|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Feb 14, 2016 7:55:16 GMT -7
Unexpected though its not too surprising someone reaching 89 years dies suddenly. But nothing worries me more about the future of this country than a liberal stacked supreme court. He was the firewall of constitutionalism, and would be the opinion most time written explaining why. IMO its a dark day in our country to lose men like him.
|
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Feb 14, 2016 14:15:38 GMT -7
Most everyone, Americans in particular, take a lot of things for granted until the day comes they are taken away. We see this in FL every time a hurricane destroys a bunch of infrastructure, knocks out bridges, and knocks out utilities for days or weeks. We can't imagine ourselves ever living without them but when it's all you've got, you make do. I've seen pretty amazing things; neighbors who bicker back and forth every day sharing food and water, and people you'd never suspect as giving two hoots about someone else besides themselves working relentlessly to help others meet basic needs.
What this means to me is that Justice Scalia was the right man in the right time to do what he did. There can be another, but it will take a serious effort to put such a man in place. If our politicians cave on this, there will never, ever be one more reason to vote for any Republican anywhere, anytime. Our legislators ought to know full well that a court full of Kagans is not going to side with any of what they hope to accomplish. Further, as Chris Dahle used to point out, it's important for a court to be somewhat predictable and not all over space and time with their decisions or else attorneys cannot advise their clients a best course of action. That's what a court full of Kagans and Bader-Ginsbergs will be - a court that has all the firmness of course as an airport windsock.
I think it is the same with the loss of this great man. It's up to others to see that his work continues, and if they don't care, they shouldn't have it to begin with. He was my favorite Associate Justice, not just because of his views but because he had a very reasonable and rational way of explaining why he weighed in on one side or the other of a legal issue. Justice Scalia was never moved by these ideas that principles and ideals of our nation's founders were somehow inadequate or antiquated, in fact many times he explained why constitutional principles needed no improving by modern thinkers who somehow concluded they knew more about what 18th century men meant than the men themselves. Thinking like his is a rare breed today and there is little wonder why advocates for change detested that he was not swayed by modern theories of law that didn't pass his common-sense test.
He also excelled at demonstrating how, legally, opposing opinions from his had tremendous capacity for unintended consequences. This was particularly true in cases where the majority sought answers not from our nation's historical records but got them from modern liberal ideas of European thinkers with no thought to how the downstream effects will eventually fly in the face of other laws we in America have that Europeans do not.
Like his decisions or not, the one thing all will have to agree with is that he took his work seriously and worked tirelessly to be the best advocate for our Constitution he knew how to be. If only more public servants took their jobs as seriously.
It will be interesting to see if the Senate holds this line or doesn't. There is no question the mighty O will shove a liberal candidate in their face and pound his fist on the podium, ranting as he does to get his way. But this is one time where everyone knows what's at stake and if our legislators won't stand up for us this time, they never will.
RIP the Honorable Mr. Associate Justice of the SCOTUS, and thank you for a job well done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Feb 15, 2016 6:58:48 GMT -7
Heh, I meant 80, not 89, fat fingers. But I agree, its pretty easy to be consistent when you use a document like the constitution as a benchmark instead of making it up as you go and finding reason in law anywhere in the world as if its valid here. Its a little harder to convincingly explain why the constitution says so, and in that I don't think it will be easy to replace him. If you could find a constructionist who would even get a nomination from someone like Trump, which would be as likely as NK elections, the left will pull out all stops to keep them from the bench. And even if we got who we thought was solid in there, it could turn out to be a sleeper progressive like Roberts.
Even if the GOP does hold out to avoid another Obama appointment, the delay will mean the court rulings on several issues, like forced union participation which decisions will likely now go to the statists.
|
|
|
|
Post by HiTemp on Feb 15, 2016 8:37:43 GMT -7
Well I think that could go two ways. If Obama is nominating another ultra-liberal, I would not put it past the liberals on the court to check their liberalism in current cases in order to gain another liberal on the bench. The worst thing that could happen would be for them to go stark-raving liberal with only 8 members because it would only ratchet up the pressure to keep an ultra liberal nominee blocked from permanent appointment. Conversely, if they suddenly eased up on the liberal strain, appearing to be fair and balanced, it works to take the wind out of the sails of any argument that another liberal on the court will make a major difference.
They all claim that they have no political bias but they are human and didn't get their jobs by being disconnected from the political process. They also know giving up a few decisions now is well worth decades of decisions later, and that's what I suspect they will do this year.
Guess we'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Feb 15, 2016 18:11:21 GMT -7
I doubt Ginsburg, Kagel or Sotfulapuller will curb their liberalism, its pretty much all they are and have not once voted with constructionists when it came to issues of ideology. I suspect Ginsburg may stay on a bit longer so she can take advantage of the absence of Scalia now if they do not fill his slot, instead of retiring this year like she had rumored. And with the dread judge Roberts in there, its always a toss up now. Its doubt she will retire and leave he court in a bind, but she might if being a true ideologue it forced the hand of the GOP to confirm someone before Obamas term is up instead of leaving 2 picks minimum for a GOP president. But yes we'll have to wait and see.
|
|
|
|
Post by zrct02 on Feb 22, 2016 2:08:20 GMT -7
My nightmare:
Position goes unfilled until after the election.
Clinton becomes next president.
Clinton nominates Obama.
GOP caves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grug - American Neanderthal on Feb 22, 2016 17:06:43 GMT -7
I honestly don't think Obama would be worse than Lynch or Holder who are probably the 2 top picks of wild guessers right now. I also don't think Obamas ego could take being lesser than the chief justice if were to sit on it. He may try and run for Sec general of the UN later.
|
|
