Justice Scalia Dead

[sr71plt]

Then agreed. You wasted your venom tantrum.

 

[mwmnpa]

No venom, you're making stuff up. Par for the course. And why so angry bro? I agreed with you clowns.

Look, I know you can't get idiots to own their stupidity, so just stop. I agreed with you about the nomination process and you're still being a moron about it. Hey, you're right. You just don't know why.

http://memesvault.com/wp-content/uploads/Why-You-Mad-Bro-Meme-05.jpg

 

[mark_j]

Justice Scalia, like him or not, was a strict constructionist.

Not according to his own writings. Scalia didn't self identify as a "strict constructionist".

In fact he rather eschewed the term..

Antonin Scalia, the justice most identified with the term, once wrote: "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be", calling the philosophy "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute". Scalia summarized his textualist approach as follows: "A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

A Matter of Interpretation, Scalia, Princeton Univ. Press, 1998.

 

[mwmnpa]

What he said and how he voted are two different things. But...you people are more entranced by words, especially if they fit your agenda. I've managed to make a nice life by observing people's actions, and going from there.

Holy Hell, you folks are weak. Enjoy Bernie, or the criminal.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

What he said and how he voted are two different things. But...you people are more entranced by words, especially if they fit your agenda.

That's not how it works, Mwmnpa. Your words as a Justice mean something. And I think that applies to everyone in the world, too! *nods*

I've managed to make a nice life by observing people's actions, and going from there.

Really? Wowzers. Y'mean like a...spy? Or a voyeur?

What is it that you do exactly and how much bank are you making on it, if I may ask? To be frank, I like observing people, too...and I could use a second income stream!

Holy Hell, you folks are weak. Enjoy Bernie, or the criminal.

Hey, hey, hey...take it easy, Mwmnpa. No need to get the blood pressure boiling because of unnecessary frustrations. This ain't Three Mile Island and it isn't The China Syndrome!

If you're feeling that pressed, you should get a pick-up game going, or a few rounds of some racquetball with your BFF instead, yey? That's how I vent the stress build-up from those gol'durn liberals, mate!

 

[Adre]

Dude's gonna have an aneurism at this rate.

 

[mwmnpa]

Ah yeah...critical thinking is...well...you can look that up too. Try it some time. Lates!

And stop trying to project through the internet how I'm feeling.

Good God, I agreed with you morons and you're still angry! LOL!

 

[RUlookingup]

Feel better? Because you don't affect me a bit with this rant. You're the one with the blood pressure problem over this. But you look kind of cute all puffed up and red in the face. And totally powerless.

Oh, it's the unaffected one again. Nothing matters to him and yet he is here.

 

[RUlookingup]

I don't believe anyone has said that Obama can't nominate anyone. What they have said, repeatedly, is that he can't appoint anyone because they will refuse to hold hearings on any nominations.

Obama sees the handwriting on the wall. His disastrous eight years mark the end of the Democrats in 2016. He is trying to stick it to the right as much as possible before his Carteresque exit. Trump 2016.

 

[about_average]

Ah yeah...critical thinking is...well...you can look that up too. Try it some time.

It didn't appear to work for you when you looked it up.

But no mention of how Obama blew off his funeral.

I'm sure with your great critical thinking skills you came to the conclusion that you know better than someone who worked for Scalia.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Why exactly would Obama have been at Scalia's funeral?

Obama sees the handwriting on the wall. His disastrous eight years mark the end of the Democrats in 2016. He is trying to stick it to the right as much as possible before his Carteresque exit. Trump 2016.

Highly unlikely.

 

[mark_j]

Why exactly would Obama have been at Scalia's funeral?

Respect?

A sitting justice died while in office.. wouldn't that warrant a little more than a condolences card from Rite-Aid and a 2 minute pass in a public reviewing line?

Didn't they at least send the VP? Or was it some low level actuary from the WH staff..

 

[phrodeau]

Somehow I doubt that my family and friends would care to see my boss at my funeral.

 

[sr71plt]

Respect?

A sitting justice died while in office.. wouldn't that warrant a little more than a condolences card from Rite-Aid and a 2 minute pass in a public reviewing line?

Didn't they at least send the VP? Or was it some low level actuary from the WH staff..

This issue is just backbiting. The Obamas went to the viewing. Biden (who is Catholic, like Scalia) went to the funeral. The only precedent is Bush going to the Chief Justice's (Rhenquist) funeral--a chief justice appointed by the same party. For all we know the family asked that it not be the circus it would have to be to have the president attend, or Obama made that determination himself. This is just being floated to slam the president for everything, including standing up to pee.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Respect?

A sitting justice died while in office.. wouldn't that warrant a little more than a condolences card from Rite-Aid and a 2 minute pass in a public reviewing line?

Didn't they at least send the VP? Or was it some low level actuary from the WH staff..

It was the VP. And again you can't both scream don't make his death political and then have a sitting president, a one not generally like by your party show up.

 

[about_average]

Unless Scalia's family bitches about the president not attending the funeral then he did the right thing. They are the only one's who have a valid voice in the matter.

 

[JackLuis]

Conservatives think zombie Scalia should decide cases — including this Bush voter fraud crusader

OMFG! Now they are for post-mortum voting rights?

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a former Bush administration official, argued that Scalia’s votes on some pending cases should be counted even after his Feb 13 death, reported Right Wing Watch.

The conservative legal activist said the late justice had already heard oral arguments in some cases before the court, including Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which could hobble public sector unions.

Von Spakovsky told religious right broadcaster Sandy Rios that Scalia had already cast his vote in conference after hearing arguments — and he said Chief Justice John Roberts had an “absolute obligation” to count the deceased jurist’s vote.

It’s ironic that von Spakovsky would advocate for the voting rights of a dead jurist — because he spent his years in the U.S. Justice Department under Bush promoting the mythical epidemic of dead voters.

Von Spakovsky, a frequent Fox News guest, is largely credited with turning the myth of widespread Democratic voter fraud — including votes cast on behalf of the deceased — into “Republican orthodoxy,” reported the New Yorker.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Conservatives think zombie Scalia should decide cases — including this Bush voter fraud crusader

OMFG! Now they are for post-mortum voting rights?

They have a Zombie God they worship so this would at least be consistent.

 

[sr71plt]

If all discussion and argumentation on the cases are concluded (which probably isn't the case), sure a vote should be counted.

 

[Wrong Element]

Conservatives think zombie Scalia should decide cases — including this Bush voter fraud crusader

OMFG! Now they are for post-mortum voting rights?

The vote in conference has never been considered a "final" vote. What matters are actual opinions -- justices either join one, or write their own.

If particular opinions had been circulated and voted on, and we're just awaiting their official release, it might be something to consider. But anything short of that, and Scalia's vote has to be considered tentative and thus can't possibly count.

I assume also that any opinions Scalia had been working on that hadn't yet been circulated are also moot. With so much time left in the term, I doubt much had gotten past the draft stage.