Justice Antonin Scalia, the longest-serving member of the current Supreme Court and an intellectual leader of the conservative legal movement, died Saturday, and his death set off an immediate political battle about the future of the court and its national role.
Scalia, 79, was found dead at a hunting resort in Texas after he did not appear for breakfast, law enforcement officials said. A cause of death was not immediately reported.
President Obama, who disagreed with Scalia’s jurisprudence, nevertheless praised him as “a larger-than-life presence on the bench” and a “brilliant legal mind [who] influenced a generation of judges, lawyers and students, and profoundly shaped the legal landscape.”
Obama said he would nominate a successor, even though the Senate’s Republican leadership and its presidential candidates said an election-year confirmation was out of the question.
What? Why is an election-year-confirmation out of the question? On whose watch did Scalia die? I sincerely hope that the Republicans will not attempt trickery, obstruction and chicanery to block what is President Obama’s constitutional duty. November is 9 months away and the inauguration is 11 months away. That is plenty of time to replace Justice Scalia, if everyone is honest and does his or her job.
Funny how that Constitution is so freaking important…until it isn’t.
It’s Obama’s job to appoint a new Supreme Court justice in a timely fashion. Why is it that if he nominated Jesus Christ, I think that the Senate Republicans would block the nomination?
After seven years of Obama’s pen and telephone, we can now expect a flood of faux-pious pronouncements on the Constitution from every liberal in this town?
Show me in Article II Section 2 or elsewhere a constitutional time limit on Senate advice and consent for Oval Office nominations.
War is war. Get used to it.
“By Saturday evening, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had already said the vacancy shouldn’t be filled until the next president is in office, 11 months from now. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
The American people voted in President Obama. I still don’t think some people get it.
O’Connell doesn’t appear to understand how things work.
@Wolve
So what will they do when Hillary Clinton is president? Wait 4 years? 8 years?
So the R’s want to look like A-holes by super borking anyone Obama nominates.?
I would put Bill Clinton on the Supreme Court and be done with it. Or….maybe Hillary will put Obama on the Supreme Court. Be careful what you wish for.
After the clown show this year I wouldn’t be counting any chickens before they hatch. I wonder who Trump would nominate for Supreme Court?
Oh, I think Mitch understands very well. Now, tell me again why Repubs ought to throw away any advantage they may have and let Obama set SCOTUS on a liberal course of his own liking for who knows how long. The country won’t turn over and die in 11 months with a 4+3+Kennedy court. Be past before you know it. If you want to have the whole SCOTUS pie, you’ll just have to work hard to install either the old hippie socialist or that loose-on-the-truth-and-national-security grandma in the Oval Office.
Of course, if Mitch caves….well, what I said before about the future of the Republican Party in the wake of any such unfortunate event.
I expected elected officials to act in a timely fashion and not be obstructionist. I don’t have a problem with Obama appointing a justice. It’s his job to do that.
Do you seriously think that the founding fathers put the senator approval component in there to obstruct the appointment or did they intend for it to be like the electoral college?
I actually expect that O’Connell would try the same crap if Scalia had died Feb 13 1915.
@Moon-howler
Mitch said we wait for the next POTUS to be elected. He didn’t say the next Republican POTUS, although you know he hopes for such. If Hillary wins, you will get the chance. Fortunes of war…..and misfortune of the country, IMHO.
Why do you think that Obama should not be nominating the Supreme Court justice? Isn’t he the president? Isn’t that his job?
(You know that is what O’Connell wants–not wrong to want, but wrong to do)
Obama should appoint Ted Cruz to the Court. That would solve a lot of problems for a lot of people. He probably wouldn’t vote much differently than would have Justice Scalia, the next president will have, actuarially speaking, an opportunity to appoint a whole bunch of people, and the Republican establishment can breathe a sigh of relief that Cruz is out of the picture in the presidential race. Win-Win-Win.
Obama will of course nominate a successor to the Supreme Court who is decidedly NOT a constitutional originalist. There is precedent for refusing to confirm a Supreme Court nominee of a lame-duck president. There is also nothing in the Constitution that requires 9 Supreme Court justices, especially in a presidential election year. If the GOP successfully withstands the pressure to confirm Obama’s nominee, it may win back a lot of disgruntled conservatives.
This shows the problem with our political system today –
POTUS nominates SCOUTS members – it is up to the Senate to confirm (or deny) – McConnell wants it to be easy, he wants POTUS to not nominate a person so that the Senate does not have to do their job. POTUS should nominate a person and let the Senate work, vote up or down.
Cruz was able to obstruct the appointments of a few ambassadors and he was not even present in the Senate, but he was able to obstruct. That is nonsense, if he is going to obstruct, he should at least be on the floor to do it.
Political office is the only place where one can get paid for a job and leave to go off on the campaign trail to try and get elected for another office. If they want to run for higher office, they should resign. It is illegal for a company to pay for a no show job – it should be the same for political office.
Stop the political maneuvering and manufactured crisis – do you job Congress, and your party will win.
Justice Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, the last year of Reagan’s Presidency.
Can you point me to a source that has more complete data?
A minority of Republicans successfully blocked the confirmation of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to become Chief Justice in 1968. I do not have a source of more complete data. This topic is sure to be thoroughly researched in the coming weeks.
Senators Grassley and Cruz (perhaps others) have diminished themselves by barking out that there is an 80-year practice tradition of not appointing Justices in a presidential election year. Of course, in 80 years, there are only 20 presidential elections, so that brings the number into a bit more perspective. More important, however, is that outgoing Justices either don’t control when they leave (because they die in office) or, if they retire or resign, they can choose to do so when things are propitious for getting a new successor in place with a minimum of fuss. Since 1916, I see only 3 Justices who have left service on the bench in a Presidential election year, one by death, two by resignation.
Taking a quick back at the Court since the Civil War (the period with which I am most familiar) I see 14 Justices who took office in a presidential election year, 8 in the 80 year span invoked by Sens. Grassley and Cruz. Of those 8, two (Rehnquist and Powell) were confirmed late in the calendar year before they actually were sworn in), leaving Brandeis, John Hessin Clarke, Cardozo, Frank Murphy, Brennan, and Kennedy to dispel the 80 year myth.
Two additional points of interest (at least for me): In 1916, President Wilson appointed Justice Clarke to replace Charles Evans Hughes, who created an election year vacancy by resigning from the Court to run for President against Wilson. I wonder what Grassley and Cruz would have had to say about that, had they been in the Senate then. Also, William Brennan was a recess appointment by Eisenhower in 1956, another presidential election year.
What a great opportunity for Obama to be Presidential instead of the great divider. He could, for example, nominate a moderate – a centrist – with established, recognized and consistent jurisprudence experience, but we all know that will not happen. Instead he will push the issue to defend his legacy and the Democract agenda not the good of the country. He will seek to further inflame the divide. It is interesting to me that the Republicans fear his nomination as if they cannot do what we all know Reid cleary would do if he could were the situation reversed. I think democrats need to step back and consider what will happen if he does push this thing. The Senate will go more Republican and a Republican president wil have a free hand. Its time for Obama to be the President of all of us and go for compromise.
Name me a few candidates who you would consider moderate enough?
What litmus test shall we use?
What do you base your prediction on? I find some of the authoritative speech amusing.
@Scout
I think the more precise issue is the nomination of Supreme Court Justices by lame-duck presidents in an election year. You have put tougher an excellent compilation. However, Brandeis, Clarke and Cardozo were not nominated within the last 80 years. Murphy and Brennan were nominated by presidents who were reelected later in the same year.
Fortas and Kennedy are the two examples of nominees by lame-duck presidents. In the case of Fortas, LBJ was a lame duck since he was not running for reelection, and the presidency reverted to a different party. In the case of Kennedy, Reagan was a lame duck, but his party retained the presidency. Fortas was not confirmed, but Kennedy was.
Given the highly competitive nature of the current presidential campaign, this pattern (which has too few cases to really be statistically significant) suggests that Obama’s potential nominee is unlikely to be confirmed.
He or she wouldn’t be confirmed if they were God Almighty, if Obama nominated him.
No one knew that the R’s would retain the White House.
@Kelly_3406
I have no problem with the Senate denying a nominee. What I have a problem with is the Senate telling the President to not even nominate a person. Fortas did continue on as an Associate Justice, he just was not the Chief Justice – and there was no opening, as Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench.
@ Kelly – you’re quite right about the Brandeis, Clarke and Cardozo being outside the 80 year band. Arithmetic continues to be a weak point for me. I seem to have unconsciously set the limit at 100 years, probably because I can handle units of 100 even in my math-deprived state. My point remains, however: the so-called tradition is happenstance caused by when people leave the court, either voluntarily or involuntarily, and is completely extra-constitutional, made up for the purpose of political opportunism.
Moreover, I’m not sure what “lame duck” has to do with it. That’s certainly not a Constitutional condition. What other powers should Presidents not exercise in the last year of their second term? And, in your exception for Reagan/Kennedy, was Reagan less a lame duck because his party won the next election? If so, how can we tell that in advance so as to advise a President as to whether he is a Class I Lame Duck or a Class II Lame Duck? The country prides itself on smooth transitions of power. That requires a sitting president to fulfill his functions until the next president finishes reciting the oath of office.
I agree that Obama’s nominee is unlikely to be confirmed. My Party soiled itself terribly on virtually the first day of the Obama presidency by allowing many of its elected officials to publicly voice their position that their first priority was to undermine the functions of government for political ends. McConnell, Grassley, Cruz et al. have doubled down on that (with intemperate haste, I might add) following the loss of Justice Scalia.
My pitch is that the process should proceed, however. It may be too late, given the utter irresponsibility of Congressional Republicans over the past 8 years, to redeem our image as providers of competent governance, but I still think it’s worth a try, particularly in an election year.
@Scout
I am just the opposite — strong in math and science but weak in the social sciences.
The point about “lame duck” is political, not constitutional. During a president’s last two years, the political landscape moves past the incumbent and his power starts to diminish. However, if the incumbent retains popularity and has an attractive candidate to run for a “third” term, then he may still have enough power to push through his nominees. If the incumbent is divisive and unpopular, then he might be susceptible to the argument that he is a lame duck who is out of touch with what the electorate wants, and so his SCOTUS nominees should not be confirmed.
I do not think it “soils” a political party for its officeholders to express the desire to take down an incumbent. Schumer and Durbin made similar vows within weeks of 9/11. I am certain that this kind of political warfare is normal and has taken place since the earliest days of our Republic.
@Pat
McConnell surely does not believe that he can dissuade Obama from making a SCOTUS nomination. It seems likely that this is just political mischief designed to be an opening volley in the fight to prevent confirmation of Obama’s nominee.
political mischief – that is why Trump is doing so well. We, the people are tired of political mischief. Stop the political crap and the Republicans will win.
Kelly – I’ll look for the Schumer/Durbin comments around the time of 9/11 (it’s particularly wrong if it was immediately after that event). But, as a Republican, I don’t advocate turning to people like Chuck Schumer for our standards of governance. What kind of standard is that? I expect better. I find it most perplexing when people who profess to be Republicans or conservatives justify anti-patriotic, anti-competent governance actions based on something done (or alleged to have been done) by liberals or Democrats. Whichever party engages in such behavior is saying that they would damage or destroy the Republic for cheap political gains.
@ Pat: Trump is nothing but “political mischief”.
Because Obama, in my opinion, has done enough damage to the cohesiveness and security of our country. He already has two of his liberal nominees on the SCOTUS bench. I see no good from my own viewpoint to have his unhelpful presence continued by yet another liberal court voice with an absolutely crucial vote. Make an end of it on 20 January 2017. Let him be back on the golf course and out of mind.
He was elected by the people of the United States. That gives him the right to nominate the next Supreme Court justice.
I think there is a difference in wanting him to and it being his right to.
I don’t feel that Obama or Bill Clinton were bad for the country.
Now, although it is already late in the day, old Wolverine calls for a Valentine’s Day truce and an end to argument until tomorrow. This is a special day in our household. More than 40 years ago, two junior naval officers, caught in the clutches of a brutal war, decided to marry each other no matter what may have been in their individual futures. We spent the first 6 months of “wedded bliss” living a long ways apart, but, in the end, we made it work . It is still working.
I recommend that all bloggers get off the computer and go give a big, long hug to whomever may be your most special person. Even if you have done so already, do it again.
See you all at the jousting lists tomorrow. Peace.
Thanks for sharing your story, Wolve. That’s neat. I expect though that Mrs. W. has had to hang your hide on the wall more than a couple times.
I was good. I gave Mr. Howler and dog breath some Valentine M & Ms and then cooked breakfast for everyone. Usually with breakfast, its every dog for himself. Then I let my oldest granddaughter cook something for her bf over here. Then the little sister came over so her parents could go out for dinner at Ruth Crist.
I guess I serve so others can be romantic. What’s wrong with this picture?
I thank God that s/he has such a sense of humor to call Scalia home at this particular time. Making the composition of the Supreme Court front and center in this election is going to make for a more interesting election year. I’m sure that Obama is going to have fun nominating someone for political purposes since he knows no one will get confirmed on his watch. The Borking will be Great!
Or, maybe Scalia was murdered!
So do you have a who-done-it all mapped out in your head?
I was thinking today, this is the most absurd presidential race I have ever seen. Throw in a Supreme Court vacancy just to make things better.
I said last week that I am voting for the supreme court nomination anyway. I don’t associate with the president….so I don’t have to like them or their voice. I endured listening to Bush. I can endure anything.
The president takes his constitutional role very seriously.
I just saw Mcconnell’s tweet about the passing of Scalia – Mitch did not even wait until a second tweet – he offers condolences to the Scalia family and them Immediately goes into the ‘no SCOTUS appointee for Obama. How cold and partisan. Is he that full of anger that he could not even wait a few minutes.
https://twitter.com/SenateMajLdr/status/698653325718257664
@Scout
You are confusing loyalty to the Officeholder with loyalty to the Republic. The Framers created a separation of powers between Congress and the Executive Branch in order to restrain both branches. The fact that the federal government has succeeded in creating a Gordian Knot of bureaucracy does not mean that Congress should no longer exercise its power. When the majority in Congress has a fundamental disagreement with a presidential priority (Obamacare, Iran nuclear agreement, executive action on immigration), it is not somehow irresponsible or disloyal to use its power to deny confirmation of presidential nominees or to withdraw funding from programs important to the Executive Branch to force compromise. That is exactly how separation of powers was designed to work.
I fail to see how openly discussing the defeat of a president’s agenda “soils” the party. When the president stated that his goal was to fundamentally transform the country, the wise course of action was to oppose him. Yet Obama still managed to accomplish much of what he wanted to do, which succeeded only in making us poorer and less secure.
A SCOTUS confirmation is likely to have far-reaching consequences over the next 30 years. Given the president’s desire to fundamentally transform the country, perhaps the Senate should be very skeptical of confirming any candidate nominated by this president in the last year of his second term.
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!! Always nice to see a sense of humor on the blogs.
Absolutely I think he does. Sorry you think Starry is being funny.
Now, I posit that any POTUS who takes his constitutional role very seriously would most certainly enforce all the immigration laws on the books — not to mention asking for the appointment of a special prosecutor or two or three. Maybe even apologize………….
Chuck Schumer, likely future leader of the Dems in the Senate, addressing the American Constitution Society in July 2007 and outlining his views on SCOTUS appointments in the last 19 months of George W. Bush’s second term. What goes around comes around, as they say…or sauce for the goose and the gander… you get the drift.
In any case, no more flim-flams about anti-constitutionality, please. It’s a political battle of wills. We want. You want.
He is one person.
WE have to go by the rules of engagement, regardless of how badly we don’t want to.
Yeh, right, Pat. As opposed to all those liberal sweethearts who are today singing paeans about the late Justice Scalia after years and years of trying to destroy his reputation.
I don’t think people tried to ruin his reputation. They strongly disagreed with his positions and what was/is perceived of totally unprogressive thinking.
There is a huge difference.
Wow! Now we are reminded that then-Senator Obama joined 24 other Dem senators in a January 2006 (futile) effort to filibuster the nomination of Justice Alito. Lots of sauce for all the geese!
Who would have thought that Wolve views Chuck Schumer as a beacon for proper political behavior (Comment # 34)? Schumer is a left-wing political opportunist. His position in 2007, like the anti-Borkists of 1987, (and Obama’s opposition to Alito) tore at the guts of the Republic. For people of Wolve’s usual predispositions to hold him up as a guiding light shows how little really separates some self-identified conservatives from some self-identified liberals.
But the real depth of Wolve’s views shows up in the last couple of sentences of #34: “We want. You Want.” If that’s what it’s all about, we don’t have the greatest Constitutional Republic in the history of Man. We just have kids fighting in the back seat, but no adult drivers to pull over and tell them to cut it out.
What a bunch of b.s. I requested no more flim-flam, Scout. So, it appears you want a SCOTUS with five liberals. Figured as much.
I want a SCOTUS with 4 liberals and a moderate. I admit it. That moderate is going to think for his or herself and keep both sides from doing something totally stupid.
Feel free to insult me over it.
I want a nominee – and I want a vote. Vote him/her up or down but vote. This nonsense of placing a ‘hold’ on an Ambassador and one does not even been to be present to do it is nonsense. IF any of you really believed in the Constitution, you would agree that our Congress does not function as designed.
They are failing us at every turn. McConnell should welcome a nominee. He should be welcoming the vote. He should not be so cold as to offer condolences in one sentence and anti-Obama rhetoric in the next.
Put legislation forward – where is this great Republican Congress that is going to do…..ah, crickets. They cannot even get a budget together. No immigration reform. Nothing. Put it on Obama’s desk (let him veto it) and be part of the solution or do nothing and be part of the problem.
McConnell will do whatever is legal and necessary to keep Obama from putting SCOTUS in the liberal column. He knows the score….and the political price for caving.
Why would anyone want to insult the blogmistress over this? I said before it was a war of political wills. So, the battle is on. Hopefully we all keep it on the up and up…unlike Chuck Schumer, who tries to blast McConnell for the same tactics he himself recommended in 2007. Or Obama……..Oh, heck, what more can be said about that guy? These people keep forgetting the existence of the internet.
No insults, but you have that now (or had, until Scalia’s demise).
If you look up moderate in the dictionary, it says see: Kennedy, Anthony.
My definition of a moderate would be Sandra Day O’Connor, not Kennedy. I would probably really prefer that they all be moderates rather than tied to ideology.
With all due respect, I disagree. Not the way in which contemporary liberals carry out their targeted attacks.
I can’t think of any. Will you point out a few examples.
@ Wolve (NO. 44). I want a court with nine intelligent, knowledgeable, honest and independent citizens who respect the Constitution. I view talk of “conservative”, “liberal”, “Republican-appointee”, Democrat-appointee” as trivializing impositions by media and popular culture that really do not reflect the constitutional value of the Court. Cramming the court’s jurisprudence into “conservative” or “liberal” odd-shpaed containers tends to miss what actually is happening on that body.
Having said that, the jurists on the Court with whom I have had the best rapport have tended to be ones that the public would call “conservative”. I am an enormous fan of Scalia, although recently, I have been concerned that his opinions, particularly in dissent were becoming less precise and more gratuitously crotchety. I was concerned that age was beginning to take its inevitable toll. Beyond that recent observation (which is just me, and may not be correct), I think Scalia’s frequent focus on what I call “direct evidence of intent” (as opposed to more collateral indicators) when it comes to legislative interpretation has been extremely healthy and will be a positive legacy of the man for some time to come.
I stopped commenting on anything because Wolve’s comments are so rude and one-sided it’s just not worth my while anymore. It’s kind of becoming exhausting to read and toxic. But of course maybe I only think that because I disagree with everything he says, so my bad. So here’s my comment “Whatever Wolve says, I think the opposite.”
@Scout
“@ Wolve (NO. 44). I want a court with nine intelligent, knowledgeable, honest and independent citizens who respect the Constitution.”
Honest question: What are your views on “Framer’s Intent”, and do laws “as written” mean what they say?
The reason I ask is “judicial temperament” is often mistaken for left vs. right ideology, IMHO.
I want to attach a rider to the question–@Steve…How much has to do with definition?
What are arms? What were arms then? What are arms now? What is implied in that term. Nukes, ninja stars, Tommy guns, semi automatic weapons, tanks all were not even thought of when the 2nd amendment was written.
How much does definition have to do with law? How much does technology have to do with law.
Religion is less technological, or is it? It’ less objectified, at least.
Just thinking out loud.
@Moon-howler
Moon wrote: “What are arms? What were arms then? What are arms now? What is implied in that term. Nukes, ninja stars, Tommy guns, semi automatic weapons, tanks all were not even thought of when the 2nd amendment was written.”
To the “originalist” “Arms” are those weapons in common usage suitable for the common defense, to include defense of self, family, and property, and were intended to be personal weapons, not supplied by the State. The intent is quite clear, if one reads the writings of those who drafted, proposed, and debated the 2A. There wasn’t any “sporting purposes” discussion.
Pistols, Self-loading Rifles, shotguns and Knives/Bayonets are items commonly issued to the individual soldier, today, and therefore, are in common usage, and suitable for defense. Artillery pieces, crew-served weapons, and while there is no law against owning an armored vehicle (it’s the weapons on it that are regulated), high explosives, etc., are not in common usage, and I have no issue with the restrictions placed on them.
If one would like to go through the process of owning a fully-automatic weapon, they can. Heck, there’s even a way to get a license to manufacture them. I have no desire to own one.
Moon wrote: “How much definition have to do with law? How much does technology have to do with law.”
I am sure that the founders didn’t conceive of a time when women would demand the right to elective termination their pregnancies, but they had the foresight to create a right to privacy, to be “secure in one’s person”.
They knew, however, that women did end pregnancies. It was risky business, just like child birth was, however. I don’t think they said anything about medical treatment.
Actually, the right was affirmed in 1973.
That right to privacy was violated on so many levels over the years.
A comment on sporting purposes….I am going to include hunting in that sporting purpose. I find it odd that it wasn’t mentioned since so many people depended on arms to eat. Butcher shops were pretty much an urban experience.
Back to definitions–I find it slick that ninja stars and other weapons can be regulated and don’t really fall under the “arms” protection of the 2nd.
How about hand grenades and weapons like hand grenades? How about napalm and flame throwers? What keeps those items under regulation?
Oh, around those times abortion was usually induced with various chemicals and ingested herbicides, mainly known by midwives and women knowledgeable of such arts. To my knowledge, there wasn’t much “surgical” abortion. (I am sure someone could come along and prove me wrong) The emerging AMA is who really insisted that laws be created forbidding it. I have read it was because they didn’t want the competition.
“How about hand grenades and weapons like hand grenades? How about napalm and flame throwers? What keeps those items under regulation?”
Hand grenades are not considered suitable for the common defense. An easy test: if I am subject to a home invasion, would lobbing a grenade into my living room be wise? No, because it is an area weapon, as are claymore mines.As far as flamethrowes go, they not firearms, and are perfectly legal to own. I will also add, they are no longer in the inventory of any of our services, and this has been the case since the early 1980s. Napalm is perfectly legal to own, and manufacture. It is used in those legal flamethrowers to do controlled brush burns. Napalm is an accelarent, not an explosive. Gunpowder is a propellant, not an explosive. I, and the NRA, are perfectly fine with the regulation of explosives, and when last I cracked my issue of the magazine, the organization was not advocating for the private ownership of hand grenades.
I think you misunderstand me. Let’s stick to Ninja stars and switch blades. I know there are places where these types of weapons are not allowed. I am ask ing how those weapons can be regulated while others cannot. Where does “right to bear arms” kick in?
Are swords, sabers, knifes etc not considered arms?
Aren’t flame throwers those things used to burn the Japanese out of the caves on Iwo Jima?
Another sly liberal effort to stiffle the opposition, eh? Tough luck, kid. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen” — as a guy named Harry once said.
There was an Obama press conference in California today, with an AP media question on the Supreme Court vacancy which was answered at length by POTUS. I was surprised that one of the media actually followed up with a query about this POTUS having been a vocal part of the Senate effort to filibuster the Alito nomination in 2006. It took POTUS a second or two to regain his feet and serve up essentially a non-answer. If you can find the recordings of Obama’s comments about the Alito nomination at the time, I believe you will see that his rationale was the same as the conservatives now. I tell you, sometimes these people forget that the internet exists.
I’m not opposed to gun ownership if we could eliminate ammunition that “accidently” propels bullets through the wall into the next housing unit or down the street and into a child playing in the park.
Lethal devices used to defend oneself must have limitations to remain in scope. A well regulated gun owner is not capable of seeing through walls or over the horizon and therefore should have no ammunition that can harm someone on the other side of a wall or door or beyond 25 feet or so.
Very amusing to me that some liberals seem to think the only role of a conservative in society is to fly the white flag. Well, I guess that’s the damage done by today’s Establishment Republicans. It may be time to pull a God and Gideon in forming the army.
I don’t understand what you just said. Why would conservatives (whatever that means) fly the white flag?
@Moon-howler
Flamethrowers are unregulated. You can buy them commercially, online. There’s a new one going for about $900. Or make them yourself.
Just letting you know.
@Ed Myers
Ed, then go ahead and invent some. Let us know when you invent the Star Trek phaser with stun setting.
I think I will pass. They look dangerous.
and Mitch McConnell said that the nominees should get a vote in the Senate – (but not when Obama is President).
Proving once again that the Republican Senate is filled with Obstructionists and not Legislators.
http://qz.com/617569/past-mitch-mcconnell-and-present-mitch-mcconnell-dont-agree-on-supreme-court-appointments/
Steve (#51): you ask two distinct questions, although they overlap in concept. When you say “Framers’ intent” I take that to mean the intent of the drafters and signatories of the 1787 Constitution. In the context of the discussion, Scalia was often described (he used the term himself) as an “originalist”, meaning, simplistically, that the Constitution was pretty much frozen in its late 18th Century meaning and was not intended to adjust supplely to things that the Founders knew nothing about. Scalia so much as said that the Constitution was a “dead” document (as opposed, I guess to those who say that it lives and breathes and conforms to new conditions). I’m not sure that that’s what you’re referring to with your question, but if I’m on the right track, I’m pretty close to Scalia’s view that where original intent is clear, it is a powerful constraint on later interpretation. The two problems that arise from that proposition, however, are that: 1) there are things on which the Founders’ intent is not clear, even contemporaneously with the late 18th Century, and 2) modern circumstances present us with a great deal that the Founders had no conception of in any way, shape or form. In the former situation, I agree with Scalia that documents like the Federalist Papers are reasonable guides to some issues, and that it is permissible to go beyond the four corners of the Constitution itself to examine something like FP as a resource. In the latter circumstance, one has to make an honest, intelligent judgment call as to whether an accommodation of a modern circumstance can or cannot be made without doing violence (or even distortion) to Constitutional structures. If the answer is negative, and amendment is the only recourse.
Your second element (“laws as written”) appears to go to statutory interpretation. This is where I think Justice Scalia really made some lasting contributions. Laws being the imperfect creations of imperfect humans, there are many ambiguities and anomalies in statutes, particularly more complex and comprehensive statutes. I would say that prior to the 1950s, a fairly substantial and careful body of scholarship had developed about how courts should resolve drafting-induced confusion in statutes. This all became somewhat warped by well-meaning, but not intellectually rigorous judges trying to “do the right thing” in great causes such as the civil rights movement and environmental issues that arose in the 50s and 60s. Scalia’s unwillingness to lunge at any scrap of committee report or floor statement evidence of Congressional intent did a great deal to bring us back somewhat to a more disciplined process for reviewing problematic statutory language. I strongly feel that that contribution will be around and assuring itself for a long time.
I wasn’t sure what you’re trying to say about judicial temperament in comment #51. I view it as a manner in which a judge approaches disputes with ears and eyes open, and without having formed a pre-constraining final opinion of the merits. I don’t see it as an ideological descriptor.
Obama recently recommended that we should ignore what he said about the Alito nomination in 2006. He claims that 2006 was a different time. We should forget what he said then and do what he says now.
So 2006 is now ancient history? Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama…with Schumer a close second.
From Kathleen Parker in WaPo:
What Obama actually did say–no news here….move on.
ABC news.com
Is it not ok to find a candidate objectionable? I found him objectionable when he mouthed at Obama during the State of the Union Address.