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 xpda on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:10AM
The big question is whether the Senate will approve an appointment by Obama, or wait until someone like Trump or Cruz appoints a justice more conservative than Scalia. I have said that I'd never vote for Hillary Clinton, but this could change my way of thinking.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:31AM
What's that, you say you don't want to live in a country where horrific levels of conservative religious bigotry continue to be enshrined in law by a Supreme Court stacked with ultra-conservative judges, and voting for Hillary Clinton, as much as you may dislike her, is the only way to vote against the current ultra-neo-conservative Republican insanity and make sure that doesn't happen?
You don't say.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by schad on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:50AM
"Who might this person, as President, nominate for SCOTUS?" That's a question you should always ask yourself. SCOTUS appointees are almost always the most significant contribution a president makes to his legacy. 20 years from now Bush 43 will be a vague (and probably unpleasant) memory at most. But John Roberts will quite possibly still be Chief Justice, still having a huge impact on the country. Especially if we get a Republican president next, and he manages to roll back ObamaCare in its entirety, what will be Obama's legacy? Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
You could do a lot worse than casting your vote based solely on who you think a candidate would nominate.
Of course, in this election cycle you are pretty much fucked. Libertarian-leaning centrist here. I've always either thrown away my vote (voting for a third party) or held my nose and optimistically voted (R) (and then been bitterly disappointed). This election I may vote for Sanders, because he's the least-terrifying option of the whole lot. While I genuinely believe that he would lead the country to economic ruin, so would all the other guys. Bernie would at least keep us comfortable while everything collapsed over us.
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:10AM
I would say that the Republican controlled Senate will not even entertain nominees presented by Obama until the outcome of the election in November.
If a Republican wins, Obama's nominee will never see the light of day. If either of the Democrats win, I would think it is a crap shoot as to if Obama's nominee get approved.
I would wager that ALL candidates start getting asked about who they might nominate for the open seat.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:10AM
You missed something important. The Senate is in recess for the next nine days. Can we say Recess Appointment?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:04AM
God, I really, really hope not!!! Much as I loathe Republicans in Congress for their stone-walling the past seven years, it would just further fuck up things if Obama were to make a recess appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. It would be just the worst possible legacy he could leave us with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:50AM
Honest no trolling, but why is that? Obviously there is no way to get anything through. The gridlock has to be broken no matter the consequences and this occasion is as good as any.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 14 2016, @11:34AM
Supreme Court Justices often take longer than Obama has left to get confirmed. Holding off until after the election would not put the Senate in novel territory, time-wise. Appointing a Justice during recess in your last year as President, however, would be quite uncommon and extremely bad form. There's an excellent posting over the nuts and bolts of recess appointments over at the SCOTUS blog [scotusblog.com] if anyone wishes to read up.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:48PM
Because it would set a horrible precedent. And this will be a precedent that will long outlive us. Obama's name would be cursed by everyone for generations to come. Remember, there will eventually come a time when a Republican is again in the Whitehouse. Do you really want to give them a precedent to side step the Senate's constitutional authority to "advise and consent" on judicial appointments? Really?!?
Quite possibly, but I would much rather have nothing get through than have a really bad precedent set that will stay with us for generations to come.
Yes, the gridlock will eventually have to be broken. No, this should not be done "no matter the consequences". And, while a line in the sand sometimes has to be drawn, this is not the occasion for it. Honestly, you seem to have a very limited scope of vision. It's time you looked beyond your own nose to see the much larger world around you.