United States prohibiting abortion.
How do you square THIS with with your holier-than-thou proper-interpretation-strategy, Justice Scalia?
Should we still be doing in murders by firing squad, the guillotine, hanging by the neck until dead?
Yup! Them was the days!!
Oops! How about this one: SLAVERY!
:)
Yeah, well -- it wasn't a very bid deal, right?
Look, he is lauded by the Right because they lapped up what he gave them: direct access to the ignorant's most vulnerable prejudices.
Best that can be said of his is he was a man of the (Right) folks.
A real lollapa-loozer
RIP
4
You get that Constitution was amended precisely because it did allow slavery? Likewise Civil Rights, likewise the right of women to vote. It's not up to "nine unelected lawyers" to judge what the Constitution *should* say -- only what it does say. Where the people believe it is wrong, it is the responsibility of the people to amend it.
3
Scalia's neo-con (or is that neanderthal) views on so many issues were, for the most part, so out of touch with mainstream values in all other developed countries that the US long ago lost the moral authority to claim it is the leader of the free world. Leading on what exactly? More like dragging it's feet on social progress. A few decades ago, Canada was more conservative than the US - now the US is more conservative than any other developed country...and that's NOT a compliment.
6
Scalia was an awful justice. He was able (and was allowed) to bully
his intellectual betters into accepting (or at least not openly rejecting)
a form of legal interpretation that was no less academically suspect than
it was politically disastrous. But I do not blame him - he was another tool
of the more powerful (his Texas hunting buddies, for example). I blame the
left -- if there is such a thing -- for cowering before such a intellectual
neanderthal and bully.
his intellectual betters into accepting (or at least not openly rejecting)
a form of legal interpretation that was no less academically suspect than
it was politically disastrous. But I do not blame him - he was another tool
of the more powerful (his Texas hunting buddies, for example). I blame the
left -- if there is such a thing -- for cowering before such a intellectual
neanderthal and bully.
7
Does anyone else realize that no Judge on any bench should be known as conservative or liberal? The ideal they all should be aiming for is to be near invisible and lauded if at all for fairness and equity.
Reason tells us that truth has no political leaning.
Reason tells us that truth has no political leaning.
9
@magicisnotreal,
Believe it or not, not everyone here is stupid. But, if you're going to ask that question, etc., how about sending your comment to some of the remaining SCOTUS judges, i.e., Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy?
2-14-16@1:57 pm
Believe it or not, not everyone here is stupid. But, if you're going to ask that question, etc., how about sending your comment to some of the remaining SCOTUS judges, i.e., Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy?
2-14-16@1:57 pm
1
“Michael” describes Justice Scalia as “a partisan hack” (below). I believe that to be utterly wrong. If he was anything, he was a man of strong, unyielding principles. Unfortunately, they were those shared by a subset of Jesuits and Jesuit-educated conservative zealots stretching back through history: Bellarmine, de Maistre, the Ultramontanists, and the participants in the Gunpowder Plot. Fortunately, there is another type of more egalitarian Jesuit exemplified by Francis Xavier, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Teilhard de Chardin, Bernard Lonergan, Daniel Berrigan, and Pope Francis. We (secondo me) could use fewer Scalias and more Berrigans.
Nino: In paradisum deducant to Angeli.
Nino: In paradisum deducant to Angeli.
2
>
I keep hearing he was a conservative hero, so is Zeus. What's the point being made here?
I keep hearing he was a conservative hero, so is Zeus. What's the point being made here?
2
The GOP junta, before the body was cold, made a statement encouraging President Obama to delay his decision for a replacement until after his term... With all due respect: Alito, Thomas, and Roberts: Time for you to GO as well...!!!
6
@Carl,
Preach, man, preach!
2-14-16@2:04 pm
Preach, man, preach!
2-14-16@2:04 pm
1
Scalia was torn between judicial activism and judicial restraint, his adherence to each was swayed by the political question in front of him. He authored no great majority opinions, nor did he represent the interests of anybody that was not already in a position of power. My sympathies to his family members, but his legal presence will not be missed by me or anybody that believes in social progress.
1
Original intent was that Africans Americans be slaves, that women be chattel, and states were allowed to punish homosexuality by death.
10
That's what amendments are for. There's a process to be followed to make amendments. Of course, it's easier to just make things up and avoid all that.
2
@Lawrence,
Thanks for pointing that out. What's tragic is that many would probably love to see things regress to that.
2-14-16@2:08 pm
Thanks for pointing that out. What's tragic is that many would probably love to see things regress to that.
2-14-16@2:08 pm
1
He did not lead a conservative renaissance of the Supreme Court, he led a fascist takeover. Maybe now our democracy will be safer.
16
I have never been able to accept that it was the original intent of the authors of our constitution that any citizen who wants to can run around with an AK--47 wherever they wish.
13
Neither did the British, and that's how they lost their grip.
Elsewhere in the Times an op-ed contributor has dealt with Justice Scalia's advocacy of a "dead" constitution. Given the current zeitgeist of chronic gridlock and partisan acrimony, I can't imagine how anyone could pretend that the daunting means for amending such a rigidly interpreted document could allow it to timely evolve with the nation and people it was intended to guide and serve. Maybe, in fact, we should reserve "dead" constitutions exclusively for dead nations.
2
Citizen's United will forever stand out for all of American history in which Scalia and his conservative cronies choose to disregard all facts, common sense and legal precedent to rule against democracy itself. More recently he again disregarded all legal precedent in the face of the looming catastrophe of global warming to again rule in favor of the moneyed forces that drive him. Whether or not he intended to be a good jurist as he said during his confirmation hearings, in these 2 decisions alone, he proved that he most certainly was not.
19
Term limits, anyone?
7
Reality check who ever serves the public should be given thanks by all of us .Our system may not be perfect .But like all of us god made us this way so we all have common ground . Antonin Scalia always be great man for serving our country we should all share in compassionin his cause as a judge for law an order.
2
President Obama said Scalia dedicated his life “to the cornerstone of our democracy: the rule of law."
As a gay American I disagree profoundly with this assessment.
Scalia did everything in his considerable power to make sure that for LGBT Americans it was always 1950, a time when we were second class citizens subjected to scorn and forced to live in a constant state of fear.
His dissents on gay rights cases were dripping with venomous arrogance and contempt.
But he got one thing right when he warned that the Supreme Court was heading in the direction of approving same sex marriage.
As a gay American I disagree profoundly with this assessment.
Scalia did everything in his considerable power to make sure that for LGBT Americans it was always 1950, a time when we were second class citizens subjected to scorn and forced to live in a constant state of fear.
His dissents on gay rights cases were dripping with venomous arrogance and contempt.
But he got one thing right when he warned that the Supreme Court was heading in the direction of approving same sex marriage.
16
At the risk of sounding crass at the death of another human, but because there is no commenting allowed in the following article "Battle Begins Over Naming Next Justice" I will do so here.
Republicans just lost the Senate. In this election cycle, voter turnout will determine the difference between retaining or losing the Senate. 24 Republican seats are up for re-election, with Rubio retiring. 10 Democratic seats are up for re-election, with 3 retiring. In the case that a Republican controlled Senate doesn't confirm a nominee, Dems will turn out in droves to elect a Democratic president, and in the process, vote Democrats back into the Senate. It's a lose-lose proposition for the Republicans: don't confirm and lose the Senate and the WH; confirm and their base will most likely stay home, losing the Senate and the WH.
Obama has leverage. He should use it to nominate a liberal Justice, not a 'compromise' Justice in hopes that Republicans will bend to the reasonable. They won't. But on this one, time is on the Democrats side.
Republicans just lost the Senate. In this election cycle, voter turnout will determine the difference between retaining or losing the Senate. 24 Republican seats are up for re-election, with Rubio retiring. 10 Democratic seats are up for re-election, with 3 retiring. In the case that a Republican controlled Senate doesn't confirm a nominee, Dems will turn out in droves to elect a Democratic president, and in the process, vote Democrats back into the Senate. It's a lose-lose proposition for the Republicans: don't confirm and lose the Senate and the WH; confirm and their base will most likely stay home, losing the Senate and the WH.
Obama has leverage. He should use it to nominate a liberal Justice, not a 'compromise' Justice in hopes that Republicans will bend to the reasonable. They won't. But on this one, time is on the Democrats side.
11
RIP Justice Scalia. A boon for democrats as we watch the republicans block President Obama's nomination to the court. It will surely emphasize to all (especially the younger more socially moderate voters) the importance of voting in the fall--whoever the dems nominate for president. So you go Mitch McConnell make my year!
4
I have heard many comments on what a genius jurist Scalia was. I recognize that genius can be an excellent characteristic, but how does this balance against harming a country's will? Citizens United diabolically changed the trajectory of America's fragile Democracy and now we are classified as an oligarchy. He was opposed to equal rights under the law for ALL of American citizens when excluding the rights of people of color, women, union workers, and GLBT. He was a force that helped defendants in criminal cases got their rights reserved with little to no consideration that the victims (sometimes children) would have to face the alleged criminal who had shredded their lives to pieces. He was for sizzling the mentally retarded in the electric chair for crimes committed - they were mentally retarded! He stated he would have had strong qualms about voting for Brown versus the Board of Education. To say as late as December of 2015, that persons of color should probably not enter certain colleges because their mentalities don't match up to the rigorous requirements of college academia. He might have had a genius for legal rigor but he was a fool when it came to ordinary human lives who required the freedoms he so often denied them.
8
You were right on point until you gave in to the legal rigor fantasy. He was a judicial activist who pretended he was an originalist. It was appalling. The fact that he is dead is very sad for his family but let's not forget what he actually did on the court!.
4
Somewhat fascinating that the reference to the recent University of Texas case completely outside of the true judicial context in the discussion. Why is that distortion by liberals so frequent and usually directed at Justice Thomas? At least Liptak got the mention of the important DC v Heller case into the story. Lots of liberals pretend it didn't happen. Overall story, B- but keep the personal distortions and misguided liberal talking points out of a news story especially an obituary. That's a classless act. Who's the editor who let that sniping into the story? Failing grade there!
3
It really is possible to be intelligent and delusional at the same time. He believed there was an actual devil with a bifurcated tail running loose on earth.
7
Scalia's dichotomy is fascinating. Possessed of a brilliant mind paralleled with a bias toward the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. He could have been a contender, one of the greats, not just a hero of the Right.
His career should be a caution, a word to the wise to be wary of anyone who allows religious righteousness to blur their vision. Prejudice clouded his decisions. His legal acumen was hindered by adherence to archaic Christian dogma.
Conservatives idolize him not because of his intellect but because he was able to abuse his, he would say God-given, talent. Scalia's aim was to take this nation backwards, to use his conservative values to bend the laws accordingly. Born in a earlier era, he could imagine himself hanging with the Founders, pontificating with Washington, Adams, Jefferson et al. It would be Heaven.
The irony is Scalia would have not been allowed to set his foot into this exclusive club of WASPs. His Sicilian ancestry combined with his Catholicism would have prevented it, his intellect deemed inferior to theirs. There would be no Harvard sheepskin for him to wave before fellow alumni John Adams. Scalia would have been heaped into the same bin of those Scalia chose to demean today. Ironic indeed.
DD
Manhattan
arrogance, pomposity, and venial sins this man committed. Whenever you hear someone so smart yet still possess a egotistical need broadcast it to the world one should immediately suspect this charlatan. Good God,
His career should be a caution, a word to the wise to be wary of anyone who allows religious righteousness to blur their vision. Prejudice clouded his decisions. His legal acumen was hindered by adherence to archaic Christian dogma.
Conservatives idolize him not because of his intellect but because he was able to abuse his, he would say God-given, talent. Scalia's aim was to take this nation backwards, to use his conservative values to bend the laws accordingly. Born in a earlier era, he could imagine himself hanging with the Founders, pontificating with Washington, Adams, Jefferson et al. It would be Heaven.
The irony is Scalia would have not been allowed to set his foot into this exclusive club of WASPs. His Sicilian ancestry combined with his Catholicism would have prevented it, his intellect deemed inferior to theirs. There would be no Harvard sheepskin for him to wave before fellow alumni John Adams. Scalia would have been heaped into the same bin of those Scalia chose to demean today. Ironic indeed.
DD
Manhattan
arrogance, pomposity, and venial sins this man committed. Whenever you hear someone so smart yet still possess a egotistical need broadcast it to the world one should immediately suspect this charlatan. Good God,
9
Can we please overturn Citizens United now?
14
"In 1974, President Richard M. Nixon nominated him to be assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel . . ."
The legacy of one Richard Milhous Nixon has, and will continue to haunt the United States even unto the tenth generation.
The legacy of one Richard Milhous Nixon has, and will continue to haunt the United States even unto the tenth generation.
8
That ain't nothing compared to the legacy of Reagan.
8
I find it completely disrespectful to the Scalia family for President Obama to mention his intent to replace Justice Scalia so early after his passing.
2
Well, how about the Republicans coming out earlier in the day to say there was no way they would confirm any candidate the President put forward?
8
Obviously, as a response to a reporter's question, Pres. Obama said he would appoint a replacement "...in due time." How is that disrespectful? It is the President's constitutional duty to fill the vacancy and he let the people know that he would do so.
8
In outlining the responsibilities of the Senate in the matter of "advise and consent", is there any mention of "delay"?
4
Always believing Justice Scalia was sincere in his beliefs and honest in his thinking - even though it was often thought he used his knowledge of law to rationalize interjecting Catholic dogma and conservative orthodoxy into his legal findings - his death was not a desired method by which Justice Scalia would retire from the Court.
And the conspiracy theories have already experienced a spirited launching. The wackiest, so far, being..."It was Obama who had Scalia killed so he could "fundamentally change" the court like he has the country."
Sure Wilbur, as if this Senate would confirm an Obama appointment in the best of circumstances...and surely, with the conservatives salivating over their perceived prospects of occupying the White House come January next, nowadays it's doubly Noway! Nohow! Either through endless debate or some anonymous "hold" (will Cruz be the first, or will some other conservative beat him to the punch?) the president's appointment will languish...and then wither from apathy. (Hillary or Bernie may have an idea of their own for the next Justice...and, God knows, the Republicans and the conservatives certainly do)
And the conspiracy theories have already experienced a spirited launching. The wackiest, so far, being..."It was Obama who had Scalia killed so he could "fundamentally change" the court like he has the country."
Sure Wilbur, as if this Senate would confirm an Obama appointment in the best of circumstances...and surely, with the conservatives salivating over their perceived prospects of occupying the White House come January next, nowadays it's doubly Noway! Nohow! Either through endless debate or some anonymous "hold" (will Cruz be the first, or will some other conservative beat him to the punch?) the president's appointment will languish...and then wither from apathy. (Hillary or Bernie may have an idea of their own for the next Justice...and, God knows, the Republicans and the conservatives certainly do)
1
In reading account of Scalia's death, it is mentioned that he is the longest serving member of the SCOTUS. He is not. William O. Douglas has that honor.
2
They meant longest serving member on the current bench.
1
At last a seat on the Supreme Court opens that will have the potential to express more of what one would expect to exist during Modernity and not one that is tied to a literal examination and interpretation of the Constitution, something I'm certain the Founding Fathers figured would naturally transpire, this being by simple attrition, as our country evolved.
With our hands tied by the narrow viewpoint of a strict interpretation of the Constitution we have to continually endure a prevention of want would so naturally evolve and grow, and strengthen and all for
the common good.
But sadly, we are about to witness more of what we have had to endure since the day after Obama was elected President of the United States when Senator Mitch McConnel gathered the members of the Republican Congress together and told them they will vote No from that day forward to everything Obama puts forth for passage.
And why, when the media discusses how Congress continues to "not get along," they NEVER mention, and especially during the debates on either side, that this "not getting along," is the direct result of the obstructionist stance the Republican Congress adopted almost SEVEN years ago. For SEVEN YEARS this has been going and nowhere has the media even attempted to discuss what Senator Mitch McConnell DIRECTED the members of the Republican Congress to do.
Will someone please put this out there. Hillary, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
With our hands tied by the narrow viewpoint of a strict interpretation of the Constitution we have to continually endure a prevention of want would so naturally evolve and grow, and strengthen and all for
the common good.
But sadly, we are about to witness more of what we have had to endure since the day after Obama was elected President of the United States when Senator Mitch McConnel gathered the members of the Republican Congress together and told them they will vote No from that day forward to everything Obama puts forth for passage.
And why, when the media discusses how Congress continues to "not get along," they NEVER mention, and especially during the debates on either side, that this "not getting along," is the direct result of the obstructionist stance the Republican Congress adopted almost SEVEN years ago. For SEVEN YEARS this has been going and nowhere has the media even attempted to discuss what Senator Mitch McConnell DIRECTED the members of the Republican Congress to do.
Will someone please put this out there. Hillary, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
8
Antonin Gregory Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in Trenton, to Salvatore Scalia and the former Catherine Panaro. He was their only child and was showered with attention from his parents and their siblings, none of whom had children of their own.
Instead of being named ANTONIO he was Antonin or Antonino, diminutive of Antonio. He was a brilliant mind but he kept being ANTONINO all his life,
being a contrarian and wanting always the spotlight.
I thought Antonin was not really his name, now I realize he was a brilliant mind in the body of a spoiled child,with his temper tantrums that were mistaken with brilliancy by many of his peers but showed me his real personality.
Instead of being named ANTONIO he was Antonin or Antonino, diminutive of Antonio. He was a brilliant mind but he kept being ANTONINO all his life,
being a contrarian and wanting always the spotlight.
I thought Antonin was not really his name, now I realize he was a brilliant mind in the body of a spoiled child,with his temper tantrums that were mistaken with brilliancy by many of his peers but showed me his real personality.
4
John Bolton must be holding some pretty sick fantasy team cards. Slow down crazy man. We just got the news; your mailing must delay at least one day.
2
Justice Scalia failed to understand that the Constitution is really two documents: an architectural one which forms the structure of the government and the relationship between the branches and sets out their respective duties and powers; and an aspirational one which sets out principles that call upon human understanding, which is something that adapts to the world and circumstances and discoveries unknown to the founding generations -- liberty, equal rights, due process, speech, the common defense, etc. It is the adaptability of that dual natured document and its people that allows us to live under this structure for 200 years and counting. While in other nations of the world the strait-jacket notions written into their constitutions explains why those nations and constitutions do not last over time.
3
You mean the Republicans want Bernie to name Scalia's replacement?
I have a suggestion: Anita Hill.
I have a suggestion: Anita Hill.
14
Feel the Bern, Justice Thomas!!!!
Please, President Obama, pick someone who is a closer reflection of America than Justice Scalia was.
And a lot younger, too.
7
Nominate HRC for the Court.
3
Good grief. Would we really want so influential a position filled by such a grifter?
5
Terrifying...
3
Yes...
1. Takes (some) big money out of politics
2. Cements a Clinton legacy (satisfying many)
3. Gives the Republican controlled senate a difficult choice
All in all, good theater.
1. Takes (some) big money out of politics
2. Cements a Clinton legacy (satisfying many)
3. Gives the Republican controlled senate a difficult choice
All in all, good theater.
Unfortunately Scalia's death will reshape the election landscape and theme from economics/income inequalities to cultural/rights battles. Thus it'll be Cruz and Hillary in the general election- hate to admit this as Sander supporter, Cruz will become the accidental President due to unexpected and passioned poltical surge from conservatives/evangelicals. Of course Cruz is all about Wall street/corporate interests- doesn't bode well for the country and world.
1
Heckuva Job Nino!
1
He didn't abuse constitutional interpretation by making it up as he went along. He stuck to the text, but he looked at it in its totality to interpret its meaning. A judge shouldn't legislate from the bench. That's the job of another branch of government. Scalia realized that, where most Justices don't.
3
Robert F.:
A judge shouldn't legislate from the bench.
*****
Unfortunately, the left would like nothing better. It is consistent with their belief that Americans are rubes and shouldn't be allowed to interfere with their agenda.
A judge shouldn't legislate from the bench.
*****
Unfortunately, the left would like nothing better. It is consistent with their belief that Americans are rubes and shouldn't be allowed to interfere with their agenda.
2
I did not agree with Justice ScalIa's view that the Constitution was not a fluid document. But I am appalled with the way in which his passing has not been treated as it should be. He filled an important role in our government, and his passing should be treated properly, with dignity and compassion for his family. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for making his passing just another political football with which to beat up each other and the President!
2
My condolences to the Justice's family. While I rarely agreed with his opinions, nevertheless he was a fellow human and his passing should be properly noted with respect.
Having said that, I was appalled at the behavior of the conservative wing, who started debating his successor from the moment his death was announced, like a bunch of family members greedy to get their hands on the estate. And this from his supposed admirers. I don't have a lot of expectations for the current lot of Republican candidates, but last night's debate reminded me more of a professional wrestling performance than any civilized discussion of issues, even from the moment of silence at the start.
Having said that, I was appalled at the behavior of the conservative wing, who started debating his successor from the moment his death was announced, like a bunch of family members greedy to get their hands on the estate. And this from his supposed admirers. I don't have a lot of expectations for the current lot of Republican candidates, but last night's debate reminded me more of a professional wrestling performance than any civilized discussion of issues, even from the moment of silence at the start.
4
With Scalia dead, it'll be tough for another Bush to be appointed President.
10
The "rebirth" which Scalia championed is now gone, as is Scalia. Now the battle begins........
Perhaps this is the death of "Original Intent"
2
It is interesting to read comments on how the media is unfair about painting Justice Scalia as a racist. Many fail to realize to whom and by whom the invectives were directed. Justice Scalia was in a position of power; a member of the very same institutions which historically oppressed minorities. It behooves those in positions of power to be careful about what they say and do to others.
2
If the Republican senate holds to its promise to stonewall any Obama nominee for SCOTUS, the other eight justices may as well go on a yearlong vacation because most decisions will end in a 4-4 draw. This is outrageous. Had a liberal minded justice died during W's last year in office, Republicans would have certainly cried foul had the Democratic led senate stonewalled any nomination. Going a full year with a partial SCOTUS is deplorable.
3
I was able to take part in two small group discussions with him. Regardless of how incisive his arguments may have sounded, he was a bigot.
9
Judge Scalia made two of the worst decisions that any supreme court has ever made. He took the unprecedent step of going in on a Saturday and without consulting any of his other judges stopped a recount in Florida. He knew that Gore would win and then we would have rightfully had two liberal judges appointed. With Gore we would have had no Iraq war and the horrible mess in the Middle East. With Gore we would be further along in protecting the earth and the environment. Sandra Day O'Connor said she made a bad mistake and if she had to do it over again, she would not have voted to stop the recount. Scalia also pushed and voted for with his Bush appointees allowed Citizens United which is killing our democracy. He has also voted to disenfranchised many minorities. Not a stellar record and will be viewed by history as a bad judge.
6
Maybe Thomas will change his eating habits if not his politics. How constant is this devotee? Gandhi changed his mind about science when his wife passed.
1
Dear Republicans: All Americans share in the loss when a Supreme Court Justice passes, and Antonine Scalia's death is no exception. However, it is vitally important for the Republic of these United States to follow the dictates of our Constitution so thoughtfully laid out by our forefathers by nominating (and quickly vetting) a replacement justice as soon as possible. While it may seem untimely and unfair for such a procedural necessity, it is a strict interpretation of that very Constitution. Now, if you don't like to follow that Constitutional mandate, we have but one thing to say to you: GET OVER IT!
4
I don't understand how someone who ignores the "well regulated militia" clause of the Second Amendment can be considered an originalist.
7
My kind thoughts and condolences to the family. This is a loss and a challenge for both DEMS and GOP. The GOP debate last night shows the reflection of no logical effort of decorum. They were all hot heads. Where is the leadership going to come from in cases of humanness when death comes to one of our schlors in government? Will Obama be able to pick a replacement fo Scalia that the GOP will accept, or will their side of ugly responses get in the way. If the GOP picks a replacement if they get in, it could be almost two years without a replacement. Let's get on with it.
3
The body isn't even cold yet. Maybe we can bury him before we begin to fight political battles.
4
What if Joe Biden were nominated? He's been thoroughly vetted, and is only moderately progressive (that is, he's not regressive). By what logic could Repubs fail to confirm him?
3
Since when have Republicans have used "logic" to confirm anythhing?
1
A possible 'solution' to the dilemma of the stalemate that is likely to occur would be if Ginsburg were to offer to step down. Obama could then offer to nominate one steadfast liberal and one genuine moderate. This would change the court to a 4/4/1 court instead of the 5/4 it is now or the 4/5 it would become if Scalia is replaced by a liberal justice.
It is 'unfair' to expect Obama to wait out the confirmation or wait until the next presidency because if a Republican were to take the office, the court would likely either stay 5/4, or more likely, 6/3 if Ginsburg at 84 years old were to vacate the bench during the next president's tenure.
A 4/4/1 ideological split would be a reasonable compromise for the Republicans and might actually be the best thing for the country if cases were decided on merit rather than pre-existing ideological stances. Is it 'fair' to Democrats? I believe it is because A) the president would be unlikely to get a nominee confirmed with this obstructionist congress where they have been ready to shut down the government for far less, B) It would still be a better position than today. And C) Kennedy and Breyer (at ages 79 and 77 respectively) could still change the makeup of the court if they were to vacate their seats.
It is 'unfair' to expect Obama to wait out the confirmation or wait until the next presidency because if a Republican were to take the office, the court would likely either stay 5/4, or more likely, 6/3 if Ginsburg at 84 years old were to vacate the bench during the next president's tenure.
A 4/4/1 ideological split would be a reasonable compromise for the Republicans and might actually be the best thing for the country if cases were decided on merit rather than pre-existing ideological stances. Is it 'fair' to Democrats? I believe it is because A) the president would be unlikely to get a nominee confirmed with this obstructionist congress where they have been ready to shut down the government for far less, B) It would still be a better position than today. And C) Kennedy and Breyer (at ages 79 and 77 respectively) could still change the makeup of the court if they were to vacate their seats.
Why should she step down? When the republicans got to nominate the justices Roberts and Alito, there was no suggestion of this kind of horse-trading. Obama has the right as President to nominate a justice, and he should be allowed to do just that. To the democrats who are so lily-livered to suggest that we need to acquiesce, stop it! That's why we're in such as mess--Citizen's United, Hobby Lobby-now!
4
@MD Anderson00
re "It is incredible that within hours of Scalia's death the Republicans have come up with such an anti-democratic response"
Hardly. The GOP continues to level a torrent of insults, disrespect, and paralyzing antipathy that eclipses what any president in living memory has had to put up with. Indeed not since the 19th century has a president met with a less cooperative, less civilized, less mature opposition ... quite literally a bunch of gleeful stalwart obstructionists holding court whose sole aim is to thwart Obama's governance with political impunity because their gerrymandered seats are safe.
re "It is incredible that within hours of Scalia's death the Republicans have come up with such an anti-democratic response"
Hardly. The GOP continues to level a torrent of insults, disrespect, and paralyzing antipathy that eclipses what any president in living memory has had to put up with. Indeed not since the 19th century has a president met with a less cooperative, less civilized, less mature opposition ... quite literally a bunch of gleeful stalwart obstructionists holding court whose sole aim is to thwart Obama's governance with political impunity because their gerrymandered seats are safe.
3
In fairness that was a debate question brought on by the moderators.
1
Republican leaders like McConnell have made a Machiavellian bet in calling for the President to defer nomination to the next president. In doing so I think they are really trying to force his hand into nominating someone more in the center. They know their odds at winning the presidency this fall are in their favor and if a Democrat wins the White House in the fall, they are sure to face a nominee far more liberal than what they will get with President Obama.
1
79 is a bit young these days. Big question is will Obama tilt our country to irreversible (almost there) euro/ Marxist leading views,as his world order views have left an al most irreversible result of human harm.
2
Most advancements in aging come from adopting wiser life style choices. Scalia was ready to go or he would have curbed is enthusiasim for beef.
euro/Marxist views? Really?
3
Human harm? Euro Marxist? Sounds more like those are the expressions of a lunatic not of reality, human or euro. Congratulations, you win the minute trophy for the stup... American. I suppose this is what Trump refers to as winning!
2
Justice Scalia had no guiding judicial philosophy other than his own political agenda. No case better epitomizes this than Bush v. Gore, his "one ticket to ride" opinion. In defense of that outrageous opinion, he said "get over it".
America would be a much better place had he never served on the Court.
America would be a much better place had he never served on the Court.
12
The notion of "originalism" was (and is) nothing more than a fig-leaf - an utterly specious subterfuge that Scalia used to rationalize the imposition of his personal, unabashedly religious and radically reactionary views on the rest of us. He railed against Roe v. Wade on the grounds that the right to an abortion is never mentioned in the constitution. Yet Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights specifically states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That's why it's legal to drive a car, despite the fact that the automobile is never mentioned in the Constitution either. Conversely, Scalia's preposterous decision in D.C. v. Heller is a baldfaced repudiation of the principle of "original intent." Considering that firearms in the late 18th c. consisted of hand-loaded, single-shot muskets, an authentically originalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment would have validated a right to bear hand-loaded, single-shot muskets and only, as the amendment specifically states, within the context of "a well-regulated militia." And again, in Citizens United, Scalia conferred personhood on corporations - an innovation, not an interpretation.
Whenever anyone of enormous stature passes away there is a rush to lionize and forgive. But Scalia was not a great jurist who respected the constitution. He was a radical ideologue who twisted its words in order to advance his political agenda.
Whenever anyone of enormous stature passes away there is a rush to lionize and forgive. But Scalia was not a great jurist who respected the constitution. He was a radical ideologue who twisted its words in order to advance his political agenda.
20
I feel as if I need to apologize for President Obama, the media, and those who engaged in the discussion regarding the replacement of Supreme Court Justice Scalia during this time of mourning. May his family know that the American people are praying for you and are proud that such a great man represented our country. God's Blessings and Peace.
President Obama is not the one who brought up the politics. The Right Wing did. President Obama had an obligation to stop the speculation by stating that he would nominate a successor, and that this is the Constitutional thing to do.
I feel as if *I* need to apologize for your apologizing for President Obama. Clearly, he can do no right in some people's eyes.
I feel as if *I* need to apologize for your apologizing for President Obama. Clearly, he can do no right in some people's eyes.
6
"Any man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind." Antonin Scalia is no exception; the planet is diminished.
But I am grateful that the is no longer on the Court. I would have preferred he'd retired, and lived a long life hunting and appreciating opera.
But I am grateful that the is no longer on the Court. I would have preferred he'd retired, and lived a long life hunting and appreciating opera.
4
Far from being one of the great justices of the United States Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia was the Lysenko of American jurisprudence. His "originalism" and "texturalism" is a sham. Only one example: there is NO mention of an American's right to possess handguns for personal protection in the 2nd Amendment nor anywhere else in the US Constitution.
9
Let's hope this brings forth a new form of conservative thinking rather than the conservative dogma he espoused.
1
It is truly unfortunate that the unexpected, sudden death of Antonin Scalia must immediately send politicians and commentators into a "replacement" frenzy!!
Justice Scalia's passing deserves to be treated with the respect due for his service to our country, whether you agree with him or not.
It is time we insisted that leaders and the media behave with some sense of dignity.
Justice Scalia's passing deserves to be treated with the respect due for his service to our country, whether you agree with him or not.
It is time we insisted that leaders and the media behave with some sense of dignity.
Dignity. Personally I don't see how the current political climate could behave with dignity.
2
This was not true when he ignored the context and wording of the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as well as historians saying the amendment was a compromise added to avoid a military coup from a standing army. It certainly never authorized assault weapons.
6
Did you mean to assert that that Scalia was wrong not to ignore the wording of the Second Amendment? It says the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It true that many people think the amendment is obsolete because we no longer need militias, but Supreme Court justices lack the power to declare portions of the Constitution obsolete; that is what the amendment process is for.
1
kathryn:
He didn't ignore it. He interpreted it differently. It helps to understand the difference.
Yes, William Case. It's fascinating how many act as though there isn't an amendment process. They must know deep down that their amendment process would fail. So much easier to thwart the voters by "legislating from the bench" or even from the White House, for that matter.
He didn't ignore it. He interpreted it differently. It helps to understand the difference.
Yes, William Case. It's fascinating how many act as though there isn't an amendment process. They must know deep down that their amendment process would fail. So much easier to thwart the voters by "legislating from the bench" or even from the White House, for that matter.
1
Conservative assault on law, legal principles, legal precedent, our Constitution, basic decency....sure. But a "rebirth" connotes something positive. Our Supreme Court USED TO be the court jurists from around the world studied to see haw a court is supposed to operate. The conservatives have reversed that. Now no one studies our court except as an example of what not to do. Scalia and the conservatives turned our court into an international punchline, just as the Republican primaies are doing to our electoral system. President Obama or President Clinton will have the opportunity to start reversing the horrible trend of partisan extremists legislating from the bench, as scalia and the conservative block have doing for years now.
4
I always had the feeling he would take his "original meanings" right back to witch trials and scarlet letters. Proper little Inquisitor General focused on indoctrination. No friend to women.
5
This report is wrong. he was not a conservative who believed in following the letter of the Constitution. He was a liberal, who believed in not following the Constitution, but rather following his church -- the Catholic Church. He believed the religious beliefs of state legislators should supersede the clear dictates of the Equal Protection Clause. So this NYTimes report by Adma Liptak is inaccurate.
1
Pres Obama should nominate a white WASP woman, who will be willing to be eviscerated to Republicans. And whose evisceration can bring sympathy votes for the Democratic nominee. Srinivasan, Lynch, Watford etc. will not serve this purpose. Millett can. And if the nomination goes through, we'll still have a very well-qualified nominee.
2
Why is no one reporting on cause of death?
3
I was never a fan of Justic Scalia, disagree with him ideologically, politically and personally in matters of faith and life.
That said, I am taken aback that not even 24 hours after his death is announced, we are already full-force, mounted on horseback, galloping to the NEXT justice. It is utterly insensitive to his family, indecent and immature.
Why can we not let time pass before this circus, and honor the dead? SF
That said, I am taken aback that not even 24 hours after his death is announced, we are already full-force, mounted on horseback, galloping to the NEXT justice. It is utterly insensitive to his family, indecent and immature.
Why can we not let time pass before this circus, and honor the dead? SF
5
"It is utterly insensitive to his family, indecent and immature."
In my words it is exactly fitting to a man who was all of that in your face with it and dared you to say something about how much he enjoyed it with the fully implied threat that he would use his position and friends to punish you if you did.
In my words it is exactly fitting to a man who was all of that in your face with it and dared you to say something about how much he enjoyed it with the fully implied threat that he would use his position and friends to punish you if you did.
1
Unless you are talking about Hitler, Stalin or Mao, the dead deserve to be honored.
I stand by my statement. Anything otherwise is just self-indulgent nastiness. You have lost the run of yourself, sir.
There are no pockets in a burial stole in which to put money, gold or treasure; or in your case, nastiness and grudges. SF
I stand by my statement. Anything otherwise is just self-indulgent nastiness. You have lost the run of yourself, sir.
There are no pockets in a burial stole in which to put money, gold or treasure; or in your case, nastiness and grudges. SF
1
Because the Court is in session, has cases to hear and provide opinion on, and with the current political split, those cases will be hung. Does that help?
1
What would Shakespeare have made of this fellow? A cross between Woolsey and Cromwell? Not Oliver, sillies. A King Maker made into dust, and so goes it with all of us.
2
Serving corporate interests is not a Christian principle.
That is the concept Mr Scalia never quite understood.
That is the concept Mr Scalia never quite understood.
12
During his first campaign George W. Bush often remarked that he would nominate judges for the SCOTUS who didn't legislate from the bench. Given his position, I assume he would never have nominated Scalia, who so often behaved like a legislator rather than a jurist.
6
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM Scalia will be remembered for many things. The first among is seeking the "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution. He clearly excluded the content of correspondence among them where it was clearly stated that it was the intent of the framers that the Constitution be interpreted. Jefferson even wrote that it should be completely rewritten every 19 years. Scalia will be remembered as a political judicial activist who legislated from the bench. His ridiculing of others during oral arguments was evidence of his disdain for he opinions of others. Scalia took his job as a laughing matter, as evidenced by his incessant sarcasm and verbal bullying during pleadings and elsewhere. His disdain was most clearly shown when he gave the appearance of impropriety going duck hunting with Cheyney Scalia was expert at trivializing the thoughts and needs of others while justifying himself with distorted interpretations that he "clarified" sometimes in excrutiating detail. It would be easy for any president to select someone with more civil deportment and judicial temper than Scalia. The suffering and tragedy of the millions of martyrs killed unnecessarily by to easy access of guns and his clearly being an instrument of the NRA from the bench will be his most destructive legacy in the form of more than 33,000 yearly deaths and more than 60,000 injuries inflicted by firearms. I am very happy that Obama will appoint another justice to the Supreme Court.
5
Arrivederci Justice Antonin Scalia. Molte Grazie for your 3 decades of service on the US supreme court. It is now not the time to judge you or your contribution but to honor you for your contribution to the nation. RIP
If the republicans stall, then Hillary should appoint Michele Obama to the court. More women and more blacks are needed on that court.
My mother said I should not speak ill of the dead. That said, Scalia was a terrible SCOTUS justice.
His belief that he should be able to include his religious convictions in discussion of DOMA case was absurd. His ruling in Citizens United must be overturned as soon as a new justice can be appointed to SCOTUS …in reality Obama wil have difficulty appointing a judge approved by Congress (perhaps even unlikely since they'll likely wait until after the POTUS election).
Rarely has there been a SCOTUS judge whose dissenting or ruling opinions I have so often disagreed with vehemently. I wish him the best in his reincarnation as whatever he has in front of him. St Peter, in accordance his personal religious belief, may well ask him many tough questions.
Condolence sto his family and friends.
His belief that he should be able to include his religious convictions in discussion of DOMA case was absurd. His ruling in Citizens United must be overturned as soon as a new justice can be appointed to SCOTUS …in reality Obama wil have difficulty appointing a judge approved by Congress (perhaps even unlikely since they'll likely wait until after the POTUS election).
Rarely has there been a SCOTUS judge whose dissenting or ruling opinions I have so often disagreed with vehemently. I wish him the best in his reincarnation as whatever he has in front of him. St Peter, in accordance his personal religious belief, may well ask him many tough questions.
Condolence sto his family and friends.
2
Supreme court needs reform.
The human who will live to be 150 years is already born. Someone over 100 making a decision that impacts 20 years old has no idea how the world has changed.
The other issue is that the supreme court is an extension of politics, not justice.
The human who will live to be 150 years is already born. Someone over 100 making a decision that impacts 20 years old has no idea how the world has changed.
The other issue is that the supreme court is an extension of politics, not justice.
5
Scalia's most influential opinion was Bush v Gore
8
RIP. He relished his role as a well-versed thorn in the side of his critics, and he sparred better than most. I disagreed with him often, but loved reading his work. Sincerest sympathy to the love of his life, his wife Maureen, with whom he raised a remarkable family, his greatest contribution to our nation. Too much in the news about who will replace and who will nominate that person. Let's pause and take some time to mourn an impressive jurist, a devout Catholic father and husband, and a contributor to the national debate on many an issue. God bless him, his wife, his family, and his colleagues who will surely all miss him dearly. RIP
1
A great man, whose critics will never appreciate his many talents.
1
I have no grief for a man who lead the Supreme Court to sell out our democracy, first in Bush vs. Gore (I won't get over it, Mr. Scalia, because it was the death knell of democracy) and later in Citizens United and other decisions.
You want to know what's wrong with America? It's the Supreme Court we've had for the last many years. What was once our greatest achievement became our greatest shame.
You want to know what's wrong with America? It's the Supreme Court we've had for the last many years. What was once our greatest achievement became our greatest shame.
4
RIP, Mr. Justice. May your successor be more modest.
5
Who will Clarence Thomas now turn to to tell how he should vote?
DD
NYC
DD
NYC
6
When a Democrat is elected President all Republican members of Congress should just be given leave until the next GOP Prez is elected. That way they and their wives and kids can get a job on K Street or Wall Street right away rather than having to wait and fake it while pretending to represent the majority of the American people who elected a Democrat. Granted, it will cut-down on their main work in Congress of re-naming post offices after Ronald Reagan and voting to abolish Obamacare.
7
I went to law school at a liberal institution. Was a fairly good fit for me, since I lean that way too.
But, in reading cases from Scalia, I couldn't help but be impressed with his intellect. Amazing works of logic -- if not "compassion."
[I have undergraduate degrees in engineering and economics -- so, I hope I recognize good logic when it's there.]
Got into heated discussions with my classmates over this, many times.
RIP you brilliant man. May you find more compassion in your next life.
But, in reading cases from Scalia, I couldn't help but be impressed with his intellect. Amazing works of logic -- if not "compassion."
[I have undergraduate degrees in engineering and economics -- so, I hope I recognize good logic when it's there.]
Got into heated discussions with my classmates over this, many times.
RIP you brilliant man. May you find more compassion in your next life.
1
There are many components to intelligence, compassion and empathy being two large requirements, in my opinion. Another factor necessary for intelligence is vision: the ability to see a larger picture than just what one's own narrow experience provides a lens for. Logic, without the above factors, is simply "if a equals b and b equals c, then a equals c." That's not brilliance. It's just one step above rote.
1
Scalia polarized, radicalized and republicanized the Court.
He added to the fracturing of our country.
Lets honor him by remembering him as the only One of a Kind.
He added to the fracturing of our country.
Lets honor him by remembering him as the only One of a Kind.
7
As a Lesbian, I resent the media's painting Scalia as an intellectual giant. The man was a bigoted dinosaur. As Maureen Dowd wrote in the NYTimes in 2009: "He's so Old School, he's Old Testament, misty over the era when military institutes did not have to accept women, when elite schools did not have to make special efforts with blacks, when a gay couple in their own bedroom could be clapped in irons, when women were packed off to Our Lady of Perpetual Abstinence Home for Unwed Mothers. He relishes eternal principles, like helping a son of the establishment dispense with the messiness of a presidential vote count... Antonin Scalia is Archie Bunker in a high-backed chair... The court issued a bracing 6-to-3 decision declaring it illegitimate to punish people for who they are, and Justice Scalia fulminated...In his dissent to the decision striking down a Texas sodomy law and declaring that gays are "entitled to respect for their private lives," Justice Scalia raved that the court had "largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda" and predicted a "massive disruption of the current social order." " In keeping with their obstructionist agenda, Republicans are now averring that Scalia's replacement should be held up until "the people" have decided the election". Please. The people (as opposed the the just prior election decided by the conservative Court) decided in 2008 and again in 2012 and the President they chose will be nominating the replacement.
18
My condolences to his wife and family. Certainly Justice Scalia was a patriot and was devoted to the rule of law.
The public does not know the time demands that lawyers and judges devote to the law. People may disagree with the Supreme Court's decisions, but the Justices work morning until late night nearly every day of the week, with little time for anything else.
Many of us believe that the Constitution is what the document mean now, not only what it meant then, when it was written. It is no longer the 18th century. The world has changed, new realities and new facts exist that were not considered nor decided at the Convention.
The public does not know the time demands that lawyers and judges devote to the law. People may disagree with the Supreme Court's decisions, but the Justices work morning until late night nearly every day of the week, with little time for anything else.
Many of us believe that the Constitution is what the document mean now, not only what it meant then, when it was written. It is no longer the 18th century. The world has changed, new realities and new facts exist that were not considered nor decided at the Convention.
"He said his large family influenced his legal philosophy." Causation is twisted in that stand-alone sentence. Scalia's tribalism, expressed in his religion, resulted not only in that large family but also his non-sensical legal philosophy, viz. originalism. The ultimate causation for the tribalism is eusocial evolution. Scarily, Scalia would never have entertained such logic and evidence. Just recently, he told impressionable high-school graduates that "Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so." (http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/06/19/415701069/justice-scalia-and....
God bless Scalia as the victims of his decisions are unlikely to forgive him. Hopefully, the poison of his decisions will not live on.
God bless Scalia as the victims of his decisions are unlikely to forgive him. Hopefully, the poison of his decisions will not live on.
7
Justice Scalia with his concept of originalism, leaning toward 18th century ideas changed the court's direction toward the states. This appealed to the states that wanted more power especially conservative power. As a result we have states saying more often that they cab challenge federal constructs.Thus states rights have had more play since his term on the court. The list of conservative thought which is: small government, giving states more self control, narrowly constructed decisions avoiding legislating from the bench must make southerners very happy. He talked a lot about 18th century ideas downgrading the scholarship of the founding fathers. Yes. he was brilliant if redefining decisions and denigrating that the founding fathers wanted a living constitution that was not hampered by the dead hand of the past.
1
In a sea of negative comments, I'm going to give Justice Scalia a chance to speak:
Scalia on Human Rights:
'He (President Eisenhower) used to say: I'm a conservative in matters of economic rights but a liberal in matters of human rights. And that always struck me funny. What is economics for? Monkeys? I had always thought that the science of economics pertains to human needs and desires and wants and capacities. That's my only comment on human rights ....
Some legal commentators, I suppose, divide constitutional rights into economic rights and human rights and non-constitutional rights into economic rights. I don't think that's valid. think that the right to property for example is a human right, not a monkey right."
New York Times: Standing up for one’s opinions, Justice Scalia said in a 2010 opinion, is a mark of laudable “civil courage.”
Scalia on Human Rights:
'He (President Eisenhower) used to say: I'm a conservative in matters of economic rights but a liberal in matters of human rights. And that always struck me funny. What is economics for? Monkeys? I had always thought that the science of economics pertains to human needs and desires and wants and capacities. That's my only comment on human rights ....
Some legal commentators, I suppose, divide constitutional rights into economic rights and human rights and non-constitutional rights into economic rights. I don't think that's valid. think that the right to property for example is a human right, not a monkey right."
New York Times: Standing up for one’s opinions, Justice Scalia said in a 2010 opinion, is a mark of laudable “civil courage.”
Either hated or loved... but not forgotten.
RIP Justice Antonin Scalia
RIP Justice Antonin Scalia
Here's hoping the president nominates someone with the most extreme positions possible. That will surely galvanize the republican electorate ensuring a large republican turnout for the election. In addition the Senate would have every reason not to give assent.
So the Times in its infinite wisdom is only allowing readers comments on a couple of pieces. Basically addressing one topic when there are many separate issues rating discussion as the two dozen Times articles and columns suggest.
This is the most important historic event in American politics to occur in decades and we readers are shut out.
The man was given great power, an opportunity to shape history and he chose to denigrate it with his petty and parsimonious character where he felt free to deny others what he so easily enjoyed. All this warm smoke being blown is making me cringe and retch.
History will put the garbage spouted by the likes of Ross Douthat and others to rest. Scalia was a small man in the stature of his character with a little heart and mind.
This reminds me of the old saw; If we can't speak ill of the dead who can we speak ill of?
Sorry Liptak but your opening paragraph just won't fly; Justice Antonin Scalia, whose transformative legal theories, vivid writing and outsize personality made him a leader of a conservative intellectual renaissance in his three decades on the Supreme Court.
Somehow three decades of GOP driven backsliding driven by an anti intellectual, anti information retrograde social movement is an intellectual renaissance. I guess you guys feel obligated to provide some fragrant prose but the facts are his term at the court was rank with hypocrisy.
And now the hypocrites want to put off the constitutionally required nomination.
This is the most important historic event in American politics to occur in decades and we readers are shut out.
The man was given great power, an opportunity to shape history and he chose to denigrate it with his petty and parsimonious character where he felt free to deny others what he so easily enjoyed. All this warm smoke being blown is making me cringe and retch.
History will put the garbage spouted by the likes of Ross Douthat and others to rest. Scalia was a small man in the stature of his character with a little heart and mind.
This reminds me of the old saw; If we can't speak ill of the dead who can we speak ill of?
Sorry Liptak but your opening paragraph just won't fly; Justice Antonin Scalia, whose transformative legal theories, vivid writing and outsize personality made him a leader of a conservative intellectual renaissance in his three decades on the Supreme Court.
Somehow three decades of GOP driven backsliding driven by an anti intellectual, anti information retrograde social movement is an intellectual renaissance. I guess you guys feel obligated to provide some fragrant prose but the facts are his term at the court was rank with hypocrisy.
And now the hypocrites want to put off the constitutionally required nomination.
9
The selection of the next Supreme Court justice is such a contentious issue because so many people wish the Constitution said things it doesn’t say or wish that it did not say things that it does says. One thing that seems clear—at least to me—is that the men who wrote and signed the Constitution did not mean it to be “reinterpreted” to accommodate a changing world or intend future generations to argue that the Constitution contains “implicit rights.” They intended future generations to amend the Constitution as they think necessary. This is why they incorporated the amendment process into the Constitution. If they had assumed all future constitutional issues could resolve by divining original intent or intuiting implied intent, they would not have provided an amendment process We should convene a constitutional convention to amend and clarify the Constitution.
2
Not having any respect for Scalia. He was highly partisan and self righteous. The constitutional doctrine of following the founders desires this strict constructionism strikes me as intellectually dubious. A small slave republic run by rich male landowners does not strike me as a fount of wisdom. It seems the Supreme Court was angling to over turn the coal burning aspects of the recent international green house gases treaty. Citizens United is a ridicules travesty allowing rich individuals and corporations to unfairly influence elections. It would be nice if one could just get over the wrong inappropriate partisan intervention of the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.
6
This country has been mislead into ruin for decades. Time for a change. Obama needs to enlist the support of the people and fight his hardest to appoint the next judge before he leaves office.
7
Republicans, especially Ted Cruz, are absolutely stunned that their stacked Supreme Court just lost their chief enforcer. The rest of us - not so much. Go For It, President Obama. WE have your back!
12
Yes, Justice Scalia was brilliant, a great 'Originalnist' of the Constitution, ascerbic humorist but he also lead the Conservative Activism in the Supreme Court. No two ways about that. Very partisan? Of course !!
1
Of course the 4 judges who always vote the straight liberal line are not partisan.
They absolutely are. But we hope more compassionately and with a better eye toward a diverse electorate that is broader than white catholic men.
1
Nothing like the death of a prominent conservative to expose a lot of progressives genuflecting to their own points of view.
2
I will not bow to your departed conqueroo, I got my own.
Of course the Republicans will do all in their to prevent confirmation of an Obama nomination. Without Scalia's vote their extremist agenda has no hope of succeeding.
5
Nine children lost a father yesterday. Thirty three (gosh) grandchildren lost a grandfather. And Mrs. Scalia can only receive our deepest condolences on her loss as can the rest of the Scalia family.
But the conservatives did not hesitate to politicize Justice Scalia's unfortunate demise, so I will say that they can block a President Obama appointment for as long as they like and face 4-4 deadlocks that hold for the lower court’s decision until February 2017. Then President Clinton can appoint a qualified nominee and the Democratic majority in the Senate can affirm them.
But the conservatives did not hesitate to politicize Justice Scalia's unfortunate demise, so I will say that they can block a President Obama appointment for as long as they like and face 4-4 deadlocks that hold for the lower court’s decision until February 2017. Then President Clinton can appoint a qualified nominee and the Democratic majority in the Senate can affirm them.
10
Above all else, Scalia was a right wing ideologue who employed his "originalism" when it suited his political purposes and who employed the most partisan kind of judicial activism when it didn't. To corporations, to the rich generally, and to those whites who feel threatened in these changing times, he was a champion. To those of us who seek liberty and justice for all, his work on the Supreme Court damaged our great nation a great deal.
Still, he was a human being who achieved his high position by fair means. R.I.P.
Still, he was a human being who achieved his high position by fair means. R.I.P.
2
Who will now coax Clarence Thomas into talking?
5
My choice would be for President Obama to choose a non catholic who is not a Harvard or Yale alumni. We need to have a justice who is more representative of the common people rather than the elite. Many very smart people are graduates of excellent universities from the other 48 states as well as of a less stringent religious viewpoint.
3
As with all justices, the philosophical, constitutional and religious bias they bring to court are subject to observation, and since they are not answerable to the People, acquiescence.
However, I suggest that one measure of Scalia is, who more than him would you rather have in a foxhole with you.
However, I suggest that one measure of Scalia is, who more than him would you rather have in a foxhole with you.
OMG, I just had a horrible thought...Donald Trump's gonna dump all over this. I worried we might be less than kind, but that guy will grind his organ until the monkeys come home.
I do wish the times would allow no word in comments that it would not allow for comments had it been Justice Sotomayor who died. "Fascist", a word that I see used by green checkmarker Tim Kane, would certainly not be allowed for Sotomayor, and it is not true of either.
2
Hay, they stuffed the Albright alrights as soon as they had enough of them. I was left wanting to ask why they won't let the women work it out together, but no chance. They shut the chat down before sunrise in the West.
You know, Mori would also have preferred silence about his mafia connections, but once he made them, they made him leave the building, Sicily.
While many people in our nation may be mourning the passing of Justice Scalia and conveying their condolences to the Scalia family and his colleagues, it goes beyond the lack of human decency from many people's comments.
By their expressing their disdain for Justice Scalia and his career only speaks of his effectiveness being a leading jurist on the court.
By their expressing their disdain for Justice Scalia and his career only speaks of his effectiveness being a leading jurist on the court.
Certainly condolences to the family. If the American public is truly disgusted with the way politics are done in this country then Justice Scalia should be replaced with someone more moderate and a Democrat should be elected President. We have a chance to overturn Citiizens United.
5
Average life expectancy in US when the Constitution was written was 35 years, now it's over twice as high, in fact nearely matching the age Justice Scalia has died at - 79 years. And there is no way to tell, how long a life could be sustained in the future.
Lifetime appointments are just to long and arbitrary in duration. Yes, we need checks and balances, but we also need democratic control. And we should give up the idea of entirely non-partisan judiciary, since that doesn't appear to be possible regardless of justice's own professional principles (as some partisan and unprincipled decisions by Justice Scalia, and other Justices, repeatedly shown)
A more reasonable but still very lengthy terms of 12 to 16 years would be more appropriate for Supreme Court Justices in the modern, fast changing world. And this would not create such panic and dread on both sides of the aisle, which may precipitate to a constitutional crisis. Since the idea of constitutionally powerful justices serving 30-40 years or more, reaching 2050s and beyond seems mindboggling.
So perhaps Republicans would agree to nominate Obama choice in exchange to changing the Constitution and introducing time limits on all Supreme Court Justices. That should markedly ease the tensions for everyone.
Lifetime appointments are just to long and arbitrary in duration. Yes, we need checks and balances, but we also need democratic control. And we should give up the idea of entirely non-partisan judiciary, since that doesn't appear to be possible regardless of justice's own professional principles (as some partisan and unprincipled decisions by Justice Scalia, and other Justices, repeatedly shown)
A more reasonable but still very lengthy terms of 12 to 16 years would be more appropriate for Supreme Court Justices in the modern, fast changing world. And this would not create such panic and dread on both sides of the aisle, which may precipitate to a constitutional crisis. Since the idea of constitutionally powerful justices serving 30-40 years or more, reaching 2050s and beyond seems mindboggling.
So perhaps Republicans would agree to nominate Obama choice in exchange to changing the Constitution and introducing time limits on all Supreme Court Justices. That should markedly ease the tensions for everyone.
2
Just heard a politico answer to Scalia's greatest contribution- guaranteeing gun rights. Wow! That's what this man is remembered for?!
4
Fitting then he should pass where they feted him.
Condolences to the family of Scalia at their time of loss and it is disturbing, yet not unexpected that the politics started even before he has been set to rest.
Obama should appoint a replacement and the Senate should vote.
If the candidates feel that the last term president should not perform his function, then perhaps they also feel that way about their Senate colleagues. By my estimation, if the Senators that are up for election were excluded from each party, their would be a majority of Democrats:
Rep: 54 sitting - 24 up for re-election/retiring => 30
Dem 46 sitting - 10 up for re-election/retiring => 34
Its going to get interesting!!!
Obama should appoint a replacement and the Senate should vote.
If the candidates feel that the last term president should not perform his function, then perhaps they also feel that way about their Senate colleagues. By my estimation, if the Senators that are up for election were excluded from each party, their would be a majority of Democrats:
Rep: 54 sitting - 24 up for re-election/retiring => 30
Dem 46 sitting - 10 up for re-election/retiring => 34
Its going to get interesting!!!
There is no way that Obama gets to pick Scalia's replacement. You can take to the bank. The well is poisoned and it was Obama and Harry Reid that poisoned it. Any "Recess appointment will be temporary if Obama tries that. Even Obama's lap dogs in the main stream media can't help him here.
A unique and original thinker who seemed most confounded that the Constitution did not provide nearly enough heaven on earth. His was more than simple impatience.
An only child. "He was their only child and was showered with attention from his parents and their siblings, none of whom had children of their own."
Then he had nine children, yet only eight colleagues at a time while serving on the Supreme Court. I think I understand his demeanor better, now.
My sincerest condolences to his family.
An only child. "He was their only child and was showered with attention from his parents and their siblings, none of whom had children of their own."
Then he had nine children, yet only eight colleagues at a time while serving on the Supreme Court. I think I understand his demeanor better, now.
My sincerest condolences to his family.
A great man who based all of his rulings on the Constitution, including all of its enumerated freedoms and restrictions on the role of government in the lives of Americans. The battle for his replacement will commence immediately. Watch for Obama to nominate the most left wing partisan he can find, and then sit back as the vetting process further polarizes left and right in this country and threatens to tear us apart. There is no middle ground with Obama, just as there is no negotiation with Congress. It is the obligation of Republicans and conservatives to fight as hard as they can to oppose the inevitable liberal nominee. The future of capitalism and freedom demand nothing less.
1
I think a day or two of respect is warranted for anyone, including Scalia. However, republicans care more about control than respect jumping on his successor process before rigor Morris set in. Mc Connell has shamelessly already said we should wait a year to appoint someone, in hopes a Republican can do this naming. He says that gives the people a chance to weigh in. What he forgets, and dishonest Scalia with this forgetting, is that the people did have a say. Our say elected Reagan for eight years and that led to a Scalia appointment. Our say elected Obama for eight years and that should lead to an appointment of his choosing. Waiting a year is a slap in the face to the courts, the Presidency, the people and the Constitution who Scalia though he served.
5
Perhaps President Obama should nominate himself. This would certainly place Republicans in a quandary.
3
That is pure genius! Cheney nominated himself, so theirs is precedent.
I'm totally down with this; let Joe pass to him up court! Got game?
No matter how brilliant a man he was, he was also a partisan hack. I hope he is finally at peace with himself and the world.
4
A lot of folks appeared to be really surprised when I wrote that Republcians have controlled that court since 1953, a total of 63 years. In fact, under Warren, there were five Justices that had been appointed by Eisenhower on the court.
The Justices were: Warren, Harlan, Brennan, Whitaker, and Potter. Byron was the "swing' vote,who voted against Roe and for the Georgia sodomy laws. , but for the civil rights laws. There were only three liberals; Goldberg, Fortas, and Marshall.
The Justices were: Warren, Harlan, Brennan, Whitaker, and Potter. Byron was the "swing' vote,who voted against Roe and for the Georgia sodomy laws. , but for the civil rights laws. There were only three liberals; Goldberg, Fortas, and Marshall.
Scalia wrote dissenting opinions for a reason. He was interesting, brilliant, and entertaining, but on the losing side in the decisions that mattered.
There is no uniform field theory of the US Supreme Court. It wasn't even until 1803 that it was decided that the court could declare a law unconstitutional. The first case under the Bill of Rights occurred fairly recently. The same holds for political litmus tests for appointing justices - some of the most conservative appointments have turned out to be among the most liberal justices.
As to the intent of the framers, the intent of the constitutional convention was to make minor changes to the Articles of Confederation. The framers, horrified by the direct democracy of state government slipped in a whole new constitution to try to keep the middling sort out of national government. The constitution was only ratified through political wheeling and dealing.
It is as impossible for modern men to understand the intentions and context of the 18th century men who framed the constitution as it would be for them to understand our modern world or to have anticipated how the laws they drafted would apply. I think it reasonable clear that the framers, men who in fact were revolutionaries, anticipated that the world would change and the law evolve.
As to the intent of the framers, the intent of the constitutional convention was to make minor changes to the Articles of Confederation. The framers, horrified by the direct democracy of state government slipped in a whole new constitution to try to keep the middling sort out of national government. The constitution was only ratified through political wheeling and dealing.
It is as impossible for modern men to understand the intentions and context of the 18th century men who framed the constitution as it would be for them to understand our modern world or to have anticipated how the laws they drafted would apply. I think it reasonable clear that the framers, men who in fact were revolutionaries, anticipated that the world would change and the law evolve.
1
Article two, states the President shall appoint Supreme Court Justices.
There is nothing about time, nothing about lame duck Presidents, or any other qualifiers.
If you believe in the actual Constitution, which the Republicans claim to, why would you try to bully him into not making his appointment?
Could they be hypocrites?
There is nothing about time, nothing about lame duck Presidents, or any other qualifiers.
If you believe in the actual Constitution, which the Republicans claim to, why would you try to bully him into not making his appointment?
Could they be hypocrites?
7
Scalia's legal opinions will influence America's direction for generations to come. We will be lucky indeed, if we ratify a new nominee with the breadth and depth of analysis and evaluation, wit or interpretative expertise we experienced with Justice Scalia. His shared vision of family, community and nation are often marginalized by those who are unknowing of such a value system or too self-absorbed to view a 30 life of public service as noteworthy. Justice was achieved under the watchful hand, eye and mind of Scalia.
1
I don't in principle, agree on originalism. All foundational documents like Constitutions, Bibles, Korans are memetic and are created to serve as guides for each generation to interpret within some bounds defined by necessity. We see the consequences of "authoritative" interpretations in all current conflicts and mass murders.
I wish to send my condolences along with others here to Mr. Scalia's family.
As Pope Francis mentioned this week. If you feel like bad mouthing someone, bite your tongue.
I wish to send my condolences along with others here to Mr. Scalia's family.
As Pope Francis mentioned this week. If you feel like bad mouthing someone, bite your tongue.
2
According to the U.S. Constitution, "The President...shal nominate...judges of the Supreme Court."
If Ted Cruz indeed studied Constitutional law, and considers himself, like Scalia, an originalist, it's beyond comprehension how he could be proposing such an end run around the Constitution.
If Ted Cruz indeed studied Constitutional law, and considers himself, like Scalia, an originalist, it's beyond comprehension how he could be proposing such an end run around the Constitution.
12
Always sad to see a fellow human being pass and we should all extend comfort and condolences to the family and express our respect for a worthy adversary.
He saw his duty and gave the full measure of his energy to his task.
Shameless to see the hate and vitriol already being raised by Republicans over the prospect of Obama being involved with a nominee before Scalia even has a proper funeral and a few kind words read over his body.
Some level or respect and dignity would ordinarily be demanded by limiting comments to the dead and comforting the family before the funeral.
This will be a huge boon to the Democratic Party just to avoid being a part of a group who have so little respect for even one of their own.
Eleven months will be enough time to vent their spleen.
He saw his duty and gave the full measure of his energy to his task.
Shameless to see the hate and vitriol already being raised by Republicans over the prospect of Obama being involved with a nominee before Scalia even has a proper funeral and a few kind words read over his body.
Some level or respect and dignity would ordinarily be demanded by limiting comments to the dead and comforting the family before the funeral.
This will be a huge boon to the Democratic Party just to avoid being a part of a group who have so little respect for even one of their own.
Eleven months will be enough time to vent their spleen.
2
I remember Scalia saying: "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home," he wrote. "They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."
I, for one, am glad there's a chance to get a different opinion on a more constructive side. Obama, stick to your guns and get a thoughtful human being in SCOTUS. The country needs hope.
I, for one, am glad there's a chance to get a different opinion on a more constructive side. Obama, stick to your guns and get a thoughtful human being in SCOTUS. The country needs hope.
9
From the article:
He was often asked about the Bush v. Gore decision at public appearances. His stock response: “Get over it."
The year 2000. This country will never get over it. Imagine if we could turn back time!
He was often asked about the Bush v. Gore decision at public appearances. His stock response: “Get over it."
The year 2000. This country will never get over it. Imagine if we could turn back time!
6
You may argue he was not a strict originalist because he did not fervently espouse the Three-Fifth Clause.
Cheer up - his rulings were closely aligned with the Three-Fifth Clause in essential respects.
He was a great Catholic as well but the RCC has been very uneasy with this clause for nearly 200 years. There will be some serious interrogations at the gates of Heaven - or maybe, a mute Clarence Thomas will give him a pass.
Cheer up - his rulings were closely aligned with the Three-Fifth Clause in essential respects.
He was a great Catholic as well but the RCC has been very uneasy with this clause for nearly 200 years. There will be some serious interrogations at the gates of Heaven - or maybe, a mute Clarence Thomas will give him a pass.
1
My condolences to the Scalia family. A United States Supreme Court justice has died, and, I regret that the conversation has turned so quickly to the politics of the situation. That speaks to the importance and prestige of the office, core to this nation, perhaps equally or more important than president.
The U.S Congress should honor Justice Scalia by respecting the mandates of the U.S. Constitution. If Scalia were alive today, he would concede that President Obama has the constitutional right to fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court even if Scalia "didn't like the result [Obama] was reaching.”
On that, Americans should all agree. If we now decide to throw comity off this ship of state, we're all doomed. That's no legacy.
The U.S Congress should honor Justice Scalia by respecting the mandates of the U.S. Constitution. If Scalia were alive today, he would concede that President Obama has the constitutional right to fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court even if Scalia "didn't like the result [Obama] was reaching.”
On that, Americans should all agree. If we now decide to throw comity off this ship of state, we're all doomed. That's no legacy.
4
He may be shining star academically but was out of touch with reality. Being able to give high pitched oratory sermon and out-talking rivals does not constitute "one of the best legal minds".
Take example of Clarence Thomas, G.H.W. Bush put him there and so was V.P. Dan Quayle. So all you need is some republicans backing you and you can have Neanderthal on the bench. The Supreme Super Power with all its power need to be humble.
Take example of Clarence Thomas, G.H.W. Bush put him there and so was V.P. Dan Quayle. So all you need is some republicans backing you and you can have Neanderthal on the bench. The Supreme Super Power with all its power need to be humble.
2
I thought Scalia was a terrible SC Justice. His partisanship was so evident that he was a national disgrace.His flippant comments and abuse of the legal fairness was suspect. The only thing about him that is appealing as a Justice is his close friendship with Justice Ginsburg. Other than that, he was a contemptuous man.
9
For Associate Justice Scalia' family and close associates, I extend my genuine empathy and condolences. As for the state of justice in America. I think it best to hold my remarks at least until after the gentleman is buried. He certainly honored his party's views, but why he apparently, also hated nearly all other views is beyond most understanding.
3
If I hear any more references to Scalia's eloquence, intellect, wit, out-sized personality, I'll schedule to have someone nearby to do a Heimlich on me.
His opinions were written in decidedly average to mediocre English, the argument weak, this man was no Cicero despite the bogus claims.
He was in large part a street bully, gunning for the most vulnerable, a street thug, he would have wanted to deny millions of Americans their human rights, to associate with the person they loved.
He defended the right wing fanatics who ISIS-like wanted to determine a woman's human rights, control over her own person, and wanted religious zealots to determine her decisions about her life.
He did serious damage to our Republic in Bush v. Gore.
The platitudes now being expressed about this religious fanatic zealot are quite excessive; one of Christopher Hitchens better moments was on Hannity when the host insisted he say nice things about the just dead Jerry Falwell. What he did say did not please hannity but it was true and applies equally to Scalia.
His opinions were written in decidedly average to mediocre English, the argument weak, this man was no Cicero despite the bogus claims.
He was in large part a street bully, gunning for the most vulnerable, a street thug, he would have wanted to deny millions of Americans their human rights, to associate with the person they loved.
He defended the right wing fanatics who ISIS-like wanted to determine a woman's human rights, control over her own person, and wanted religious zealots to determine her decisions about her life.
He did serious damage to our Republic in Bush v. Gore.
The platitudes now being expressed about this religious fanatic zealot are quite excessive; one of Christopher Hitchens better moments was on Hannity when the host insisted he say nice things about the just dead Jerry Falwell. What he did say did not please hannity but it was true and applies equally to Scalia.
9
It's clear that a large number of people are supporting Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination solely on the theory that she would be far more likely than Bernie Sanders to defeat the Republican candidate in the general election, and so prevent an ultra-conservative from being the next appointee to the Supreme Court.
Hopefully now, with Justice Scalia's departure and President Obama's presumable appointment of a liberal jurist to replace him, that argument will be put to rest.
Hopefully now, with Justice Scalia's departure and President Obama's presumable appointment of a liberal jurist to replace him, that argument will be put to rest.
1
So you're betting that there will be no more deaths on the Supreme Court in the next nine years. Have you checked their ages, by any chance?
What we have in the U.S. Today is a Civil War going on.
It's the twenty first century version of the war, we fought a century and a half ago, that pits respect for all humans, against the view that some of us simply don't matter.
It's the twenty first century version of the war, we fought a century and a half ago, that pits respect for all humans, against the view that some of us simply don't matter.
5
When it came to matters of morality Scalia thought he was a cardinal, the Catholic hierarchy's man on the court.
Scalia never passed up a chance to express his scorn and contempt for LGBT Americans. It was clear Scalia considered us scandalous and indecent.
As far Scalia was concerned, the equal protection clause of the Constitution was an unfortunate inconvenience. He dismissed it it by ginning up a bogus jurisprudence that made us all prisoners of the Founding Fathers' imagined intent.
Scalia never passed up a chance to express his scorn and contempt for LGBT Americans. It was clear Scalia considered us scandalous and indecent.
As far Scalia was concerned, the equal protection clause of the Constitution was an unfortunate inconvenience. He dismissed it it by ginning up a bogus jurisprudence that made us all prisoners of the Founding Fathers' imagined intent.
9
I had the distinct honor (or bad luck, depending on your point of view) of having Antonin Scalia rule twice in my favor: Lebron v WMATA, written by Robert Bork, joined by Scalia and Kenneth Starr (Yes, I hit the trifecta) when he was on the DC circuit, and again when he wrote the 8-1 SCOTUS decision in Lebron V NRPC (Amtrak).
A stopped watch is right two times a day: I am one of the few progressives (there must be a couple others) to have caught Nino both in the morning and the evening.
So Nino holds a special place in my heart.
Ever since the Amtrak decision, I would make a point of reading several of his decisions each year; besides, it's always good to be informed of the other side's point of view. As I am sure others here will argue as well, I found his decisions to be marred by results based reasoning, but what spectacularly, sparklingly entertaining reasoning and reading it could sometimes be.
I viewed his notion of original intent to be itself results based reasoning, and profoundly influenced by his Catholicism. His approach to both: faith-based dogma.
That said, I'll actually miss the guy. R.I.P., and condolences to the family.
A stopped watch is right two times a day: I am one of the few progressives (there must be a couple others) to have caught Nino both in the morning and the evening.
So Nino holds a special place in my heart.
Ever since the Amtrak decision, I would make a point of reading several of his decisions each year; besides, it's always good to be informed of the other side's point of view. As I am sure others here will argue as well, I found his decisions to be marred by results based reasoning, but what spectacularly, sparklingly entertaining reasoning and reading it could sometimes be.
I viewed his notion of original intent to be itself results based reasoning, and profoundly influenced by his Catholicism. His approach to both: faith-based dogma.
That said, I'll actually miss the guy. R.I.P., and condolences to the family.
4
He was quite a character, no one can argue otherwise.
I am both saddened and troubled that Scalia, by far, the most knowledgeable member of the Court in the area of state and local taxation, has passed away. Unfortunately, the only remaining member of the Court who is knowledgeable in that area is Justice Ginsburg who, though Scalia's ideological opposite, often joined him in dissents on state and local tax cases.
The lack of a knowledge on the present Court concerning the contours of the dormant Commerce Clause as it applies to state and local taxation has proved to be damaging. Most recently in Wynne v. Maryland, a 5-4 decision in which both Scalia and Ginsburg dissented, the Court attempted to rewrite 200 years of dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. It was particularly upsetting that the Court would write such a broad decision in a case in which the Appellant effectively conceded the principle issue during oral argument.
I hope the Court evolves an expertise in this area over time.
The lack of a knowledge on the present Court concerning the contours of the dormant Commerce Clause as it applies to state and local taxation has proved to be damaging. Most recently in Wynne v. Maryland, a 5-4 decision in which both Scalia and Ginsburg dissented, the Court attempted to rewrite 200 years of dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. It was particularly upsetting that the Court would write such a broad decision in a case in which the Appellant effectively conceded the principle issue during oral argument.
I hope the Court evolves an expertise in this area over time.
One of the great conservative cornerstones has passed into history! Who now will defend the extremely conservative Republican agenda on the Supreme Court in favor of the rich, powerful, and corporate greed?
4
Wonderful lifestyle to be able to walk into a room and know you're going to be wined and dined at the expense of everyone else. True academic.
Just ask those who lost their homes in the Kelo eminent domain case, the area that is now still sitting vacant because Pfizer pulled out of the deal. I'm sure Pfizer and City Council members were picking up the tab when Scalia walked into their room.
Just ask those who lost their homes in the Kelo eminent domain case, the area that is now still sitting vacant because Pfizer pulled out of the deal. I'm sure Pfizer and City Council members were picking up the tab when Scalia walked into their room.
4
There is some irony that one of the champions of Borking, the Senator responsible for changing the deference previously given to Presidents on judicial appointments is the sitting Vice President. Every candidate President Obama has to cross off his list because they're non-starters for Republicans, every actual nominee stymied by the process deserves a "Thanks a lot Joe" sarcastically tossed Mr. Biden's way.
i am imagining that man finally meeting with god. Will he be scolded? Man you have not understood my message of love toward thy fellow humans.
5
Scalia was one of a handful of people who was directly responsible for all but destroying American democracy and handing it to the oligarch's and moneyed classes, as well as indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, including US servicemen/women. He also just gave his recent decision to negate the Paris climate accords in favor of fossil fuel interests, adding to the all out destruction of our planet and the habitats and homes of innocent species and people. He viewed so-called minorities (who are actually the growing majority), gays and women as lesser individuals and his opinions reflected that view. He resorted to constitutional originalism when it suited either his personal agenda or that of those who appointed him rather than reflecting on what would suit the greater good. He gutted the voting rights act. He would have gladly catapulted the US back to the 1950s, repealed Roe v Wade, kept gays out of the military and in the closet, and women on unequal footing in the workplace. This is not a loss for anyone but his family. My condolences to them, but I am relieved that our country can at last move forward and not back.
10
An amendment that changes how the Supreme Court operates should be considered. Being able to stack the court with Judges of one political persuasion or another is a weakness. A computer program loaded with all the case law ever written and all the statues ever enacted might be a better system than this nightmare of subjectivity masquerading as justice. And to those commenters who rejected most of Scalia's thinking, but admired the way he expressed himself, consider how much damage a highly intelligent well spoken, but socially reactionary individual with power can cause!
5
Why do the Republicans prefer that we wait and let Hillary Clinton name the next justice?
6
Because she's one of them, silly.
1
Hopefully he will send us word on what the Founding Fathers meant. While we are waiting, we will just have to rely upon a mixture of common sense, stare decisis, and the Golden Rule.
2
My condolences for Mr Scalia's family, but as an arch-conservative (maybe better, regressive) he thwarted many times the efforts to reflect modern reality in our law.
You only have to reflect on the unmitigated disaster that has derived from the Citizens United debacle to appreciate the danger from his brand of "constitutional fundamentalism" .
You only have to reflect on the unmitigated disaster that has derived from the Citizens United debacle to appreciate the danger from his brand of "constitutional fundamentalism" .
4
i certainly shall not join any gloating over the death of justice Scalia, though i'll not mourn him as will his good friend Ruth Bader Ginsberg. He exceeded his brief, and his reasoning was bent to do so - but always articulate, a boon to those who strove to contest his views.
Antonin Scalia was a great supreme court justice who was instrumental in preventing Obama from violating the constitution and ruling by executive order.
Obama can nominate anyone he wants but they will never be approved.
Obama can nominate anyone he wants but they will never be approved.
A "Taliban" type of statement. My way or the highway.
4
The examples of his biting and often intentionally insulting language (remember these folks have weeks to carefully write their comments) was a disgrace to respect for each other and the American people.
Having read some articles on his sarcasm and 'biting' comments, I can only feel lack of respect for someone who on the other hand, demands respect while sitting on an elevated dais.
And to be praised for his commitment to the Constitution, while voicing such disrespectful words, can only mean that our country will be better off with him off the bench, although I truly would have like to see a resignation rather than his death as a cause for his absence.
Having read some articles on his sarcasm and 'biting' comments, I can only feel lack of respect for someone who on the other hand, demands respect while sitting on an elevated dais.
And to be praised for his commitment to the Constitution, while voicing such disrespectful words, can only mean that our country will be better off with him off the bench, although I truly would have like to see a resignation rather than his death as a cause for his absence.
4
If the Founding Fathers thought that the Constitution was only to be interpreted according to the meaning of the text in 1787, why did they provide for AMENDMENTS?
10
AMEN!
1
As the nation moves closer to election day, and it becomes clearer that a Republican electoral defeat is in the cards, I expect the Republican leadership will become more cooperative and willing to accept a moderate nominee. Otherwise they may have to deal with a new Democratic President and an unambiguously liberal nominee...perhaps President Obama himself. Wouldn't that be interesting?
8
"But try to let one brother or sister watch television when the others do not, and you will feel the fury of the fundamental sense of justice unleashed.”
It's no surprise that this kind of observation informed Scalia's thinking on the great questions of the day. Too bad there's no way to ask him what happens if one of the kids is born with a physical disability. That child is sick a lot--would he deny it TV during the daytime because the other kids can't watch too? If the other kids complained, wouldn't he explain that their sibling gets special dispensation because of the lifelong handicap? The affected child is bright but misses a lot of school and has mediocre grades--would he meekly agree with a guidance counselor's assessment that the child be sent to a lesser school in order to "thrive"? Wouldn't he fight like hell to get that child into a good school, and make sure there were accommodations for the disability?
So sick of dopey, simplistic conservative thinking.
It's no surprise that this kind of observation informed Scalia's thinking on the great questions of the day. Too bad there's no way to ask him what happens if one of the kids is born with a physical disability. That child is sick a lot--would he deny it TV during the daytime because the other kids can't watch too? If the other kids complained, wouldn't he explain that their sibling gets special dispensation because of the lifelong handicap? The affected child is bright but misses a lot of school and has mediocre grades--would he meekly agree with a guidance counselor's assessment that the child be sent to a lesser school in order to "thrive"? Wouldn't he fight like hell to get that child into a good school, and make sure there were accommodations for the disability?
So sick of dopey, simplistic conservative thinking.
8
I wonder what Justice Scalia- the Original- Intent- Narrow- Interpreter of the Constitution would think of the Republican's demand that a sitting President NOT nominate [his] successor?
8
The American public loathes the Citizens United decision - a narrow 5-4 ruling that we now see has turned our campaigns into a political prostitution ring, awash in money.
We need honest independent representatives, not prostitutes.
Our founders would be enraged at what we've done to their blood and sweat and hard won republic.
Our soldiers, who died in wars to ensure our liberty did not give their lives to have us come to this filth and corruption in our political arena. Where a few, with wealth, get to be heard more loudly then the masses and have their agenda advanced ahead of the great American middle class. The highest crime imaginable is to cheat the masses out of economic opportunity.
Now, with Scalia's death, the presidential election becomes a chance to undo the mess and corruption of Citizens United.
A chance to elect a Democratic president and Senate that will ensure a 5-4 vote to overturn that ruling.
This election is now about starting to reclaim our democracy.
Limits on individual campaign spending and, hopefully, a top to bottom revamp of how we do elections, draw congressional districts and tilt influence back to the people.
This is now an election about empowering the people of this nation.
All the people.
We the people.
We need honest independent representatives, not prostitutes.
Our founders would be enraged at what we've done to their blood and sweat and hard won republic.
Our soldiers, who died in wars to ensure our liberty did not give their lives to have us come to this filth and corruption in our political arena. Where a few, with wealth, get to be heard more loudly then the masses and have their agenda advanced ahead of the great American middle class. The highest crime imaginable is to cheat the masses out of economic opportunity.
Now, with Scalia's death, the presidential election becomes a chance to undo the mess and corruption of Citizens United.
A chance to elect a Democratic president and Senate that will ensure a 5-4 vote to overturn that ruling.
This election is now about starting to reclaim our democracy.
Limits on individual campaign spending and, hopefully, a top to bottom revamp of how we do elections, draw congressional districts and tilt influence back to the people.
This is now an election about empowering the people of this nation.
All the people.
We the people.
9
One of Christopher Hichens better moments: on Hannity on the demise of the shameless bigot Jerry Falwell. All can well apply to Scalia.
In 1776, there were 2.5 million living in the colonies. A constitution written by slave holders (Washington had 318 slaves), at least one rapist (Jefferson), deserves some respect as a foundation document in some respects even if the three-fifths human renders it uniquely shameful and repugnant , but the Scalia, Rubio, Cruz notion that it is the last word for a multi-racial society of 320 million people is elevating "the founding fathers" to the status of God(s), an Islamic Muhammad Caliphate.
The rubbish he espoused is fortunately being hovered into the dustbin of history, Roger Taney, William Rehnquist (he particularly admired Taney oblivious the part Taney played in the death of 600,000 young Americans), Scalia, will live in infamy.
The views he espoused, the "traditions", "values" he defended were in evidence last night in Greenville, SC - as far as I could detect in the vast auditorium, there was one Black person.
In 1776, there were 2.5 million living in the colonies. A constitution written by slave holders (Washington had 318 slaves), at least one rapist (Jefferson), deserves some respect as a foundation document in some respects even if the three-fifths human renders it uniquely shameful and repugnant , but the Scalia, Rubio, Cruz notion that it is the last word for a multi-racial society of 320 million people is elevating "the founding fathers" to the status of God(s), an Islamic Muhammad Caliphate.
The rubbish he espoused is fortunately being hovered into the dustbin of history, Roger Taney, William Rehnquist (he particularly admired Taney oblivious the part Taney played in the death of 600,000 young Americans), Scalia, will live in infamy.
The views he espoused, the "traditions", "values" he defended were in evidence last night in Greenville, SC - as far as I could detect in the vast auditorium, there was one Black person.
6
So, who's going to write Justice Thomas' opinions now?
16
"So, who's going to write Justice Thomas' opinions now?"
No problem. They will continue to be written by his law clerks. But if memory serves, Justice Thomas has issued precious few opinions in his many years on the court. He is as taciturn in writing as in oral argument.
He may in fact be a student of Mark Twain's observation: "Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
No problem. They will continue to be written by his law clerks. But if memory serves, Justice Thomas has issued precious few opinions in his many years on the court. He is as taciturn in writing as in oral argument.
He may in fact be a student of Mark Twain's observation: "Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
@Mike
The same people who used to write them: ALEC.
The same people who used to write them: ALEC.
Scalia's death has handed the GOP senators who are running for reelection a giant ATM filled with dark money. Supreme Court appointments by the next president were always an implicit issue in the campaign, but his death places the issue front and center. Now all three branches of government are explicitly for sale, and the bidding has already started. I wonder if Justice Kennedy has begun to rethink his naïve opinion in Citizens United.
Why would any Republican senator vote for confirmation of an Obama nominee if it means facing a primary or turning off the flow of dark contributions?
Why would any Republican senator vote for confirmation of an Obama nominee if it means facing a primary or turning off the flow of dark contributions?
4
I have a three word answer to Republicans who are insisting that Obama "let the people decide:" Bush versus Gore. Republicans are all about "letting the people decide" -- but only when it suits them.
10
I find it odd that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has demanded that Justice Scalia not be replaced during President Obama's current term. While it would be wonderful for the nomination to the Supreme Court to be postponed until Bernie Sanders takes office, President Obama has the constitutional duty to do it himself.
5
A cloud was indeed cast over the G W Bush's tenure as president. It was created, not be counting votes. It came from the Supreme Court's intrusion on the electoral process. History is not "over" it.
7
It is the President's Constitutional obligation to name a qualified competent successor in a timely fashion and for the Senate to do its due diligence to confirm the qualifications of the President's nominee in a timely fashion as well. If either side wants to increase support for Donald Trump and Senator Sanders, they could not do more than to demonstrate how little they care for the laws of this country by politicizing this crucial process.
2
Who's politicizing this process? Let's face it... only republicans.
President Obama resigns immediately.
Vice President Biden nominates him to replace Justice Scalia.
Problem solved.
Vice President Biden nominates him to replace Justice Scalia.
Problem solved.
2
Senate turns him down.
With one heavenly masterstroke the drama of the upcoming election has increased exponentially.
The importance of the upcoming elections for Senate seats is now at least twice as important as it was just yesterday.
The Democrats could well take control of the Senate next year.
Democrats only need to gain 5 seats to take control of the Senate.
This time around the Democrats are defending 10 seats, whereas the Republicans are defending 24 seats.
Seven of those GOP seats are in states where Obama won in 2012.
So let us put our money donations into these Senate races and secure a Supreme Court Justice - one way or another.
As for the immediate replacement of Scalia, it is to be hoped that Obama will nominate a moderate, slightly left candidate and encourage an early confirmation.
in addition he might imply that absent an early confirmation what will follow will be a withdrawal and the next nominee will be a real progressive candidate.
It is called not fooling around.
As for Mitch, well ............
The Democrats could well take control of the Senate next year.
The importance of the upcoming elections for Senate seats is now at least twice as important as it was just yesterday.
The Democrats could well take control of the Senate next year.
Democrats only need to gain 5 seats to take control of the Senate.
This time around the Democrats are defending 10 seats, whereas the Republicans are defending 24 seats.
Seven of those GOP seats are in states where Obama won in 2012.
So let us put our money donations into these Senate races and secure a Supreme Court Justice - one way or another.
As for the immediate replacement of Scalia, it is to be hoped that Obama will nominate a moderate, slightly left candidate and encourage an early confirmation.
in addition he might imply that absent an early confirmation what will follow will be a withdrawal and the next nominee will be a real progressive candidate.
It is called not fooling around.
As for Mitch, well ............
The Democrats could well take control of the Senate next year.
2
I’m afraid that my first thought on reading the headline wasn't kind. I think Scalia had a too high an opinion of himself, was a bully, and did a lot of damage with the power that he had.
When I read about his family background, that he was an only child and smothered with adulation by all the adults in his extended family, his personality makes sense. But that is no excuse for how he imposed his will and made decisions that were based on his personal bias.
Ben W. Heineman Jr. writing for the Atlantic in 2010 about the Supreme Court overriding Congress, said it well: “…the court invokes the broad, majestic phrases of the Constitution…and fills in constitutional content with its own value choices to invalidate actions of other governmental institutions.
“One thing is for sure: [their choices] are not wholly mandated by abstract principles, crystal clear history and the unambiguous holdings of past cases…”
(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/01/the-supreme-paradox-...
Fortunately for Antonin Scalia he didn't have to pay the consequences of his over-reach. Unfortunately for millions they did and still do.
When I read about his family background, that he was an only child and smothered with adulation by all the adults in his extended family, his personality makes sense. But that is no excuse for how he imposed his will and made decisions that were based on his personal bias.
Ben W. Heineman Jr. writing for the Atlantic in 2010 about the Supreme Court overriding Congress, said it well: “…the court invokes the broad, majestic phrases of the Constitution…and fills in constitutional content with its own value choices to invalidate actions of other governmental institutions.
“One thing is for sure: [their choices] are not wholly mandated by abstract principles, crystal clear history and the unambiguous holdings of past cases…”
(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/01/the-supreme-paradox-...
Fortunately for Antonin Scalia he didn't have to pay the consequences of his over-reach. Unfortunately for millions they did and still do.
8
Justice Antonin Scalia was an amazing jurist. He shaped the supreme court of the US with his wisdom and great judgments. His gave the landmark pathways to justice for his juniors to follow. He will remain as an ideological icon in the field of justice. He has left an adequate amount of work for upcoming students of law to practice for the best of community and humanity even beyond this century.
1
He helped usher in the oligarchy we are currently experiencing in the States, ruined many a life, and was about to try to ruin others, by dissenting on equal marriage, and presumably, in the near future, voting to overturn Roe.
What about any of that is a mark of "wisdom and great judgments"?
What about any of that is a mark of "wisdom and great judgments"?
2
As god is my judge, we are agreed, supremely, Abby.
1
May the games begin. Today is the day Hillary Clinton became the Democratic nominee. A gust of sobriety will tip the scales of the mind-versus-heart democratic primary. Icepacks for the bern. The Obama administration, in collaboration with Democratic party insiders, will carefully choreograph the nomination so that it plays into Hillary's (and moderate progressive's) hands, effectively passing the baton - unless Republicans can bat it away. Today marks the beginning of the most expensive election in history.
Fascinating day in American politics. May the departed rest in peace.
Fascinating day in American politics. May the departed rest in peace.
1
I am very sorry for Mr. Scalia's family and friends. It's always tragic when someone dies suddenly.
I am very pleased Justice Scalia is no longer on the Supreme Court.
I am very pleased Justice Scalia is no longer on the Supreme Court.
9
Republicans have responded to questions about Scalia’s replacement by pointing out that by tradition no Supreme Court justice has been both nominated and confirmed during the last year of a president term in office for the past 80 years. But this is just a tradition that President Obama is free to break and probably will break. However, Republicans control the Senate, so the president would have to nominate a candidate who appeals to Republican leaders in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who are both Republicans, would have to agree that President Obama’s choice is an extraordinarily good one, or they would delay the confirmation hearing and the confirmation vote until the next president takes office. McConnell has issued a statement saying, “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
My opinions of Justice Scalia's legal positions aside, the importance of who the Democratic Party's nominee should be is now in sharper focus. Until now many in the Sanders camp were willing to support his populist and, yes, socialist campaign if only to "send a message."
Hopefully, now that we all are at least temporarily mindful that presidents do play a key role in selecting Supreme Court justices, realism will now prevail. Apart from the fact that none of Sanders' major policies would ever see the light of day from a Congress at least partially controlled by the Republicans, the prospect that his claimed political revolution likely would fail in a national election should now loom larger in the minds of the electorate. Actions have consequences
Hopefully, now that we all are at least temporarily mindful that presidents do play a key role in selecting Supreme Court justices, realism will now prevail. Apart from the fact that none of Sanders' major policies would ever see the light of day from a Congress at least partially controlled by the Republicans, the prospect that his claimed political revolution likely would fail in a national election should now loom larger in the minds of the electorate. Actions have consequences
1
With the presidential elections in full force the nomination process should really spotlight the complete disfunction, disarray and partisan nature of our current congress. Sigh....
1
Justice Scalia untimely death handed a deplorable victory to the coal industry. That, I regret.
Josefina Alvarez
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Josefina Alvarez
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Scalia believed that a modern interpreter could divine the intent of the constitutional framers, in the context they intended, and accurately make a judgement based on that understanding. Another words, he thought he was an 18th century thinker. If he was, he was the only one. He was wrong. His belligerence made his opinions worse worse. That aside, I am truly sorry for the loss that he family must endure.
1
I am happy to wait until President Sanders or Clinton can nominate a replacement.
2
I was unaware we were going to ignore the Constitution to salve a bunch of Constitutionalist's feelings about losing their loud speaker.
1
I would love for President Obama to be that replacement.
1
This past December - the NT Times published "Justice Scalia’s Majoritarian Theocracy" - many of the commentators suggested that he was becoming unbalanced based on recent things he had said and commentators pondered the usefulness of term limits for Justices. In that article they quote him as stating there is
"no principled basis for distinguishing child molesters from homosexuals, since both are minorities". He also strongly believed that the Constitution should not override people's religious beliefs. I could not disagree more. I look to the Constitutions to apply the law equally to all - regardless of whatever whacky or discriminatory ideas major religions put forward. The Hobby Lobby decision was one of the low points in the Supreme Court's history. I for one, will not miss him.
"no principled basis for distinguishing child molesters from homosexuals, since both are minorities". He also strongly believed that the Constitution should not override people's religious beliefs. I could not disagree more. I look to the Constitutions to apply the law equally to all - regardless of whatever whacky or discriminatory ideas major religions put forward. The Hobby Lobby decision was one of the low points in the Supreme Court's history. I for one, will not miss him.
8
Scalia's opinions were reasoned but almost completely biased. It appears that he entered into every case with a prejudice displayed firstly by his cutting and sarcastic questioning and then finally by his written opinions.
All the GOP bluster about protecting a biased Supreme Court is proof of the pudding that they are not at all interested in judicial prudence and unbiased legal reasoning. They wish to maintain the biased court they have managed to create.
All their talk about constitutionality and their fervent wish to uphold the essential meaning of that document is just that ---- talk.
All the GOP bluster about protecting a biased Supreme Court is proof of the pudding that they are not at all interested in judicial prudence and unbiased legal reasoning. They wish to maintain the biased court they have managed to create.
All their talk about constitutionality and their fervent wish to uphold the essential meaning of that document is just that ---- talk.
3
I did not view Justice Scalia as an open-minded, objective jurist. That being said, the man served 30 years on the Supreme Court, a little respect for the man is in order. Not more than a hour passed before (leaders) of the republican party were foaming at the mouth denouncing any appointment the President will make. By the way Sen. McConnell, the people have spoken when they elected, twice, the current President. I'm sure the people know that when electing any President that it includes he, or she, will appoint Supreme Court judges, and many others. Your argument holds no water sir. My condolences to Justice Scalia' family for their loss.
9
As to President Obama Obama making a nomination to fill the vacancy left on the Supreme Court, and the Senate taking timely action, let's look to the Constitution that Justice Scalia professed to hold in such regard.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of FOUR Years...
Section. 2.
HE shall have POWER, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ... to appoint...Judges of the Supreme Court..
Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To...
To CONSTITUTE Tribunals INFERIOR to the Supreme Court;
According to a strict, simple and plain reading of the four corners of the document:
President Obama is clearly within the bounds of his Constitutional four year term and so is Constitutionally empowered to make the nomination;
Just as clearly, the founding fathers gave Him (Her) the Power to APPOINT the Supreme Court Justices, not just nominate them, really casting into doubt the extent of this advise and consent thing.
Consider:
Assuming the drafters and signers of the Constitution were men of letters, grammatically, it is proper to use a pair of commas to set off a clause, phrase or words in the midst of a sentence only if they are not essential to the sentence.
More importantly, the fathers specifically gave the legislative branch the power to CONSTITUTE INFERIOR courts, thus logically not extending them that power re the Supremes.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of FOUR Years...
Section. 2.
HE shall have POWER, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ... to appoint...Judges of the Supreme Court..
Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To...
To CONSTITUTE Tribunals INFERIOR to the Supreme Court;
According to a strict, simple and plain reading of the four corners of the document:
President Obama is clearly within the bounds of his Constitutional four year term and so is Constitutionally empowered to make the nomination;
Just as clearly, the founding fathers gave Him (Her) the Power to APPOINT the Supreme Court Justices, not just nominate them, really casting into doubt the extent of this advise and consent thing.
Consider:
Assuming the drafters and signers of the Constitution were men of letters, grammatically, it is proper to use a pair of commas to set off a clause, phrase or words in the midst of a sentence only if they are not essential to the sentence.
More importantly, the fathers specifically gave the legislative branch the power to CONSTITUTE INFERIOR courts, thus logically not extending them that power re the Supremes.
5
Advise AND consent. It's not just a slogan or a book or a movie. It's the law. And the law give the Senate the power to deny consent of any presidential nominee for the Supreme Court. Just as the highly partisan Senator Ted Kennedy and the Democrat controlled Senate did in the case of the highly qualified Robert Bork. What goes around, comes around.
B O R K ??? That is the one that you miss most ? You could have just said you are still furious Aaron Burr was blocked from becoming president of the United States by Alexander Hamilton.
It was clear that Justice Scalia was highly intelligent and had an unusual theory of the constitution. He was a strong personality but seemed to have limited respect to others positions and ideas. I see his view of the constitution was like those who literarily believe the Bible or those who support trickle down economy. I am sorry about his death but glad his term on the Supreme Court has ended.
3
I hope I am not expected to forgive his outrageously injurious statements against homosexuals.
8
My first feeling at reading Scalia had passed away was joy, my first thought was "Obama can nominate his replacement!", and then felt incredibly guilty for rejoicing at the death of anyone. In my ensuing conversation with God, I questoned if it is ever okay to feel happy rejoice at the death of someone--I don't know.
Scalia's Supreme Court rulings, along with those of his conservative colleages, politicized the Supreme Court to such an extent that they literally elected George W. Bush as President, re-jecting a recount of ballots, which likely would have seen Al Gore become the next President. They made a ruling which should rightly have been returned to the State of Florida for ballot recount.
Their ruling ushered in the Bush administration, the Iraq War over non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the destabilization of the Middle East, permitting the Taliban and ISIS to thrive, allowing untold suffering and too much death.
Scalia and colleagues gave the U.S. a new definition of personhood with its Citizens United ruling by permitting large corporations to influence elections with enormous contributions to Super Pacs. In doing so, the Court gave an unequal voice to those who support greed, and not the people of the U.S.
These two decisions alone have had far-reaching, negative consequences to the people of the U.S. Scalia's rejection of precedent and his right wing interpretation of the Constitution will not be missed. Nevertheless, condolences to his family.
Scalia's Supreme Court rulings, along with those of his conservative colleages, politicized the Supreme Court to such an extent that they literally elected George W. Bush as President, re-jecting a recount of ballots, which likely would have seen Al Gore become the next President. They made a ruling which should rightly have been returned to the State of Florida for ballot recount.
Their ruling ushered in the Bush administration, the Iraq War over non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the destabilization of the Middle East, permitting the Taliban and ISIS to thrive, allowing untold suffering and too much death.
Scalia and colleagues gave the U.S. a new definition of personhood with its Citizens United ruling by permitting large corporations to influence elections with enormous contributions to Super Pacs. In doing so, the Court gave an unequal voice to those who support greed, and not the people of the U.S.
These two decisions alone have had far-reaching, negative consequences to the people of the U.S. Scalia's rejection of precedent and his right wing interpretation of the Constitution will not be missed. Nevertheless, condolences to his family.
3
A safe bet here is that the new Obama appointee will be either black or a woman or both, regardless of qualification. And very left-wing, pro-racist quotas, pro-illegal immigration and anti anything in the Constitution that does not conform to their world view.
Any takers?
Any takers?
Maybe he'll give us another George W and destroy our country 's wealth while help create an ISiS monster.
Let's review the qualifications of Samuel Alito.....well, er, none. Other than that he was then and is now a Republican hack. But you are right that affirmative is action is just plain wring especially when third rate students get into Ivy League colleges....Like GWBUsh into Yale.
"'Standing up for one’s opinions,' Justice Scalia said in a 2010 opinion, 'is a mark of laudable “civil courage.”'" Standing up for one’s opinions, Justice Scalia said in a 2010 opinion, is a mark of laudable “civil courage.”"
...What about taking a moment to think about them first, say, take into consideration the rights of your fellow human beings, even if they disagree with you?
And, how about this:
What about reflecting on those opinions afterwards, and having the COURAGE to admit you are wrong...even...occasionally?
Anyone can spout anything they want. That's called Freedom of Speech.
But no one should sit on The Supreme Court and never admit to a mistake anywhere.
That's not "civil courage" but the self-justifying bombast of a fool.
...What about taking a moment to think about them first, say, take into consideration the rights of your fellow human beings, even if they disagree with you?
And, how about this:
What about reflecting on those opinions afterwards, and having the COURAGE to admit you are wrong...even...occasionally?
Anyone can spout anything they want. That's called Freedom of Speech.
But no one should sit on The Supreme Court and never admit to a mistake anywhere.
That's not "civil courage" but the self-justifying bombast of a fool.
5
So basically from the comments if the Republicans nominate a candidate the candidate is suppose to have a "conservative ideology" but if the Democrats nominates a candidate the candidate is to have no ideology. Sort of a Alice through the looking glass.
4
if bernie loses, this is his perfect gig
God speed, Judge Scalia. I can only hope your death was a "natural" one and not caused by others. We needed your wise counsel and fear now for America's future more than ever without you. Now, we will hear from those who have no understanding of law and the Supreme Court because they hate America, justice and truth.
We can disagree as patriots and with full understanding of the judicial branch and the Constitution. No one has a monopoly on the truth.
1
I disagreed with the great majority of Scalia's opinions, but the brilliance of his discourse is obvious. Was he a true intellectual, though? His ignorance of science was bone-deep, and his religious views prevented him from opening his mind to it.
10
My simpathy to his wife, many children and grandchildren. But...I have nothing to admire about him. I hope his departure creates the opportunity to bring fresh Air to the Supreme Court
4
Nothing would be more amusing than to watch Mitch McConnell outfox himself by sitting on an Obama appointment, only to lose his Senate majority leadership position in the fall when the Democrats retake control of the Senate. Then Mitch could just sit there and watch as the next President appoints whomever she or he wants.
5
Being an lawyer is a privilege not a right--that should and hopefully does apply when someone is gifted with the opportunity to become a Judge most importantly asked to become a jurist on the highest Court of the land-the Supreme Court. WIth that privilege comes the responsibility to decide disputes before the Court in a fair and reasonable manner that in my opinion have no bearing on the Judge's personal ideologies whether liberal or conservative as by doing so, such agenda effectively ignores those who differ in their views those rights enuniciated in the Constitution that cry out for "equal justice under the law for ALL". Unfortunately as an lawyer almost from the time Judge Scalia took the bench he seemed to more often than not place his personal beliefs above what the Constitution intended not to occur. While being the first one to say he was a icon in the history of Supreme Court Judges--if one is truly objective and honest in their evaluation and review of his historical legacy--you cannot run away from the reality that stares out from many of his opinions he often ignored the rule of law/the intent of the drafters of the Constitution and instead apparently believed it was more important to rule on what HE believed i
2
For a job that is only supposed to be calling balls and strikes, Justice Roberts, they sure are fighting tooth and nail over who gets to call those balls and strikes.
3
I get very annoyed to hear again and again that Scalia was a Constitutionalist or Originalist. He was especially in his later years a Conservative Activist. He ruling on Citizens United, corporations as persons was even criminal. Let's not reinvent him.
11
Twenty-four hours ago, Republicans were headed into what remains of the current Supreme Court term with a solid majority and a docket strewn with some of the most consequential cases in decades. Affirmative action, abortion, birth control, immigration, an effort to shift congressional power to Republicans — all of these issues are before the justices this term.
Scalia’s last act as a Supreme Court justice may have been to supply the fifth vote in a series of orders handed down on Tuesday halting President Obama’s most ambitious effort to fight climate change. If the Court remains evenly divided in this case, it could matter a great deal that the two judges assigned to this case in the court below are Democratic appointees. If they vote to uphold the administration’s policies, that order will stand unless there is a fifth justice who votes to reverse that decision.
(Ian Millhiser, thinkprogress).
Cue the right wing conspiracy theories...
Scalia’s last act as a Supreme Court justice may have been to supply the fifth vote in a series of orders handed down on Tuesday halting President Obama’s most ambitious effort to fight climate change. If the Court remains evenly divided in this case, it could matter a great deal that the two judges assigned to this case in the court below are Democratic appointees. If they vote to uphold the administration’s policies, that order will stand unless there is a fifth justice who votes to reverse that decision.
(Ian Millhiser, thinkprogress).
Cue the right wing conspiracy theories...
4
As a so-called 'originalist', he seems to have had a terrible lapse of memory in that he seems to have forgotten that the phrase 'a well regulated Militia' does not mean anyone can have a gun whenever, and wherever they want.
5
I hope the Liberals can restrain themselves from cackling and dancing on this man's grave. I know it'll be tough but try and show some humanity.
1
Dead people no longer exist. It is just part of Nature that life ends as organisms accumulate deficiencies over time until they cannot longer continue the activity we call life.
And death does not erase any of the injuries a person like Scalia has inflicted to so many millions of people in this country.
And death does not erase any of the injuries a person like Scalia has inflicted to so many millions of people in this country.
2
So who will now tell JUSTICE Thomas how to vote?
7
All the flowery proclamations from politicians, jurists, both on the right or the left, do not hide the fact that the man was a troglodyte: a fundamentalist person who believed the words of the Constitution were written in stone and who ignored all the history, compromises, and strenous efforts that took 11 years in approoving the document by merely 13 colonies. The Constitution is suppesed to be a living document, not a straight jacket limiting progress, even finding new rights (such as the right to provacy) which he so adamantly opposed..He never said exactly how far back the original interpretation should be: women were not considered equal human beings, and neither were slaves, with the intelligence to have a right to vote . As to homosexuality, his views and prejudices were based on religious and discarded psychological edicts which go back thousands of years, when people thought the Earth was flat, the center of the universe, and stars simply light s in the sky.
He was arrogant and disdainful of others he considered intellectually inferiors, including some of his colleagues who Roberts said admired him. When the Court awarded the Presidency to Bush, his principles were shoved under the rug to achieve what was clearly a political partisan interpretation, such as were many others.
In his arrogance he failed to take care of his most precious possession. His physical body, and to tell the truth, anyone which such anger in his body did not take care of his spirit either. RIP
He was arrogant and disdainful of others he considered intellectually inferiors, including some of his colleagues who Roberts said admired him. When the Court awarded the Presidency to Bush, his principles were shoved under the rug to achieve what was clearly a political partisan interpretation, such as were many others.
In his arrogance he failed to take care of his most precious possession. His physical body, and to tell the truth, anyone which such anger in his body did not take care of his spirit either. RIP
7
This one man has done more to undermine democracy in this country than anyone in recent memory. The Citizens United decision alone would have given him that destinction. But he doubled down by gutting the 1964 Votings Right Act.
How anyone can call him, and by association, Ronald Reagan, "great" does a disservice to Webster.
How anyone can call him, and by association, Ronald Reagan, "great" does a disservice to Webster.
11
Great is defined in your narrow mind as far left, liberal, progressive and partisan Democrat. Those of us who defend the Constitution recognize that Scalia was on the front lines in that battle. You cannot name a single ruling he made that was not based in the freedoms and restrictions enumerated in the Constitution. Judges interpret the law, they do not make it up as they go along, and they do not rule by executive action as the does the current resident of the White House.
The Republicansm ay wish to think twice. Unless they haven't been paying attention their ability to put a Republican in the White House diminishes by the day. Either they can accept a moderate that Obama nominates or the alternative may well be that President Hillary Clinton nominates Barrack Obama to succeed Scalia.
5
A caustic sense of humour and readiness to enjoy jokes at his own expense are no replacements for common sense. I wonder, if his originalism really did allow for progress and development.
This also means that we’ll have a truly interesting year ahead of us.
This also means that we’ll have a truly interesting year ahead of us.
1
The last thing we need is a replacement justice who puts their religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution.
5
A great loss for this nation.
1
"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." - Antonin Scalia
Hopefully when the Lord is deciding his fate, the Lord shall see through Scalia's professed faith and send him to a place that will make the impacts of global warming seem like a drop in a barrel.
Hopefully when the Lord is deciding his fate, the Lord shall see through Scalia's professed faith and send him to a place that will make the impacts of global warming seem like a drop in a barrel.
7
Antonin Scalia's passing means that, today, only two of the authors of the Coup of 2000 remain on the bench today.
7
In a 2011 dissent, Justice Scalia called Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s account of the facts of a case in her majority opinion “so transparently false that professing to believe it demeans this institution.” Flowery language is not helpful here. Plain English could have set forth why Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s account of the facts in her majority opinion “were false.” More diplomatic, yes, but useful is key. Accusing another of falsity demeaning an institution is useless without more. Its destructiveness suggests it was written without deliberation and without editing. Justice Scalia’s topic was demeaning the institution.
Litigants and history of Supreme Court litigation might need to know the basis for accusations of false facts written by a justice, might need memorialization of reasons for falsity, in short guidance for other courts and other litigants to the Court’s legal basis, guidance demanded by Justice Scalia when it suited.
Justice Scalia’s accusation is not bad because it insults. Whether insult is deserved which must be left to the discretion of each justice. It is bad because it focuses on the wrong thing, the falsity, omitting the usefulness of reasons, if any, for the falsity. It is bad because it assumes without reasons the correctness of the assertion that an account of facts was false without showing them false. There is no guidance in that.
Litigants and history of Supreme Court litigation might need to know the basis for accusations of false facts written by a justice, might need memorialization of reasons for falsity, in short guidance for other courts and other litigants to the Court’s legal basis, guidance demanded by Justice Scalia when it suited.
Justice Scalia’s accusation is not bad because it insults. Whether insult is deserved which must be left to the discretion of each justice. It is bad because it focuses on the wrong thing, the falsity, omitting the usefulness of reasons, if any, for the falsity. It is bad because it assumes without reasons the correctness of the assertion that an account of facts was false without showing them false. There is no guidance in that.
1
John Roberts at his confirmation hearings in 2005, "The role of the judge is limited," he said then. "The judge is to decide the cases before them. They're not to legislate. They're not to execute the laws."
Sometimes it seems that Roberts doesn't want "his court" to go down in history as a political body with a conservative agenda. But he's seen the furious response when he dares depart from that agenda. Without Scalia's influence, and if the Senate really stalls for a year, the Court will be a dysfunctional mess like the rest of Washington. 4-4 decisions as far as the eye can see, with the occasional 5-3 depending on Kennedy.
The right really hates an activist court unless it's their activist court.
Sometimes it seems that Roberts doesn't want "his court" to go down in history as a political body with a conservative agenda. But he's seen the furious response when he dares depart from that agenda. Without Scalia's influence, and if the Senate really stalls for a year, the Court will be a dysfunctional mess like the rest of Washington. 4-4 decisions as far as the eye can see, with the occasional 5-3 depending on Kennedy.
The right really hates an activist court unless it's their activist court.
5
John Roberts has one agenda and only one agenda. It's very clear if you look at his voting history he has no concern for anything but funneling money and power up to the 1%. Occasionally, those opinions coincide with the majority of the electorate, but often not.
Scalia attempted to justify neocon nihilism with legalistic nonsense. His essential argument was always the same: Some of you may not like it, but it's written into our Constitution so can't be changed.
5
He was a bigot. He questioned the need for racial integration and whether African Americans belonged in the nations best universities. And the Republicans are anxious for another such bigot.
6
Now is a great time to balance the court--and I hope President Obama can find as a nominee a black disabled gay woman to get the judicial side of our country going in the right direction.
2
It's ludicrous that these supreme court justices can serve for 30 years! When the Constitution was written, the average life span was about 35, so I don't think the founding fathers intended the judges to be on the court for decades. The term should be limited to say 10 years, starting with giving a due date on the current justices. As it is now these unelected judges act almost like they are kings.
2
Mr. President, please appoint an atheist (or at least someone agnostic) to the Supreme Court. According to Pew, 22.8% of the US population is religiously unaffiliated, 3% atheists and ~4% agnostic. Having 1 out of 9 representation sounds about right.
My condolences to the Scalia family. The presence of the late Justice in SCOTUS, however, will not be missed.
My condolences to the Scalia family. The presence of the late Justice in SCOTUS, however, will not be missed.
1
Senator McConnell's implication that the American people would not have a voice in choosing the a new Supreme Court Justice if Obama makes a nomination clearly shows the Republican right's obstinate refusal to accept the legitimacy of America's choice for President in the last two ( I repeat, two) elections. Obviously the Senator and his friends only respect the validity of Republican voices.
2
Originalism:Constitutional Law as Fundamentalism: Bible. No room to move.
2
Nine children with his wife and he chooses to go quail hunting with the guys on Valentines Day? I almost lost my new wife when I went deer hunting the day after Thanksgiving.
2
" 'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,' Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, said in a statement. 'Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.' "
The American people DO have a voice in this process. They twice elected President Obama to office. As the current president, it is his job to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice.
In what way does this not constitute the "voice of the American people" Senator?
The American people DO have a voice in this process. They twice elected President Obama to office. As the current president, it is his job to nominate the next Supreme Court Justice.
In what way does this not constitute the "voice of the American people" Senator?
4
It's interesting how the Republicans jump around crying about the Constitution. Now its time for them to take on their constitutional responsibility as Senators not as Republicans. I'm hoping this will motivate folks to go to polls and vote in people that either Hillary or Burnie can work with.
4
Thank the lord we have a republican dominated Senate. This can be delayed until the next president.
1
The "lord" did not elect the senate
Truly this man's wisdom, wit, and commitment to upholding the Constitution will be missed. Rest in peace, Justice Scalia. My prayers are for you and your family.
Justice Scalia was confirmed by the Senate in 1986 by a vote of 98 to 0. This was a Democratic Senate. For the Senate leader to suggest that the next President should nominate the next Supreme Court justice is absurd.
"Rubio, the Florida senator, said it was not unprecedented for no appointment to be made in an election year.
It has been over 80 years since a lame duck president has appointed a supreme court justice,” he said, noting that, assuming a Republican victory, “someone on this stage will get to choose the balance of the supreme court”.
The President does not "appoint" a Justice. Kennedy was nominated in November 1987 and confirmed during Reagan’s final year of office in February 1988.
"Rubio, the Florida senator, said it was not unprecedented for no appointment to be made in an election year.
It has been over 80 years since a lame duck president has appointed a supreme court justice,” he said, noting that, assuming a Republican victory, “someone on this stage will get to choose the balance of the supreme court”.
The President does not "appoint" a Justice. Kennedy was nominated in November 1987 and confirmed during Reagan’s final year of office in February 1988.
3
Lindsey Graham would be a good replacement.
Whether you agree with his opinions or not: Justice Scalia was a passionate United States patriot who devoted his life to his country and public service.
Since he was religious, I offer him and his family a prayer that he rests in peace and that they find comfort in this difficult time.
Since he was religious, I offer him and his family a prayer that he rests in peace and that they find comfort in this difficult time.
This is an opportunity to progress prison reform and free the millions of African Americans in particular who are being failed and jailed by your justice system.
1
Uh, no. Keep them in jail and let the rest of us live without criminals running around.
1
Yes, you're right, because the US justice system is doing a great job of that, must be great to live in your crime free uptopia.
@P
RE "Mitch McConnell said, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”"
Obama is the first president since Eisenhower to renew his tenure after having won more than 51 percent of the vote in two consecutive elections. And despite four years of battering by Fox News and Limbaugh and the Tea Party and Mitch McConnell, Obama was re-elected by the american people with a higher percentage of the popular vote than John Kennedy in 1960, Richard Nixon in 1968, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996 or George Bush in 2000 or 2004. So what's your problem McConnell?
RE "Mitch McConnell said, "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”"
Obama is the first president since Eisenhower to renew his tenure after having won more than 51 percent of the vote in two consecutive elections. And despite four years of battering by Fox News and Limbaugh and the Tea Party and Mitch McConnell, Obama was re-elected by the american people with a higher percentage of the popular vote than John Kennedy in 1960, Richard Nixon in 1968, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996 or George Bush in 2000 or 2004. So what's your problem McConnell?
8
Articulate he may have been. But referring to physical relations between two men as "homsexual sodomy" is bigotry, and an articulate bigot is still a bigot.
11
I would recommend David Souter to replace Antonin Scalia and the first new case to be accepted by the new U. S. Supreme Court would be a test case to repeal Citizens United.
1
And appealing this case would do exactly what? Make your vote carry more weight or lessen the vote of David or Charles Koch ; no not at all.
People who were and still in an uproar of have a myopic point of view and seem not to think for themselves but are led to believe that elections can be bought because of this case. Unless the Kochs are physically giving people money and telling them who to vote for what difference does it make if they spend several hundred millions to in ad campaigns.
As Justice Scalia once said, are newspapers limited on how much coverage (money) to promote a candidate. The answer is no...
I often wonder how many people providing comments work for or in the public sector since it is the only rational reason to defend such nonsense the NY Times usually promotes...
People who were and still in an uproar of have a myopic point of view and seem not to think for themselves but are led to believe that elections can be bought because of this case. Unless the Kochs are physically giving people money and telling them who to vote for what difference does it make if they spend several hundred millions to in ad campaigns.
As Justice Scalia once said, are newspapers limited on how much coverage (money) to promote a candidate. The answer is no...
I often wonder how many people providing comments work for or in the public sector since it is the only rational reason to defend such nonsense the NY Times usually promotes...
The five-justice majority opinion overturning the precedent of Citizens United would consist of Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Souter is the best constitutional expert and writer of all five.
Most of the current Republican and Democratic Senators and Representatives have expressed their dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court's nullification of the campaign finance legislation which the Congress had agreed upon and passed.
What don't you understand?
Most of the current Republican and Democratic Senators and Representatives have expressed their dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court's nullification of the campaign finance legislation which the Congress had agreed upon and passed.
What don't you understand?
I fully understand, but borrowing the phrase Hillary has made famous, "What difference does it make?"
Furthermore, what any politician may say to the public and want they do are sadly very too often never the same, so once again "What difference does it make"?
Furthermore, what any politician may say to the public and want they do are sadly very too often never the same, so once again "What difference does it make"?
Quite frankly he was on the courts too long as many of these justices are there too long also. They should have term limits. If the shoe were on the other foot and we had a republican president they wouldn't waste any time in getting a new justice thru the senate. Scalia was always speaking at republican closed door meetings and he certainly was not partisan at all as they should be. This justice consistently voted toward the republican side in mind he wasn't fair in the courts. All justices should not vote at any political side they should vote on the facts. He was known to do this often. I feel sad fr his family but life goes on and we must move on also and get someone in that doesn't rule opinions of their political will.
7
What is the definition of Activist Judge again?
4
Very interesting Justice indeed. Would love to have him to write novels based on the interpretation of the Constitution.
1
I have honored the passing of Scalia by not commenting politically for a day. Now i must express how appalling it was to hear the unanimous agreement of the Republican candidates on wanting Obama to refrain from selecting a replacement. Kasich solemnly appealed to Obama for the good of the country not to engage in finding a nominee to replace Scalia. Disgustingly self serving and ignoring the need for the country to have a justice in place at this critical time in our history. The Democrats just witnessed some 30 years of a Conservative advantage on the court because Republican presidents happened to be in office during the time of their appointments. Now that the advantage will swing the other way the President must not perform his constitutional duty by replacing the strictest of all constitutionalists. An absolute insult to the intelligence of the American people.
10
Scalia's criminal actions on the court, along with Jeb Bush's criminal actions in Florida, gave the nation his idiot brother, George W. Bush, quite possibly the worst president in U.S. hustory. And of course the reason Republicans refuse to even consider Obama's nominee is because of the color of the Predidents skin. The bigotry and racism of the Republican Criminal Orgsnization has never been more transparent.
And I would also just like to point out that Bush was president for NINE months before 9/11, and he received numerous reports and warnings about Bin Lade and did NOTHING. He did NOT keep us safe and his non actions border of criminal negligence; for that alone he should have been impeached.
And I would also just like to point out that Bush was president for NINE months before 9/11, and he received numerous reports and warnings about Bin Lade and did NOTHING. He did NOT keep us safe and his non actions border of criminal negligence; for that alone he should have been impeached.
2
Sympathy to his family but a relief for free-thinkers.
9
I hope the Republicans realize that turnabout is fair play in the Senate. So if the tactic of delay of an Obama nominee I would suspect the Democrats will apply the same for a conservative judge.
3
Sounds like Scalia could be thought of as the Donald Trump of the Court.
6
No, not at all. Ask your grandkids to explain the article to you.
1
Even my grandkids(those past 10 years of age anyway)understand that neither Scalia nor his comments were "brilliant in any way.He did know how to get media attention.I suggest you actually read his opinions......slowly though.They are poorly supported and dogmatic.
President Obama should go ahead and appoint his replacement immediately; it should be an individual who represents the most extreme leftist views. A person so far to the left that they rub shoulders Castro. Yes, that is what the country needs. In fact it should be none other than Bernie Sanders! At least would remove him, if appointed the SC, from the presidential race.
2
Why not have term limits for Justices e.g. 12 years and maybe elect justices ( with the current procedure used only in the event a justice doesn't complete their term) particularly as the Court is limited to rule solely on existing laws after an appeal of a circuit court ruling via a writ of certiorari to provide for three separate branches of government
The hundreds of caustic comments here are emblematic of the deeply partisan and dysfunctional times we are so unfortunately living in.
1
Justice Scalia was a brilliant man. He chose to implement a judicial philosophy that essentially undercut what used to be conventional wisdom: that the Constitution is a living breathing document whose true genius is in its capacity to be adapted to a world radically different from that of the founders. His so-called doctrine of originalism was a tool to restore the primacy of the contemporary equivalents of the colonial Virginia landed gentry. The fulsome praise it has received is just more evidence of of the dangerously reactionary era in which we live. And most unfortunate of all, Justice Scalia chose to articulate his doctrine in a Twitter-like manner that was long on sarcasm and pithy invective and short on careful and respectful analysis of precedent. In my mind he is the conservative analog to Justice William O. Douglas, a man whose prestige never approached Scalia's and whose reputation has not withstood the test of time. Judge Posner is correct to say Justice Scalia was the most influential justice of our times, but given the nature our times that is damning him with faint praise.
4
Scalia cherry picked Constitutional Law to cobble together the rationale to support his far-right conservative political and religious views which he relentlessly sought to inflict on the nation "because he could." He was undoubtedly a major influential figure, not because his reasoning was superior or necessarily correct but because (a) he was there so long, and (b) his opinions have had such destructive effects on the nation too numerous for this brief space.
To paraphrase the inimitable Mark Twain, I will be unable to attend the funeral but will send a nice letter saying that I approve of it.
To paraphrase the inimitable Mark Twain, I will be unable to attend the funeral but will send a nice letter saying that I approve of it.
7
Justice Scalia was a great judge and defender of the US Constitution who often came to conclusions that differed from his personal beliefs. A mark of a great man in this case. He will be sorely missed for his intellectual prowess, wit, good judgement and constant reminder the Constitution is a limit on government so that citizens can be free of the totalitarian instincts that come with power. God bless you Antonin Scalia, you were a great American.
I agree that it's too soon to discuss politics immediately following Justice Scalia's passing. But since Mitch McConnell has no problem with this sort of disrespect and classlessness, let's have at it.
I wish Mr. McConnell as much luck blocking the next supreme court nominee as he had making Obama a one-term president. But more to the point, maybe we should consider what a delay will accomplish. If Ms. Clinton wins, we'll get a genuine liberal. If Mr. Cruz wins, the nominee will come from a guy who even conservative Republicans despise. And if Americans decide Cruz is too far to the right (they will) and Donald wins, wow, that's hard to fathom.
I wish Mr. McConnell as much luck blocking the next supreme court nominee as he had making Obama a one-term president. But more to the point, maybe we should consider what a delay will accomplish. If Ms. Clinton wins, we'll get a genuine liberal. If Mr. Cruz wins, the nominee will come from a guy who even conservative Republicans despise. And if Americans decide Cruz is too far to the right (they will) and Donald wins, wow, that's hard to fathom.
7
Recess appointment. Lawrence Lessig. In a few days.
Thank you.
Thank you.
4
I'm not sure why the Republicans want to wait until either Hillary or Bernie is elected to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. Not sure their nominee would be much different than Obama's.
6
There is a HUGE difference in the choices Hillary or Bernie would make, so Obama better get moving. Hillary is a corporate tool, no matter what her PR sells us.
Although he contended he was a strict "Constitutional" interpreter, he was nothing of the kind. His opinions were guided by his prejudice, racism, sexism and narcissism. America is now free of his polluted view of Democracy.
13
I offer my condolences to his family and friends.
I believe his absence from the court is a god-send; he was a horrible, spiteful and hypocritical little man with questionable legal principles. The battle to enable President Obama to replace him will be a defining event in the presidential election, uniting everyone on the left and center against the oligarchs and their ignorant enablers who think oligarchs' money should control all the instruments of government.
Who is going to tell Clarence Thomas what to think now? Poor Clarence.
I believe his absence from the court is a god-send; he was a horrible, spiteful and hypocritical little man with questionable legal principles. The battle to enable President Obama to replace him will be a defining event in the presidential election, uniting everyone on the left and center against the oligarchs and their ignorant enablers who think oligarchs' money should control all the instruments of government.
Who is going to tell Clarence Thomas what to think now? Poor Clarence.
9
To say he had a soaring intellect would be an understatement. To say he had a wicked sense of humour and a love of language would also be an understatement. He was the one Supreme Court Justice with who I would have loved to share a bottle of wine and subsequent conversation. Tonight you will be toasted with a fine Vino Nobile de Monticello. I rarely agreed with you but I think we could agree on the wine being excellent!
I remember Scalia going duck hunting with Cheney at the same time SCOTUS was hearing a case against Cheney for not disclosing the make up and context of closed energy meetings with industry leaders.
That a Supreme Court Justice could not recognize a blatant conflict of interest in this...or at least the whiff of one, colors him as the ideologue he was, and an arrogant one at that. He was impervious to conflict of interest and dishonest as a constitutionalist by blatantly favoring religion and repressing individual rights.
I cannot bring myself to mourn a man whose prejudices against the rights of a woman's right to chose, or marriage among gays, or in favor of First Amendment rights never before seen that threaten our very democracy in Citizens United which guarantees the best elected official that money can buy.
I find condolences to family to be patronizing, insincere, and perhaps dishonest, given the divisive, combative history that this justice has imposed on us for years and the regressive, anachronistic dogma that dominated his agenda. And the fact he wrote well and cleverly and shared a love for opera with his peers and showed flashes of humor is nothing but a smokescreen for this bully in black robes.
He could not be replaced fast enough.
That a Supreme Court Justice could not recognize a blatant conflict of interest in this...or at least the whiff of one, colors him as the ideologue he was, and an arrogant one at that. He was impervious to conflict of interest and dishonest as a constitutionalist by blatantly favoring religion and repressing individual rights.
I cannot bring myself to mourn a man whose prejudices against the rights of a woman's right to chose, or marriage among gays, or in favor of First Amendment rights never before seen that threaten our very democracy in Citizens United which guarantees the best elected official that money can buy.
I find condolences to family to be patronizing, insincere, and perhaps dishonest, given the divisive, combative history that this justice has imposed on us for years and the regressive, anachronistic dogma that dominated his agenda. And the fact he wrote well and cleverly and shared a love for opera with his peers and showed flashes of humor is nothing but a smokescreen for this bully in black robes.
He could not be replaced fast enough.
16
To be a Great Jurist I think you should be impartial. To those who want to canonize the recently depart as a one of the best we ever had. I would ask of them if he was a great jurist he could not have made them happy with every ruling he made. A great jurist is one that is neither referred to as Conservative or Liberal a great jurist is referred to as Judge. One sides argument cannot always be right. For a jurist to always vote in a block only means they are judging with blinders on. Justice is supposed to be blind not one way!
6
Born in Jersey, raised in Queens NYC, it's was hard for me not to like him, even though I disagreed with him on almost everything. Same for our Brooklyn-born Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who I also disagree with on many things. But one way or the other, if you're from New York City, you're smart, sharp, and tough. RIP U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. You will be missed by all Americans. Bill Crandall
1
Without a doubt, the most destructive "Justice" in the history of the United States Supreme Court.
This man of corporate "personhood" allocated the most "free speech" to those with the most money, effectively drowning out the voices of the American People in the elective process...
This man of politics over precedent effectively through out the Will of The People and appointed the worst President in history... Can anyone doubt if the roles of Bush v Gore had been reversed, Scalia's opinion would have followed suit?
This man gutted the Voting Rights Act, permitting massive voter suppression in almost every state with a Republican governor...
This man will not be missed by anyone who sides with the interests of the American People over those of the corporate plutocracy.
A Reagan Legacy stain on American Democracy has been removed.
This man of corporate "personhood" allocated the most "free speech" to those with the most money, effectively drowning out the voices of the American People in the elective process...
This man of politics over precedent effectively through out the Will of The People and appointed the worst President in history... Can anyone doubt if the roles of Bush v Gore had been reversed, Scalia's opinion would have followed suit?
This man gutted the Voting Rights Act, permitting massive voter suppression in almost every state with a Republican governor...
This man will not be missed by anyone who sides with the interests of the American People over those of the corporate plutocracy.
A Reagan Legacy stain on American Democracy has been removed.
11
RIP. And thank you for your life of service, Justice Scalia.
Moreover, from heaven, please quickly send us a sane and honest replacement.
Moreover, from heaven, please quickly send us a sane and honest replacement.
1
Scalia's cultural and family background shaped his dogmatic, simplistic, authoritarian views. It infuriates me that he got away with imposing his uninformed self-righteousness on others.
6
Brilliance, as it pertains to Justice Scalia, refers to the degree of intellectual prowess that can be applied to perpetuating the illusion that 18th century thinkers could write the template for life in the 21st century, even if that is what they intended to do, which there is no reason to think is the case. We can only think that progress toward a higher, more ideal way of being as a species is possible if we assume that future generations will find better ways than we have to achieve our ideals. We can only hope that is the case because, very much like our forefathers, we in the 21st century have a long way to go before we realize the perfection which is presumably the goal of democracy. So as earnest and sincere and brilliant as Justice Scalia was, I am obliged to say that much of his effort had the unfortunate effect of impeding progress toward a more relevant, responsive and contemporaneous system of government.
4
I wonder what the Middle East would like today if Scalia had not supported Bush's election in Florida. Scalia's impact has been incredibly partisan and profoundly destructive for both America and the World.
7
This gives hope that decisions like the most recent reversal of President Obama's attempt to beging to deal with emissions from coal-burning plants could be a thing of the past.
4
I was secretly hoping POTUS would announce his nominations during his remarks tonight.
3
I was always lead to believe that hoping, a purely subjective enterprise, was inherently secret. Oops, I forgot Obama's Facebook page.
Scalia won praises from liberal thinkers for his intelligence and for his jurisprudence. His Constitutional theory of interpretation, based on original intent, was novel and proved to be an effective means of analysis that others on the court felt compelled to address. The fact that he generally got to the same place as traditional conservatives while taking a different route was a challenge to to liberal justices and thinkers. But to the American people, it mattered not. When it comes to popular views of justice, what matters is the bottom line, not how you get there.
Scalia's originalism went back at least to Blackstone. The only new thing about it is that from about Robert Bork on, conservatives specifically identified originalism as political.
All all I can say is Bush v. Gore. A despicable decision and one that overshadows all his so-called "brilliance." A monumental hypocrite.
10
Which caused the illegal war in Iraq for Haliburton and Big Oil, and loss of thousands of troops... There is a God...
1
Have I missed something, or has the New York Times just published an obituary and 'highllghts' on Antonin Scalia without mentioning the 2010 Citizens United decision for which Scalia wrote a concurring decision? Hey, it's only the second most far-reaching decision, after the disastrous decision on Gore Vs Bush, that Scalia was involved in...
7
Justice Scalia has been quoted as saying he would retire when he thought he could no longer perform his functions in a capable manner. He did not feel that time had come. That decision is no longer his to make. It has been made for him.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
5
My condolences go to Justice Scalia's family. But I will not miss his presence in the Supreme Court. His judgments have caused a lot of damage to a lot of people, and undermined democracy itself. With the next appointee, we should start on the long road to fixing some of the damage already done, for example, by reversing the Citizens United judgment. I look forward to the day when we can come up with a process whereby nomination of Supreme Court justices is take out of the realm of partisan politics.
5
The best thing President Obama could do right now would be to recess-appoint Anita Hill to the SC. She's a law professor, black, and from the South. And it would make Clarence Thomas's head explode, so there's that.
6
"Literalism" in the interpretation of biblical texts (the religious equivalent of "originalism") is completely discredited among scripture scholars (for both linguistic-textual and theoretical reasons). That Scalia could get away with this nonsense in judicial circles under the guise of "originalism" shows you just how intellectually isolated the SCOTUS can be. Even if one believes that we can possibly find the "original intent" of the "Founding Fathers" (a dubious enterprise at best), there are a whole lot of 21st century Americans (gays, women, racial minorities) who think we need to subject that original intent to insight of modern wisdom -- and not the other way around.
2
The GOP candidates' call to the Senate to "delay, delay, delay" could well prove a double edged sword should whichever GOP candidate make it to the White House. The precedent of not giving a sitting president his choice could then last years, not months.
4
My condolences to his family and my thanks to him for his service to the United States. I consistently disagreed with his views and the latest pro-pollution decision he and his conservative cohorts made is certainly no exception so I hate to say this, but I have high hopes for his replacement.
This conservative wing of the court has been responsible for what could be one of the worst supreme courts in american history. pro-racism, pro-corruption, pro-pollution rulings...the list goes on.
About the nicest thing I can say about them is they didn't COMPLETELY gut the ACA. And even then, they did serious damage to it and this will reflect in many lives lost as a result. Tens or hundreds of thousands more will be cut short as a result of their anti-clean air stance.
Truly, the callousness of some of those in power astonishes (and horrifies) me.
This conservative wing of the court has been responsible for what could be one of the worst supreme courts in american history. pro-racism, pro-corruption, pro-pollution rulings...the list goes on.
About the nicest thing I can say about them is they didn't COMPLETELY gut the ACA. And even then, they did serious damage to it and this will reflect in many lives lost as a result. Tens or hundreds of thousands more will be cut short as a result of their anti-clean air stance.
Truly, the callousness of some of those in power astonishes (and horrifies) me.
2
Congress, do your jobs. President Obama is our elected president and he is doing his job. If you do not do your jobs, then you should not earn a salary.
7
If Scalia had been an originalist for all seasons, he would have declared that the 'arms' in the Second Amendment meant muskets, knives and other weapons available in 1790. No M-16's. Ak-47's, Glocks or other modern weapons allowed. But he voted to strike down the DC law against modern weapons.
In his comment below, Sean C. described Scalia's character perfectly.
In his comment below, Sean C. described Scalia's character perfectly.
3
This man personally twisted the court into an overtly political and religiously bent circus.
He will not be missed.
He will not be missed.
10
He will sorely missed by the billionaires...
1
Some are calling Scalia an "originalist," I call him a partisan and a destructive force for a progressive democracy. RIP
7
I just woke up to the news (in Cape Town). Before any other comments, I also just read a sub-headline that the "GOP is united in opposing Obama's nominating a successor." What an unbelievable, but regrettably predictable, immediate reaction by Republicans! If it was one of the more "liberal" justices who had passed on, they would probably also be insisting that Obama somehow not be the president who nominates a successor. Worse, if there were a Republican president right now, there would be no such argument, which of course is correct, as according to our system the sitting president nominates candidates for new Supreme Court justices. Ugh! Just terrible!
6
Could Republicans at least wait for the body to get cold before squabbling over a replacement justice? Scalia was a conservative, one of their own, and they show him zero respect .
9
Typical. They are like vultures. No, they are vultures.
If the president can place a justice in the SCOTUS during this recess he should do so immediately since it is clearly evident that a prolonged, pointless and senseless battle will ensue in the Senate should he not act now. Plus it might be that we do not have a functioning Supreme Court for more than a year. The American public would be paying for a service and nada. I find it amusing while speculating that if Citizens United were to be overturned overnight, the only person who would not be affected in any relevant way would be Bernie Sanders.
3
Listen up Democrats, it's not about the ideal set or manner of speech or facial makeup, or vocal tone of the candidates that will matter in this election. It's recognition by the electorate that the Republican Party will continue to be an obstruction of process, regardless of the issue. Do you need a replay of the President's last 8 years? Put away what you think matters when you choose and elect someone who can street fight the Republicans - here is the same issue again with a Supreme Court nomination
3
I'd rather this President had my back than any candidate running, with the possible exceptions of Clinton and Kasich.
Hopefully they are losing steam. That "debate" was an additional indicator. The childish behavior exhibited on stage will give many pause. Is this what a Republican is? And I hope it does. I love that Trump is calling liars liars and flushing out dirty political behavior like stealing votes from Carson or robo calls saying Trump not going to run in SC. People need to see the true colors of these nasty people. Apologies to Mr Kasich and Ben Carson.
A monumental figure in the development of American jurisprudence, a brilliant mind, a friend to many, a scourge to many, an interesting fellow. But let's not forget that he was also a human and not immune to the laws of human nature and psychology, which are far more immutable than constitutions or statutes. His jovial side is apparent, and his gracious welcoming friendship with Justices Ginsberg and Kagan must be applauded without regard to politics or ideology. His occasional temper tantrums -- witness his reaction to the Geoffrey Stone business -- reminds us that he could also be as small as small can get.
2
With 11 months left in office, President Obama can appoint a judge on the supreme court even in an election year. Republicans should not try to delay or interfere with an appointment. Certainly the late Justice Antonin Scalia is irreplaceable but nominating someone who could come close and have bipartisan support should not be difficult to find in a sea of a nation full of lawyers and judges and that would be the best tribute to Justice Scalie. Judge Srikant Srinivasan could be someone who may fut the description of an acceptable nominee who could become the first Asian American to be on the supreme court bench.
2
That is what I am hoping for. A candidate the Republicans in the Senate would be embarrassed to impede.
Condolences on the death of the judge.
A nation is a living and dynamic organism and the constitution becomes a dead document when interpreted in the light of "originalism". In this context, either the constitution ought to be changed according to changing times or has to be interpreted liberally in keeping with changing times. The principle of "Originalism" fails the above test and thus fails the society as a principle of interpretation of statutes. Scalia as a votary of originalism, to certain extent, had impeded progress of the nation.
A nation is a living and dynamic organism and the constitution becomes a dead document when interpreted in the light of "originalism". In this context, either the constitution ought to be changed according to changing times or has to be interpreted liberally in keeping with changing times. The principle of "Originalism" fails the above test and thus fails the society as a principle of interpretation of statutes. Scalia as a votary of originalism, to certain extent, had impeded progress of the nation.
3
It would be interesting to posit on how Justice Scalia would regard a constitutional imperative to demand that his replacement take place during the remaining tenure of President Obama. How do the constitutional originalists regard this critical charge for our Congress? It would be a fitting legacy to Scalia for the American people to hear this argument debated by our elected representatives. I fear however, that we will only hear more political invective.
1
Term limits for Justices sounds good to me. Why do we want really old justices? It's ridiculous. And Obama has been elected not once, but twice. He should get to put on whatever reasonable candidate he chooses. The Republicans make an issue of this to their own peril. It will lead to major defeats, and it is about time. The people can now see the direct result of their choices.
4
If you're not an originalist, you don't belong on the court.
The Constitution and the SC are the only thing standing between freedom and mob rule.
The Constitution and the SC are the only thing standing between freedom and mob rule.
1
An originalist means that he interpreted the Constitution literally. He saw it not as a living breathing document, but as a legal document, not open to individual interpretation and change.
2
Good to know that Holmes, Learned Hand, Brandeis, telford Taylor, Warren, Douglas, Marshall and all the others wouldn't be good enough for you.
I wish people--liberals and the left included--would learn to differentiate between holding different views on one hand and evil on the other.
I wish people--liberals and the left included--would learn to differentiate between holding different views on one hand and evil on the other.
1
Last I checked, the original its were a group of people who lived in the 18th century. Either you are fit to live in the 21 century or you are not. Which is it?
1
Scalia was funny, witty, brilliant, incisive and so much more. He was an unforgettable character, whatever side you are on. But as the eulogies pour out today, we must never forget one elementary fact. SCOTUS affects the lives of millions of Americans for good and ill. Scalia was a force for harm, not for good.
Scalia above all was a culture warrior, a product of the anti-60's counterrevolution. "Originalism" was a tool for this warfare, and a malleable one. When he helped decide the 2000 election on "equal protection" grounds, he threw aside any credible claim of being controlled by the "original public meaning of the text". That was exactly the kind of reasoning he always excoriated.
A close review of his record will reveal that "originalism" rarely forced him to make rulings contrary to his political instincts. In the Entertainment Merchants case, he said violent video games enjoyed first amendment protection. Thomas dissented, on plausible originalist grounds. ACA violated the commerce clause, but bans on private marijuana cultivation did not. The list is endless. Originalism was merely a convenient tool, to be put aside when necessary. Statutes he didn't like he regularly tried to subvert by sophistry. It's the EPA, not the "Atmospheric protection agency"!
An undisciplined, coarse personality, rude to colleagues, he openly hated gay people and never could imagine that there was any moral force behind their claims. Just another "elite" fad, he said. Whatever.
Scalia above all was a culture warrior, a product of the anti-60's counterrevolution. "Originalism" was a tool for this warfare, and a malleable one. When he helped decide the 2000 election on "equal protection" grounds, he threw aside any credible claim of being controlled by the "original public meaning of the text". That was exactly the kind of reasoning he always excoriated.
A close review of his record will reveal that "originalism" rarely forced him to make rulings contrary to his political instincts. In the Entertainment Merchants case, he said violent video games enjoyed first amendment protection. Thomas dissented, on plausible originalist grounds. ACA violated the commerce clause, but bans on private marijuana cultivation did not. The list is endless. Originalism was merely a convenient tool, to be put aside when necessary. Statutes he didn't like he regularly tried to subvert by sophistry. It's the EPA, not the "Atmospheric protection agency"!
An undisciplined, coarse personality, rude to colleagues, he openly hated gay people and never could imagine that there was any moral force behind their claims. Just another "elite" fad, he said. Whatever.
7
The King is dead. Long live the King.
I wonder what Justice Scalia, in his steadfast defense of the intent of the founders in the "original constitution", would think of Republicans immediately denying the right of President Obama to name a replacement, and the obligation of the Senate to consider it forthwith.
I wonder what Justice Scalia, in his steadfast defense of the intent of the founders in the "original constitution", would think of Republicans immediately denying the right of President Obama to name a replacement, and the obligation of the Senate to consider it forthwith.
14
DJ: I'm sure he'd manufacture some twisted "logic" with which to agree with them.
He always did.
He always did.
5
Most amazing is within hours of the announcement of his death, McConnell is already talking about delaying an appointment until after the election. And he seemed to say nothing about Scalia's tenure on the Court. Outrageous. McConnell's response is what one would expect from some sort of paid flak, not the leader of the majority in the United States Senate. But a reaction that was completely politicized. But no doubt every Republican will pick up the cry and say the same thing, despite the fact that Obama has 11 months remaining in office. How utterly and completely cynical. We do have a country and the Court that needs to operate, and if Republicans don't like the results, well, sorry boys, that's the way the cookie crumbles. It's not as if there were some plot to create the vacancy via Scalia's death. He died of natural causes, which creates an opening on the Court. Unfortunately for Republicans, they've so politicized Court appointments that they'll have to live with the results. Had the situation been reversed, we can be sure they'd have a extremely young right-winger ready to go.
18
In 2004, Justice Scalia went on a duck-hunting trip with Dick Cheney, who was then vice president and a litigant in a case before the court. When the trip came to light, Justice Scalia issued a 21-page defense of the trip and refused to disqualify himself from the case. "I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned... If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bought so cheaply, the Nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," he wrote.
I am reminded of a joke of which the punch line is "we've already established that. Now we're just haggling about the price."
I am reminded of a joke of which the punch line is "we've already established that. Now we're just haggling about the price."
15
Thank you NYT for this informative article. As most people, I have little time in life to delve into the specifics, personal or professional, of people with whom I so often disagree. I have a different opinion of Justice Scalia as a result of your article.
I better understand the reasoning behind his decision making process and the foundation upon which those decisions were made. It doesn't change my opinion about the real life consequences of those decisions. But, I have to respect his process and consistency. Justice Scalia, it appears, is no different than the rest of us in becoming a bit more ( I'm struggling with the right word here) wise/compromising as we age.
My condolences to his family, friends and admirers.
I better understand the reasoning behind his decision making process and the foundation upon which those decisions were made. It doesn't change my opinion about the real life consequences of those decisions. But, I have to respect his process and consistency. Justice Scalia, it appears, is no different than the rest of us in becoming a bit more ( I'm struggling with the right word here) wise/compromising as we age.
My condolences to his family, friends and admirers.
7
So ends an era of outright judicial activism, thinly-veiled hatred, and complete disregard for common sense.
Good riddance.
Good riddance.
16
Don't hold your breath.
So I guess the justice, like the constitution in his view, is just a dead document now. My condolences to his family and his loved ones, but as a jurist he was brilliant, nasty, and cruel, as well as arrogant. I can't change this view just because he died (and he was going hunting, to kill animals for sport). Now the Republicans will claim Obama can't appoint him. Mitch McConnell, I think you should discuss the constitutionality of this directly with Justice Scalia. The GOP has become the "take my ball home if I don't like the call" Party.
8
Justice Scalia is dead and let's leave him and his family in peace. However, President Obama must fulfill his duty and nominate a replacement soon. No supreme court nominations have ever lasted more than six months and we should have a new justice in court by September 1, 2016.
8
reply to Optimist: Yes- he is dead, but his horrific decisions LIVE ON
1
I pray that we all can rest in peace when the time comes as I do for Justice Scalia.
The thing is that as long as we stay alive it is difficult to rest in peace if we are to stay connected with our society and seek social justice.
Did republicans in their debate avoid the political question of replacing Justice Scalia? Justice Scalia was a political man who always brought his political opinions into his decisions. He contributed greatly to our political conflicts. And so his death becomes a political football.
Sad, but that is the world Justice Scalia helped create.
The thing is that as long as we stay alive it is difficult to rest in peace if we are to stay connected with our society and seek social justice.
Did republicans in their debate avoid the political question of replacing Justice Scalia? Justice Scalia was a political man who always brought his political opinions into his decisions. He contributed greatly to our political conflicts. And so his death becomes a political football.
Sad, but that is the world Justice Scalia helped create.
6
Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry
out a death sentence properly reached.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Scalia was an oxymoron. The grief Scalia caused so many Americans during his tenure on the Supreme Court should be deducted from the grief appropriate and attendant to his death. If the flag flies at half mast it is as much for the loss of judicial fairness and equal rights before the law as it is for the man whose legacy will be his use of the Supreme Court as a political belligerent on behalf of the Republican agenda. University of Chicago law students who suffered through his lectures nicknamed him "Eddie Munster," less for his appearance than for the mismatch between his physical stature and his imagined authority on constitutional law.
out a death sentence properly reached.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
Justice Scalia was an oxymoron. The grief Scalia caused so many Americans during his tenure on the Supreme Court should be deducted from the grief appropriate and attendant to his death. If the flag flies at half mast it is as much for the loss of judicial fairness and equal rights before the law as it is for the man whose legacy will be his use of the Supreme Court as a political belligerent on behalf of the Republican agenda. University of Chicago law students who suffered through his lectures nicknamed him "Eddie Munster," less for his appearance than for the mismatch between his physical stature and his imagined authority on constitutional law.
16
Yes I am gonna gloat. Scalia had too many years of marginalizing various US citizens. Good riddance. Time to move on. This could be a game changer. Karmic validation of the progressive revolution. Out with the old conservative vanguard.
10
Antonin Scalia recognized Obama's anti American agenda and did everything in his power to prevent Obama from ignoring and violating the constitution.
Thankfully we have a Republican controlled senate that will prevent Obama from naming one of his cronies to the supreme court.
President Trump will nominate the next supreme court justice and immediately rescind all of Obama's illegal executive orders.
Thankfully we have a Republican controlled senate that will prevent Obama from naming one of his cronies to the supreme court.
President Trump will nominate the next supreme court justice and immediately rescind all of Obama's illegal executive orders.
Thanks for sharing your ignorance of the American political system and appalling lack of judgement regarding Presidential eligibility with us.
If the Republicans stall out the President's chance to nominate, I can only hope that President Clinton or Sanders will nominate Justice Obama.
8
A great American. Rest in peace.
3
Mitch OConnell or whatever his name is says something silly like "let the people decide". Does he forget that Obama got a very large percentage of votes (the people) both times he ran for president. Each time it was over 50%.
Yes, let's let the people decide. And that would be Obama.
Or better yet, change the constitution and let the people vote. One vote per person. Non of this Electoral college, or even delegates to elect the nominees. Now THAT would be a true democratic idea.
Yes, let's let the people decide. And that would be Obama.
Or better yet, change the constitution and let the people vote. One vote per person. Non of this Electoral college, or even delegates to elect the nominees. Now THAT would be a true democratic idea.
6
Obama should nominate himself to replace Scalia.
6
The only reason the Court is now such a political football is the original “reason” behind the GOP turn to hyper religious conservatism, Racism.
The people who lead it never got over Brown v Board of Ed and all that followed it. So they invented the idea that the Justices had made the ruling based on personal desires not law. Thus the ruling was wrong and being unfairly imposed which is undoubtedly the source of much of the outsize irrational anger that comes from that side.
This became an open argument under reagan who shamelessly chose shamelessly political judges whose decisions were known before the case ever came up. He called these “reliable” conservatives.
Along with all the other dishonest running of the government in a way that prevented it's agencies from doing their job under reagan’s regime the Congress began not doing its job by making a huge show of pretending to do its job and spouting of lies and assertions they were never made to stand behind. As in all things reagan they altered the facts on the ground to make the lie they told to get into that position seem not to be a lie. Dishonesty is the hallmark of their ilk. From there it obviously leads us to where we are now.
What we need is the total opposite of Scalia, an honest, objective, rational person who comes to each case with an open mind and no agenda.
The people who lead it never got over Brown v Board of Ed and all that followed it. So they invented the idea that the Justices had made the ruling based on personal desires not law. Thus the ruling was wrong and being unfairly imposed which is undoubtedly the source of much of the outsize irrational anger that comes from that side.
This became an open argument under reagan who shamelessly chose shamelessly political judges whose decisions were known before the case ever came up. He called these “reliable” conservatives.
Along with all the other dishonest running of the government in a way that prevented it's agencies from doing their job under reagan’s regime the Congress began not doing its job by making a huge show of pretending to do its job and spouting of lies and assertions they were never made to stand behind. As in all things reagan they altered the facts on the ground to make the lie they told to get into that position seem not to be a lie. Dishonesty is the hallmark of their ilk. From there it obviously leads us to where we are now.
What we need is the total opposite of Scalia, an honest, objective, rational person who comes to each case with an open mind and no agenda.
4
What made Justice Scalia a great American was not whether one agreed with him or disagreed with him. What made him a great American was his reverence for the Constitution, and his devotion to the law of the land.
That he was a deeply flawed individual spoke most clearly to the depth of his great legal intellect. We should all be so deeply flawed. May he rest in peace.
That he was a deeply flawed individual spoke most clearly to the depth of his great legal intellect. We should all be so deeply flawed. May he rest in peace.
2
Justice Scalia had "reverence" for his particular interpretation of the Constitution, while simultaneously denying anyone else the right to interpret it. "Deeply flawed," indeed.
1
Obama should nominate Anita Hill. Now *that* would make things interesting...
16
sure, because a third-rate intellect who has been teaching for 25 years without producing a single piece of scholarship of note is exactly what we need on the highest court in the land. If we are going to populate the Supreme Court with the victims of sexual harassment by high government officials, why not Monica Lewinsky or Juanita Broderick?
1
I don't recall the framers saying anything about preventing constitutionally elected Presidents from filling Supreme Court vacancies, until someone from the opposing party has a chance to get elected. I also missed the clause about Presidents not retaining full constitutional authority in the last year of their term. Hmmm, nothing about the Senate ducking it's constitutional responsibilities in an election year either. It's ironic how modern Republicans seem to always feel that the constitution can be ignored when it becomes inconvenient. They do so seem to love waving it around in the air frantically all the time, as if being constantly attacked by a swarm of angry bees. Oh wait, those are angry voters!
20
Republicans are not the only group that waffles on the Constitution. The Times is continuously filled with progressives who want to cherry pick the Comstitution, refer to second ammendment attacks please.
If the Republicans somehow prevent a Ninth SCOTUS Justice from being seated until sometime in 2017, that will in effect result in most key cases being left undecided for both the 2016 and 2017 terms.
5
President Obama will nominate a jurist of color offering in one stroke further diversity on the court and an opportunity to demonstrate to large segments of the population just how opposed to that diversity the Republicans are.
3
Maybe the next McConnell move is to claim that since recent precedent is to have Scalia decide, the November contest should be determined according to Scalia's will. And that will save us the trouble of driving to the polls.
Mitch conveniently forgot that we elected Obama twice.
Scalia's "originalism" was a fraud - to rationalize anti-democratic approaches on issues important to the people. His approach ignored that the Constitution had no bill of rights (and no operative effect) until it was interpreted in the ratification process by "WE THE PEOPLE" in the several states. VA insisted on a bill of rights, while other states did not, and some "founding fathers" (like Elbridge Gerry) simply voted against it. The civil war amendments changed to the Federal system and imposed broad restrictions on state power where there had been almost none before.
Scalia hated democracy and was always willing to show it. "Get over it!" he said.
The real "originalism" was his - by ignoring precedent and history he could advance a radical (NOT "conservative") agenda. History, precedent, all legal scholars previously interpreted the 2nd amendment as covering only a "collective" right to keep and bear arms, such as by participating in a state militia. His "originalism" made Bush our President when he received less votes than Gore nationwide, by stopping the Florida process in 2000. Just imagine the furor if the voting results and decision were reversed and came from the other side.
Mitch conveniently forgot that we elected Obama twice.
Scalia's "originalism" was a fraud - to rationalize anti-democratic approaches on issues important to the people. His approach ignored that the Constitution had no bill of rights (and no operative effect) until it was interpreted in the ratification process by "WE THE PEOPLE" in the several states. VA insisted on a bill of rights, while other states did not, and some "founding fathers" (like Elbridge Gerry) simply voted against it. The civil war amendments changed to the Federal system and imposed broad restrictions on state power where there had been almost none before.
Scalia hated democracy and was always willing to show it. "Get over it!" he said.
The real "originalism" was his - by ignoring precedent and history he could advance a radical (NOT "conservative") agenda. History, precedent, all legal scholars previously interpreted the 2nd amendment as covering only a "collective" right to keep and bear arms, such as by participating in a state militia. His "originalism" made Bush our President when he received less votes than Gore nationwide, by stopping the Florida process in 2000. Just imagine the furor if the voting results and decision were reversed and came from the other side.
10
It's amazing how certain conservatives are that their court decisions and political views are always based on the "original" meaning of the US Constitution, and that their political positions are always based on principle. The only certainty is that both are always in their best interest, and more often to the detriment of all others. It seems that Scalia was quite artful in playing this game.
14
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.”- Republican Senator Mitch McConnell
Someone needs to tell Sen. McConnell - and all of the other Republicans clamoring for Obama to defer nomination to allow the next president to fill that seat - that the American people DID have a voice in the selection of the justice who will replace Scalia: they elected Barack Obama. He is president for almost another year. Get over it.
Someone needs to tell Sen. McConnell - and all of the other Republicans clamoring for Obama to defer nomination to allow the next president to fill that seat - that the American people DID have a voice in the selection of the justice who will replace Scalia: they elected Barack Obama. He is president for almost another year. Get over it.
28
What I always admire in truly brilliant minds--Einstein for example---is their understanding and admission of how much they didn't know. Justice Scalia never had that problem.
27
Scalia was clever, and nothing else.
1
Some commenters have asked, or suggested that Obama appoint himself to the SCOTUS vacancy. This is a very bad idea, as he has proved to be a corporatist, dancing to the tune of the elite who wrecked the economy, and the nascent police-security state of NSA, CIA, FBI and DEA illegal spying on law abiding citizens (the vast majority of us). These and many important issues that potentially will come before the SCOTUS that intimately involved Obama and from which he would have to recuse himself, if he were honest and ethical, or that he would rule on, if he were corrupt and partisan like Thomas and Scalia, both of whom should have been impeached. These include anti-democratic provisions of the TPP if it is passed by Congress, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, legislation which permits the U.S. military to indefinitely detain people who are alleged to be part of or substantially support Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States, with no notice, lawyer, Habeas Corpus or other legal protections. It is so vague that it can be used against anyone or any reason.
It would be a move that would further polarize the country. However, since the Republican Congress has already declared that it will obstruct any appointment, then Obama would be best advised to make an immediate recess appointment of a qualified jurist. I would suggest Lawrence Lessig as the eminently qualified candidate to bring balance back.
It would be a move that would further polarize the country. However, since the Republican Congress has already declared that it will obstruct any appointment, then Obama would be best advised to make an immediate recess appointment of a qualified jurist. I would suggest Lawrence Lessig as the eminently qualified candidate to bring balance back.
2
Say what you will about his politics or his opinions, he was an incomparable prose stylist. Many, many people, I am sure, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, read his opinions, and particularly his dissents, simply to marvel at and enjoy his incomparable writing.
2
To bad so much of it was argle-bargle.
The Democrats strategy should be to lose the battles to win the war. Obama should nominate moderate and not liberal justices. The Republicans will defeat them anyway. The voters will see through the filibustering tactics of the GOP, and give the the White House back to the Democrats. The new President, with the fresh mandate can then nominate a true liberal.
5
Obama could not possibly bring himself to appoint a " moderate" under any circumstance. His last 2 appointments were the least qualified for the court in my lifetime. He will likely appoint Eric Holder to complete his anti-American agenda.
Manderine Manhattan Pending Approval
Since when did the American people get to select a Supreme Court Justice?
Hey no nothing republican presidential candidates who wish to make filling this SCOTUS vacancy a political issue, since when did the American people get to select a Supreme Court justice?
Answer: When we the majority of the people elected a president.
It is the president who has the constitutional responsiblity to fill any and all vacancies during their term in office.
It is not up to presidential candidates, or anyone else to say.
Making this an issue will only serve to polarize your oppositions base and reveal the reasons why the congress has the lowest approval rating EVER.
McConnell failed at his top priority of making President Barack Obama a one term president, and he will fail at this unconstitutional attempt to prevent the 2 term president his right to fill a vacant spot on the Supreme Court during his term.
Since when did the American people get to select a Supreme Court Justice?
Hey no nothing republican presidential candidates who wish to make filling this SCOTUS vacancy a political issue, since when did the American people get to select a Supreme Court justice?
Answer: When we the majority of the people elected a president.
It is the president who has the constitutional responsiblity to fill any and all vacancies during their term in office.
It is not up to presidential candidates, or anyone else to say.
Making this an issue will only serve to polarize your oppositions base and reveal the reasons why the congress has the lowest approval rating EVER.
McConnell failed at his top priority of making President Barack Obama a one term president, and he will fail at this unconstitutional attempt to prevent the 2 term president his right to fill a vacant spot on the Supreme Court during his term.
12
Scalia's rigid "originalism" has been a great setback for these United States of America. As it is, we are the only advanced nation running on an 18th century document.
But what would now be particularly wonderful and grand of gesture would be for Clarence Thomas to resign in disgrace—and open the way for Senator Bernard Sanders' much needed political revolution. We ALL need to help Bernie—everyone that loves this country and wants to see it recover.
But what would now be particularly wonderful and grand of gesture would be for Clarence Thomas to resign in disgrace—and open the way for Senator Bernard Sanders' much needed political revolution. We ALL need to help Bernie—everyone that loves this country and wants to see it recover.
1
His "originalism" as a fraud. His only intent was to make his wealthy masters more powerful under the law so that they could pass even more power to themselves under the law.
3
Srdm, Hmmm, so ditch the Constitution? Interesting theory.
Dear President Obama, please nominate Anita Hill as your candidate for the Supreme Court to replace Scalia.
6
Republicans'd better not drag the confirmation on and leave the Supreme Court with an even number of justices for more than 11 months. It will definitely impact the November election.
4
it's hard to understand how he's being judged as such an influence, when his legacy seems to have been losing positions tartly argued and bitterly defended.
2
Others have commented aptly on Justice Scalia's appalling judicial legacy, so I just want to warn Republicans calling for a delay in nominating a replacement until we have a new president of this: be careful what you wish for.
The apocalyptic prospect of Trump, Cruz, or Rubio appointing a replacement for Scalia will bring Democratic voters -- especially women -- out in droves in November. When there is a high voterturnout, Republicans lose and they lose big.
So, by all means, call for an unconstitutional and unprecedented year-long delay in nominating a new Justice to SCOTUS.
Then enjoy electoral eradication in November.
The apocalyptic prospect of Trump, Cruz, or Rubio appointing a replacement for Scalia will bring Democratic voters -- especially women -- out in droves in November. When there is a high voterturnout, Republicans lose and they lose big.
So, by all means, call for an unconstitutional and unprecedented year-long delay in nominating a new Justice to SCOTUS.
Then enjoy electoral eradication in November.
14
The majority opinion in Bush v Gore violated every self-imposed view that Scalia claimed as his own. It was a completely cynical (and evil) opinion that thwarted the will of the American people and democracy itself. Bush did not win Florida, and he did not win the presidency. He was appointed by Scalia and his water carriers. Nothing, nothing can change those facts. They are air tight, and no one can budge them. And nothing shows that reality more than the fact the majority justices declared the decision was a one off, never to be used again.
15
You've obviously not read the opinion. If you did, you did not understand it.
Over 25 years in law - I understood it just fine, thanks.
2
Why, in all of this overly long, obviously pre-written story, is there no basic information about the circumstances of his death? Was he alone? How much time elapsed between when he died and when he was found? What was he doing at this resort? If we don't know, let's say that. Am I missing a sidebar somewhere? Nuts and bolts, people!
5
Well, it's an obituary more than a news report. Elsewhere it's written that he apparently died in his sleep. A priest was called to administer last rites. No mention has been made of companions; the resort at which he was staying is quite remote and miles from any town, large or small. And my understanding is that the time between when he was last seen and when his body was found is a matter of hours; a relatively brief period of time. Perhaps he went to take a rest after quail hunting in the morning; when he didn't reappear then presumably someone else went to check and discovered him.
Thanks for passing that along. I think the Times needed to link to a sidebar that laid out what was known about his death. (Perhaps they have by now, but when I read this article this morning I could find nothing.) I'm not suggesting any conspiracies, BTW...I'm just curious!
This was an exceptional profile. Thank you.
2
We're curious - and how could the public be informed? - as the remaining eight of SCOTUS each make their own list of ten best possible next jurists, who do they want to join them? Who would they suggest to replace Antonin Scalia?
The Bush v. Gore decision proved the ridiculousness of the Court. What are the odds that the conservative justices just happened to side with the Republican candidate, while the liberal justices just happened to side with the Democratic candidate? If the sides in Bush/Gore were swapped, does anybody believe Scalia would still have decided to stop the recount and make Gore the president?
12
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
This is an odd comment for a Senate leader, as it suggests that the President abdicate a key constitutional duty and not nominate someone for a vacant seat on the Court and that the Senate's power to reject a Supreme Court nominee is an inadequate means for expressing the will of the people.
This is an odd comment for a Senate leader, as it suggests that the President abdicate a key constitutional duty and not nominate someone for a vacant seat on the Court and that the Senate's power to reject a Supreme Court nominee is an inadequate means for expressing the will of the people.
16
Yes, Mr. McConnell's "American people" are the top1% global financial elite who bought his Senate seat. We have not had elections for years. We have had financial coups by the wealthiest to take over OUR governments at all levels. Time to stop it NOW!
7
Renaissance is hardly the word. Renaissance bridges between the dark ages of religious bondage to the modern society of free thinkers. The conservatives and evangelicals are trying bringing us back to the bondage of theocracy.
17
The Republicans are scared to death to show their total obstruction to President Obama when he announces a Supreme Court Justice appointment, and thus show the country on one of the largest scales of this country, their Very True Obstructionist Color.
President Obama is no fool. This is the perfect opportunity to put the cards on the table.
The Republicans are screaming "Let this be the people's choice to choose an appointee." Surprise, surprise, Republicans. We DID choose the president to make the Supreme Court appointee decision. We made that decision in 2008 and 2012. The people have spoken - we chose Barack Obama, and handed him the right to do so.
Now Republicans, stop. The decision was clearly made. President Obama does not even have to play this game. Go forward with the appointment, Mr. President. It is the right thing to do. And Barack Obama knows this.
President Obama is no fool. This is the perfect opportunity to put the cards on the table.
The Republicans are screaming "Let this be the people's choice to choose an appointee." Surprise, surprise, Republicans. We DID choose the president to make the Supreme Court appointee decision. We made that decision in 2008 and 2012. The people have spoken - we chose Barack Obama, and handed him the right to do so.
Now Republicans, stop. The decision was clearly made. President Obama does not even have to play this game. Go forward with the appointment, Mr. President. It is the right thing to do. And Barack Obama knows this.
25
"Surprise, surprise, Republicans. We DID choose the president to make the Supreme Court appointee decision. We made that decision in 2008 and 2012. The people have spoken - we chose Barack Obama, and handed him the right to do so."
The President gets to nominate only. The peoples Senate must consent for an appointment to occur.
Fro constitution:
"and he shall NOMINATE, and by and with the ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, shall APPOINT Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,"
That means alone he can nominate, but he needs the Senates CONSENT to appoint.
My hope is that the President will follow his oath to the constitution and nominate someone who will follow what the constitution was intended to mean. Someone who will consider the meaning of words at the time they were written, and the context formed by history of the time as evidenced by documents of the time. Not someone, who will take the Constitution in isolation and force a meaning most consistent with their own interests and ideology, and arguable allowed by the words alone. That, in my opinion, denies constitutional justice.
The President gets to nominate only. The peoples Senate must consent for an appointment to occur.
Fro constitution:
"and he shall NOMINATE, and by and with the ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, shall APPOINT Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,"
That means alone he can nominate, but he needs the Senates CONSENT to appoint.
My hope is that the President will follow his oath to the constitution and nominate someone who will follow what the constitution was intended to mean. Someone who will consider the meaning of words at the time they were written, and the context formed by history of the time as evidenced by documents of the time. Not someone, who will take the Constitution in isolation and force a meaning most consistent with their own interests and ideology, and arguable allowed by the words alone. That, in my opinion, denies constitutional justice.
I get that. My point is the Republicans are insinuating president Obama has a three year tenure this time around, not four.
And I think you know what I am talking about. Interesting you must not think Scalia had his own ideology in making decisions.
And that is way off base.
And I think you know what I am talking about. Interesting you must not think Scalia had his own ideology in making decisions.
And that is way off base.
Yes this is a great opportunity to stop the endless parade of 5-4 decisions but Ginsburg could drop at any second and then it could be back to 5-4 again.
Please Ginsburg, retire today.
5
Actually, she needs to stay on the court for the remainder of this term, to June 2016, at the very least.
If she left now, there could be 4-3 decisions, in place of 5-4 decisions.
If she left now, there could be 4-3 decisions, in place of 5-4 decisions.
1
Ginsberg is plenty healthy. She'll probably live to a hundred. We need her on the court.
2
If Ginsburg retired today, it would be too late, considering that Reps control Congress. She should have retired 2009-10, when Dems had complete control. The fact that she and Obama did not make that happen is something the Dems will regret for decades.
1
Scalia was a perfect example of a refined yet unintegrated mind. He had a great intellect that was distorted by personal prejudice. He was at once supremely informed and ignorant. A man of countless opinions but little wisdom, he talked a lot but rarely listened. May he rest in peace so we may as well.
26
Very,very happy Scalia is off the supreme court. Day for celebration indeed! In my opinion he was a racist in judges coat. His interpretation of constitution suited to his ultra right leanings and conservative politics. Rulings by him and 2 other judges on Supreme Court has set the tone for the current vitriolic political discussions - be it be on immigration,voting rights, religious separation, right to bear arms etc..
12
Smart, funny guy. Never thought he had much in the way of judicial temperament.
4
A second generation immigrant from Italy, Justice Scalia's rise to the Supreme Court of the United States of America was a rare achievement. With such an outstanding legal career and nine kids of his own, he and his wife lived a full life.
One may have differences with his political or judicial philosophy, his conviction and scholarly depth will always be admired.
In an interview he had once said he always went into the Federalist papers and not to the writings of the contemporary law makers if he had to rediscover the principles on which the constitutional system of the United States was based.
He had an abiding faith in separation of powers in the United States. Despite being an avowed Catholic, he never advocated that the State should become subservient to any theological authority.
May his soul rest in peace and condolences to his family and friends.
One may have differences with his political or judicial philosophy, his conviction and scholarly depth will always be admired.
In an interview he had once said he always went into the Federalist papers and not to the writings of the contemporary law makers if he had to rediscover the principles on which the constitutional system of the United States was based.
He had an abiding faith in separation of powers in the United States. Despite being an avowed Catholic, he never advocated that the State should become subservient to any theological authority.
May his soul rest in peace and condolences to his family and friends.
16
"his conviction and scholarly depth will always be admired."
"always"? egads no.
"always"? egads no.
12
he never advocated that the State should become subservient to any theological authority.
oh, yeah ?
coulda fooled me
oh, yeah ?
coulda fooled me
4
A lovely tribute! Now can we please bury the man before discussion of a successor and the attendant arguments. RIP
1
The Republican notion that Scalia's replacement should not be nominated until after the next President takes office is absurd and laughably partisan.
Counter to Senator McConnell's claim, the American people have already voiced their opinion on who should make Supreme Court nominations, and that person is the current President. Someone please remind McConnell that under Constitution the President serves for 4 years not 3.
Counter to Senator McConnell's claim, the American people have already voiced their opinion on who should make Supreme Court nominations, and that person is the current President. Someone please remind McConnell that under Constitution the President serves for 4 years not 3.
23
I would hate to see Justice Ruth Ginsburg leave, but if she retired right now, she would give Obama an incredible opportunity to make an even stronger mark on the SCOTUS by having to fill not one, but two, seats. By choosing to retire now, Justice Ginsburg's would assure that the balance on the Court does not tip into absurdity for as much as the next 25 years. Is there a better legacy?
7
Ginsberg is very healthy. We need her on the court. She should not retire until sometime when we have a democratically controlled senate and a democratic president.
1
This nomination will a tough slog no matter who is selected. And it will bring to mind the idea that could defuse these battles in advance: the 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices, in which 2 justices will be replaced in every 4 year presidential term. This ensures a healthy turnover of the court so that fresh perspectives are brought to bear as society changes. And it avoids the problem of one president stacking the court with ultra-liberal or conservative picks that could last for decades. In the present case, Justice Scalia's replacement would serve out his term only. This is a much fairer, balanced way of handling SCOTUS nominations.
4
As the realization slowly sinks in.. The GOP will never ever let Obama name a Justice. The GOP may not let anybody name a new Justice. There is no justice.
6
President Obama should pick a liberal black woman for the Supreme Court. Then watch the Republicans dance around that in this election year.
10
The President should pick whosever best qualified for the job, not someone who checks the most minority boxes.
4
Josh, the Republicans who control the Senate have made clear that they will refuse to confirm anyone President Obama nominates.
Since they refuse to show basic respect or acknowledge even the legitimacy of his presidency, won twice by popular and electoral college vote over the GOP's continuing thinly-veiled bigotry, he may as well guilt trip them per Jerry Sturdivant.
Since they refuse to show basic respect or acknowledge even the legitimacy of his presidency, won twice by popular and electoral college vote over the GOP's continuing thinly-veiled bigotry, he may as well guilt trip them per Jerry Sturdivant.
1
Now is the time for WE American people to make democracy work for US. Many people are saying, and I'm sure the press will reinforce the idea, that the "republican" senate will block President Obama's nomination. WE MUST NOT LET THEM. WE must be prepared to take grassroots action to DEMAND THAT THEY WORK FOR US. Get ready to phone/e-mail/write/tweet EVERY obstructionist republican until their communications are swamped if they refuse to approve. Those who live in the area get ready to storm the Senate and DEMAND action. This is the most important revolutionary action we can take to restore democracy in America. Get ready!
14
Always arrogant and dismissive of other points of view, loving center stage during oral arguments at the Supreme Court, preposterously "originalist" in his opinions. Today truly is morning in America.
18
Truly unfortunate to see how politicized the Supreme Court has become. The debate about some 225 year old document and its several amendments which are mostly 100 years old is still not settled as everyone tries to interpret it to match their personal beliefs. The Supreme Court has become means to achieve political agenda, often paid for by special interest groups. America's strengths come from its great institutions of free speech, religious freedom and equal rights. We must guard ourselves from undermining these strengths using the Supreme Court.
3
Eruditely expressed, thank you.
The companion news analysis piece says Republicans feel "with just 11 months left in office he should leave the choice to the winner of the November general election". The fact that this congress admits openly it cannot accomplish an urgent constitutional requirement in 11 months is a clear signal how badly this system is broken. Pathetic. 11 months to wait for what? A Republican or Democrat will win the White House. But so what? The Senate is not likely to change hands. The Republicans will actually probably be weaker then than now. In other words, they are better off now than they will be after November. Life goes on and the Supreme Court must function. The inability of either the House or the Senate to perform its basic duties is simply staggering. So, Mitch Mitchell wants to hold out until Ted Cruz or Donald Trump might be in charge? Dream on. Get a grip. There are probably hundreds of qualified nominees. Think about the country as a whole, our place in the world, and stop being provincial twats.
14
In the last decade or so, Scalia was more politician than judge, behaving more like an elected legislator than a federal judge. He should have resigned and run for public office. After the dust clears, time is unlikely to treat him well; he was more talk than substance. Our challenging times required more than he as able to fofer.
14
His legal opinions were exercises in sophistry suited to his political agenda. Unfortunately they managed to dazzle many of his not-so-bright colleagues.
12
Scalia was a plutocrat who couched his favortism for the ‘one-percenters’ in complex legal arguments about the original Constitution and the intent of the framers. I respect the original document and the framers, but with more than a pinch of salt. Their Constitution allowed slavery and gave rights only to white male landowners. Scalia's interpretation of money as a form of free speech would be laughable if it weren’t for the damage being done. I don’t wish illness or death on anyone, but this was a legally toxic individual who had no place in such a position of lasting influence. The Republican Congress will no doubt stall on approving a replacement until after the election. Any such strategy could backfire badly for them
12
I will say upfront that I had very little respect for Justice Scalia as a justice. This stemmed originally from his seeing apparently no problem with sharing a duck blind with someone who had a case before him. You don't need a law degree to understand the problem there, but Scalia was dishonest about this and (to borrow a phrase) tried to 'lawyer his way out' of it. When a justice shows lack of judgment, you have a problem. That said, I do think it unlikely that he'd side with Republican senators now arguing for a delay in finding his replacement. Seems the constitution is pretty clear about how this is supposed to work.
13
I am excited that President Obama will have the opportunity to nominate another Supreme Court Justice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7
Sanders wants a political revolution and voters galvanized. He's got one and this should make it grow. Sanders, Clinton, one or the other--or both, whatever. As long as it's a Dem ticket in the White House.
As for prospective nominees? How about Sen. Elizabeth Warren?
2-14-16@12:09 am
As for prospective nominees? How about Sen. Elizabeth Warren?
2-14-16@12:09 am
4
Strange to read that, though President Obama was elected to a four-year term, some Republicans are saying that he should let one-ninth of the court remain vacant for a quarter of his term. A future election has no bearing on the President's duty to nominate someone to fill the vacancy. The relevant election is the one that expressed the will of the people to give that responsibility to this President. Those voters should not be disenfranchised.
19
I have been waiting for this moment for the past 30 years. Scalia, while very bright, was also a mean-spirited, pro-corporate, anti-woman appointment to the Court. I can only hope that his replacement will be a more humane, more compassionate and progressive Justice.
8
We have a president. His name is Barack Obama. He was elected by the citizens of this country in November, 2008. He was reelected in 2012. He cannot be re-elected. He will leave office in January, 2016. This is all in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America. For anyone to suggest that President Obama doesn't have a right to nominate his choice is an outrage. Just as we are all on our way to death from the day we are born, so too, an elected official is a lame duck from the day he/she is sworn in. Does that mean that the official can do nothing or has no power because eventually, that official will no longer be in office? President Obama sold make his choice know as quickly as is possible. Let's be reasonable.
This Supreme Court and Congress have already wiped away individual rights with gerrymandering and with Citizens United by bundling our One man One vote
philosophy into corporate interests.
The gall of the Republicans knows no bounds. The young people of this country are watching and listening. Good for them, bad for the Republicans.
This Supreme Court and Congress have already wiped away individual rights with gerrymandering and with Citizens United by bundling our One man One vote
philosophy into corporate interests.
The gall of the Republicans knows no bounds. The young people of this country are watching and listening. Good for them, bad for the Republicans.
14
So ends the Reagan era. What era follows?
Obama. Either he gets to name the Conservative majority breaking justice...
or he will be named as that justice by the next president.
Obama. Either he gets to name the Conservative majority breaking justice...
or he will be named as that justice by the next president.
4
Mr Obama is not suited to be a Justice. We need someone who won't be in the limelight, who will follow the rule that there should be no appearance of impropriety and lives their life very quietly appearing in the news only every 10 years as they give a lecture at a college commencement or on PBS.
In the wake of Scalia's death, I fully expect the GOP to do the worst thing possible for the country, which now seems to be their only reason for existing. Listening to Ted Cruz talk about anything is torture enough, but listening to him blather about the country being "one justice away" from American becoming some version of Sweden was truly sickening. Maybe we DO need two countries at this point. Those who want an evangelical police state and an environmental wasteland can go off and do that. The rest of us won't miss them.
16
In my lifetime there has not been a Supreme Court justice so willing and ready to sacrifice his or her long-held judicial principles in favor of political expediency as Mr. Scalia. The cost of his hypocrisies will be felt for generations. May he rest in peace but I'm glad he's gone from the court.
18
To paraphrase, "Senators have you no sense of decency?" Like jackals and hyenas we have GOP Senators howling for political advantage on the day of Scalia's passing. What a sad commentary on the lack of decorum and dignity which should prevail in the Halls of Congress.
14
While we offer sincere condolences to the family of passing of Justice Scalia, let us not forget that he was partly responsible for some of the most egregious decisions the Court has made. Citizens United and Bush v Gore come to mind. Also, his absolute disdain for gay Americans was notable.
It is time for President Obama to nominate Scalia's successor. If the Senate stalls, watch out Republicans. It will only energize the Democratic base to get to the polls in November. The Republican Party is increasing out of touch with the majority of the electorate.
And, how will Clarence Thomas know how to vote? That man has never expressed an original thought.
It is time for President Obama to nominate Scalia's successor. If the Senate stalls, watch out Republicans. It will only energize the Democratic base to get to the polls in November. The Republican Party is increasing out of touch with the majority of the electorate.
And, how will Clarence Thomas know how to vote? That man has never expressed an original thought.
11
I am not a hypocrite and will not mourn Justice Scalia's death. In the three decades he sat on the Supreme Court his leadership and decisions helped turn the Court into the most reactionary bastion of white supremacy, corporate fealty, ant-labor venom and reactionary sophistry. When convenient he decided cases using an "originalist" 18th reading of the Constitution and when pandering to the rich and powerful - such as Citizens United - his decisions were ultra right-wing judicial activism.
I appreciate that his death - like the death of any person - is a great loss to his family and friends. However, his departure from the US Supreme Court is not a loss for our country. It is an opportunity.
I appreciate that his death - like the death of any person - is a great loss to his family and friends. However, his departure from the US Supreme Court is not a loss for our country. It is an opportunity.
22
hear, hear !
As I read all of the comments one thing flies out at me. The fact that these judges are Republican or Democrat. How unfortunate that it has gotten to divide that it is also in our courts. I can see a more conservative or liberal reading of the law but dividing it in parties makes our government even more broken.
So sorry to ar of Scalia's death. My sympathy to his family. I would have much rather have seen him leave the court by choice, his and ours.
So sorry to ar of Scalia's death. My sympathy to his family. I would have much rather have seen him leave the court by choice, his and ours.
1
I'll miss his wit, but not his rulings.
Scalia easily jettisoned his claimed fealty to "originalism" in his Citizens United ruling. Did he really think the 18th century Constitutional architects thought corporations deserve the same rights as people, and that spending money is a form of free speech? The Constitution does not bear the signatures of corporations, and those flesh and blood signers endorsed the document with their ink not their bullion.
Scalia easily jettisoned his claimed fealty to "originalism" in his Citizens United ruling. Did he really think the 18th century Constitutional architects thought corporations deserve the same rights as people, and that spending money is a form of free speech? The Constitution does not bear the signatures of corporations, and those flesh and blood signers endorsed the document with their ink not their bullion.
15
Neither the GOP in Washington nor the Republican contenders for the presidential nomination have any constitutional right to demand that the sitting president is denied the opportunity to nominate a new associate justice to the supreme court, nor do they have the right to reject any such nomination out of hand, simply because a presidential election is approaching. The only constitutional precedent for denying the nomination of a new justice out of hand is if the vacancy on the court arises during or very close to the November-January transition when the sitting president is a "lame duck". When the president has 11 months left in office he is not a lame duck. To stymie judicial appointment to the nation's highest court at this juncture is to abuse the constitution.
26
Any delay was brought on by President Obama himself who has appointed 2 radicals to the bench who agree with and/or took part in the horrific minority opinions in Heller and McDonald. The GOP appointee majority SCOTUS has made gay marriage the law of the land, has NOT outlawed abortion, has upheld PPACA ("Obamacare"), etc. However, if the shoe were on the other foot, the Democratic appointees would have destroyed the Bill of Rights by now with a 5-4 edge. Don't want Republicans blocking your nomination? Stop nominating radicals who vote lock-step in purely partisan moves against our most precious civil liberties. Want to replace Scalia with a "liberal" justice? Nominate one who isn't an authoritarian thug and has a record of supporting the Bill of Rights, and has gone on record as supporting the MAJORITY opinions in Heller and McDonald. But spare me the crocodile tears over Republicans blocking any nomination that doesn't meet these criteria, because then we are LITERALLY fighting for our constitutional rights. If the 5-4 Heller and McDonald decisions had gone the the other way, AMERICAN CITIZENS in places like D.C. and Chicago would to this day STILL be being denied their constitutional rights, and the second amendment would have be re-written to do the OPPOSITE of what it was intended to do, along with the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights - protect individual liberty from government, not empower government to restrict it.
2
Article 2, section 2 of the US Constitution says the President must nominate a supreme court justice when there is a vacancy.
Mitch McConnell needs to read the constitution
Mitch McConnell needs to read the constitution
30
This highlights how important presidential elections are.
2-14-16@12:02 am
2-14-16@12:02 am
6
As fate would have it, my business brought me to the Trans-Pecos region of Texas, and I learned of Justice Scalia's demise early today; and it has been weighed on my mind all afternoon. The strongest impression I have of the man and his jurisprudence is that he consistently seemed to put "justice" and the importance of its finality far ahead of mercy, especially in death penalty cases. The finality of justice and the prompt execution of the condemned seemed to be very important to him.
As I contempated his demise, I could not help but recall the recent article in the Times about the dreams of the dying (A New Vision for Dreams of the Dying, Feb 2). I can not help but wonder if Justice Scalia himself has recently had dreams of those many whom he voted to condemn to death. I have heard that he died in his sleep, which inspires the wonder if his first awareness of his own death was the appearance in his dreams of those whom he condemned, several many of whom were undoubtedly innocent, based on what we have seen in the past few years, once we have bothered to more closely scrutinize the condemned whom have not yet been executed.
Finally, I can not help but wonder if Justice Scalia might not now feel that mercy might, perhaps, be a bit more important than the finality of justice. Maybe, if he could tell us one more thing, might that one thing be, "Stop executing prisioners?"
As I contempated his demise, I could not help but recall the recent article in the Times about the dreams of the dying (A New Vision for Dreams of the Dying, Feb 2). I can not help but wonder if Justice Scalia himself has recently had dreams of those many whom he voted to condemn to death. I have heard that he died in his sleep, which inspires the wonder if his first awareness of his own death was the appearance in his dreams of those whom he condemned, several many of whom were undoubtedly innocent, based on what we have seen in the past few years, once we have bothered to more closely scrutinize the condemned whom have not yet been executed.
Finally, I can not help but wonder if Justice Scalia might not now feel that mercy might, perhaps, be a bit more important than the finality of justice. Maybe, if he could tell us one more thing, might that one thing be, "Stop executing prisioners?"
67
I think Scalia thought the law, as he interpreted it, came first. I always thought that ludicrous. You can have people without the law but without people, there would be no law.
Ah, Justice Scalia and originalism. The idea that unswerving adherence to vague agrarian era syntax was the best for guiding the country in the post-industrial information age.
14
Hopefully we are backing into a future "agrarian era".
This offers the country another excellent example how
the Republican party is spiritually incapable of participating in the
normal carrying out of constitutional duties. The party that
has decided to close down the government as a tactic
in budget negotiations. The party that has refused to
hold hearings on hundreds of judicial nominees. The party that
has decided to do nothing at all when it comes to the biggest
challenge the planet confronts since it has decided all
by its ill informed self that said challenge doesn't really exist.
It is entirely consistent that said party of proud and oh so self righteous do and know nothings will insist upon doing nothing at all re their SCOTUS constitutional obligation.
It'll be very surprising if the Judiciary committee is even able
to hold hearings on a nominee.
But really, why should that be so
astonishing when you
can't even get a Budget Committee to hold hearings on
the proposed Federal Budget for this fiscal year?
the Republican party is spiritually incapable of participating in the
normal carrying out of constitutional duties. The party that
has decided to close down the government as a tactic
in budget negotiations. The party that has refused to
hold hearings on hundreds of judicial nominees. The party that
has decided to do nothing at all when it comes to the biggest
challenge the planet confronts since it has decided all
by its ill informed self that said challenge doesn't really exist.
It is entirely consistent that said party of proud and oh so self righteous do and know nothings will insist upon doing nothing at all re their SCOTUS constitutional obligation.
It'll be very surprising if the Judiciary committee is even able
to hold hearings on a nominee.
But really, why should that be so
astonishing when you
can't even get a Budget Committee to hold hearings on
the proposed Federal Budget for this fiscal year?
19
Originalist interpretation as practiced by Scalia doesn't include the idea that the founds actually understood they were proposing general principles that could be applied in evolving specific circumstances. Of course the mores would change, but the concept of fairness, equal justice, common welfare...these did not change. They are the rulers on which we measure the intent and benefit of all the conflicts we encounter.
8
Scalia's final breaths many mean more clean breaths for the rest of us as the EPA's attempt to control coal burning--recently challenged by conservative members of the court--may now not be buried by the Supremes as the esteemed jurist's own burial takes place.
9
Reagan's Presidency was truly the gift that kept on giving. We must work so that one day we fully recover from it.
20
Sadly, we will never "fully recover from it." The tens of thousands of mentally ill patients thrown out on the streets suffered greatly when the big psychiatric institutions were closed because Reagan would not bother to fund them - their were few families or charities to take them in, the only "plan" for them. Their deaths as homeless beggars cannot be recovered from. The shame of Iran-Contra - another thing we cannot recover from. The puppetmasters hated unions, so the former SAG union president (the office that got Reagan started) turned against unions, another indication of the disgrace of those years. The charade of a president who had clear signs of dementia in office that was deliberately hidden from the American people - another disgrace. The claiming of personal credit for things Reagan had nothing to do with - the fall of the Berlin wall, the release of the Iran hostages - just another indication of the complete lack of integrity that led directly to more disgraces, such the pretense that the Supreme Court had the power to appoint the president in 2000 - totally unconstitutional, and totally disgraceful. We cannot recover fully from those years, but we can be vigilant that the hatred of the American people so openly expressed then, as shown by the appointment of Scalia to the bench, never happens again. NEVER.
If women decide not to vote their control over their own bodies will be ended.
Republican senators coming up for reelection beware.
Try to curtail our rights if you are prepared to look for a new job January 2017.
Republican senators coming up for reelection beware.
Try to curtail our rights if you are prepared to look for a new job January 2017.
7
Justice Scalia questions and opinions frequently reminded me of Oscar Wilde's observation that "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit."
18
Justice Scalia's name will live on in the lyrics of a Reagan-era Capitol Steps parody to the tune of "Bye Bye Blackbird": "For my next appointee you will see a / Justice even tougher than Scalia."
1
I wish that Justice Scalia had retired. His death is sad, and we should offer condolences to his family.
That being said, can someone explain to me how Justice Scalia has come to become such a hero to so many? He was, according to many, the "champion of the written Constitution" (see most recently Texas Governor Abbott's statement today, Saturday). Where in the Constitution does it say that a corporation is a "person" entitled to the First Amendment right of free speech, which is the basis of the Citizens United decision all conservatives find so enlightening?? This sort of reasoning was not unusual for Justice Scalia.
That being said, can someone explain to me how Justice Scalia has come to become such a hero to so many? He was, according to many, the "champion of the written Constitution" (see most recently Texas Governor Abbott's statement today, Saturday). Where in the Constitution does it say that a corporation is a "person" entitled to the First Amendment right of free speech, which is the basis of the Citizens United decision all conservatives find so enlightening?? This sort of reasoning was not unusual for Justice Scalia.
21
When I first heard that he had died on a hunting trip in Texas, I immediately wondered if Cheney was one of the hunters.
13
If the Republicans refuse to let any nomination Mr. Obama makes advance to a proper hearing and a vote, I will take to the streets. Who will join me?
24
I will, at the Senate, in Washington, DC.
1
Since RBG was the more likely candidate for this event, I am hoping that the Obama team has a nominee waiting in the wings.