What Are The Implications Of Scalia's Death

Both Republican and Democrat seem to be in a tither. Why is his death so seemingly consequential?

 

The conservatives are panicking about an Obama endorsement of a likely liberal and the liberals are foaming at the mouth to find a nice democratic replacement. Business as usual. No one wins and everybody sucks. Lol.

 

Isn't there some kind of government action that dictates what happens in such a situation?

 

No clue, but I do know that it is within the President's right to endorse whomever, but I think it can be challenged.

 

Just another log on the fire for this awful election cycle. I have never felt more unmoved by a crop of candidates.

 

This ought to be good. Name your poison in this election. "It's going to be a bumpy year." Shucks, again.

 

Lou is pretty much spot on. I would add that the process can take up to 8-9 months with no guarantee the Senate will approve the President's nominee. First, the Senate Judiciary Committee has hearings and must approve the nominee. Then the Senate has their time to discuss and debate the worthiness of the nominee. Oh, did I mention there will be TV cameras covering the festivities so the Senators can get their mugs on the evening news and C-Span?

If the Senate rejects the nominee, then the President selects another and the process starts again. In 1986, President Reagan nominated Robert Bork, who the Democrat controlled Senate refused to approve because he was "too Conservative". Reagan's second choice was Scalia, and the rest is history.

 

Interesting...
I'm all for abolishing the Canadian Senate
http://www.thecanadaguide.com/the-senate

Not sure, maybe the US senate actually does something.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/senate.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

 

Yes, you are correct, Lou. Should have checked before trusting my memory. Scalia & Bork were both considered by Reagan to fill Justice Rehnquist's seat after Reagan picked him to fill the Chief Justice vacancy. Reagan eventually went with Scalia, and Bork was nominated for the seat previously held by Lewis Powell. When Bork was shot down, Douglas Ginsberg was to be the next nominee, but he withdrew due to pot smoking while a law professor. Kennedy was Reagan's 3rd choice and was eventually confirmed.

 

Sigh...the Reagan years. Happy times. Ain't no going back.

Ruth and Douglas were not related? ..what are the odds of that happening- 2 Supreme's with the same last name...weird.
They busted Dougs balls because he smoked pot...wow. Could go to a pepsi machine in Colorado to buy weed now.

 

Actually our Govt system was designed to make it difficult to get things done. We are not parliamentary. I don't understand why they couldn't have done an autopsy, if anything to put away doubts. Sort of like Bin Laden's body. Granted he was a fat (not trying to be disrespectful, just stating facts), chain smoking 79 year old.

This has election implications. The 2000 election process looms big in this. I expect a large non-turnout due to voter apathy which could make some states extremely close which could have big implications in the electoral college.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

The court will for sure tilt based on who wins this.

Think about it. Climate change, birth control, abortion, affirmative action, redistricting, union power, immigration,

Don't think the Democrats might not delay this as well. A 4-4 tie goes to the lower court decision. Most likely ties will go toward the liberal side.

This is going to be "fun".

We could also get a moderately liberal judge if done right away which from the Republican side might be better than a 4x4 ties. Some judges actually adjudicate and not just make ideological decisions.

People often forget that Scalia's staunch "what were the founders thinking" stance, sometimes led to him siding with liberals. Can work both ways.

 

Interesting development with Scalia being a guest of a person (Poindexter) who happened to be the benefactor of a court decision. Corruption anyone?

 

Corruption...

Or assassination?
http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/obama-poindexter-pics-fuel-scalia-suspicions/

Only in the United States.

 

That whooshing sound you hear is this thread going down the conspiracy theory toilet.

 

The place he was at is not conspiracy. That is on normal news outlets. It is not appropriate period to take a free visit to a place that is owned by a guy whom you gave a favorable ruling.at the supreme court level.

Even major networks have said it was a gift for the ruling. That is not ethical period.



Its gotten to the point that any criticism is called conspiracy.

 

AFAIK, it was not a ruling, but a "writ of certiorari". That the Supreme Court failed to hear the case is hardly surprising. They get thousands of writs and hear...What? 80-100.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi9
Further, which justices voted to hear which cases is anonymous and no record is kept of who voted for what.
http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2016/02/invisible-justices-part-ii-anonymous.html?showComment=1454961354713

Buying off one judge does not make a whiff of difference, you have to buy off several to sway the odds in your favor.


So, Ilhawk, which were the other judges that Poindexter bought off? Where are their free trips?

 

I never reckoned any conspiracy concerning his death...but there should be no stones left unturned regarding deaths of high ranking officials...
All high ups should have an autopsy in order to avoid any conspiracy theories...Will qualify- they should be dead first.