Supreme Court

Justice Antonin Scalia Dead at 79

The Supreme Court justice was found dead today of apparent natural causes.

|

Credit: C-SPAN

Antonin Scalia, associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, was found dead today of apparent natural causes. He was 79 years old.

Appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, Scalia was an outspoken and highly respected judicial conservative. To say the very least, Scalia had a massive influence on American law. Among his many contributions, Scalia was an early champion of the legal philosophy known as "originalism," which says that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning at the time it was enacted. Today originalism is one of the primary legal philosophies jostling for dominance at the high court, a situation that was practically unimaginable several decades ago. Scalia played an indispensable role in making that possible.

I certainly had my share of disagreements with Justice Scalia over the years. In my recent book Overruled, for example, I extensively criticized Scalia for his refusal to seriously engage with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment in the landmark gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago. But at the same time, I have always had great respect for Scalia's keen legal mind and acerbic wit. And I'm hardly unusual in that regard. Scalia was overwhelmingly respected by his intellectual opponents. In 2008, for instance, presidential hopeful Barack Obama praised Scalia for his "intellectual brilliance." Likewise, Scalia's close friendship with liberal legal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg is well known.

Whether you agreed with him or not, Antonin Scalia was a brilliant legal thinker who always earned your respect.

Related: In 2012 Reason listed the "Top 10 Libertarian Supreme Court Decisions." Justice Scalia wrote two of them.

Advertisement

NEXT: Justice Antonin Scalia has died

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How many times did this dude die?

    1. One too many.

      1. Scalia died a few days ago by now…

        What’s the latest? Is he STILL dead?

  2. Loved him on both Barney Miller and Fish. Godspeed Abe!

  3. How many times did this dude die?

    Only once, but he dragged it out like Pee Wee Herman in Buffy.

  4. Can we get Lou Reed to replace him?

  5. Trump will replace him with the winner from next season’s “Who Wants a Seat?”

    1. Yeah, well unfortunately, Obama is the one who’s going to replace him.

      1. No way that’s going to get through the Senate before Chocolate Nixon is OOO.

      2. I doubt that any nominee will make it out of committee.

        1. The psychopaths at HuffPo are screaming for it to be White Squaw. God those people are fucking deranged.

          1. I saw plenty of them saying “let the senate obstruct. Then Sanders can nominate Obama and he can be confirmed by the upcoming Dem-controlled Senate.

            Fucking idiots.

            1. I’m not too worried about Sanders becoming POTUS or him appointing Obama to the SCOTUS. What I’m fucking worried about is the unhinged leftist radical that Obama is going to appoint.

              1. The times demands a transgendered judge.

                1. Only if it’s a transgendered version of Mao or Stalin.

                2. The New York Times?

                3. It takes real judgement to determine your own sexuality. Makes sense.

                4. Are there any prominent, Transgender originalist jurists out there? There’s gotta be at least one.

                5. Deirdre McCloskey? I’d get behind that. I mean, metaphorically of course.

              2. Relax, Obama won’t get to make any more judicial appointments, not even to lower courts. He’s like a waterfowl with crutches, man, you know? A lame duck.

            2. Dancing on graves not yet dug.

            3. How are they idiots? Demographics have ensured the Democrats the White House for the next 200 years!

              1. It ensured them a majority in congress for 1000 years also and that only lasted about 2 years.

                1. You know who else thought they’d be in power for a 1000 years…

                  1. Robot Nixon?

              2. I’m not sure how you can speculate for the next 200 YEARS with any sort of certainty.

            4. They are on six kinds of crack if they think the Dems are taking back the Senate. While possible, it’d require Hillary’s luck at coin flipping to pull off, if 270 to Win’s Senate race projections are anywhere close to right.

  6. Well, I know he died, but I mean, is he still dead?

  7. Very sad news. While none of the nazgul are perfect, like Thomas, Scalia could usually be relied on to get it right. Also sad is the fact that Obama gets to appoint another Supreme Court Justice before finally leaving. Yet another leftwing statist hack we’ll suffer with for decades to come.

      1. Yeah, because the Republicans have just had such a major spine these past seven years standing up to Obama. They haven’t rolled over for Obama ever. /sarcasm

        1. I got a pool going on how many days between Orrin Hatch saying “We’ll never allow a radical leftist like {him, her, other} to serve on the Court” and when he votes to confirm that radical leftist.

          1. Is 1 taken?

  8. Holy shit, I can’t even imagine the ultra leftist butch dyke that Obama is going to appoint to the SCOTUS. We are so fucking fucked. They are going fucking battshit on prog sites right now. I expect Buttplug to show up any time now and declare Obama king forever.

      1. What are you trying to say? Seriously I’m confused. Obama is POTUS and will be for another year still. You seriously think this guy is not going to come up with the most ultra left wing nutcase on the planet?

        1. Senate confirmation, how does that work, in a legislative body comprised of 54% republicans, where a simple majority of such is required?

          Related: Which of the two major parties is most effectively able to marshal its members to speak with one voice?

          1. Shit, like the Republican majority blocked Obama from appointing Lynch as AG. Those pussies are going to let Obama do whatever he wants to do. And there is nothing he wants more than to stack the SCOTUS with left wing radicals.

            1. Lynch goes away when he goes away.

            2. Before Scalia’s body was even cold, McConnell was saying he won’t allow any SCOTUS nominations to proceed.

              Anybody with half a brain would have waited to assess the situation before making comments, but Ol’ Turtleface never got past a quarter.

              1. Dead thread-fucking, how does it work. Question Budd, you get time and a half to troll on weekends?

            3. Ho sure is it that the GOP will even keep congress this year? I think the question now is, who would you rather make the appointment, Obama or Clinton? Or Sanders?

          2. I have zero confidence that the Republicans in the Senate will do jackshit to stop Barry from appointing a progtard RBG clone with no adherence to the constitution or the rule of law or anything above identity politics and TEAM BLUE

        2. Obama does not just place justices on the Court.

          The seat will remain empty until next year.

          1. Especially so since it’s an election year.

            Congress can’t just roll over like they did for the budget bill.

            Can They ?

            1. Yes, they can and they will.

              1. Actually OneOut has a point; election year means they’re under pressure to act tough and all. Of course, they still have to keep enough seats and see a GOPer win the presidency in order to get the chance of confirming someone else who isn’t even worse. I say the odds of that happening are slim.

            2. Fortunately Boehner isn’t even in the House let alone the Senate.

          2. This isn’t an emergency which demands special executive action?

            1. Of course it is, it always is.

            2. Was that a Kurt Russell flick or someone else?

            3. Recess appointment

              1. I do think you can do that with judges. Even if you can, it wouldn’t be a permanent appointment.

                1. That’s OK. She’s only have to be on the court long enough to overturn citizens united. That’s how the supreme Court works, right?

                2. You can make recess appointments with judges, however there is now a zero percent chance that the Senate goes into an official recess before their next term.

          3. The seat will remain empty until next year.

            No, you’re misunderstanding the dynamics here. Most Americans think about one thing when they think about the Supreme Court: Abortion. (It’s retarded, I know.)

            Most Americans think abortion should be legal under certain conditions. The Democrats’ pro-choice position is closer to the center of the country. The Democrats will argue that the Right to Choose is at stake and that it hangs on by one vote. Any attempt to block Obama is (1) Republican obstruction and (2) presumptive unfair and (3) probably racist and (4) may lead to the Roe v. Wade being overturned and therefore (5) the Republicans are on strike against The American People?.

            Therefore, the Republicans must be vanquished lest American women are forced to retreat, barefoot and pregnant, back into American kitchens.

            QED*

            * – idiotic Democrat logic

            1. “Most Americans think abortion should be legal under certain conditions. The Democrats’ pro-choice position is closer to the center of the country.”

              How is the position that a fetus can be destroyed at any point in a pregnancy for any reason closer to the idea that there are some situations where abortion should be legal? Both the Republicans and Democrats seem pretty far away from the actual beliefs of the American public re: abortion.

              1. Let alone the position that an infant in the process of being born can be killed. I think, when it comes to abortion, the Dems are just as far away from their actual voters as the GOP, least that’s what the surveys say.

              2. I don’t think that’s what most Democrats think about abortion.

          4. You think every Republican senator is going to hold out 11 months with the Times and CNN saying mean things about them? They’ll last about 20 minutes before they approve Lenin’s corpse and go ahead and vote to remove Thomas while they’re at it.

            1. You think every Republican senator is going to hold out 11 months with the Times and CNN saying mean things about them? They’ll last about 20 minutes before they approve Lenin’s corpse

              Sadly, I believe this before I believe any bravado from McConnell et al that they won’t approve anyone nomincated until after the election. They might have enough balls to reject the first nomination or two, then break their hands patting themselves on the back for approving a “compromise candidate”, in the spirit of bipartisanship.

  9. Considering the NYT’s butthurt whining about the EPA ruling the other day, the air inside the Beltway is probably filled with champagne corks.

    1. I know a 4-4 SC vote keeps the appellate ruling but doesn’t set a precedent. How does that work when there are conflicting rulings from different courts of appeal?

      1. Somalia!

      2. Same as if SCOTUS refused to take the case. Each circuit’s ruling holds in its own territory.

  10. Gillespie was first! That’s an important distinction around here and what am I no. 14?

  11. This is probably the worst possible political imaginable. Now we’re going to have an ultra left wing SCOTUS for the first time ever. This is some scary fucking shit.

    1. So,the only hope is Trump? I need a drink.

      1. I seriously do not believe that Trump would put a fucking communist on the SCOTUS, but I know damn well that Obama or Bernie will do so, and I can’t even imagine what sort of monster Hillary would put there.

        1. True,and don’t think his crazy shit will ever become law,.This country is fucked in many ways.

        2. I think trump would put a communist on the court if a communist was the highest bidder for the seat.

      2. Yes. the only hope is Trump.

        When Cruz wins the election he can appoint ultra conservative Trump to the court.

        It would be uuuuuge.

  12. The thought of Hillary or Sanders appointing his replacement chills my spine.Even more rights would be destroyed,the EPA and others will have a free hand. Guns,you don’t need them,and don’t you darer run mean ads against ‘top men and women’.Socialism will be unleashed.Hopefully congress will rein in some of the abuse,I doubt it.

    1. Obama will appoint the same person that Hillary or Sanders would appoint.

      1. But,senators are already saying they want to wait till after the election.

      2. He’ll try, but it’ll be a bitch to get a hardcore liberal confirmed. The worst he’ll be able to do is a moderate liberal. Now I’d like to see a conservative nominated as I think the current balance has served the court well, but that a’int happening.

        1. Obama has no interest in getting a justice *appointed* when there are political points to be scored by having one be rejected. He’ll pick the biggest “fuck you” he can find just for the lulz on his way out the door. Kamala Harris.

          1. Too easy to reject. He’s got to be more subtle.

            1. So he starts with someone like that, though Harris is too politically savvy to throw herself on that grenade, and compromises with someone like Sri Srinivasan, although Jeez, he just got to the D.C. Circuit.

              How about someone like Reinhardt, for the lulz?

        2. First off I believe that Ginsberg killed him. Either with poison or a whiff of her breath, or vag.

          Second I think Barry will seize on this to create his true legacy…appointing a Muslim justice.

          He’ll dare the racist Refuclicans to oppose a poor Muslim in an election year.

          1. Plot lines like that will make you a major bestseller. Stop wasting your time giving away your secrets.

          2. No,it would be a avowed socialist. European style speech and gun laws. Kiss property rights good bye.

            1. He can appoint “my” congresscritter Keith Ellison to the Supremes and thus get a Muslim and a commie rolled into one.

          3. That sort of thing would do wonders for Trump.

  13. Maybe I just have a morbid mind but I remember looking at pictures of the Court seated together and thinking how much power is accumulated in that assemblage of nine frail, finite, human bodies. Look at poor J. Ginsburg, she always looks like she’s got about 30 min on this planet. And, on the other end of the spectrum, but my favorite Justice Clarence Thomas (as if I needed to specify) is obviously obese.

    I really feel like these guys need food tasters, Secret Service protection, and, frankly, a weekly medical checkup for the non-leftists….

  14. Guess we should’ve forced him to eat his broccoli.

    1. I literally laughed out loud.

  15. Everyone be on the lookout for the nastiest liberal reaction, because I’m sure there will be a lot of them.

    1. The best ones are all the tweets about ‘Now how will Clarence Thomas know what to think?” You know, because the only reason a black man would disagree with white progressives is because he’s stupid.

      1. Well,he’s a Uncle Tom.Of course ,if they’d read the book they’d know Uncle Tom was in many ways a hero..

      2. Papists will be papists. Props aren’t smart enough to figure shit like that out.

        1. Progs. No props to progs.

    2. You can count on the usual suspects to be pissing on the body before he’s cold.

    3. Go to HuffPo and read the comments. They are going loony fucking tune insane.

      1. I actually went to look, and instead found myself fascinated by this piece from the “WE FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE”-camp =

        Astronaut Says Earth Looks “Sickly, Fragile” From Outer Space

        97% of astronauts agree Obama should Do Something.

        1. What the fuck ,really? Poor mother earths has cancer? Dumb SOB’s .

        2. Did they see Obama walking on the water from space?

          1. Where’s Wyatt ? Down on the creek,walken on the water.

        3. I would imagine everything looks sickly and fragile when confronted by the vast abyss of space.

        4. His astronaut brother came off as a retard on jeopardy, so there’s that

  16. I’m sure Obo will appoint someone while the Senate is in coffee-break as an ’emergency’; he’s slimy enough to give it a try.

    1. I’m not sure that even they can stall for 11 months, though.

    2. Your just full of good thoughts ,huh?

    3. MOAR WIZE LATEENUHS!!!!111!!!!!1

    4. The text isn’t cut and dry, but I don’t think the recess appointment power applies to judges. Federal judges are in office for life, but recess appointments expire at the end of the congressional session.

      1. There have been multiple federal judges appointed via recess, and like other recess appointments their terms end when the next congress takes over.

        There is no chance of Congress going into recess though.

  17. What’s Kamala Harris doing right now? I could see Obama going that way, the press lining up to denounce the evil, divisive, intransigent, racist, sexist Senate refusing to recognize the President’s prerogative to place whoever he wants on the bench and the Senate’s role (both Constitutional and traditional, natch) to merely rubberstamp the appointment. What better way to promote his racial healing agenda ?

    1. Over at FluffPo they are already screaming that the Rethuglicans better not try to block Obama’s appointing someone wonderful like Lizzie Warren or there will be a revolution and the Democrats will reign for a million years.

      1. I stay away from that place as a rule. There’s a much better class of drunks here.

        1. (Raises whiskey glass) Thank you.

      2. Obama already knows this close to the election the Senate is going to try to block him from putting anybody at all on the bench so it doesn’t much matter who he nominates. He can either compromise with the Senate and pick the most liberal nominee he thinks he can get pushed through – which means a not-very liberal – or he picks the most godawful candidate he can find just to stir the pudding. After that, keep an eye on the polls and try to figure out if he’s getting replaced by a Dem or a Rep. If it’s a Dem, he’s got some leverage to nominate somebody less-worse than who his successor might name but that’s about all the legacy-building opportunity he’s got.

        1. This will be a great opportunity to see what Obama really believes and where his devotions lie. If he is a true-believing leftist and really wants what’s best for the revolution (and I think he may be, it may not be all about ego), he’ll base his nomination on how confident he is that a Democrat will win the presidential election. If he thinks they’ll win, he’ll only nominate leftists who the GOP will shoot down to make sure his successor gets a chance to put one in. If he’s more interested in his legacy, he may try to get a moderate in just to say that he appointed another judge.

      3. Never forget that when progtards don’t get their way, they make threats to the integrity of the system. See, for example, the Obamacare cases.

        Fucking children, the lot of them.

        1. Never forget that when progtards don’t get their way, they make threats to the integrity of the system.

          Oh, I dunno, there are plenty of right-wing folks who keep mentioning the ‘soap box, ballot box, cartridge box’ progression whenever .gov does something that pisses them off. Or we could revisit the whole woodchipper fiasco.

          Not to get all Cathy Young up in here, but it’s a disease that plagues a lot more people than Progressives these days.

  18. I’m not sure how this plays out. If the GOP does refuse to confirm any Obama appointment, and the GOP wins the presidential election, then I doubt the Dems are gonna be easily convinced to confirm their preferred nominee (the GOP does have majority control of the senate, but that could change and in any case a nominee can be filibustered). Lots of political theater in store.

    1. “in any case a nominee can be filibustered”

      The Dems killed the filibuster of judicial nominees, didn’t they? I thought they nuclear-optioned it.

      So unless the Reps go all squishy and give Dems the filibuster back…

      1. Did they? I haven’t read that anywhere, and I’ve seen multiple people bring up the filibuster (in case 5 or more Republicans switch, but less than 14).

        1. I just checked Wikipedia…the nuclear option didn’t apply to the Supreme Court.

          Well, the Republicans can *make* it apply.

          1. True, but the Dems could do the same now if a few Republicans jump ship.

      2. Filibuster revenge was kind of swept under the rug when the GOP got the senate. It really doesn’t matter as long as BO is president and the GOP has the Senate.

        If the Republicans win the presidency and hold the Senate, it’s going to get interesting.

    2. the GOP does have majority control of the senate, but that could change and in any case a nominee can be filibustered).

      As I said in the other thread, if the GOP wins the presidency then they are almost guaranteed to retain control of both houses of Congress. And if they lose the presidency then they probably still retain control of both houses.

      1. The GOP has set themselves up, via redistricting at the state and congressional level, to hold the house for the next 14+ years. The Senate is always somewhat in play, but I see the Dems in the House wilderness for a looooong time (think postwar Republicans long).

  19. This is bad…I’ve lost the will to joke about it.

    Temporarily.

    1. Nobody’s yet mentioned Scalia was on a quail-hunting vacation and suggested Cheney shot him in the face – you could try working up a bit about that.

      1. Out was said in the other thread.

      2. No, you are way too late. Some Leftie’s posted that 4 hours ago.

        http://www.fark.com/comments/9…..ts-unknown

  20. If the Dems win this election, they really have a huge opportunity to swing the Court in their favor. Not only this appointment, but I expect Ginsburg and Breyer to retire during the next president’s tenure (as long as it’s a Dem) and Kennedy could as well (and any of the 3 could die, as they’re all late 70s or early 80s). With Sotomayor and Kagan under 65, that could provide them with a majority for a long time.

    1. The Supreme Court is above partisan politics. That’s why they are appointed.

      1. I assume that’s sarcasm?

        1. Sarc/ tags ruin irony. If you’re irony deficient take supplements especially after mental menstruation.

      2. Are you cereal? I hope that’s a joke.

          1. I laughed

            1. Good. We need it on days like this.

    2. Well Breyer and Ginzburg replacements would just be breaking even. Kennedy on the other hand is 80 this year; if he goes and they get to replace him and Scalia, that hives a solid leftist majority of 5 or 6 (how far left is Breyer? never paid much attention to him).

  21. Odds Obama is already attempting a recess appointment?

    1. See above; it’ll happen on a Senate coffee break.

  22. I hope there’s a thorough autopsy.

  23. Look on the bright side. We’re moving closer towards many states realizing that not only can they, but that they should tell Washington DC to go fuck themselves.

    1. They’ll never do it because all of their elected officials are corrupt fucksticks just like their counterparts in DC and they want big sugar daddy to keep the sugar coming.

      1. The progs have no qualms about going local, so why can’t we? If we are hoping the robed ones are going to protect individual rights, we’re going to lose.

        1. The progs have no qualms about going local

          2 things here. First of all, a large powerful central state is the foundation of leftism. Without it, none of their cherished goals can be realized. These people are not the hippies of the 60s, they’re authoritarian leftists.

          Second of all, they are like the fucking borg. They’re a hive mind and they are obsessed with political ideology. Libertarians are just people who want to be left alone. That’s why we’ll never have the type of influence they have.

          1. You’re bringing me down, man. I don’t know the best strategy, but fight them regardless of the chances of winning. What other choice you got?

            1. A cabin deep in the woods.

        2. There’s a one-sided situation here: progressive federal governments can control conservative state govs by threatening to cut federal funding if they don’t comply, and any local politician who agrees to unilaterally defund his own constituency won’t win re-election.

          Conservatives,on the other hand, can’t do that so much with their favored institutions. They can’t threaten to have the military stop defending progressive constituencies if they don’t comply with their federal gov. Prog federal funding, on the other hand, not being an actual public good, can be distributed at their discretion.

          1. That should be the hill Trump dies on. “When I’m elected president, all blue states are on their own against terrorism and invasion. Good luck.”

  24. Sigh. This election is going to suck.

    And I want attribution for the nazgul thingy. Well, or a Lobster Girl mug.

    1. You’ll get more mileage out of the Lobster Girl mug.

      1. Only if it’s deep enough to turn into a fleshlight

    1. And so it begins.

    2. @activist360

      Singer-songwriter, musician, activist, poet, yogi, fierce advocate of human/civil rights & the environment.

      Unless you’re a wrong-thinking negro.

      Also, he looks like what I think a date rapist looks like.

      1. Is he related to Warty?

        1. Warty doesn’t date rape – unless you have a date with him in his dungeon.

          1. Will he ‘flog’ a dead horse?

    3. What exactly is the “Thomas does what Scalia tells him” theory based on besides Thomas being quiet in oral arguments?

      1. Just that. And the shocking result that two men with similar legal theories tend to vote the same way in the aggregate.

        Let’s be clear here: Clarence Thomas first language isn’t English, it’s the Gullah dialect spoken by descendants of African slaves on the sea coast of South Carolina and Georgia. He’s blacker than 99% of African-Americans in this country.

        The reason he doesn’t say anything during oral is because 1. oral is pointless theater and real decisions are made by reading briefs and 2. he has a shyness of public speaking stemming from a speech impediment as a child.

      2. Thomas being black and conservative, which drives progs mental. It’s cognitive dissonance they must reconcile by any means possible, even if it means revealing their essential racism.

        1. Who is “Clarence Thomas”? There is no Supreme Court justice called “Clarence Thomas”. The true name of the man you are thinking of is LONG DONG SILVER.

      3. Progtard racism toward a black conservative; plus he’s also an advocate of originalism, of which Scalia was one of the earliest proponents.

      4. Fine, let’s just pick who’s quieter between Kagan and Sotomayor and say she’s the puppet of the other one. Two can play at the make shit up game.

    4. He’s worried Clarence Thomas is off his chain and gonna rape Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

      1. That’s why coloreds shouldn’t smoke pot.

      2. That’s how you know he’s a progressive – he’s cool with talking about uppity Negroes raping the white wimmenz. You’d never catch a racist right-winger being so open about their beliefs, would you?

      3. Who is “Clarence Thomas”? There is no Supreme Court justice called “Clarence Thomas”. The name of the justice you are thinking of is LONG DONG SILVER.

        1. Dead thread-fucking isn’t very intelligent, Mr. Toad

  25. Let’s complete this shit-show of an election year and have Obama nominate Trump.

    1. YES!!!!! PERFECT!!!!!!ELEVENTYONE!!!!!

  26. The scariest thing I’ve heard here is the prospect of Obama and Hillary making a deal that Hillary wins the election and appoints Obama to the SCOTUS. In fact, I can’t really think of anything more terrifying than that. The 2 of them would probably have Bernie meet with an unfortunate accident over that deal.

    1. That is an utterly terrifying but reasonably possible prospect.

    2. Repent,the end is nye. { opens another beer}

      1. What has Bill got to do with this?

        1. The interns won’t diddle themselves.

    3. After Obama won, I expected him to appoint Hillary to the SC, not put her in the cabinet. That way she wouldn’t have to win any votes, and heaven knows she is a terrible candidate.

      In fact, given Hillary’s current polling problems, it wouldn’t be crazy for the DNC to ask for that very thing now, putting Biden into the race to save the day.

      Then again, I can’t see the Senate confirming Hildog in a thousand years.

      1. If the Senate Republicans had half a brain between them they would confirm her in a second. She’s no worse than the other judges Obama would appoint, it would throw the Dem presidential nomination process into chaos, and they wouldn’t have to deal with the Clinton machine in the general election.

        1. Indeed, but Hillary doesn’t want to be on the Supreme Court. What she wants is to be first. Reagan fucked that up for her when he made a woman a supreme court justice. If it were before her, then Hillary might accept it, but her whole appeal her whole life’s work in fact seems to be toward being the first person with a vagina to hold some title.

      2. Senatorial courtesy or some such?

      3. I think it’s too late for a new candidate to get on the ballot in enough states to win the nomination.

        1. Didn’t Obama have some issues with getting on the ballot in Michigan, that were magically ignored at the time of the convention? The parties can nominate who they want for the seat, period. Provided their members go along with it.

          If Fauxcahontas wants the seat, and the Democrats grow enough brain cells to see that she might actually win, unlike Sanders or Hillary, she’lll get the nomination. Election ballot access rules be damned.

          Can you imagine the hilarity of Obama nominating Hillary for the Court? Oh well, we have impeachment for a reason.

          1. Obama was originally on the ballot in the 2008 Michigan primary, but he withdrew, along with most of the Dem candidates, after the party took away all of Michigan’s delegates for scheduling their primary too early. Clinton left her name on the ballot and “won” the primary against only Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel.

            Later, as the convention approached, Clinton argued that it was unfair to not seat the Michigan delegates and that they should be restored.

    4. How is that scary? Obama wouldn’t be any worse than Kagan.

      1. Kagan is, for the most part, a private person who doesn’t constantly accuse anyone who disagrees with her of being evil or stupid. Barry loves lecturing the country about how terrible we all are.

      2. How is that scary? Obama wouldn’t be any worse than Kagan.

        The fuck he wouldn’t. With him on that court and Hillary as president, you can kiss the 2nd amendment goodbye. I think it would start an actual civil war and a lot of people would die. It would not be a pretty scene at all.

        1. Anybody Hillary appoints would be the 5th vote to eviscerate the 2nd amendment. Obama wouldn’t be any worse than the other options.

          1. I just arrived at the gun range when the news broke. Within an hour the place was jam packed.

        2. The second amendment was dead to the judiciary until Heller resurrected it less than a decade ago. I don’t see how SCOTUS overturning Heller (or more likely, just narrowing its scope) would cause a revolution.

          1. I don’t think you understand the mood of this country. The progs are mad with list for power, and the success of Trump indicates that the people on the other side think they need to fight.

            1. Lust. Dammit autocorrect.

            2. Telling a pollster that you’ll vote for Trump is not quite revolting.

  27. I’m actually a lot more interested in this outcome than I am the election at this point.

    1. They are now intertwined.

    2. Yes. I have a bad feeling about this.

  28. It might be fun to go back and dig up some of the old commentary and editorials from when Sandra Day O’Connor retired and the usual suspects opined that Bush really had an obligation to appoint a moderate just like her in order to maintain the balance of the Court rather than appoint another fire-breather like Rehnquist. The Supreme Court should be above such partisan hackery, they said, maintaining a balance of judicial viewpoints is too important to be sacrificed for petty transient political advantage. Let’s see if any of them urge maintaining the balance this time around.

    1. You already know that answer

    2. Almost as fun as it was to dig up their Bush-era comments about raising the debt ceiling and eliminating the filibuster. They didn’t give a shit about consistency when they did those things and they won’t give a shit now. The MSM won’t report on it and the average American is too stupid to understand the issue anyway.

      1. Agreed with point, disagree with average American being to stupid to understand. Most people aren’t political junkies like those here, and are uniformed/ignorant not stupid. They think things like living their life is more important than studying politics.

        1. They think things like living their life is more important than studying politics.

          Considering the influence that politics has on their ability to live their lives, that’s pretty stupid.

          1. That may be. But the average American has work to stress him/her out, s mate to stress him/her out, children to stress him/her out, bills to stress him/her out, etc., ad nauseum. They simply don’t think about politics that much. Most of them punch the ballot on a strictly (R) vs (D) basis.

          2. I disagree. Politics is awful and knowing about it doesn’t make it any better. The best thing would be for more people to stop putting so much into politics and get on with their lives. Especially those of us on the political fringe. We are not going to get anything we want from the political process. TH eonly way forward is for fewer people to base so much of their identities on politics, not to have more people think it is really important.

            I say this as someone very interested in politics.

    3. George HW Bush invalidated the “preserve the balance” argument when he replaced the great Thurgood Marshall with Long Dong Silver.

      1. But he restored it with Souter.

        1. IMT displays an unusual preoccupation with Clarence Thomas’s penis and thus I recommend you avoid responding to it.

          1. You recommend he avoid responding to Clarence Thomas’ penis???

    1. That sounds good,I love stouts and porters,and ales and,well,beer

    2. Bells makes great beer. I can’t wait to try that.

      1. Yes, their beer is great. I can’t get it where I live. I have to pick it up when I’m visiting relatives.

  29. How fucking jaded am I that the first thing I thought, was: Hillary killed this poor fucker. I actually don’t believe that but it was my knee-jerk reaction. That aside, I agree that an appointment will not be confirmed until after the next president takes office. It will however turn this election cycle into possibly this biggest shitstorm in modern history. This will also in all likelihood increase the voter turnout by at least 10%.

    Let’s play a drinking game tonight! Click over to cable news and take a shot of your preferred poison every time you hear the phrase: Most important election of our lives!

    I fully expect to be resuscitated from alcohol poisoning at my local hospital before the sun rises.

    1. An 11-month stalling of a SCOTUS appointment would be almost unprecedented.* Not saying it’s impossible, but it would be a very tough road to hoe for the GOP. The media would portray it as the height of partisanship and obstructionism, which independents hate. It would also energize the Dem base, and when that happens the GOP has roughly zero chance of winning in the presidential election, plus they’re already going to have to defend a very tough map in the Senate to keep their majority.

      On the other hand, appointing anything but a radical leftist to the bench would destroy Obama’s legacy building project. So he has no reason to be conciliatory. It’s an immovable post and an irresistable force.

      * It did happen during the Tyler administration, but the justification then was that Congress refused to allow an unelected president to make such important appointments.

      1. It would also energize the Dem base

        No it wouldn’t. The only thing that energizes political bases is personalities, and the D party has a remarkable shortage of that this election cycle. The GOP could stonewall this if they wanted to, and most Senators would win a few brownie points from their electorate come re-election if they do. The idea that Marco Rubio would be punished by voters for refusing to allow an Obama appointee in is laughable in a nation that has taken a massive, dramatic swing toward center-right populism over the past two years.

        “Unprecedented” is meaningless in politics. These people do whatever they can get away with, and they can get away with telling BHO to blow.

        1. The only thing that energizes political bases is personalities

          No.

          1. Yes. The average voter is not as politically educated as you are and does not follow political news like you do. They largely vote on personality.

            1. Read carefully.

              They largely vote on personality.

              Yes.

              The only thing that energizes political bases is personalities

              No.

            2. I don’t think one can seriously say personality is the only think that energizes them in a time when Bernie Sanders is doing so well. He’s doing well despite, not because of, his personality (or lack thereof). He’s doing well entirely because of his ‘principles’ or what people perceive his principles to be, I’d say.

      2. “would be almost unprecedented”

        This is already an unprecedented election cycle, my friend. This would indeed energize the democratic base, my prediction of a 10% increase was said with a pit in my stomach given higher voter turnout generally favors democrats. I guess that is a residual effect from generally believing repubs are just a little better than dems on constitutional issues….a little. Either way, we get a repub president than I’m not too fond of and a socialist leaning justice or we go full statist and get socialists DPing us from both ends.

        That’s why I proposed a drinking game, to drown the severity of the situation. Cheers!

        1. Ginsburg and Kennedy, and probably Breyer, are going to be replaced during the next president’s term. It makes no sense for the GOP to risk the presidential election over this. That being said, they probably will, because the conservative base has not a pragmatic bone in their collective body and will scream and yell if they even think about confirming an Obama appointee.

          1. they probably will, because the conservative base has not a pragmatic bone in their collective body and will scream and yell if they even think about confirming an Obama appointee.

            This is where i disagree with you. If we were talking about the House, I’d say you’re spot-on, but the Senate Republicans are largely a cowardly lot and will likely confirm whichever progtard statist hack the President puts up.

            1. McConnell has already said they won’t consider any Obama nominees, and he has the power to prevent it for coming up for a vote. Those are going to be some tough words to eat, which is why you don’t rush to say them if you have a brain.

          2. Are you seriously suggesting the Senate should “pragmatically” approve an Obama nominee on the grounds that when the next President nominates his guys the Senate Dems won’t then block them, that if the GOP compromises with the Dems now the Dems will compromise with the GOP later? That’s not how it works – the Dems idea of compromise is give us what we want now and later you can also give us what we want.

            1. It’s pretty retarded. I remember during the government shutdown in ’13 the media painting Republicans in the worst light imaginable and my prog friends bragging thanking Cruz for giving them the House back in a year’s time. Needless to say, they were dumbfounded when they lost the Senate. Elections are won on personalities, voter turnout, and the economy. The Republicans are going to win in a landslide. Especially if the crash happens from now until then, and it most likely is.

              1. Elections are won on personalities, voter turnout, and the economy.

                In recent elections, it’s been all turnout. The economy stunk in 2012, and Obama’s charisma had completely worn thin, and independents wanted him gone. But the Dems energized the base with War on Women and One Percent shit. You remember the results?

                That’s why you don’t hand the Dems an issue to energize their base about. Offer to confirm any appointee who’s not a hardcore leftist.

              2. One difference between this and the shutdown though is that, with the shutdown in 2013, the GOP could argue Obama was being unprecedented in driving up the debt to unprecedented levels.They could present themselves as the adults trying to be responsible and stop the run away train before it went any further off track.

                No such narrative here. How do you argue that a SCOTUS nominee is unprecedented? That it’s ‘going too far?’

            2. What’s your alternative strategy? You still need the Senate Dems to confirm your nominee even if you successfully stall for 11 months and win the presidency.

              Frankly, there is no way for the GOP to win this battle. Scalia picked a terrible time to die. They can lose little or lose big.

              1. The Supreme Court is too fucking important to give up. It’s downright retarded to compromise with the left on anything thinking they’ll help you out later especially on something as important as this. The media is going to paint Republicans in a negative light regardless of what they do, and it’ll have no effect on the election.

                1. Then what’s your strategy?

                  Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you stall Obama’s nominees successfully, win the presidency, and hold on to the Senate. Now you need to get 60 votes to get your new prez’s nominee in. How does this happen?

                  1. You tell me. “Giving the left a solid now” is not a reasonable answer.

                    1. I’m not saying the GOP should expect gratitude from the left for confirming an Obama nominee. I’m saying that stalling Obama’s nominee for 11 months screws things up for them regardless of what happens in the presidential election and the Senate elections. There is no way that Scalia gets replaced by a Republican’s nominee under any circumstances.

              2. Again, if the GOP wins the presidency, how can they, at the same time, lose the senate? I just done see it. If they lose the senate, then that means they lose the presidency.

                1. They lost their majority in the Senate and won the presidency in 2000. It’s not impossible. Three of the GOP Senators are major underdogs to be reelected (Kirk, Toomey, and Ron Johnson). There’s not much margin for error once they’re gone.

                  1. Ok. But honestly, it’s hard to find a scenario where the elephants win the presidency but lose the senate. I just don’t see how that would work this election. This election, Trump or Bernie, Cruz or Clinton, whatever, is going to come down to:
                    1) the Democrats have an advantage going in as far as electoral college votes.
                    2) modern elections are decided by (usually) thin margins. Getting out the vote is the key.
                    If the GOP wins the presidency, then it means they had more voters at the poles, meaning they win down ticket as well.

            3. the Dems idea of compromise is give us what we want now and later you can also give us what we want.

              +1 Cake theory of gun rights.

      3. tough road to hoe

        I’m trying to imagine why one might want to hoe a road. Most roads must be pretty tough to hoe.

    2. t will however turn this election cycle into possibly this biggest shitstorm in modern history.

      And a landslide defeat for any Republican nominee. What’s hysterical — if not so tragic — is that extreme fiscal liberals and extreme social conservatives each believe a “silent majority” eagerly awaits them, when they’re only about 1/4 the electorate combined, Fight Team Fight!

  30. Well, the revived Second Amendment was nice while it lasted.

    1. And groups won’t be able to say mean things about Hillary.We’ll be like Turkey,or many other hell holes

    2. I’m more worried about the First Amendment, personally, though both (and others) are in trouble.

      1. I’m more worried about the First Amendment, personally,

        Both sides are now under assault, Freedom Of and Freedom From.

  31. Yes, it sucks, but let’s not do this.

  32. Pan Zagloba, I think, in light of Scalia’s death, that you should change your plans and unleash the hordes of hot Slavic, Romanian, and Hungarian women.

    1. I have not previously heard of this plan, nor have I researched or studied it in any way whatsoever. Nevertheless, I’m 100% on board.

  33. Scalia was an occasional firewall and will be missed, probably sooner rather than later.

    If BHO wanted to troll the GOP he could nominate Posner, the Reagan-appointed U of Chicago “conservative” “genius” who 1) despised Scalia and his originalism and 2) recently gave a very frank interview to the Harvard alumni magazine (which is where Obama learns all of the proper beliefs to hold) in which he called Heller the worst ruling in recent memory and implied that the Constitution was an interesting relic whose fundamental purpose was to establish the system of common law that we have in place today. He also spoke very favorably about warrantless NSA searches in the way that only a judge who has been insulated from the real world for decades could and has, in his dotage, been saying nice things about Keynes for several months now.

    The GOP would suffer the embarrassment of turning down Reagan’s most prominent appointee, and if they didn’t Obama would have a high-powered, arrogant ur-elitist on the Court for a few years.

    1. If its the Posner I’m thinking of (a 7th circuit justice) he’s far too old to be in consideration.

      1. Posner is 77.

        I think people are giving too much credit to business as usual in the decade of the political troll.

        1. Are you Machiavelli reincarnated?

          1. That may be the most flattering thing anyone has ever asked me.

  34. But of course the GOP is a bunch of idiots and they are already saying they won’t approve any Obama nominee. Jesus titty fucking Christ, what a bunch of idiots. There is NO reason they need to show their hand this quickly. They should at least wait until he nominates somebody.

    Now they have to either back up those words and look partisan, or back down and look weak.

    1. Whatshisass O’Connell had said before Scalia’s death, that no new judicial appointments would be confirmed this year.

    2. Scalia’s death virtually guarantees that no Republican will be elected President this year, the entire GOP now tarred by extreme social conservatives, among the most feared groups in America.

      1. Keep dreaming. The blacks still aren’t going to give a shit about this election.

          1. (giggles)

            1. You can’r name any either! (snicker)

  35. I for one would like to see the left go full gun control retard. Keep pushing that shit and then see what happens.

    Do they think that even if they got a decision in their favor that it would matter? Go for it, bring on a prohibition era but for guns and let’s see how it turns out.

    Other than that I want this to be as partisan and divisive and as drawn out as it can be. If the various sides don’t end up hating each other even more I’ll feel shortchanged.

    1. Go for it, bring on a prohibition era but for guns and let’s see how it turns out.

      It would turn out a national disaster like every other prohibition has, with tens of thousands of people unnecessarily dead and millions of broken families or relationships. It would also lead to a rural-vs-urban showdown throughout the nation–not just in flyover country–that could actually lead to insurrection.

      I enjoy a good electoral beatdown as much as anyone, but of the things that could lead to blood in the streets and temporary collapse of the federal system, serious federal intrusion into gun control is right at the top of the list.

      1. I think it would be over in less than a week. And we would never hear from them again.

        1. However I do want to clarify that my preference is for the electoral beat down, not a mini-civil war.

          1. In case the point is lost on the NSA and other alphabet-soup types, that’s what we all want. Of all the terrible outcomes of statism, war is the worst.

            1. It most certainly is not. The Holodomor and Holocaust and similar events are far worse than war. War is an easy choice over those and other forms of tyranny.

      2. Not just feds.

        Even states practicing prohibition on guns will experience this bloodshed. It would be a sad day if cops had to justifiably be killed to defend freedom.

        But when the Supreme Court refuses to uphold individual rights…

    2. It’s sort of like pro-lifers with abortion. Even if they could overturn the SCOTUS decision, the electorate is still against any attempt to introduce the restrictions they want. Most states had shall-issue or constitutional carry BEFORE the Heller decision.

  36. Long Dong Silver (whom some people mistakenly call “Clarence Thomas”) must be worried now. Without Scalia, who’s gonna write his opinions for him?

    1. I for one thank God that the Internet has ensured that important opinions like this are not silenced by material want.

    2. Hey, for all we know, *Thomas* wrote *Scalia’s* opinions.

      And you’re a racist prick, slaver.

    3. Pissed that a black man could have non-progressive beliefs, eh?

      1. IT’S UNPRECEDENTED AND MUST NOT BE ALLOWED!!!

    4. Fucking racist, go back to your Klan rallies.

    5. Intelligent Mr Toad|2.13.16 @ 9:07PM|#

      I remember you! The lefty imbecile hoping to fool people into thinking you’re smarter than the average amphibian!
      And failing

    6. Fuck off, racist progtard slaver

  37. The leftists are already pointing to the fact that Justice Kennedy was confirmed in an election year (1988), as a rebuttal to McConnell’s claim that it would be unprecedented. However, the vacancy Kennedy filled dated to June 1987.

    1. +1 Bork(ed)

  38. And there’s Obama on the TV, talking nice about what a great guy Scalia was – but reminding everybody that he intends to do his Constitutional Duty to nominate a replacement and trusts the Senate will do its Constitutional Duty, too. We all know how much Obama respects Constitutional Duty. Duty, duty, duty all over the Constitution.

    1. Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the CONSTITUTION?

      I don’t see how you can still watch this person speak. The last time I heard him complete a sentence, he was lecturing the media about how oil shipped from the tar sands of Canada down to the gulf and sold internationally would have no effect on American oil prices.

  39. Kudos to those of you who had “Indian” in the game of Supreme Court nominee minority bingo: http://komonews.com/news/natio…..eplacement

    1. So Obama is going to nominate Nikki Haley?

    2. That doesn’t look like Elizabeth Warren to me.

    3. “Grew up in Lawrence, Kansas”

      As someone who lived there for much of my 20s, that doesn’t bode well. Hippie trash and populists who think they’re worldly and intellectual. It’s fun for delaying adulthood though.

      1. If you see Dean Winchester, say hi for me…

  40. “Whether you agreed with him or not, Antonin Scalia was a brilliant legal thinker who always earned your respect.”

    Citation needed.

    1. You probably didn’t even know who Antonin Scalia was until today, did you?

      1. Dude, it’s a troll who claims it once lectured miserable and unhappy Cubans about how much better Cuba is than Miami.

        When a rich person from a capitalist country is claiming they once lectured poor people in a communist society about how great communism is they’re either a) a lying troll or b) so crazy and sociopathic that they aren’t worth responding to.

        1. Dude, it’s a troll who claims it once lectured miserable and unhappy Cubans about how much better Cuba is than Miami.

          I was present for that. Probably the most despicable fucking thing I’ve seen from him.

          1. That’s what makes me think it’s just a troll. That whole thing was so ridiculous I can’t imagine someone would actually do that.

      2. That would require a reading ability greater than that of a 5th grader.

      3. Was he the guy who had a direct line to George Washington and john Adams and claimed that he understood how these two men would have dealt with gay marriage and whether al gore or George bush should be president?

        1. WOWOMG YOU TOATS UNDERSTAND HIW TEH ORIGINALISM WERKS AZ A JOODISHAL FILFILOSOFEE!!11!! THATS EXAKLY WUT HE BULEEVS!!111 AMSOC 4 SCOTUS

  41. Halp! I went into Denver and there’s a bunch of bernie stuff going on downtown. No one can articulate any actual argument. There’s some nice anti fracking posters. There’s so many. I have no faith left

    1. I dunno, brah, but check out Sam’s No. 3 for breakfast.

      1. I will. Thanks for the suggestion

    2. If Liz Warren is there, does that make her an Arapaho or Colfaxho?

  42. Politifact rates Kasich’s 8 BEEELLION claim mostly true. Any Ohioans care to chime in as to the accuracy of this?

    1. Paging Drew Carey…

      1. All I’m finding is Carey’s opinion on ResponsibleOhio. Has he said anything about the budget surplus (or lack thereof)?

  43. A sad loss. I didn’t agree with Scalia on his social views, but he was pretty reliable on containing the reach of government.

    Things are going to get a lot uglier now!

    1. His legal scholarship and his revival of the Second and Sixth Amendment and, at least in the last couple years, efforts to resuscitate the Fourth, were all commendable.

      Far from a perfect Justice, especially on social issues and big-government national security, but he was among the least offensive of the current bunch

      1. For accuracy’s sake: The man was a hit-or-miss liberty opportunist.

        To the left. he was such a good read.

        I shall miss his humor.

  44. Could Obama appoint himself? Then, Uncle Joe would get to run in 2016 as the incumbent, and it would solve the Hillary/Bernie problem.

  45. Well that sucks.

  46. good riddance to a retrograde fascist.

    http://m.motherjones.com/polit…..ia-dissent

    1. Nothing says ‘fascist’ like enshrining gun rights and freedom of speech.

      I am surprised you even have internet access from your worker’s paradise of Cuba. I mean that is where you are right? You’re not a hypocritical cunt are you?

    2. american socialist|2.13.16 @ 11:35PM|#
      “good riddance to a retrograde fascist.”

      Gee, shitbag, I certainly hope you have a terminal disease, and it leads to a long and painful death.
      Fuck off, slaver

    3. Cause citing motherjones ever does anything other than send a social signal that you’re a complete mongoloid retard.

      1. complete mongoloid retard.

        Well, that was adult.
        NOT

  47. BTW, Budd is tulpa’s new handle.

  48. For sheer audacity, nothing will ever top Scalia’s claim of originalism while totally rejecting the clear intent and simple wording of the Ninth Amendment. Indeed,his personal view of originalism can only conclude that the Ninth Amendment was never needed. So why is it there? Never an answer. Of what use is Logic anyhow?

  49. One vlogger on Youtube posted a rant about this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0yzjybXkZA

    And lots of commenters rant about Scalia’s death on ZeroHedge.

  50. The senate has every right to block Obama’s nominee. But Rubio and others look stupid when they act like it is somehow improper or unjust or whatever for Obama to nominate someone. What is the cutoff for this – 11 months, 12 months? 15 months? People elected Obama for 4 yeras, not 3 years. if this death happened 13 months ago, would it have changed the fact that a president with more than two yeasr left on his term would still be nominating someone who will be on the court for the rest of his active life(if he or she chose to do so).

    Would they use the same logic if GW was in power and Ginsburg croaked in his final year or she phoned home and left for her alien planet? What bothers me is this absolute lack of logic in justifying calls for Obama not to nominate someone of his choice.

    If both sides are smart, and it is uncertain who will win the next election, split the damn difference. Make Obama nominate an acceptable moderate who will stand for individual rights but not get caught up in religious dogma and doesn’t have an overly ideological background.

  51. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

  52. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

  53. a

    a

  54. a

    a

  55. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.