Scalia Found Dead

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia found dead in Texas, a family friend and a government source say. He was 79.
www.cnn.com

A great mind has passed. Hail and farewell Nino.

I was so looking forward to his talk at the Boe Forum at Augustana.

This nation has lost one of the greatest true defender of the Constitution. The Judicial damage that could be done by the Fascist in Chief should send waves of terror through every citizen. It is time the republicans protect the Judicial branch and not allow Obama to appoint a replacement. God save this country!

There is precedent for rejecting a lame duck President's nominee. Fourteen SCOTUS nominees have been rejected in part because of being nominated by a lame duck President with President Reagan’s nomination of Bork being one of them. The longest vacancy was a year and came during the last year of John Tyler presidency when Democrats block Tyler’s nomination (a Whig) of John Read until James Polk (a Democrat) could be elected.

This is devastating news. The Supreme Court has done more damage to this country than the Presidency. I realize that everyone gets all fired up over who is going to be the next president. However, it no longer makes a difference if a flaming liberal who will always follow their extremist left leaning ideology.

Yes presidents issue Executive Orders and spend money, but it is the Supreme Court that destroys the system. Our Constitution is hanging by a thread and this will be the end of it. I have always maintained that as important as it was to elect a conservative president, it is thousands of times more critical that we not lose the Supreme Court to these extremist communists. I am deathly afraid that my concerns will soon be proven true.

I urge all conservatives to turn their disgust at their liberal neighbors, friends and relatives. These assholes have cost us the greatest nation on earth and doomed our children and grandchildren to life in a third world country. These pieces of dogshit are evil cretins.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:There is precedent for rejecting a lame duck President's nominee. Fourteen SCOTUS nominees have been rejected in part because of being nominated by a lame duck President with President Reagan’s nomination of Bork being one of them. The longest vacancy was a year and came during the last year of John Tyler presidency when Democrats block Tyler’s nomination (a Whig) of John Read until James Polk (a Democrat) could be elected.

Are you kidding, the tree hugging bitch down the street will be demanding that we not allow such a critical piece of our government to go understaffed and the Republicans will relent. The only hope is that conservatives finally grow some balls and take their passion to the streets, the phones, the fax machines and every other means of communicating our passion. However, I predict they will for the most part be silent and merely thinking that playing footsie with dumb liberal jackasses on a forum is sufficient. We shall see.

I hate to break it to Mr McConnell, but the people have already spoken.  We already have an elected president in place to make this appointment.  I wonder how it would effect the outcome of the election if our nation's obstructionists cripple the Supreme Court for an entire year. 

With Scalia's death, replacement fight brews
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/index.html

Dr. Jones wrote:I hate to break it to Mr McConnell, but the people have already spoken.  We already have an elected president in place to make this appointment.  I wonder how it would effect the outcome of the election if our nation's obstructionists cripple the Supreme Court for an entire year. 

With Scalia's death, replacement fight brews
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/index.html

You know nothing of which you speak...why am I not surprised.

Obama can put forth SC recommendations but that candidate actually gets approved by the Senate. We are not yet a full blown third world dictatorship.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I hate to break it to Mr McConnell, but the people have already spoken.  We already have an elected president in place to make this appointment.  I wonder how it would effect the outcome of the election if our nation's obstructionists cripple the Supreme Court for an entire year. 

With Scalia's death, replacement fight brews
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/index.html

You know nothing of which you speak...why am I not surprised.

Obama can put forth SC recommendations but that candidate actually gets approved by the Senate. We are not yet a full blown third world dictatorship.

Once again, you are 100% correct.  And as usual, Jackoff Jones is 100% WRONG.  Some things never change.

This will be an interesting test for Obama and the progressive liberals.  They always talk about the terrible divisiveness in this country and how they    want to bring people together.  IF that was really true, then they would wait for the new president whoever it is, a Republican or a demonrat, to nominate the new Supreme Court Justice.  However, if they don’t, it reveals their true intentions and that is to divide this country until it is so fractured that it fails.

We shall see if the rest of the progressive liberals are as EVIL as Jackoff Jones.  I am not holding my breath on this one.

If Obama puts forth a staunch Constitutional Conservative then I hope the Senate would confirm him/her. In order to end the political divisiveness, let's hope that is exactly what he does and both parties reach across the isle for this nation's common good. I mean isn't this exactly what the democrats have been criticizing for these past seven years? I am almost positive that this is exactly the type of situation where the democratic party can shine as bi-partisan support and working for the good of the party.

Of course these statements are purely hypothetical and have ZERO chance of coming true. Just trying to point out the lying Devil spawn that controls the media and democrat party.

Darth Cheney wrote:If Obama puts forth a staunch Constitutional Conservative then I hope the Senate would confirm him/her. In order to end the political divisiveness, let's hope that is exactly what he does and both parties reach across the isle for this nation's common good. I mean isn't this exactly what the democrats have been criticizing for these past seven years? I am almost positive that this is exactly the type of situation where the democratic party can shine as bi-partisan support and working for the good of the party.

Of course these statements are purely hypothetical and have ZERO chance of coming true. Just trying to point out the lying Devil spawn that controls the media and democrat party.

Yeah, I agree.  However, I would probably not use the terminology Constitutional Conservative.  While that is indeed a correct characterization, I think we are better served by classifying the ideology in different terms.

When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, just like a coin that has two sides to it, there are two sides to this issue.  On one side are the people who believe in ORIGINAL INTENT and then on the other side are those who believe in JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION.

The people who believe in original intent, believe that the Founders put the Constitution in place to protect our rights and prevent human nature from allowing our governmental leaders to become tyrannical.  Those who believe in judicial interpretation believe that the government knows what is best for everyone and that the Constitution is nothing but a hindrance to the government evolving in a manner that allows it to do whatever it feels it needs in order take care of our every need.

As long as the person nominated is a person who believes in original intent and has an extremely long and consistent record to demonstrate that belief, I am good with them.  I don’t care what gender they are, what color they are, what size and shape they are or even what political party they belong to.  My only requirement is that the person believes in original intent and will use that methodology to rule on any and all court cases brought to the Supreme Court.

Jammer wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:If Obama puts forth a staunch Constitutional Conservative then I hope the Senate would confirm him/her. In order to end the political divisiveness, let's hope that is exactly what he does and both parties reach across the isle for this nation's common good. I mean isn't this exactly what the democrats have been criticizing for these past seven years? I am almost positive that this is exactly the type of situation where the democratic party can shine as bi-partisan support and working for the good of the party.

Of course these statements are purely hypothetical and have ZERO chance of coming true. Just trying to point out the lying Devil spawn that controls the media and democrat party.

Yeah, I agree.  However, I would probably not use the terminology Constitutional Conservative.  While that is indeed a correct characterization, I think we are better served by classifying the ideology in different terms.

When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, just like a coin that has two sides to it, there are two sides to this issue.  On one side are the people who believe in ORIGINAL INTENT and then on the other side are those who believe in JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION.

The people who believe in original intent, believe that the Founders put the Constitution in place to protect our rights and prevent human nature from allowing our governmental leaders to become tyrannical.  Those who believe in judicial interpretation believe that the government knows what is best for everyone and that the Constitution is nothing but a hindrance to the government evolving in a manner that allows it to do whatever it feels it needs in order take care of our every need.

As long as the person nominated is a person who believes in original intent and has an extremely long and consistent record to demonstrate that belief, I am good with them.  I don’t care what gender they are, what color they are, what size and shape they are or even what political party they belong to.  My only requirement is that the person believes in original intent and will use that methodology to rule on any and all court cases brought to the Supreme Court.

Scalia was an "originalist" and a "textualist" but rejected "original intent" methodology. He stated in his book, "A Matter of Interpretation", "What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended. But the Great Divide with regard to constitutional interpretation is not that between Framers’ intent and objective meaning, but rather that between original meaning (whether derived from Framers’ intent or not) and current meaning."

He was to speak on the "Living Constitution" at Augustana but .....

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:I hate to break it to Mr McConnell, but the people have already spoken.  We already have an elected president in place to make this appointment.  I wonder how it would effect the outcome of the election if our nation's obstructionists cripple the Supreme Court for an entire year. 

With Scalia's death, replacement fight brews
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/index.html

You know nothing of which you speak...why am I not surprised.

Obama can put forth SC recommendations but that candidate actually gets approved by the Senate. We are not yet a full blown third world dictatorship.

I already made that abundantly clear in my statement.  Obviously the President's chosen appointment has to be ratified by the Senate.  What seems to be the problem?

Dr. Jones wrote:I hate to break it to Mr McConnell, but the people have already spoken.  We already have an elected president in place to make this appointment.  I wonder how it would effect the outcome of the election if our nation's obstructionists cripple the Supreme Court for an entire year. 

With Scalia's death, replacement fight brews
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-replacement/index.html

At present the "will of the people" is divided although I would argue that the current Congress is a better representative of that will than Obama, being affirmed in the latest election in 2014. Obama can certainly appoint someone and he probably will but it is also the Senate's power to not act on or reject that nomination.

I predict that BarryO will nominate a black female to the court. A real stretch would be Moochelle. Particularly since she's already lined up to jump on the broom riders pile of money when HRC is kicked off the podium due to being indicted. Yeah she did say she wouldn't run but then Dems lie........................

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html

Clicker wrote:Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html

Lock & Load....

Certainly timely in Mr. Scalia's passing...

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:If Obama puts forth a staunch Constitutional Conservative then I hope the Senate would confirm him/her. In order to end the political divisiveness, let's hope that is exactly what he does and both parties reach across the isle for this nation's common good. I mean isn't this exactly what the democrats have been criticizing for these past seven years? I am almost positive that this is exactly the type of situation where the democratic party can shine as bi-partisan support and working for the good of the party.

Of course these statements are purely hypothetical and have ZERO chance of coming true. Just trying to point out the lying Devil spawn that controls the media and democrat party.

Yeah, I agree.  However, I would probably not use the terminology Constitutional Conservative.  While that is indeed a correct characterization, I think we are better served by classifying the ideology in different terms.

When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, just like a coin that has two sides to it, there are two sides to this issue.  On one side are the people who believe in ORIGINAL INTENT and then on the other side are those who believe in JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION.

The people who believe in original intent, believe that the Founders put the Constitution in place to protect our rights and prevent human nature from allowing our governmental leaders to become tyrannical.  Those who believe in judicial interpretation believe that the government knows what is best for everyone and that the Constitution is nothing but a hindrance to the government evolving in a manner that allows it to do whatever it feels it needs in order take care of our every need.

As long as the person nominated is a person who believes in original intent and has an extremely long and consistent record to demonstrate that belief, I am good with them.  I don’t care what gender they are, what color they are, what size and shape they are or even what political party they belong to.  My only requirement is that the person believes in original intent and will use that methodology to rule on any and all court cases brought to the Supreme Court.

Scalia was an "originalist" and a "textualist" but rejected "original intent" methodology. He stated in his book, "A Matter of Interpretation", "What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended. But the Great Divide with regard to constitutional interpretation is not that between Framers’ intent and objective meaning, but rather that between original meaning (whether derived from Framers’ intent or not) and current meaning."

He was to speak on the "Living Constitution" at Augustana but .....

I can see why you have so much fun going back and forth with Jackoff Jones.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-scalia-remembered-locally-for-his-belief-in-original-intent-of-founding-fathers-20160213-story.html

From the article wrote:  In a 2012 visit to the University of Chicago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who had served as a law professor at the campus from 1977 to 1982, said he tried to frame his decisions by interpreting them with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.  

-------------------------------------------------------

You can use whatever terminology that you want, original meaning - original intent - originalism - or even orgasm if you want.  But I will assure you one thing that Scalia did not believe in a Living Constitution like you alluded to above.  That is Jackoff Jones type BS.

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2012/12/supreme_court_justice_antonin.html

The article wrote:Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejects idea of 'Living Constitution'

-----------------------------------------------------

Here you go, now you can use this to knit pick with your buddy Jackoff Jones:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/05/21/original-intent-original-understanding-original-meaning/

From the article wrote:Obviously, the evidence used in prove each of the three concepts overlaps. In practice, moreover, the original intent of a provision is usually the same as the original understanding or original meaning.  

Darth Cheney wrote:

Clicker wrote:Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html

Lock & Load....

Certainly timely in Mr. Scalia's passing...

Even if it did happen, recess appointments are only good until the next session of the Senate. That would be January 3, 2017. If the Republicans gain control of the White House and retain control of the Senate a new appointment could be made.

I think Obama needs to choose a moderate that would be an embarrassment to Republicans If they were to block them. Not sure that's even possible, Republicans have become pretty shameless as of late.

Then let Hillary move in and mop things up after this fall.

Clicker wrote:Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/obama-has-rare-parliamentary-window-to-make-recess-appointment-to-succeed-scalia.html

He might, but I tend to doubt that he will.  The demonrats are in big trouble this presidential election.  If Obama makes a recess appointment, it is probably politically disadvantageous for them.  It will only fire up the Republicans and drive the fence sitters over to the Republicans.  The demonrats don’t have any votes to spare.

So I think that Obama will nominate an appointment in a few weeks which puts the monkey on the back of the weak kneed Republican Senate.  They will initially dig in as they should and stonewall the nomination or even defeat it if it is a really bad choice and they know they have the votes to do so.

However, the demonrats and their lapdogs the press will put tremendous pressure on the confirmation hearings demeaning the Republicans as being obstructionists and politically motivated.  The pounding on the door will get too loud for the spineless Republicans and just like they caved on the budget, they will crumble one more time.

I'm unable to figure out why being and obstructionist and doing things for political gain is such a bad thing. If you don't do everything possible to maintain the political balance that your constituents sent you to congress to do you're gonna get fired.

Clicker wrote:I'm unable to figure out why being and obstructionist and doing things for political gain is such a bad thing.  If you don't do everything possible to maintain the political balance that your constituents sent you to congress to do  you're gonna get fired. "Not necessarily"

You are correct and that is how things should be.  However, how things should be and how they really are happen to be two entirely different things.

There are many reasons for this, I will list just the ones I can think of:

1.  The demonrats control the narrative.  They have the press and the TV networks on their side.  They put out a propaganda story that would make Hitler proud.  We on the other hand have very few media outlets and individual conservatives are too timid to speak up.

2.  The Republicans have a bunch of weak kneed politicians.  I forget how many conservatives are in the Liberty Caucus, but it is only 30 or 40.  As a result, the middle of the road wishy washy Republicans crumble at the first sign of “bad press”.

3.  Conservative voters are notoriously negligent voters.  If their PERFECT candidate doesn’t win the Republican primary, many of them sit out the election.  Last presidential election the Evangelicals were distraught over Romney being the nominee and many stayed home on Election Day.  If all of the Evangelicals had cast their votes, Romney would have won.  And if ALL of the Evangelicals had bothered to register and also vote, it would have been a Romney landslide.

4.  Demonrats have a tremendously strong organization.  From ACORN to all the other community organizers that are out there, the useful idiots are hard at work during the election cycle getting every demonrat voter to the polls and making sure the deceased demonrats received their absentee ballots and get them sent back in.  The demonrat turnout the vote machinery is unbelievable and the average conservative is clueless on what we face on Election Day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/us/politics/26turnout.html?_r=0

5.  Conservatives on the other hand are very poor at volunteering for candidates and the Republican Party.  As a result, we get our asses handed to us on Election Day.

6.  As a result of 3 + 4 + 5, we have a very difficult time of getting STRONG conservatives elected and hence we do not build the Liberty caucus.  This means the wimpy candy ass Republicans go back to DC and crumble at the first sign of any pushback by the demonrats and their lapdog press. Or worse yet, an evil demonrat cretin gets elected.

The entire structure of federal government is designed to be in gridlock. My God could you imagine what damage these baffoons could do if they got along and work together? I want 100% gridlock with no reaching across the isles or trying to find compromise. They create tens of thousands new laws every year that rob our liberty and freedom. If they could get nothing done we would all be better off.