The subject line says it all.

Plenty for Americans to discuss.

Scalia's legacy? Can Obama get a replacement done before his term is over? What are we looking for as a replacement?

Views: 467

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Its going to be very hard for the President to get a replacement. He needs to be very aggressive in dealing with the Republicans or once they again they will run him over.

Obama has had a few lower court justices approved unanimously. Were he to nominate one of those, I wonder how the Republicans would justify not approving them.

He actually appointed a lot of republicans to several positions.

There is no logic in republican review of appointments....they either get their way, or filibuster, etc.

They, so far, can be for, and against, the same thing.


As far as Republicans go, it's been "My (our Republican) way or the highway" ever since America's first racial minority President took office.

Oh the irony.

All I hear about from them is how our gutless congress keeps caving over and over.

Amazing how perceptions change on opposite sides of the spectrum.

The guy was toxic.

So, Mitch says that Obama should not do what he is supposed to do as prez....and appoint a new one...

...and that the Repubs will not approve anyone period...IE: Will not do THEIR job..., Repubs are saying, as usual, that gov should grind to a halt for political partisan reasons.

I hope the Dems win and appoint Obama as the New Justice, just to eff with them.


Most of us only knew Justice Scalia as "that ultra-conservative Justice," so maybe we owe him at least this: to understand his position. Why? Because even those who disagreed with him aver that he turned out to be one of the small handful of great justices. A great legal mind. Also, a mensch who seemingly never hesitated to speak his mind, no matter how unpopular his thoughts. Here he is interviewed by a somewhat antagonistic Piers Morgan:

He was not a great legal mind.  He was a smart guy, but, he had an agenda, and, he would rationalize as needed to fulfill it.

He believed in a literal interpretation of the constitution as long as that interpretation meant he could discriminate against gays, woman, etc.

Generally, his interpretations were biased towards his conservative worldview...including his beliefs in the supernatural.

We laugh at African judges who rule on witchcraft punishments, etc...but, we're torpedoing human rights from the same woo boat.

Obama is not KING, he cannot just be tough and appoint really really hard and win...

To his credit, he seems quite fair in appointments, and goes with generally middle of the road choices.

Sri Srinivasan for example would not be a bad pick.


He believed in a literal interpretation of the constitution as long as that interpretation meant he could discriminate against gays, woman, etc.

I don't think you can cite any cases where he personally discriminated against gays or women or racial minorities...or can you?

Generally, if someone is going to be a conservative bigot, they will hate Jews, and yet he and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were the best of friends. 

You appear to be giving in to that impulse to demonize one's enemies.

Generally, his interpretations were biased towards his conservative worldview...including his beliefs in the supernatural.

One could certainly say that all of the justices brought their intellectual predispositions and values with them. Not just the conservatives.

In his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, for instance, he said Americans have every right to enforce “the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct” in order to protect “themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”

In his 2012 dissenting opinion supporting Arizona’s immigration crackdown; and in the argument in a case challenging the constitutionality of the Voting Right Act, he dismissed that signature achievement of the nation’s civil rights struggle as a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He also suggested that the court needs to save Congress from itself because lawmakers are afraid to side against equal access for voting.

In 1996, Scalia was the only justice to dissent in the Supreme Court decision that ended the 157-year tradition of state-supported, all-male education at Virginia Military Institute. In his dissent in the case United States v. Virginia, Scalia wrote:

...the tradition of having government funded military schools for men is as well rooted in the traditions of this country as the tradition of sending only men into military combat. The people may decide to change the one tradition, like the other, through democratic processes; but the assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the centuries is not law, but politics smuggled into law.
In Short -

Conservatives don't all hate Jews per se...some see Israel for example as necessary...and, some people hate chocolate but like hot cocoa, and so forth.  Over generalizing stereotypes is not typically good when talking about individuals.


I'll stipulate that Scalia's moral/ethical values may differ from yours and mine and other Justices, but so what? His views are those of a fairly strict Catholic and it's legal in the US to be Catholic.

He was a constitutional literalist who simply held that it's pernicious to try to make the Constitution adapt to changing times and that the only job of a Justice is to interpret the document as literally as possible. He would note that if you want a more modern Constitution, the founders built into it ways and means of amending it, and indeed it has been amended over time.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. Personally, I'm hoping the next addition to the Court is a liberal.

Since the Constitution does not deal literally with many of the cases, there is no literal interpretation. It's pernicious to try to make the Constitution the same as Catholic dogma.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service