SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Antonin Scalia, a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, has died:
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - one of most conservative members of the high court - has died. Justice Scalia's death could shift the balance of power on the US high court, allowing President Barack Obama to add a fifth liberal justice to the court. The court's conservative majority has recently stalled major efforts by the Obama administration on climate change and immigration.
Justice Scalia, 79, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. He died in his sleep early on Saturday while in West Texas for [a] hunting trip, the US Marshall service said. Justice Scalia was one of the most prominent proponents of "originalism" - a conservative legal philosophy that believes the US Constitution has a fixed meaning and does not change with the times.
Justice Scalia's death is, unsurprisingly, now being widely reported.
From the San Antonio Express News:
According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.
[...] The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation. Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.
A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.
A gray Cadillac hearse pulled into the ranch last Saturday afternoon. The hearse came from Alpine Memorial Funeral Home.
Most major news outlets are covering this story, including CNN [video autoplays], The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:38PM
so is it plausible the current president will get a new nomination approved? Congress has been phenomenally ineffective since this president was elected, which I guess is a new low standard to beat!!
Any experts out there?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:42PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:45PM
Greater miracles have been known to happen. A lot depends upon who Obama appoints.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:51PM
Some pro-wallstreet neocon no doubt.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:26AM
It won't matter. No matter who he nominates Republicans will object, just as a knee-jerk reaction. I'm convinced that Obama could nominate the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and social conservatives will scream that it is some sort of a trap. *Sigh!* This is going to be a long, tedious election year. I just hope the country can survive long enough until Obama leaves office.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:13AM
I'm convinced that Obama could nominate the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and social conservatives will scream that it is some sort of a trap.
Why is it relevant to us that you're convinced of something that can't be falsified? Plus, while social conservatives are a tough audience, most of the damage has been inflicted by the Obama administration. For example, there's the famous "bitter clinger" [huffingtonpost.com] speech:
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Among other things, that was a big, condescending fuck you to the rural social conservatives, comparing them to racists and anti-immigrants, traditional Democrat bogeymen. Even though the insult was apparently unintentional, it still displays a tunnel vision towards religious beliefs heaping them in with the worst evils that the Democrats can imagine. It's condescending because it implies that people "clinged" to religion here because they lost their jobs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:32PM
That's funny. Technically, if I really want to work at it, I suppose the description could apply to me and the town where I live. I don't get upset by the description though (it's not a "big condescending fuck you" to me), because frankly - I have to work at it to believe for moment that he's really talking about me.
Most people I know that get upset by this old speech are those who were already looking for a reason to get pissed off, and this was a handy thing to grab. (Sorry - "cling on to.")
He's right - there are lots of places that have fallen through the cracks, and were either ignored or penalized by the various administrations over the years. So when "everybody's again' 'ya, whattre 'ya gonna do?" Same thing all small towns have done over the years - cling together, support each other (except for "those" people who live over on that side of town. They may look and sound like us, but they're not really "US" are they?). It causes insular thinking - and naturally you're going to turn against things being imposed from the outside. Regardless of who is in the White House (or the Governor's Office), regardless of whether or not it'll be a benefit or a hindrance down the road. It didn't come from my town, my people, and therefore I'm suspicious and somewhat against it.
Grow up. Seriously. The world isn't against YOU, because frankly you're not important enough for most of them to even realize that you're out there. My town's small. I like it. I'm happy here. I wish more people could figure out how to live without allowances (sorry - "tax breaks and incentives"). At the same time, I am an adult with a fully functioning brain and a reasonable chance of recognizing the self-pity trap of "it ain't my fault everbudy's poor and hard-done by here. Must be the guvmint's fault. They're comin' to take our gunz and our wimminz. And dont' get me started about them furriners. I don't mind immgrants, some of my best friends is immgrants. But THOSE immgrants ain't from around here. They's driving down wages and takin' our jobs."
... or am I laying it on a bit too thick there? Just trying to distill some of the discussions I've had occasionally during family gatherings.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:14PM
That's funny. Technically, if I really want to work at it, I suppose the description could apply to me and the town where I live. I don't get upset by the description though (it's not a "big condescending fuck you" to me), because frankly - I have to work at it to believe for moment that he's really talking about me.
Are you a social conservative? Are you someone who just needs a job to keep from bitterly clinging to deeply held religious beliefs or other ugly behaviors that San Franciscans tut-tut about?
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:47PM
so is it plausible the current president will get a new nomination approved?
I find it extremely unlikely that Mitch McConnell [wikipedia.org] will allow a vote on a SCOTUS nomination before the election.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Touché) by Thexalon on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:12AM
I wouldn't be surprised if he rushed through an Obama nominee if he learned that the next president was going to be Bernie Sanders, though.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:47AM
My thought as well :)
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:13AM
Had Scalia passed in another couple of months you would be correct. As is, no way the surrender caucus doesn't live up to their name. Can't you just hear Senator McCain's sanctimonious blithering now about the President's absolute right to have his nominees voted on?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:03AM
Congress has been phenomenally ineffective
That's a feature, not a bug.
Or to put it in other words, nobody's property or liberty are safe while Congress is in session.
The US system of three powerful branches of government struggling against each other was by design a way to keep any highly centralized power from running amok. The other two branches are supposed to put on the brakes.
President tries a power grab, Congress and courts should stop it.
Congress tries a power grab, President and courts should stop it.
And so on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:13AM
I cede your point, but would like to suggest the current status quo, is not checks and balances as intended.
It's one bunch of rich guys arguing how they are going to ripoff the publics money.
That's why toxic subjects get no tractions. Easier to argue it's someone's fault than change the system.
But I do agree, checks and balances is better than what came before...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:50AM
note that the OP said "was", thus indicating a past tense. :)
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:16AM
Congress, by doing nothing, achieves de facto power. Courts can't directly force Congress to act. Nor can the President, either by keeping Congress in session until they legislate or executive actions that compels Congress to react to something anything. Dept of Justice (acting independently of Office of President), by way of Supreme Court finding them in general contempt, can't either. Congress has a high wall, but they can override Presidential vetoes, and ultimately control the money the President spends.
Look how much constitutional tension there is charging active Congress members with crimes...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:05AM
No, that's not the intention. The GOP has been behaving like petulent children for years, anything short of 100% of what they want is not good enough. Years back that grand bargain over the deficit was only 90% of what they wanted, despite them having lost the elections, and that wasn't good enough.
3 branches are about checks and balances. We have a bicameral legislature so that things don't get rushed through and originally so that politicians couldn't be as easily bought. Not to enable a bunch of self-entitled asses to hold the government hostage until they get their way even as pressing issues get kicked down the road.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:33AM
Congress has been phenomenally ineffective
That's a feature, not a bug.
Don't confuse failure to govern for good governance.
For decades internet geeks have been falsely attributing the quote "the government that governs least governs best" to Thomas Jefferson. He never said it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @11:07AM
Don't confuse failure to govern for good governance.
Don't confuse success in governance with good governance either.
For decades internet geeks have been falsely attributing the quote "the government that governs least governs best" to Thomas Jefferson. He never said it.
And because Jefferson didn't say it, it must not be true.