Law Scalia Died today

[Joe]

The next POTUS should fill that seat. Simple as that. And with the senate being republican, that's likely how this shakes out. Thank goodness. That's all I'm saying.

Whoever that is (next POTUS), it is.

ronald reagan nominated someone in his last year in office. but that was ronald reagan right? like executive orders, its legal when he does it but not when obama does it.

 

[Lord Coke]

Wouldn't the recent SCOTUS decisions on the 2nd amendment make that much more difficult? If I'm not mistaken one of them affirmed the right to own a gun for self defense and struck down a handgun ban as unconstitutional. With that kind of precedent I can't see any drastic gun control bans being constitutional but you're the lawyer here.

Realistically the Court would not overturn Heller but it would likely keep Heller to its core ruling which is that the government can not completely ban handguns in the home and that the Second Amendment confers a individual right rather than a collective right.

 

[Lord Coke]

I really don't pay much attention to Americam law, except as it pertains to foreign policy and international politics.
Don't you think the supreme court, and especially it's separation of power, is fundamentally broken when it's repeatedly split along Liberal versus Conservative lines on cases such as the stay on the EPA's Clean Power Plan, and when parties will go to such lengths to control the political make up of the bench?

I think that this situation is rare but I would note that there are many decisions that do not come down to 5-4 votes. Most decisions are not and more importantly the primary reason that the Supreme Court takes cases is because there is a split among the lower courts. So the questions they take are by definition not easy and different courts have taken different approaches to it. That is a relatively new thing. There was a time up to the New Deal where the Supreme Court had to hear cases so there was less division since they took many cases that were relatively easy questions.

 

[Lord Coke]

Isn't he also pretty weird generally? I remember him saying something about pot pie in San Francisco and what it means about the political culture.

That was wolfwood. He died in battle along with all my other accounts in the 2014 massacre. All that was left was alanb when I returned to the forum.

 

[Quipling]

At the beginning of the 110th Congress in January 2007, President Bush did not renominate Boyle, Myers, Haynes and Wallace in an attempt at reconciliation with the Democrats

A total of eleven appellate seats with Bush nominees were left open at the end of the 110th Congress. Of those seats, two (i.e. the North Carolina and Maryland seats of the Fourth Circuit) had originally become available to fill during the administration of President Bill Clinton.

I'm familiar with the jurisprudence of two of those judges, and they were not particularly good nominees. (high overturn rate, legal error). Bush nominated them purely on ideology - on qualifications there were markedly better options in the same region.

He had a similar issue with his Scotus nominee who failed (due to his own withdrawal, not due to the ratificaiton process). Wilkinson is undoubtedly qualified, but was selected by Bush because of a position he took on the Guantanamo cases (a position that was wrong), not on his own merits.

 

[Arkain2K]

I actually made this account b/c i've lurked the forums for years just as entertainment, but scalia's death was pretty impactful for me. when i was in law school this guy's opinions were EVERYWHERE, and always the more entertaining to read. i'm not sitting here crying in my chair, but it was definitely a sad day.

i wasn't a huge fan of his harsh rhetoric in the last 8 years or so, but his presence and influence is undeniable. he basically reformed oral arguments to involve highly aggressive questioning that encouraged more probing into the arguments. and if you want to read some powerful opinions, look up his opinions on some of his 4th amendment cases (there are numerous ones) b/c he had a pretty healthy respect for maintaining search and seizure boundaries.

he'll definitely be on the wrong side of history on many issues when people look back, particularly for gay rights and citizens united. his opinions though will be read and studied for years to come, not just for his wit but for his sound legal reasoning (and his unsound reasoning).

one of his most notable decisions was, imo, the landmark gun case heller v. d.c. there is also mcdonald v chicago, which scalia didn't author the opinion (alito did) but was pretty instrumental in the overall construction of this case too. no supreme court in roughly 200 years ever touched the 2nd amendment, and nobody ever established self defense rights via common law precedence. it wasn't even incorporated with the other bill of rights, so for it to now establish an actual right and to apply to the states is a very big deal in terms of landmark cases. though these cases didn't get a whole lot of press in the news, which i always found odd considering what a hot button topic guns are. for those interested here are two links to the decisions (not intending to hijack but they are good reads for anyone with interest)

i just felt like imparting some thoughts somewhere b/c i really did admire and respect him while at the same time kinda hating him, which truthfully few people are able to do that. today people paid their respects but tomorrow it's gonna be an ugly political dogfight on replacing him, so it feels nice to at least get a little bit of my own respect in before the fat kid race starts in the world of politics.

Thank you for this excellent Scalia observation in a thread dedicated to Scalia, which couldn't be said for 95% of the latest posts in this thread.

 

[Thai Domi]

Wow this is big. Not gonna lie I just fist pumped.

Like you weren't already fist pumping.

 

[My Spot]

ronald reagan nominated someone in his last year in office. but that was ronald reagan right? like executive orders, its legal when he does it but not when obama does it.

Except Reagan didn't nominate someone in his last year in office.

Powell retired in Jun 87.
Reagan nominated Robert Bork and Senate Dems rejected him because of partisan politics.
Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg who withdrew because he smoked weed during college (oh the horror).
Reagan nominated Kennedy in Nov 87.

 

[Arkain2K]

Scalia-Ginsburg Friendship Bridged Opposing Ideologies
By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter | February 14, 2016​

Washington (CNN) Polar opposites on the bench, Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a long, deep, an unexpected friendship.

Ginsburg remembered her "best buddy" as someone who both revered the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

"Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance," she said in a statement on Sunday. "He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend."

During a joint appearance with the woman he also has called his "best buddy" on the bench, Scalia said, "Why don't you call us the odd couple?"

"What's not to like?" Scalia joked at the event hosted by the Smithsonian Associates. "Except her views on the law, of course."

The two justices and their families vacationed together. There was a trip to Europe where Ginsburg went parasailing, leaving Scalia on the ground to admire her courage but at the same time worry she might just float away.

In her chambers, she has a picture of them riding an elephant in India. Ginsburg -- the pioneer of gender equality-- has said that she was only sitting behind Scalia to distribute weight more evenly on the elephant.

Ginsburg's late husband, Martin Ginsburg, was a gourmet chef, and the two justices often spent New Year's Eve together celebrating with their spouses.

They never shied away from the fact that they didn't often agree in many opinions.

It was Ginsburg who wrote the landmark 1996 case, United States v. Virginia. The opinion struck down the all-male admissions policy at the Virginia Military Institute. Scalia dissented, but he offered her an advanced look at his dissent in order to improve her majority opinion.

She often said that having the dissent ruined her weekend, but made her final product better.

They disagreed on same-sex marriage, and wound up on opposite ends of the case. Ginsburg welcomed the swift change that swept across the country and brought the issue to the Supreme Court. Scalia believed fervently that the issue should be decided by the people, not the courts.

He wrote a biting dissent when the Court cleared the way for gay marriage last spring.

"The issue is quite simply who decides, that's all," he said at the Smithsonian event.

But he respected Ginsburg for the kind of judge she is, offering clear and concise guidance to the lower courts.

"I love him but sometimes I'd like to strangle him," Ginsburg once said, according to Reuters.

As close as their friendship was, they never went duck hunting together. Justice Elena Kagan got that honor. After she joined the court, Scalia taught her to shoot. They started out with clay pigeons, and later moved to deer, antelope and ducks.

Scalia frequently appeared at events hosted by the conservative Federalist Society, where he would be greeted with a standing ovation. Once he brought all nine of his children on stage with him.

Ginsburg's standing ovations come from the more liberal American Constitution Society. Last Friday she went to the ribbon cutting of the new law school at American University, praising the school that had been founded by women.

"Brilliant thinkers, they loved a good joke, the law and opera," said Arnold & Porter lawyer Lisa S. Blatt, a former clerk of Ginsburg.

Blatt, who argues frequently before the Court, often found herself the recipient of tough questions from both justices.

"They had the world in common," Blatt said.

Scalia was also the subject of a one man play recently at the Arena theatre in Washington,called "The Originalist."

Actor Edward Gero did an uncanny job in capturing Scalia's mannerisms. Scalia took it all in stride, referring to it as the "age of celebrity" and telling the Smithsonian audience he would not be going to see the play.

But Ginsburg revealed his more personal side, noting that he had gone out of his way to have lunch with Gero. He also invited him to oral arguments.

Ginsburg and Scalia were also the subject of an opera "Scalia/Ginsburg" composed by Derrick Wang that had its debut last spring.

At speaking events Ginsburg often delighted in reading excerpts from the opening aria of the Scalia character: "The Justices are blind! How can they possibly spout this/The Constitution says absolutely nothing about this."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/politics/antonin-scalia-ruth-bader-ginsburg-friends/

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Nice, humanizing story, @Arkain2K , thanks for sharing.

 

[Arkain2K]

Nice, humanizing story, @Arkain2K , thanks for sharing.

The deep respects they have for each other's devotions to the Constitution and the Republic, despite being polar opposites in ideologies, really put the celebrating assholes in this thread to shame.

In an era when interest groups rule supreme and many people look at Congress' laziness and the President's powergrab with disdain, I feel like the Supreme Court is the only branch of the Federal government that's still consistently held in reverence by the American people.

That revered Supreme Court has nothing but respect for Antonin Scalia.

 

[sloppypie]

for republicans/conservatives worried about the gun issue, the cases establish a rather strong precedence and would be quite the quagmire to overturn. particularly since few bright line rules were drawn and were left to lower courts to hash out, so there's not just the supreme court decision but many lower court rulings that would suddenly be thrown into limbo.

also, it wasn't just established as a right in heller, but incorporated in mcdonald (meaning the 2nd amendment restricts state governments too). so that's a pretty integrating ruling to establish. cases coming before the court (should they hear them) are going to be more on trying to set more rules and limitations that were otherwise put off for another day by the court.

i mean it's possible, i don't want to pretend otherwise. i myself agreed with the liberal justices in their rationale/thinking in heller and mcdonald, as imo they were a lot more accurate to the history and context of the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment. but the cases were decided, and going forward is more productive to try to get some more consistency on these rulings than just throwing it out and going back to the way it was. as it is, gun rights are pervasive amongst most states, so getting consistency through the supreme court will actually be more beneficial.

the more likely case to be overturned is citizens united, b/c that case itself overturned 100 years of precedence. so that would be a very easy fix, particularly since it's a very unpopular decision with just about everyone anyway.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The deep respect they have for each other's devotions to the Constitution and the Republic, despite being polar opposites, really put the assholes in this thread to shame.

I'm sorry, I'm trying not to really post about this guy, to show some respect for his death, but as far as respect for this country and constitution.........CITIZENS UNITED.

Perhaps you think this was just bad judgement, but I do not.

 

[Execute]

The next POTUS should fill that seat. Simple as that. And with the senate being republican, that's likely how this shakes out. Thank goodness. That's all I'm saying.

Whoever that is (next POTUS), it is.

That's not how it works. Then again I don't think there's any chance the next POTUS is a Republican, so I'm not sure what the Republicans have to gain by acting like children.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I like the new guy @sloppypie

 

[GSP in 2006]

Except Reagan didn't nominate someone in his last year in office.

Powell retired in Jun 87.
Reagan nominated Robert Bork and Senate Dems rejected him because of partisan politics.
Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg who withdrew because he smoked weed during college (oh the horror).
Reagan nominated Kennedy in Nov 87.

So at 15 months its fine for a POTUS to nominate someone, but 12 months isn't? Thats crap logic.

 

[Teefs]

Almost made this thread yesterday but didn't want to shit on the guy on the day of his death. So, since we're in the next day, let me say unequivocally good fucking riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

So at 15 months its fine for a POTUS to nominate someone, but 12 months isn't? Thats crap logic.

But muh America!

 

[Hamm and Clov]

Rest in piss, Scalia.

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

Almost made this thread yesterday but didn't want to shit on the guy on the day of his death. So, since we're in the next day, let me say unequivocally good fucking riddance to bad rubbish.

Same here. The guy was an unfeeling elitist pos who constantly was hanging out with the people's cases he was trying. Just a turd