Cases on the docket could alter American life on many issues.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s death could change the course of history on the contentious social and legal issues pending before the Supreme Court this term, especially in closely divided cases where he was expected to serve as a lynchpin of a conservative majority…
Climate change
Obama’s Clean Power Plan could be in the hands of the D.C. Circuit Court.
One of Scalia’s last official acts as a justice was to deliver a large dent in Obama’s climate legacy, providing one of five votes to stay the Clean Power Plan, which regulates carbon emissions from power plants. The decision could set back implementation of the rule by years. A 4-4 ideological split on the Supreme Court raises the stakes for the more liberal D.C. Circuit’s eventual decision on the Clean Power Plan, though the high court would still have to lift its stay if the rule is upheld…
Source:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/scalia-death-how-will-the-supreme-court-change-219256
h/t to “O’Driscoll Paddy”
[added and title updated] Over at The Hill they say this:
Greens faced with nightmare scenario at the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to halt President Obama’s sweeping climate change regulation for power plants is causing environmentalists and experts to wonder whether they need a backup plan.
The Obama administration has repeatedly said, both before and after the judicial stay was ordered, that it does not have a Plan B if the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan gets overturned.
Officials insist that a backup plan isn’t necessary because once the high court hears the case, it will find that the rule is well within the boundaries of the Clean Air Act and the Constitution.
“We remain confident that when this is given its day in court, it’s going to be upheld on the merits,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters.
“Plan A’s a good one, and I don’t want anyone to think it isn’t,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in January.
But the unexpected move by the Supreme Court nonetheless caused a jolt among environmentalists, reminding them that the nine justices at the Supreme Court might interpret the law differently than they do.
“The Supreme Court took unprecedented action, so of course it makes everyone pause and reevaluate,” said John Coequyt, global climate policy director for the Sierra Club.
…
It is the first time the high court has stayed a regulation after a lower court refused to do so, and the first time the justices have issued a stay before any court heard the merits of the case.
Now the EPA cannot enforce any parts of the rule until the litigation is over, a major win for the states and energy interests who argued that, if the rule were allowed to proceed and later be overturned, they would experience irreparable harm.
But since the Clean Power Plan is such a major piece of the administration’s climate policy, its downfall would make it difficult to achieve the emissions cuts needed to slow global warming and to meet the country’s pledge under last year’s Paris climate agreement.
Complicating the matter is the timing. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has to hear the case and rule before the Supreme Court takes it up, putting any decision about the next steps in the hands of the next president.
Additionally, if the Supreme Court rules against the EPA, its decision could be narrow — allowing the agency to try to rewrite the rule — or it could be broad, potentially prohibiting any future greenhouse gas regulations for power plants.
Environmentalists were generally tight-lipped about what a Plan B might look like, instead repeating their confidence that the rule will stand.
More: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/269349-greens-faced-with-nightmare-scenario-at-the-supreme-court
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scalia was a strict constitutionalist. He believed that the document was created in strict construction and that very little (more likely none) ambiguity was intended. Social justice is the act of placing feelings and personal biases above the law and this is the type of person Obama will appoint, which will have devastating consequences for the US Constitution.
Keeping Obama from placing a left wing ideologue on the court is imperative to our nations survival. As Obama is a UN – One World Government guy, and openly so. It is imperative we stop any appointment that he would make. I expect the race card and others to be played in an effort to forward the left agenda of top down command and control government. The EPA over-reach the SCOTUS stopped was part of that plan..
Scalia was one of the only things blocking this radical left wing philosophy from happening.
RIP Justice Scalia, you will be sorely missed.
Dangerous times are ahead if we do not maintain the courts current balance.
You are one of the seemingly few who get how dangerous the next 10 months will be. The Scalia replacement is more than mere politics.
Bill H: said:
“Obama is a UN – One World Government guy, and openly so.”
Here is the problem with One World Government.
Of the over 200 countries in the world, only about 10% have some form of Rule of Law that is even partially fair and competent. Most of these countries are run by corrupt thugs who gain power, rule by force, and live far better than their people do.
The highly dysfunctional United Nations is an example of what happens when you have a bunch of corrupt, incompetent dictatorships running the show.
Do you really want to have these corrupt thugs running your country?
Best to all, Allan
@T. Madigan:
Definition of a treaty that I copied off of the Internet:
“trea·ty
ˈtrēdē/
noun
noun: treaty; plural noun: treaties
a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.
synonyms: agreement, settlement, pact, deal, entente, concordat, accord, protocol, convention, contract, covenant, bargain, pledge; More
concord, compact
“several terms of the treaty were casually violated”
Notice some of the listed synonyms for treaty: agreement, deal, etc….
If the agreement that Obama signed in Paris doesn’t meet the definition of a treaty, then I’m Smokey The Bear…..and I’m not. If he is implementing it as his Clean Power Plan in the absence of Congressional approval, he is clearly in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Arguing that their is a difference betwween an “agreement between nations” on one hand and a “treaty between nations” on the other is playing fun and games with the definition of words for political, activist and ideological purposes. Knowing that this is an impeachable offense in violation of the consistution should make any individiual that still cares about that document relieved that SCOTUS ruled the way it did…irregardless of the reasons for it.
Obama’s sidestepping of Congress here demonstrates his disregard for the constitution and for law when it comes to implementing his green ideological agenda. That should be a frightening thing to see for anyone who still cares about the constitution and the law, and Obama’s behavior here mirrors the reasons why his critics refer to him as a “dictator” or “King”.
None of this is to say that I don’t want a clean environment…of course we all do. I have no problem with a plan that phases out this nation’s coal plants. Nuclear power is the only technology that can do it though, and we need nuclear power plants already in place (or at least on the way) if we are to phase out coal plants someday. Fourth generation nuclear power like thorium fuelled molten salt reactors are the way to go IMHO. Nuclear power is what Obama should be concentrating his efforts on, not a war on coal.
The problem here is not Obama’s ends, but the MEANS to his ends…..
“Arguing that their is a difference betwween an “agreement between nations” on one hand and a “treaty between nations” on the other is playing fun and games with the definition of words for political, activist and ideological purposes”
Without ratification, it’s an agreement between nations and one administration. The next can arbitrarily decide, “No, we’re not doing this any longer.” Only an act of congress could bind the abilities of the next president. In theory, the next president could throw every single “legal” Marijuana grower in the country in prison, because while a state may say it’s not a violation of its laws, it remains illegal at the federal level.. Obama and Co merely said that they were going to look the other way much as they ignore other laws they don’t like. A decision by one president can be changed be the next one.
@kcrucible. Thanks for your reply. I imagine that lack of congressional ratification does indeed give the next adminstration a good arugment for tossing the Paris agreement out the window if it so chooses (and I hope that it does so). Unfortunately, if Clinton or Sanders win in November, I get the sense that dumping the agreement isn’t going to happen.
If the agreement isn’t tosssed out by the next administration, then the attempted implementation of it by the new admistration in the absence of congressional ratification still SHOULD be an issue. One would think that SCOTUS would clearly see that. If Scalia is replaced by a green-minded leftist justice however, there will be no guarantees.
At any rate, the next 11-12 months are going to be very interesting to say the least.
CD, see my comment upthreat. The meaning of a treaty for purposes of article two was precisely defined by Thomas Jefferson. Look it up in a legal refence, not a dictionary. COP21 is neither a treaty (no opt out) nor a pact (opt out, requiring simple congressional majorities) for constitutional purposes. It is an executive agreement falling into the third of three narrow categories where the president can act unilaterally: 1 as commander in cheif, 2 recognition of ambassadors (which covers more than it seems), 3 as part of his obligation to faithfully uphold the law.
None of which means the CPP isn’t likely unconstitutional. Hence the stay.
@Rud Istvan: Thanks ristvan. I hadn’t realized that there was a legal definition of a treaty that differred from the dictionary definition. if it is unconstitutional for other reasons, it’s good to see SCOTUS put a hold on the CPP anyway.
CD, it is big time unconstitutional. None other than Harvard Law’s Foremost Con Law prof wrote that brief on behalf of the states. He has been castigated by other Harvard warmunist faculty like Oreskies.
The quote about needing a backup plan is ironic. Having a back-up means that you are thinking ahead. They don’t see the consequences to the economy, jobs and people, do they?
The though just occurred to me that there are 29 states who are enjoined in this action and 6 more are contemplating joining it. This means there are 35 states who are saying no to this action.
WE only require 33 states to call a constitutional convention… IF the court does not strike this down WE THE PEOPLE may just do it ourselves. And then where would that leave our left wing ideological people..
There are calls to severely limit the executive branch and put our government back in its limited cage…The Death of Scalia may have just tipped the scales to a convention..
Yes! You do get it.
There is a significant risk of Civil War or at least a break-up of the nation if there is no way to put a leash on a socialist SCOTUS. An Article V Convention of States is a way out.
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
https://www.facebook.com/conventionofstates
http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm
There is no risk of a runaway Convention of States, because any amendments passed would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states in the same way amendments passed by Congress would. Even liberal states would probably like to have some measure of control and money returned to them.
While his death is regrettable, it is more than worrying that major US policy decisions could now ‘hinge’ upon this one event.
Perhaps the ‘Founding Fathers’ missed something here when designing The Constitution?
“Perhaps the ‘Founding Fathers’ missed something here when designing The Constitution?”
The founding fathers never intended the courts to interpret law.. their job was to apply the law to specific instances, the job of congress was to create the laws, and the job of the executive was to do the grunt work of implementing the laws.
Where we have ended up is a due to a long and twisty road, where the courts seized power never specifically granted to them and both Congress and the President said, “ok.” By not denying the power, they basically granted the power to the courts going forward.
One thing the founding fathers didn’t anticipate would be the rise of loyalty to political parties trumping loyalty to the constitution and adherence to the law… where congressmen are willing to let someone slide because they’re on the same team and have the same goals, rather than making an example out of them to uphold the law. As a result, I predict that you’ll never see a president impeached (because to do so, one party would need to control a supermajority) and this has basically rendered Congress impotent. Obama saw that and called the Constitution’s bluff. There isn’t actually an effective system of checks and balances between the legislature and executive. The scary part is, that any balances the courts offer has nothing to back it up that the executive doesn’t grant it. A president could theoretically just ignore a court order just as it ignores laws written by congress. What’s the court going to do? Write a stern letter? The country is headed into dangerous waters.
The Founding Fathers were the first to acknowledge they missed some things. For example, early on, they recognized that one of the things they missed was the possibility of political parties, especially in elections. Defining the winner in the electoral college “vote” President and the runner up VP of course immediately proved unworkable.
We’d do well to remember the exchange between Ben Franklin and a citizen at the end of the Constitutional Convention:
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
As mentioned down thread they intentionally gave us a remedy – called the Amendment Process.
BTW, if I were Scalia responding to folks who objected to his originalist and textualist stance (It means exactly what it says, in the context of the times in which it was written”) – If it no longer applies or you just plain don’t like it, then change it! And go back to the Constitution to find out how!
Kcrucible,
Sorry, I posted before seeing your reply. You did a much better job of explaining why partisanship is a deadly virus attacking the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
(BTW, another thing they “remembered they forgot” was who would decide if a law was consistent with the Constitution. Many Framers assumed that “somehow” this would be the role of one of the houses of Congress, in debate. John Marshall grabbed that prize in “Marbury”.)
Respect for Rule of Law is what differentiates the few rich successful countries in the world from the many poor failed ones.
Justice Scalia was a good man and a great judge – history will remember him well.
Condolences to his family and friends.
Best to all, Allan
“If GOP blocks Obama’s Supreme Court nomination he wins anyway”
“A divided court leaves lower court rulings in place. And the lower courts are blue. Nine of the 13 US Courts of Appeals have a majority of Democratic appointees. That means liberal rulings conservatives were hoping the SC would overturn remain law.”
http://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/13/if-republicans-block-obamas-supreme-court-nomination-he-wins-anyway/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjU3eDe5PfKAhVV9GMKHfwqDbYQqQIIFzAA&sig2=Y8LXJ0_htOQP5p9hCBLMJQ&usg=AFQjCNE4L65xejrTJgaPW8Wu-2NvyShDHQ
(Continuing): “Now the Obama administration can simply have the EPA come up with a slightly different new plan …. It’s unlikely the now-divided SC would come up with a majority vote to stay the new rules.”
Even a slightly different plan can not be implemented until the issue is resolved. The injunction stands. Circumvention of the court is frowned upon even by socialist liberals.
Our only hope it to boot libs out of office, approve no appointee to SCOTUS, and then deal with these issues once a republican is put back in office. Aside from that it will go down hill fast and america as we know it will become Obama’s dream of a third world country divided and fragmented ready for take over by the UN..
There is so much riding on this it scares me to death. What will my grand children will be left with.. A once great nation torn to shreds by left wing fools, all becasue we didn’t stand up to them over the last 30 years or so..
Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves today, all their work on the edge of a knife, becasue we didn’t call these people out long ago..
Bill H said: “Even a slightly different plan can not be implemented until the issue is resolved. The injunction stands. Circumvention of the court is frowned upon even by socialist liberals.”
Good. Phew!
This is Obummer’s primary pick per most social media (Sri Srinivasan)
http://www.ndtv.com/indians-abroad/sri-srinivasan-first-indian-american-judge-of-us-supreme-court-obama-to-decide-1277193
Also note that there are no constitutional requirements for that position:
“The Constitution spells out age, citizenship and residency requirements for becoming president of the United States or a member of Congress but mentions no rules for joining the nation’s highest court. To date, six justices have been foreign born; the most recent, Felix Frankfurter, who served on the court from 1939 to 1962, was a native of Vienna, Austria.”
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court
and some alternatives –
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/13/supreme-court-antonin-scalia-questions-next/
There are procedures for court decisions with only 8 justices (there have historically been even numbers before and also more and fewer judges). But what happens when the decision is tied is that the lower court decision stands.
Actually the real nightmare scenario would be president Clinton putting Obama on the bench.
I wonder if he could nominate himself and then resign upon consent of Congress. Biden could finish out the term. Oh, the stomach turns.
Has McConnell grown a spine?
http://news.yahoo.com/next-us-president-replace-scalia-senate-leader-233532800.html
Next US president should nominate Scalia successor: Republican
Clarence Thomas should become an intellectual leader of conservatives. He has been so quiet, but now is the time for him to speak up unapologetically.
Disgusting.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/13/liberals-launch-racist-attacks-on-clarence-thomas-after-scalias-death/
.
Um, if roles were reversed and this happened with a GOP President, I bet all the posters calling for Obama to not appoint someone, will be reversed and calls to have the GOP President appoint someone during his or her last years in office.
And you all know you will do this. This is what ‘partisan’ is all about. This is why even mild reminders of the past that conflicts with ideology beliefs cause great ire.
A reminder: we have no real democracy anymore because we have a very screwed up election system that gets worse and worse and now, is on the verge of dangerous collapse. No one should be happy about this. And furthermore, I greatly support the idea of a third party and have been a member of third parties in the past because this keeps things from being polarized and prevents winners from ignoring campaign promises which BOTH parties do.
The attitude below may be a problem for some with Thomas who is waaaay over on states rights:
“Many people believe the Constitution creates a “separation of church and state” because of the part of the First Amendment that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
However, that clause doesn’t apply to states, Thomas argues. As evidence, he explained that state-sponsored religion existed in several early American states, with Georgia and Maryland previously allowing taxation to support Christian churches.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-has-a-bizarre-opinion-about-religion-2014-5
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/05/09/justice-clarence-thomas-and-the-church-of-virginia/?mod=WSJBlog
Forgot to mention that while many are all for states rights, this might not fare so well with a state that had a majority of Islamics.
Stepping down from the speaker’s podium, I sit down in one of the empty chairs (no one was listening to me, I was just talking in case someone might come into the empty room and be enlightened or persuaded). A great bridge to freedom over the chasm of socialist anarchy collapsed yesterday. The United States is in grave peril, for it will take a truly mighty mind and a perseveringly strong heart to fill that gap in the road to freedom. Such an issue demands thoughtful discussion.
But, I am just sad. Oh, how I wish Antonin Scalia had walked down to breakfast on February 13, 2016, grinning and filling the room with his laughter and wit. Oh, how our country needed him to write, “one more line… .” He was going to turn 80 years old on March 11 — a big family party was probably already being planned…
I am happy for “Nino,” of course. He is where the daggers of his blindly irrational critics can no longer reach him, where he can walk, no, run!, with no sharp pain in his hip, where he can sing opera arias AS LOUDLY AS HE WANTS TO…… forever….., and no one will mind. He is in all-joy, all-peace, all-rational-logos.
But, I am sad. And so is his family.
This is for all of us who are mourning the loss of one of Liberty’s greatest champions, who are mourning the loss of a fine man, who are mourning the loss of a dearly loved husband, dad, and grandfather:
“One Last Time” (Diamond Rio)
I’m speechless
+ 100,000,000
Thanks, Marcus. (whispering: Iwrotealittlenotetoyouwayupaboveinthisthread).
🙂
… and thanks for poking your head in the door of the empty auditorium. 🙂
Janice,
Do you read CS Lewis?
There is “the deeper magic”. When death thought it triumphed.. then came…
Dear Mr. Westhaver,
Do you read what I wrote in my comment above??
Yes, C. S. Lewis is my favorite author. One of my favorite quotes (from the end of The Last Battle from memory only) is:
The term is over, the holidays have begun;
the dream is ended, this is the morning.
Puzzled at your responses, but grateful for your caring enough to try to inform me,
Janice
“did” and “response” (I talked about another comment also, then, thought better of it and left artifacts… (ahem))
Well..I am sure Nino, now suspended in all time and perfect in his knowledge, is enjoying his “morning”. And yes I read your post. I always do. Sometimes I write. Mostly I read. Before I write I have to think and often I am too busy to think.
You have my admiration, Mr. Westhaver, for being so busy. I have waaaay too much time on my hands. Thanks for your kind reply.
I’m looking forward to meeting Justice Scalia in heaven 🙂 . Oh, boy, the intelligent conversations up there!! THAT will be so WONDERFUL!!! (most people, actually, I could pretty much say EVERYONE is too busy for conversations in my little corner of the world).
No need to think about a smile. Therefore, 🙂 .
🙂
Thanks Janice, on this Valentine’s Days besides Judge Scalia’s passing it is beautiful!
“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1801-1835
Scalia is with friends today! Ones who cherished liberty and freedom.. Their dire predictions as John Adams states below, will they come to pass?
“Remember, democracy never last long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” John Adams.
Men Like Scalia kept this from happening. Who will step forward and do it now?
And what is ‘democracy”? VOTING. And what remains screwed up ever since Bush Jr. was put into office? That item is what has gone missing. It is still a mess and will cause messes in the future due to not fixing what went wrong back in 2000.
Both the far left and far right want a broken system they both can exploit even if this means civil war.
There is a reason we were founded as a Representative Republic.. Yes there is voting, but it is checked and balanced by those representatives that were voted for. It was not intended to be direct voting for a cause, as this breeds a popularity contest and voting ourselves the wealth of others, wealth theft. Both we were warned about being the potential death of our Republic. Socialism is not the answer. Going back to a feudal system is not the answer.
America is that grand experiment that blossomed into the greatest nation on earth becasue they unleashed the power of the sovereign citizen who has the right to protect themselves. Placing us in chains as Obama and the left want to do is not what Justice Scalia protected. His stance on the EPA was a beat down of that power grab.
IF the executive power grab is not knocked down the people will and must respond to keep America alive. Why do you think they so desperately want to take our ability to fend off tyranny from us? Washington is broken, they fear WE THE PEOPLE… More government and a more intrusive government is not the answer. If they were actually doing the will of WE THE PEOPLE they would have no reason to fear us..
The founding fathers had it right, when the government no longer fears WE THE PEOPLE, they can and will do anything they like to us, becasue we will then be fearing them. Scalia understood this principal and he recognized executive over-reach and unlawful acts. The EPA is now running unchecked and unaccountable doing the left wing agenda by force..
And all of this with no shred of empirical evidence that man is actually influencing anything…
The loss of Scalia will be felt for generations and may just have dire consequences for this nations life. The court, like science, is supposed to be about provable facts, not left wing feel good propaganda.
IF, and I say IF, Obama can put forth a strict constitutional judge, that can differentiate political agenda and liberal ideology from the strict constitutional law boundaries I might have reason to change my mind, but as I said before, I dont know any liberal legal scholar that doesn’t use social justice and the trampling of others rights over strict interpretation of the Constitution.
I am not hopeful nor am I holding my breath..
Marshall was an early enemy of freedom in the US. His distant relative Jefferson rightly despised the statist tyrant.
We do NOT need a Compromiser. We need a Conscience.
Scalia said the founders said what they meant (and it worked for a hundred plus years). If after all this time you see that they were wrong (and they owned up to several errors), then use the process they devised to change the words.
Cruz does not get along with his Senate colleagues. I’d love to see him on SCOTUS not getting along with his peers there; but rather writing dissents for future law students.
On another page a contributor wrote:
In 1960 the Democrat senate passed a resolution to with-hold selection in an election year until After the election.
Header from the American Thinker.
I had no luck trying to verify this, does anyone know if it is true, and if so, would this prevent the senate from approving any nomination until after the election? Would this make a temporary appointment more likely?
It’s true:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415
But just a sense of the Senate resolution. Not binding.
Gloateus Maximus,
It’s tricky:
S.RES. 334. Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Pres. should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business. Keating motion to recommit to Judicary Comm.
This looks like a vote on a motion to send the resolution to committee, which Democrat Senate defeated in a 100% partisan vote (albeit, there were abstentions, all Dems). It’s not clear to me that the resolution actually ever passed, result is listed as “unknown”.
The WP’s David Bernstein lays out the historical context:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/
Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times. Of course, the partisan arguments will be exactly the opposite this time.
He cites the same govtrack.us link you did, so I don’t know how it is he can state that the Senate actually passed the resolution. Other than that, it’s clear that the Democrat objection was Eisenhower’s previous recess appointments might be repeated IF a SCOTUS seat went vacant. A key concern obviously also being uncertainty whether Nixon or JFK would win the general election.
I agree that the partisan arguments are exactly opposite this time because partisan arguments tend to change with the weather … not unlike how SCOTUS decisions are shaped by the ideological composition of the Court. Main difference being that justices tend to be more erudite than legislators.
Scalia was no exception. I will miss reading his opinions — there’s a certain pleasure in getting pissed off by inflammatory ideas written in considered, intelligent language. A bit like Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. cranked to 11. Unlike Buckley, I won’t generally miss the results of Scalia’s opinions.
That all said, may rest in peace. My thoughts and sympathies go to his associates, friends and family.
Have been doing a lot of reading on this today. IMO kneejerk reactions like Cruz threat to fillibuster anybody Obama might appoint is foolish and unhelpful.
Waiting til after the election for the next President to make an appointment hurts both political sides on important issues since a number of decisions likely come down 4-4 meaning the appeals court ruling stands. That, for example, means a ‘win’ for public unions concerning mandatory dues from non-members, but also that Obama’s immigration policy is permanently stayed. And assuming a Republican will win the presidency and Repubs will keep the Senate is at least one assumption too many.
Obama has a choice for the sake of the country. He can appoint a known liberal sympathizer knowing yhere is no chance od Senate approval. Or he can pick the best moderate judicial mind, in which case the Senate has the serious responsibility to vet the nominee and vote. There are several that fit the general requirement. Stacking the court one way or the other is harmful to the country.
Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny? “Stacking the Court” assumes some natural balance. Don’t the Founders get a vote?
I haven’t caught up on the CURRENT scorecard of cases that would be impacted by a 4-4 court, but don’t you think that the short term damage, whatever it is, would be overwhelmed by the 30 year damage of another Progressive who thought the law should be not what the founders defined but rather “what is good for the country” (and guess who decides what is good for the country?).
The court needs ONE originalist/textualist. That person will also remind his peers that if those words no longer apply, then CHANGE THEM. There is a legal way to do that and it is called the Amendment Process.
Do you really believe BHO will put forward a compromise candidate? He will nominate a series of Progressives, mostly minorities, and then plead that the dastardly GOP aren’t reasonable.
Breaking news: Justice Scalia is declared to have died of a heart attack. This declaration was made by some local peace judge without even seeing body. No autopsy was performed.
I am not saying that Justice Scalia was murdered by some damned alarmists, but there must be investigation in such possibility! At least, an autopsy must be performed.
Judge Cinderela Guevara should have ordered an independent autopsy, IMO:
http://www.newser.com/story/220574/judge-reveals-scalias-official-cause-of-death.html
Not presumably kin to Che, but you never know on the border.
I hope the family will demand answers.. This is highly unusual for an unattended death, even the death of a high ranking government official who was not playing nice with the powers in place and checking their over-reach.
We need more information… This does not pass the smell test.
Wow, he was already embalmed within a few hours !!
http://www.newswest9.com/story/25032360/cinderela-guevara-makes-history-once-again-as-presidio-county-judge-elect
Third time Cinderela Guevara has “made history”.
When Nino went to Marfa, the Commies knew they had hit the jackpot!
@ur momisugly Marcus, 2;09 pm, Embalmed? In a few hrs? Is that confirmed? That would be unbelievable!, No autopsy/ medical examiner report? Regarding one of the most important people in the US? Wow!
RIP Scalia
A great man passed away. If each of us looks back on our lives, we can often attribute many of the traits that guide us as adults to our formative years. I’ve read all of the responses above. The articulate nature of WUWT is in full bloom concerning this post. I esp enjoyed the discussion concerning Canon law. I’m adding the above to pique thought.
Justice Scalia attended Xavier HS in NYC. It’s not just any HS, but a premier HS that makes leaders out of boys. Scalia was recruited by Xavier. Scalia is well known as one of the best and brightest of its graduates. What is Xavier HS ? Who runs it ? Xavier is a giant in the Jesuit community and like any community it has it’s own internal battles. The Jesuits are sworn defenders of the Papacy. Jesuits are often considered the most worldly Catholic Order and teach and are adept at identifying, implementing and countering propaganda. Notice, I included countering.
Scalia was astutely aware of the influence of the Jesuit community in both Obama’s administration as well as it’s connection to the current Pope. He was also astutely aware of the internal conflict (war) taking place in the Papacy.
Dig into the man’s history. Devour seemingly unrelated stories surrounding his positions. Breath. Read some more. Breath. Go for a walk. A great man was lost. Will Hegelian tendencies gain ground or will the individual free will of man seize the day ?
Extremely suspicious is an understatement. To announce “natural causes”immediately, especially before a Coroner’s report smells like murder to me. How convenient- the only obstacle to dictatorial power conveniently dies, the stalwart defender of the Constitution. Immediate verdict. Sure. Socialists and other totalitarians will stop at NOTHING to cement their power, even murder of political opponents.
Time for Americans to be ready to honour the OBLIGATIONS of the second amendment. It is not just a right to bear arms, it is an obligation for the People to rise up against a rogue government. Do note, the second is there to protect the first. If the first goes, so does freedom. Obama will go after guns immediately, which means the People can not defend themselves against their government, which is very clearly overstepping the mark. How many violations of the Constitution can be tolerated?
As for climate rubbish- the “convenient” death gives Obama the rubber stamp. The rubber stamp extends to the entire nation.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
Two of three pending important cases are liable to go the socialist way without Nino.
That one unelected official matters so much just goes to show how debased our once great republic has become.
America was always a radical experiment in individual freedom. That experiment is being tested.
The experiment long ago ended. Now we’re just waiting to see whether any liberty will survive at all, ie whether the state will become an all-powerful totalitarian force supported by perverted technology or merely an authoritarian nanny state.
The court will adjourn in June. Decisions that are split down the middle result in affirmation of the lower court’s decision. However, no precedence is established in such cases, and the court is free to rehear the case at a time of their choosing.
The court’s term ends in June. Meaning, they likely would not decide that many cases between now and June in the first place. I don’t for one minute thing President Obama is inclined to appoint a moderate; given the fact that Sotomayor and Kagan’s decisions have swung as reliably left of center as Scalia’s have to the right of center.
RobR: “The court will adjourn in June. Decisions that are split down the middle result in affirmation of the lower court’s decision. However, no precedence is established in such cases, and the court is free to rehear the case at a time of their choosing.”
Are you sure about the last point? A WaPo article stated that it would have to wait until a new case came along.
“Every generation gets the Constitution that it deserves. As the central preoccupations of an era make their way into the legal system, the Supreme Court eventually weighs in, and nine lawyers in robes become oracles of our national identity.”
– Noah Feldman
From the WaPo:
“An autopsy was declined at about 3:30 a.m.”
??
1. By whom?
2. Why?
How did anyone know Justice Scalia was dead at that hour? It would be normal to expect that they would not be aware of his death until he was late to breakfast. Was his wife with him?
Scalia was found dead when he didn’t appear for breakfast, which would be early on a hunting trip.
Still, a decision at 3:30 AM, if that’s the case, seems questionable.
It was 0330 the next morning, so that rules out that “suspicious circumstance.” After a brief read of news, the first place to investigate is the U.S. Marshalls who reportedly told the judge there was no need to see the body. No. I do not think that every one of the U.S. Marshalls members is above reproach. There needs to be a forensic examination in the context of a general investigation.
“the first place to investigate is the U.S. Marshalls who reportedly told the judge there was no need to see the body”
See video for an apparent secret service auto protection “stand down” order just prior to Kennedy’s assassination. Also note that the last two shots were very close together and the exploding nature of the injury providing further evidence that the kill shot was a frag round from the SS AR-15 that they had in the trailing vehicle (see book Mortal Error). So, you are right, who really knows just who is real control and at what levels:
Why are you even paying judges?
Just leave all the decisions to U.S. Marshalls. They know better.
Presidio County Judge Cinderella Guevara pronounced Justice Scalia dead of natural causes without seeing the body and decided not to order an autopsy, according to Washington Post. Presidio County is heavily Democratic; in 2012 elections, Obama received 71% of the county’s vote. The death happened at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, less than an hour from the Mexican border, allowing murderers (if there was a murder) easy entrance and escape.
Is anybody going to insist on the autopsy and investigation?
His family (their attorney) should demand one.
WE, the People, should demand an autopsy (and investigation).
Too late now.
A forensic exam can take place years after death.
Not the same as an autopsy. Scalia was embalmed.
..This really stinks of bad shlt !!
I realize, that, GM. I think that an investigation should happen.
Won’t happen unless Nino’s family wants it. And even then, who would conduct it?
I imagine that sleeping justices will be let lie.
Come on Janice,
You are always a voice of reason on this blog; why resort to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories? The man was a year short of 80 and at least 70lbs overweight. He also admits to a fondness for Italian food and held a position that required prolonged periods of sitting. Given those conditions, he did well to make it to 79.
The more likely scenario is he over-taxed himself while out hunting and his heart suffered a blockage when he returned to the camp.
In defense of Italian food, the Mediterranean diet can be very healthy, given enough garlic and red wine to counteract the pasta, provolone, parmesan and prosciutto.
“he did well to make it to 79”
Yes and a natural death is NOT unbelievable or out of question, and nobody here is was.
STILL asking hard and unpleasant questions is extremely reasonable.
Is the murder of Anna Politkovskaya “suspect”? She was an extremely minor (in term of influence) critic of Putin (and also a critic of Islamic extremists). But the whole “free world” press accused Putin (and not the Islamic extremists, for some reason).
You don’t get libeled for question the official Russian thesis on the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. You can say it’s probably Putin, with zero evidence, and get away with it. It’s even seen as common sense.
The murder of other minor opponents of Putin can also be reasonably explained.
Anyway, Putin IS popular. Just ask real typical Russian people. Russians just love a strong leader. The Occident-centrist political analysts must deal with this.
But the consensualist free press is all over these conspiracies theories.
And when it comes to the death of one of the most powerful person in the US, we wouldn’t be allowed to ask questions?
Don’t tell the libelers/”conspiracy theorist” labelers have their way. (They believe in many pet theories based on little or no evidence.)
“The death of Antonin Scalia: Chaos, confusion and conflicting reports” –
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-tv-station-scalia-died-of-a-heart-attack/2016/02/14/938e2170-d332-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html
Dear Rob R,
Thanks, Rob. Here’s a rational conclusion: given the strong motive of Scalia’s political enemies, an investigation into Justice Scalia’s death is only logical. I have not concluded anything. I, as a reasonable person, have questions that I would like answered.
To assume all is well is to ignore the context of the death.
Okay?
Janice
P.S. Lol, your point about his age and weight and job stress are valid. However…. just look around you at all the overweight Italian food eaters who are in their late 80’s. Good evidence, but, not enough to make an investigation pointless.
Autopsy refused, from this Washington Post article.
http://www.ijreview.com/2016/02/537723-the-official-cause-of-justice-antonin-scalias-death-has-just-been-revealed/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijreview&utm_content=politics
Stranger and stranger…
Judge Cinderela Guevara retracts prior statement:
http://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-justice-scalia-died-heart-attack-185350539.html
MARFA, Texas (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s cause of death will not be officially determined for several days, the top official in the Texas county where Scalia died during a hunting trip said on Sunday.
Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara said in an interview that she had misspoken when she told local television station WFAA-TV that Scalia’s death certificate would list the cause of death as a heart attack.
whoopsie
Too bad he’s already embalmed in a rush to judgement. I wouldn’t trust US Marshals as far as I could overhead toss them.