Antonin Scalia dead

Hellooooo? wrote:

In each case, one is alive and one is dead.

By his own admission, Salazar was dead before so is not technically alive but undead.

Are you posting this to support the right wing side? Yes. Funny because the Republicans are saying that Obama shouldn't nominate anybody for the rest of his term and that it's a non-starter even before Obama has given them a nominee.

If that is what he said above, then there is no contradiction with Obama's wish to nominate somebody right now. Can you think about what he said there for a minute?

If a president were to refuse to nominate any Supreme Court justices, he could conceivably be impeached and removed from office. However, if the Senate were to refuse to vote on any of the president's nominees, there is no legal remedy that I am aware of.

Slainte wrote:

If a president were to refuse to nominate any Supreme Court justices, he could conceivably be impeached and removed from office. However, if the Senate were to refuse to vote on any of the president's nominees, there is no legal remedy that I am aware of.

Pragmatically this seems to be the case.

I brought up the obviously very unlikely scenario of legal action being taken against senators who refuse to fulfill their oath of office. I was also thinking that even if formal legal action was never initiated, the conversation about the proper course of action to take when senators refuse to perform duties (that they took an oath to perform) might result in some senators reassessing their decision.

I don't think its too far fetched in this political climate of acrimony to see this play out to a situation of constitutional crisis. Let's say the senate refuses to approve an Obama nomination. What happens if both sides become very intransigent even after the election with a new president and they can not agree upon a supreme court candidate. We could go years with only 8 justices.

I know its never happened before, how many times has the government been shut down or nearly shut down? I could see this happening in today's climate.

Also, the idea of President Obama allowing the next president to nominate is completely wrong and would be an abdication of his executive authority. Indeed, he has no choice but to nominate a successor to Scalia. Legally, he has to do it. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president "shall nominate" Supreme Court justices. The language is mandatory.

what exactly is the formal legal action you speak of?

I hope they had the sense to drive a wooden stake through his heart or he'll be back.

My friend says he doesn't want to go to see Scalia lie in repose in Washington DC tomorrow since he, Scalia, is a potential murder victim. That this potential issue ruins it for him, my friend, and he is a big-time fan of Scalia.

Anyone else share this view?

I_opinions wrote:

My friend says he doesn't want to go to see Scalia lie in repose in Washington DC tomorrow since he, Scalia, is a potential murder victim. That this potential issue ruins it for him, my friend, and he is a big-time fan of Scalia.

Anyone else share this view?

I don't usually make posts like this but your friend is an idiot on so many different levels.

This just in: Antonin Scalia is still dead.

Your post and username reminded me of one of the great headlines from the "National Lampoon".....FRANCO DIES! GOES TO HELL!

Well just food for thought consider Chief Justice Roberts after his appointment to the court suffered a 'seizure' that prevents him from legally driving. Does that prevent him from doing his duties, no. For those observers watching the court appointments should consider reading the public writings of these appointments. Harriet Miers' writings were humorous, titles like,

"What we have here is a failure to communicate?" C.J Roberts writings are pretty amusing too but worded just the right way.

Here's Why Scalia Didn't Get Autopsy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2mbCCQ4XDg

Driven around West Texas for 4+ hours when a direct Private Jet flight to Reagan National would have taken 3 hours max. Northern Virginia funeral/autopsy experts would have done a better job. His bodily fluids were, instead, flushed into the El Paso sewer system.

Things that make you go hmmm ...

To show you can't please everyone, I think you're being a bit too harsh in saying he "may have been no worse than many other judges." You noted earlier that Scalia repeatedly voted against his own policy preferences. And in my own experience litigating before the Court, I've seen my colleagues and peers in the appellate community spend a lot of time and energy focusing on Scalia's vote, precisely because it wasn't easy to predict what he would do based on his personal politics. Of course there were cases where he fell short: It's very difficult to divorce one's reason from one's feelings, particularly in a close case where one's preferred interpretive tools lead to inconclusive results. But that's a very different thing from cynically pantomiming the work of interpretation when a decision has already been made, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Apologies, if that's not what you're saying.

And as a small aside, I don't think you're being fair with regard to Bush v. Gore. In any other case, in which unanimity were not so important, I don't think there's any chance that Scalia would've signed the wacky per curiam opinion. Moreover, if the opinion were actually just indefensible political hackery, than it's inconceivable that Breyer and Souter would have joined the majority. For what it's worth, Martha Field said she thought the concurrence was correct, and that Bush v. Gore should be categorized in that small group of federalism cases where the states are essentially cheating in their application of state law (e.g., Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Indiana ex rel Anderson v. Brand, Ward v. Love County, NAACP v. Alabama ex rel Patterson). (For those of you who don't know, Field is a radical left-wing law professor at Harvard.)

It's of course clear that Scalia had flaws. He let his temper get the better of him, and that he occasionally crossed the line from strong rhetoric to unjudicial behavior. He sometimes let his policy preferences cloud his judgment. I don't believe he ever did so consciously. (To be fair, here I have to confess that my own judgment may be clouded by my relationships with some of his close friends.) Nonetheless, I personally think Scalia is one of only a handful of "great justices." In the last 100 years, I think the only comparable justices are Warren and Holmes. The latter is probably a better comparison, in that he was most significant for the lasting impact of his words and ideas, rather than because he single handedly was able to move the court in important cases, as Warren did. Holmes' Lochner dissent is probably a good example, in that he wrote for himself alone, but it came to be considered canonical. In that regard, it resembles Scalia's Morrison dissent, which is now so widely respected on the left and the right.

when you say "litigated before the Court", are you saying you made oral arguments front of the Supreme Court?

sjzjananjz wrote:

when you say "litigated before the Court", are you saying you made oral arguments front of the Supreme Court?

I have not argued, but I have drafted briefs and helped oralists prepare for arguments.

ok that's what I figured.

Oralists?

My friend found this, this interesting question, posted on a blog and I quote:

Would you be bothered by any of the following leaders passing away (dying, God forbid and perish the thought) and no autopsy would have been conducted???

Pope Francis

Queen Elizabeth

Angela Merkal

Dave Cameron

Reid

McConnell

Trump

Bernie Sanders

Tom Brady

Clarence Thomas

JayZ

Al Sharpton

Or any other Black Leader

** If you can't identify any one of these names; ask yourself if you are an informed individual