Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, January 20, 2019

By Joan Biskupic and Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 79, has died, setting up a major political showdown between President Barack Obama and the Republican-controlled Senate over who will replace him just months before a presidential election.

“On behalf of the court and retired justices, I am saddened to report that our colleague Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement, calling Scalia an “extraordinary individual and jurist.”

Scalia’s death was first reported by the San Antonio News-Express, who said he had apparently died of natural causes while visiting a luxury resort in West Texas.

Appointed to the top U.S. court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan, Scalia was known for his strident conservative views and theatrical flair in the courtroom.

Obama will face a stiff battle to win confirmation of a nominee to replace Scalia, with Republicans likely to delay in the hope that one of their own wins the November election. But if Obama does successfully nominate a replacement before his term ends in January, it could tilt the court to the left for the first time in decades.

“Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, and the nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next president names his replacement,” Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican presidential candidate, said on Twitter.

The nation’s highest court is set to decide its first major abortion case in nearly 10 years as well as key cases on voting rights, affirmative action and immigration.

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton and Scott Malone; Editing by Paul Simao)

Photo: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia listens to a question after speaking at an event sponsored by the Federalist Society at the New York Athletic Club in New York October 13, 2014. REUTERS/Darren Ornitz

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 125

198 responses to “U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia, Conservative Icon, Dead At 79”

  1. amf1932 says:

    No great loss!!

  2. Scooter Livingston says:

    You’re a vicious b@stard, Scalia…

    https://youtu.be/XU7gnMSzf_c

  3. Otto Greif says:

    He was a great jurist and his opinions were entertaining. His replacement will not be his equal.

    • yabbed says:

      No one could be Scalia’s equal in corporate slavish devotion and cruel right wing Catholicism.

      • Otto Greif says:

        Which of his opinions was “cruel right wing Catholicism”?

        • Charles van Rotterdam says:

          Straw purchasers Otto; not only did he use ridiculous examples but he was wrong

          • Otto Greif says:

            How was his dissent in that case “cruel Catholicism”?

          • Charles van Rotterdam says:

            OK; it wasn’t “cruel Catholicism” in his dissent on straw purchases but his his opinion on abortion and same sex marriage is extreme “cruel Catholicism”. In all cases he was wrong.

          • Otto Greif says:

            His opinions on abortion and homosexual marriage were consistent with Constitution.

          • Charles van Rotterdam says:

            Problem is Otto, neither abortion nor marriage are in your Constitution, under your dysfunctional system they are state issues however your Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment (I think) cover them.
            Scalia was what he called himself and ‘originalist’ which I happen to think is fine and he wanted to interpret the Constitution as the original framers wanted in the English of the day. Problem is that was 230 years ago and a few things have changed since then. The framers were not saints, angels or soothsayers, they could not possible know what society was going to be like in 50 years let alone 230 years, so interpreting the constitution in the language of 1787 is irrelevant to modern society and by doing so he made himself less than useless on the bench. FFS the Industrial Revolution was only just starting in Europe and out in the colonies you were mostly just out of the middle ages.
            Personally I think your Constitution, along with ours and most other countries, needs to be updated every generation or 50 years or so just to reflect society as it is at the time.

          • Bob Eddy says:

            Correction: He wanted to interpret the Constitution the way HE thought the framers had intended, not necessarily as they had intended. Always bothers me when cons feel free to state with such certainty just what the founding fathers intended…especially when it is so blatantly wrong as in the case of this being a “Christian nation.”

          • Charles van Rotterdam says:

            Agree with the fact that he ‘thought’. And we all know what ‘thought’ did!.
            We have an “Interpretations Act”, in other words when we write legislation and/or amend the Constitution then under the Interpretations Act, certain words have the same or a certain meaning, commas, apostrophes, periods etc all come under the Act. Therefore your f*&^%ed up 2nd Amendment would and could have only one interpretation.
            Perhaps you yanks should do the same; also you should appoint Supreme Court judges on their knowledge of the Law not on their political persuasion.

          • Otto Greif says:

            Exactly, there is no right to either in the Constitution. The Framers included an amendment process for the Constitution, and left great latitude to the states to enact laws.

          • Bob Eddy says:

            THEY WERE CONSISTENT WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION! They were not consistent with Constitution in the view of the rest of the court, people who are much smarter, much more qualified than you are to make that judgement. THAT’S WHY YOU LOST.

    • Bob Eddy says:

      His replacement will not be his equal….and we can all be thankful for that! He was not a great jurist. He was a political hack.

    • nana4gj says:

      I think he should not be looking for ideological Supreme Court Justices. If there is any place where ideology and politics should stop at the entrance to the bldg, it should be at the Supreme Court. They may have their individual beliefs, but, in the application of Justice, the last source of Justice, they should all be moderate in judiciary deliberations and should not be allowing the faith in which they worship, the votes they take in political elections, or their own personal prejudices, or the way they raise their own families, to be half or more of what is part of their deliberations. They are not functioning as citizens, or even as representative of citizens, when they enter that bldg to do their jobs.

      The other half of what should be their deliberations is their knowledge of Constitutional Law and their judicial experience in interpreting the Constitution and the Laws. Scalia once said, he thought he was the only one who understood the Constitution as it should be understood. I don’t know what special gift he had to be able to believe that. That is as subjective a belief as a religious, political, or personal belief, and, if that be the case, we didn’t need 9 Judges on the SC, only 1. Constitutional Law, means deliberations should be constitutionally lawful.

      He also said the Constitution is not a “living” idea or doctrine, that it should be applied exactly as written in the 1700s. Perhaps, the principles are applicable for eternity, and those principles should guide every new law for the life of the country. The Constitution is very much alive because every application of it must meet the society it governs and nothing in society today is as it was in the 1700s, nothing; we must be able to apply those principles to society’s evolution and the way we live in society as society advances in every aspect of our lives. The concept of a “Strict Constitutionalist” makes no common sense. Who is to say who interprets the Constitution exactly as it was intended? Scalia’s very position on the Supreme Court would not have been possible in the 1700’s, nor would any of his colleagues have been; nor would his healthcare, transportation, salary, nothing in his personal life is as it would have been in the 1700’s and they all have laws that govern or regulate them that had to meet the principles in that Constitution before they could become laws.

      That Constitution has, unfortunately, been manipulated for political and ideological expediency. Those who cling to it with such fervor have no qualms with abusing it whenever it serves their politics and/or their ideology. They can neglect their Constitutional Oaths of Office; their duty as Representatives and Senators and shut down the government; sabotage their own government enlisting foreign leaders to do so; deny basic Constitutional rights of certain population groups; neglect critical issues that need resolution; corrupt our electoral process; and shut down the Judicial System, for the sake of politics and politics, alone. Nothing is more important to them than their own politics, nothing. And, they have contaminated the Supreme Court, and make a mockery out of that revered document, for the sake of politics, leaving the rest of us to do the same in order to counterbalance the effects.

      They will do whatever it takes to seize power for the sake of power because they have no respect for governance and are often inept when they have the opportunity to govern, because it is not their mission or goal to govern, just to wield power that is not at all influenced by that Constitution.

      These same abusers and political opportunists do not care who of their candidates secure elections, just so they secure them, any way that they can get by with. I have, over the past 15 years, often thought they could not get any lower than the last stunt, and there have been many. But, they always manage to find another low point to sink to, stunning not just all of us, but, now, the entire international community. America used to be the arbitrator of Justice and Rule of Law in the world, a model of democracy, even monitoring the elections in other countries, and, today, we cannot even rely on our own. And that has nothing to do with this President. It has to do with what has become of the Republican Party and it’s putrid, toxic, misguided, descent into Dante’s Inferno. It’s no wonder they haven’t one credible, capable, honest candidate in the dozen and a half who have been making fools of this country, yet confirming everything I have alleged, for months now.

      We always hear how every Presidential election is “critical” and “the most important one” ever. In truth, they have been over the last decades, because they were all building to what is now the most critical election for this nation and her people, ever. There may have been so dire situations throughout our history, but, today, we have nuclear weapons, terrorists, another Russian ego driven civilian Tsar, a rogue Israeli PM, and a ME bent on destroying itself and taking everyone with her.

      We have an America armed with weapons in civilian society and laws in place that allow them to kill with them just because they “feel” they are threatened by another, or they are angry, or they disagree with the personal choices of another, and we have some police sworn to protect all of us who kill unarmed kids and men just because they look like they are, or could be, guilty of something.

      We have governors in states across this nation who not only want to keep people sick but they also deliberately and negligently make them sick. We have militias who think they can take land that doesn’t belong to just them with armed standoffs who could take their case to court, but, choose to do it the old-fashioned way, “squatter’s rights”, or, like they do in the ME, with terror. We are rife with ideological wars on race, gender, religion, marriage, and income inequality, and the solution we opt for is war and revolutions, in part, because our Supreme Court can no longer be relied upon, and neither can the representatives we send to Congress, who will not even readily authorize emergency relief funds for citizens suffering man made or natural disasters, because of political or ideological beliefs.

      We cannot insure that people in this country can go about normal activities of living without fear of their lives because those elected representatives cannot apply the principles of the Constitution to this pressing and obvious right of the people, or, is it because they risk their ratings with the lobby and their own electoral potential?

      If we are to make changes that are beneficial to this country and all of her people, we do not need a revolution. We just need people to exercise their right to vote in every election, not to sit any one of them out, but, to do their duty as citizens because every election today is critical and the most important election ever.

      This Republican Coup, the latest one, announcing to thwart the sitting President from now to January 20, 2017, from doing his Constitutional duty to nominate a person to fill the SC vacancy as soon as is possible, in such critical times, with everything in flux and in dire need, before there is even an individual named, is more sabotage of the best interests of this country. They are unable to cope with what falls out in the natural order of events; they have to slice and dice, manipulate, and use power, and make wars on every single thing that happens.

      On this one, it was not the fact that one of their idols had died that was so upsetting, it was that a vacancy in the SC while a President not of their choice is still in office for still almost another year. A President they say they cannot “trust” because, in the face of their obstruction, sabotage, and other destructiveness, he did what he was supposed to do when they refused, to mitigate pressing issues. They cannot even do their Constitutional duty and at least go through the motions.

      Why is anyone surprised that they would neglect intelligence information; be stunned with 9/11; and then use it to exploit for political expediency ad nauseum; deny healthcare to First Responders; and use it as a ruse to invade a country that had nothing to do with it, neglecting the country and terrorists who did, and then spend the rest of their lives defending it? And all of it was based on politics, including the initial negligence in interpreting that intell and, at least, acting on it to intercept and obstruct, since they are so good at obstruction.

      The biggest, most dire threat, to this country and her people, are the Republicans and whatever else they call themselves. And that’s a proven fact. Every pathology known can be found among them and it has, over the years, rendered them criminally negligent and totally incompetent and very dangerous.

      We don’t need any “equals”. When we have the opportunity to replace any of these ideologues, of any bent, on either side, we need to improve the gene pool and look for objective and professional competence and sanity. We need to stop this madness.

  4. Richard Elvers says:

    Scalia was a first rate jerk, especially since he voted for citizens united he screw’d a lot of things up with that one and a few other things .

  5. Will Owen says:

    I won’t mourn him as a Justice, but I’m terribly sorry for Justice Ginsberg, who was one of his dearest friends. Their friendship epitomized a truth that much of our divided country either has forgotten or angrily denies: that in matters of law or politics one does not have friends and enemies, one has allies and opponents, and that these relative positions can and should change as each situation requires. In private life it’s a very different matter; solid courtroom or legislative allies can despise each other away from their arena, and deeply bitter opponents, such as Scalia and Ginsberg, can delight in their shared love of opera, good food and wine, and far-reaching conversation. So I wish, as I’m sure Justice Ginsberg does, that he had resigned and stayed alive … though of course he never would.

    • Dohk says:

      Very well said. Having a personal dislike for his ideology, I have always had great respect for his scholarship and legalsocial humor. Regardless of what his views were, he will be missed, for good and bad.

    • Dominick Vila says:

      Thank you for the thoughtful commentary.

  6. radsenior says:

    Our thought’s are with the family as TEA-Republican’s gear up opposition to anyone president Obama may nominate! Sad with prayers for his family!

    • AgLander says:

      Obama has NO CHANCE to pick a replacement that will be confirmed. He made his bed when he and Harry Reid conspired to change long standing rules in the Senate regarding votes on jamming through appellate court confirmations and now, as Rev. Wright likes to say, “the chickens are comin home to roost” as Republicans rightfully let Obama reap what he has sown. Karma, baby, karma!

      • Bob Eddy says:

        Don’t be so sure. Do Republicans really want to face the very real prospect of seeing a President Sanders pick being voted on by a Democratically controlled Senate?

      • A_Real_Einstein says:

        That’s ok. The era of a conservative Supreme Court has come to an end. In that sense today is a victriois day for Progressives and the middle class. Next year President Sanders will be happy to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice with his newly elected Democratic Senate. I am sure you won’t like the choice but are going to love this. May Justice Scalia Rest In Piece.

  7. 1standlastword says:

    I hope he can make a convincing argument for the salvation of his eternal soul because I can’t see any evidence for a Christ like motivation during his time on the bench.

    • Otto Greif says:

      You’re right he didn’t base his judicial opinions on his religious beliefs, though it makes no sense to complain about that.

      • 1standlastword says:

        Good Grief Otto! Let me explain. When I, a secular humanist–think of “Christ consciousness”, I certainly, surely, absolutely don’t consider the authoritarian legalism that today’s insane pharisees like Michele Bachmann, Ted Cruz, Louie Gomert and the like think qualifies them as Christian. Scalia was brutal and calloused in his opinions. He was an enemy of ordinary people!

    • AgLander says:

      Well then…..if he’s headed to Hell as you suggest, maybe you two can meet for lunch some day since you’re heading there too!

    • Bob Eddy says:

      I can see it now. Scalia: “Look, I voted against gay marriage, but it’s Gods fault for making gays…do I get in?”
      St Peter: “I’ll have to check with a higher authority. I’ll get back to you.”

  8. Otto Greif says:

    Obama will be hard pressed to find a nominee less qualified than Sotomayor and Kagan, but I’m sure he will do it.

    • Grover Syck says:

      Sotomayor and Kaganare both highly qualified.

      Scalia was one of the least qualified justice, form the stand point of executing the office, in the history of the court. The other 4 bought and paid for corporate justices are not far behind him, but he was the worst.

      • AgLander says:

        Scalia was a true judge, a brilliant mind…..Kagan and Sotomayor are intellectually shallow, ideologue hacks.

        • Bob Eddy says:

          Wrong. Though that was a short term rightwing meme, it proved to be untrue. The criteria states, in part, that a candidate should (not must) have 12 years of judicial experience and this was the source of the right wing misinformation it goes on to add that distinguished accomplishments in the field of law or experience similar to it can be considered instead. Your mistake will be chalked up to intellectual laziness this time. If you repeat this debunked rightwing talking point it will be chalked up as dishonesty.

        • Jinmichigan says:

          Scalia was a partisan hack like the rest of them.

      • Otto Greif says:

        As far as experience and ability Sotomayor and Kagan were not highly qualified, their qualifications were their sex and ethnicity.

        • Bob Eddy says:

          Thank you for the opinion of the ignorant. The American Bar Association rated them both to be very qualified. Just because someone disagrees with you opinions does not make them unqualified. In fact that would most likely make them highly qualified.

          • Otto Greif says:

            The ABA ignored its own guidelines when it gave those ratings. If you think Kagan is very qualified why don’t you cite some of her qualifications, like her trial experience, or her significant contributions to legal scholarship.

          • Bob Eddy says:

            “The ABA ignored it’s own guidelines” Why? Because you disagreed? Good grief are you really that stupid? (That’s a rhetorical question. Don’t try to answer it. You’ll get it wrong,)

          • Otto Greif says:

            No, because it ignored its own stated criteria for the qualifications a nominee must have to receive a well qualified rating.

          • Jinmichigan says:

            Bull.

          • Otto Greif says:

            That’s a fact, go read the ABA’s own materials.

      • Marv Nochowitz says:

        Clarence Thomas will get his feelings hurt if you insist Scalia was the worst justice. He thought he had that spot nailed

    • AgLander says:

      Don’t be so sure……the list of radical losers in Obama’s rolodex is deep.

    • Mr Corrections says:

      Obama himself – a highly qualified Constitutional lawyer – might end up the nominee once Hillary is elected, assuming the collection of pederasts that call themselves the Republican party attempt to block the nominations he makes till the next election.

      Honestly, I have a bit of a boner just thinking about how many cerebrovascular hemorrhages that will cause among the useless KKK fossils that make up the bulk of the GOP. An excellent opportunity to clean house for us!

      • Bob Eddy says:

        Or Obama could appoint Hillary. Two birds with one stone. The Supreme Court is back in business, the Democratic nominee is settled. Win-win. Oh, and the right wing goes totally insane, win-win-win!

      • Otto Greif says:

        Obama is a highly qualified constitutional lawyer? Please cite the major cases he’s worked on, the cases he has argued before the Supreme Court, and as his important legal scholarship.

  9. Grover Syck says:

    Good ridence.
    May he burn in hell for what he has done to our nation.

  10. Otto Greif says:

    Liberals hate Scalia because they hate the Constitution. It’s an obstacle for them.

    • 1standlastword says:

      Consider yourself de-horned and demoted to simply minded goat status!

      It is the person of Scalia and his (dis) service to his fellow humans under consideration here–not the constitution!

      Good Grief Otto!

      • Otto Greif says:

        A judge’s job is to adjudicate based on the law and Constitution.

        • bobnstuff says:

          Where in the constitution does it say corporations are people? It’s a pretty far reach. Had Obama said it you would say he was crazy.

          • Otto Greif says:

            The law says corporations are people.

          • bobnstuff says:

            No the SCOTUS said so.

          • Otto Greif says:

            That’s what the law says, see 1 US Code § 1.

          • Bob Eddy says:

            It does not! That interpretation stems from one of the most inane Supreme Court rulings in our history and can be quickly reversed by a new Supreme Court. Of course in your world, that new ruling will not be valid because in the reality free zone of conservative thinking only laws they agree with are valid laws.

          • Otto Greif says:

            1 U.S. Code § 1:

            In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

            words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;

            words importing the plural include the singular;

            words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;

            words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;

            the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;

            the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

          • Jinmichigan says:

            Otto is making chit up. Who’s surprised?

          • Otto Greif says:

            1 U.S. Code § 1.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            No one.

          • Otto Greif says:

            Does it bother you that sometimes the law recognizes birds as people?

          • bobnstuff says:

            Show me a law that birds are given free speech rights.

          • Otto Greif says:

            Birds can be legal persons, see Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt. Corporations have free speech rights because people have free speech rights, and don’t lose them when acting collectively, and because government cannot abridge freedom of speech.

          • Bob Eddy says:

            Corporations are a legal entities created by and sanctioned by the state and are not people, They should lose those rights when then incorporate to protect themselves from legal consequences…as we will see shortly as the tyranny of the rightwing agenda continues it’s death spiral.

          • Otto Greif says:

            They have legal personhood, which does not make them real people. Even if individuals lost rights when acting collectively, which is wrong and stupid, the government still lacks the power to abridge speech.

          • Otto Greif says:

            You never answered if you think birds should be legal persons or not.

          • Bob Eddy says:

            You’re right. I tend to ignore irrelevant questions and I will continue to do so.

          • Otto Greif says:

            It’s not irrelevant if you wish to actually understand the concept of legal personhood.

          • Bob Eddy says:

            Its not relevant. You just don’t know it…probably because you lack either the will or the intellectual capacity to research the right wing talking points you post. In this case it is simply about upholding the endangered species act. A suit that was brought by people, not birds and simply, as the law provides, addresses protection of their habitat. It does not give them free speech in elections, though if it did their postings would probably be more lucid than yours!

          • Otto Greif says:

            A bird was the plaintiff, he was given legal personhood, that must really upset you.

    • Bob Eddy says:

      No. It’s because he always has a religiously slanted corporatist view to his Constitutional interpretations.BTW, if you ever want to be taken seriously you will need to end the mindless regurgitation of inane and usually irrelevant rightwing talking points. Because my interpretation of the Constitution differs from yours does not mean I “hate” the constitution any more than it means you “hate” it when it allows gay marriage or access to abortion.

      • Otto Greif says:

        Which of his rulings were “religiously slanted”? Since you hate Scalia’s rulings, and his rulings were based on the Constitution, then you hate the Constitution. It upsets you it limits what the government can do.

    • LEK56 says:

      Finalist – Stupidest, Most Fact-Free Post – 2016. Good luck!

    • Mr Corrections says:

      I’m sorry your collection of old white guys is dying out and can’t wilfully reinterpret the law based only on racism any more.

      Wait, sorry wasn’t the right word – I meant “glad”. I regret the error.

    • roma8989 says:

      oh please…. no one “hates” the Constitution… it’s pretty childish to say that people who think differently from you “hate the Constitution”… this is nonsense…..

    • Jinmichigan says:

      Right, and I suppose the constitution doesn’t say anything about a well regulated militia. Scalia was a partisan hack like the rest of them.

  11. yabbed says:

    The Republican Congress won’t be able to stay in session for nearly a year. I see a recess appointment that will hold until Hillary Clinton is elected.

  12. Bob Eddy says:

    Kinda puts the Republicans in a spot. Work with Obama and fill the vacancy as quickly as possible or…….take the chance that after the election they will be facing a President Sanders’ pick being presented to a Democratically controlled Senate. Even if it is Clinton, she has been much less reticent to face down the Republican party than Obama has. Obama has always appeared to think he could work with Republicans, Clinton harbors no such delusion,

    • bobnstuff says:

      Obama is a idealist Clinton is a realist. It should be fun to watch.

    • Lynda Groom says:

      From your mouth to the voters ears.

    • Disqus says:

      What if Bernie Sanders was elected president and then appoints ex-president Barack Hussein Obama II as the next supreme court justice?

      • LEK56 says:

        be still my heart

      • Bob Eddy says:

        A possibility I had not considered…and all because the Republicans refused to work with this President…oh what delicious irony and cosmic karma that would be.

        • nana4gj says:

          We must, when we vote for our D President give them as many D Congress as we can, everytime we have the opportunity to do so.

      • Charles van Rotterdam says:

        What about a Hillary/Sanders or Sanders/Hillary Presidential ticket; it’d be a shoo in

        • Dominick Vila says:

          The way things are going, it may be a Sanders-Clinton ticket. I hope I am wrong, but this election may be a lot closer than most people think. Consider the huge crowds listening to Trump’s speeches, focused mostly on how beautiful he is, and how easy it will be for him to make America great again (I didn’t know we were not a great country already), and the few dozen people that attend Hillary’s town hall meetings, and the likelihood of a Democratic landslide in November is increasingly looking like a chimera.

          • Whittier5 says:

            Sanders’ rallies meet, or exceed, those of The Donald’, so I am not so concerned.
            Remember, this is not about a Democratic Plurality Win, but a Democratic Electoral College Win. According to current projections, they need to win only 5 additional votes in the Electoral College.

            The Bigger fight will be to retake the Senate and take out teawhackos who gained seats because of the TERRIBLE Campaigns the Dems waged in 2010 and 2014.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The Dems did run horrible campaigns in 2010 and 2014. Unfortunately, Hillary did not learn from those mistakes, and is engaged in a sequel to those political disasters.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            I still don’t see why you think Hillary’s ego would allow her to take a back seat to Bernie, especially when their ideologies on the big issues are so different. You shouldn’t be so pessimistic about the election though. Whoever gets the nomination is going to be the next POTUS. I considered it a lock before. Now, with Scalia dead and more people realizing just how much is at stake, it is a lock within a lock. It is a double lock.

          • TZToronto says:

            We hear from the Republican candidates at 10:00 am how President Obama has neutered the US military. Then at 11:00 am we hear that the US has the most powerful military and can destroy ISIS in an afternoon with (illegal) carpet bombing. Which is it?

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The latter, if what they are talking about is killing ISIS fighters, and the people they are victimizing. Unfortunately, the ideology they are espousing is turning into a movement being embraces by radicals and people that hate western values.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            We spend as much money on our military as the next 8 countries combined, yet you constantly hear Republicans talk about how we need to rebuild our military. Either we already have the strongest military in the world and it doesn’t need rebuilding or we are wasting some serious money if it does need to be rebuilt. I’m inclined to believe it is the former and that it’s nothing more than fear mongering with the goal of making their war contractor buddies rich.

          • Independent1 says:

            I agree very strongly with your last sentence. Given that the majority of GOP candidates get big bucks in donations from defense industry contractors, they’re constantly doing what they can to promote the military (even to the point of supporting the manufacture of weaponry that the Pentagon doesn’t even want).

          • Independent1 says:

            Whatever fantasy right-wingers want to make up in order to suck up to their base.

          • Independent1 says:

            Dominick, I don’t mean to downplay what you’re saying, but isn’t it a bit early in the game yet to be judging the election outcome? So far, the GOP presidential debates have been a farce.

            I’m hoping that in the presidential debates that are an actual run-up to the election (when presidential candidates actually have to describe what they will and will not do; and are not able to get away with just simply spewing hate rhetoric at one another and more BS), that either Clinton or Sanders will be able to make even some of the most clueless in America, aware of just how unqualified virtually any of the GOP candidates is; and that putting whomever turns out to be the GOP candidate into the presidency, would be a disaster for America.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            You have no idea how much I am looking forward to Trump in an actual presidential debate.

        • nana4gj says:

          What about keeping a very strong voice in the Senate and a strong voice in the WH?

      • RED says:

        Sounds nice, I love President Obama, I think he has been a great President and has really out smarted the ignorant Cons at nearly every turn. But Obama is not as much of a liberal progressive viewpoint that we need. Again, a great President but his beliefs are in bi-partisanism and neoliberalism. Those things are not great for our country going forward. We’ve got a lot to correct.

    • nana4gj says:

      Clinton will not throw away everything re the SCOTUS to appease Republicans. I, too, hate the partisan divide when it comes to Justice and the Constitutional Rights of the American people, the basis for everything.

      I would like to believe this is the last and final “stunt” of obstruction, sabotage, and near treasonous behaviors of the Republicans and the final proof of their disrespect of the country and her people, but, it is one of many, and I doubt it will be their demise, though I do hope and pray and expect that people of reason and sanity will vote to end this reign of terror of theirs.

      • Bob Eddy says:

        The demise of this iteration of the Republican party could come about quite quickly. As it stands they have become a very regional party with the concentration in the old confederacy and a swath up the middle of the country. They have several major problems. First, much of their influence has come as a result of voter suppression and gerrymandering. The are just beginning to learn that there severe limits to minority rule, thus the demise oh John Boehner. Demographics is totally against them. The base of their party is older while men. They have little appeal in younger Americans and even less in the minority groups who are soon to be a majority. Their voters, the conservative evangelicals have become disillusioned after seeing that their party can not stop social progress. Their financial backers are beginning to realize that no amount of money will elect a Jeb Bush or a Ted Cruz. They spent more than a billion dollars trying to get Romney in the White house to no avail. Finally the demise of Scalia puts three issues up that could prove disasterous. Citizens United, the voting rights act and worker rights. They will lose the Senate and the White HouseHouse this year and it won’t be long before the House falls. Then they have a choice. Work for the benefit of the American people or cease to exist.

        • nana4gj says:

          It can’t happen soon enough. There is no election too small, too insignificant to get up and vote, not just the Presidentials every four years. It has finally reached the emergent level.

          What we have is Republicans, issuing their Fatwahs, their Intefadas, to perpetrate their reign of terror and seize complete control. They have done everything, including obstruction, sabotage, to undermine this country

          Every opportunity we have to purge them from positions of any power and influence, we must seize. It’s really unfortunate to have to believe that a two party system is no longer viable or healthy in our government. But, to believe anything else would be Denial.

          In spite of every obstacle they place before us, we must vote them out every chance we have. I do not know how anyone with any sense could consider any one of those dozen and half, each one claiming to be qualified to be a President. Their Primary has been one big Emotional LSD trip for themselves and their “fans”.

          Watching the interviews of the primary voters before they vote in the past two primaries, I am stunned at how they claim to not know for whom they will vote, steps away from casting that vote, among all of the equally pathetic choices they have, and they often move from one extreme to the other, considering them equally, I guess, on some magical message right before they pull the lever, or however, or, I suppose, how the “mood” hits them at the critical moment.

          And, then, the utter chuzpa of criticizing the two choices on the other side, either one infinitely more capable. But, unless we give either of them a Congress with which to work on our behalf, the reign of terror continues.

          Republicans need no more “autopsies”. They need one big exorcism.

  13. oldlion says:

    People like Scalia are largely responsible for the lack of civility in today’s political discourse. The popular term of political correctness is just a justification for hateful, mean spirited speech. His disdain for anyone that disagreed with his opinions was not very judicial. I would have preferred he resigned, but dead is good.

  14. Mr Corrections says:

    He wasn’t a conservative, he was a Republican. There’s no longer any connection between those two labels.

    • Independent1 says:

      You sure got that right!! Anyone who believes that today’s Republicans are true conservatives, or even true Christians, is living in fantasy land!!

  15. nana4gj says:

    President Obama will do his Constitutional duty and nominate a SCOTUS and ask the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm or deny, but the SJC will either categorically deny, if they even deliberate and vote, or they will delay, delay, delay, stall, stall, and stall.

    I thought I understood from commentary on cable news that the 4/4 remaining Supreme Court, the issues facing them are such that it may swing to the more liberal side because of some “quirk” in how it works in that kind of situation, sort of like the quirks of the coin tosses….I may have misunderstood.

    If there is anything to what I understood, it may be in the SJC best interest to fill that vacancy and take their chances, rather than to let something happen by default.

    • Steve Batchelor says:

      If they are in a 4-4 deadlock then the lower courts ruling stands!

    • TZToronto says:

      The SJC will try to sit on President Obama’s nomination. Once they make a decision, if they do, McConnell will refuse to bring it to a vote. If he’s forced to bring it to a vote (public opinion?), the Republican obstructionist majority will prevail, regardless of the nominee. The new President will be a Democrat, and his or her nomination will be blocked, unless the Democrats retake the Senate. Then the Republicans will do whatever they can to block any nominee, regardless of how qualified the nominee may be. They’ll even try to block someone they like.

    • charleo1 says:

      Politically speaking, that would be the smart thing to do. When was the last time the GOP done the smart thing? So, here’s what will happen.

  16. Marv Nochowitz says:

    I am sorry Scalia died. I just wish I was sorry 7 years ago

  17. @HawaiianTater says:

    I genuinely hate that the Supreme Court is such a partisan issue. It shouldn’t be a situation where conservatives or liberals get to stack it one way or the other to enforce an agenda. The Supreme Court should be the ONE place that is above liberals vs. conservatives. Political leaning should play no role in how they make their decisions, yet it is the number one reason how they decide cases. I’ve hated it as the conservatives have had their majority but I don’t think it’s right when liberals have a majority either.

    That said, I understand how the game is played and the court needs a liberal majority for a few decades just to undo the damage Scalia helped inflict on the country. Count me as first in line to dance on his grave. I do not buy for a second that you should not speak ill of the dead. If you are evil in life, you are evil in death. You don’t magically become a saint when you turn into a rotting corpse. Scalia never cared about enforcing the Constitution in a fair manner. The only thing he ever cared about was enforcing his conservative Christian theocratic agenda. The world is always a better place when evil men in positions of extreme power leave the land of the living.

    As far as the empty seat goes… Republicans are screwed either way. Allowing Obama to make another appointment would be seen as a betrayal by their base but not allowing the president to appoint someone would be seen as a blatant disregard of the Constitution, which would damage their reputation with the crucial Independent vote. For people who claim to love the Constitution so much, not abiding by it would put their hypocrisy on full display for the public to see.

    They abhor the idea of allowing Obama to make another appointment but leaving the seat empty going into the election will damage their chances at the WH even more than they already are. People who pay attention to politics have long been aware of what is at stake regarding the SC but the death of Scalia has put this issue even more into the national spotlight. When more people realize just how much is at stake with this election, they will show up in droves to prevent conservatives from undoing the past century of progress that we have made as a country.

    Sorry (not sorry) conservatives, your reign of terror is quickly coming to an end.

    • charleo1 says:

      Good points.

    • Dominick Vila says:

      I agree with everything you said, but I am not as confident when it comes to the outcome of the 2016 election. I think we will win, regardless of who our nominee is, but it is not going to be the landslide that many of us predicted a few months ago.
      Consider the reaction to Trump reminding Jeb that the Twin Towers came down when W was in office. Instead of being outraged at such admission, after years of trying to convince everyone that W kept us safe, the GOP base either does not understand the damage that Trump is doing to their party, or share his hatred towards the GOP establishment. I love it!

      • @HawaiianTater says:

        I don’t have the numbers in front of me but I believe it is projected that the GOP would need to win about 30% of the minority vote to take the WH. Can you honestly tell me that you think 30% or anywhere near that would vote for Trump? The percentage of the minority vote for Republicans has been successively going down for decades, while at the same time, their percentage of the voting bloc has been going up. Trump (and the rest of the GOP) is trying to win the WH almost solely on the white vote and there simply is not enough of a percentage of white people anymore to accomplish that.

        Remember after they got their butts whipped in 2012 what the GOP experts told them they would have to do to be competitive in a presidential election? Not only have they not done those things, they have doubled down on the things that caused them to lose so badly last time. Let’s not forget the single women vote either. That’s another very important voting bloc that won’t be voting for Trump. Add demographics in with the electoral college and you’ve got a lock for the Dems.

        I don’t know how much of a landslide it will be but I am very confident in saying that there is no chance in hell of Trump winning the general election.

        • Insinnergy says:

          Indeed… it was most amusing to watch the Republican’s own working Group … I guess it was called the “Why Mitch Failed” Group…. come up with a long list of key points… Which they studiously ignored (or maybe “denied” might fit better) and replaced all those unpalatable, sane strategies with the statement that they just needed to communicate their platform and message more clearly.

          Trump’s here.
          I guess that’s about as clear as it gets.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            LOL @ “Mitch”

            “they just needed to communicate their platform and message more clearly.”

            You’re right though. Their “experts” told them that if they wanted to be competitive in a presidential election, they would need to tone down the far right wing rhetoric and appeal more to minorities and single women. Instead of listening to that advice, they convinced themselves that the reason Mitt lost so badly was because he wasn’t conservative ENOUGH. Rather than heading back towards the middle and trying to be moderate enough to win a general election, they went even further to the right because in their minds, Mitt was too moderate, therefore he didn’t inspire enough conservatives to get out and vote. What they fail to realize is that their idea of Mitt being too moderate was viewed by the country as Mitt being too far to the right. They believe that if they can just nominate someone who is a pure conservative, that it will somehow drive enough people to the polls to win an election.

            That’s not what is going to happen though. It’s going to cause them to lose even worse than last time. They don’t seem to understand that the USA is not a far right wing conservative country by majority and you can’t win the WH by using that strategy. I somehow doubt they will learn their lesson though. I predict the party will break apart first. They are barely holding it together as it is. After taking a pounding this year all the way up and down the ballot, I believe the GOP as we know it will cease to exist.

            At least, that’s what the optimist in me believes. Let’s hope I am right. The future of the USA depends on it.

    • angryspittle says:

      Well be careful dancing on his grave because of all the piss that will be there. It might be slippery.

  18. charleo1 says:

    Scalia was known, and most likely nominated by President Reagan for his originalist interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is NOT a living document, held Scalia. Which essentially made him not a pioneer of justice, seeking a more perfect union. But an obstructionists in the interest of the monied elite. Holding that ground which Reagan had so effectively taken back from FDR’s legacy. And while serving those interests, naturally sought to roll back gains in Civil Rights, by radically turning once again to the sections of law dealing with property Rights, he determined were immortal tenents in an essentially dead unchangeable document. Bringing his considerable influence on the Court more in line with the segregationist factions that gave us Court of Plessy v. Ferguson. And early 20th century moralists, and prohibitionists. Where, Scalia might have ask if he had served at the time. Where in the Constitution does it a say a man is entitled to a drink? That Gays are entitled to the same Right to marry, A State may not impose a poll tax? A woman to her reproductive Rights, Or a man to his property, or to the Right of a State to regulate it’s schools, or trains, or lunch counters? To segregate? Where in the Constitution does it forbid? That unfortunately will be Scalia’s sad legacy he will leave to the ages. Pity.

    • RED says:

      What you say about Scalia is true of all ignorant Cons. The will all be remembered as a immoral destructive force, much how the segregationist, Nazis, other ignorant morons are viewed today. And so too will the Cons, provided they don’t succeed in their mission to destroy society or humanity. Actually, even then they will be remembered as scum.

      • charleo1 says:

        Lying comes with the territory, when the mission is to convince people you have every intention of screwing over, to walk into a voting booth, and hand you the means with which to do it. Then once the marks have been royally screwed, spin the entire con off on your political rivals. That’s the game. And it can’t be played without the fig leaf of credibility, and twistings of the law high profile shills like Scalia are able to deliver.

  19. Dominick Vila says:

    Considering how little political capital President Obama has in Congress, and the fact that the GOP is determined to score political points to influence the outcome of the upcoming election, he is likely to nominate a Justice that is a constitutional scholar, and a person with a judicial record that is based strictly on the interpretation of the Constitution and existing laws.
    If he does that, and Republicans in Congress oppose his choice, that would backfire on the GOP, a fact that senior Republicans are well aware of. In such eventuality, Republicans in Congress would be faced with the dilemma of satisfy the wishes of the far right, and avoiding appearing as ideological zealots and damaging whatever little support they may have among moderate voters.

    • Jinmichigan says:

      Repubs will block anyone he nominates. Bet on it.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        They will. Wouldn’t it be funny if he nominates one of those former moderate Republicans who did not seek re-elected because they were disgusted with the tactics and rhetoric that have taken over our political process

      • angryspittle says:

        Yep. And then they just might have to contend with a Sanders nominee with a democratic senate!

    • @HawaiianTater says:

      Republicans allow Obama to appoint the next SCJ: we win.

      Republicans do not allow Obama to appoint the next SCJ: we win.

      Some days life is better than others.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        The worst part of this scenario is not the fact that Republicans will reject whomever President Obama nominates, that was a given, what is amazing is to hear senior Congressional leaders rejecting before anyone is nominated or vetted. To say that our political system has been hijacked by big money and extreme ideology is an under statement. Then again, let not forget Mitch McConnel’s admission that the obstructionism that delayed the economic recovery and caused so much pain and misery to millions of American was a deliberate tactic to ensure President Obama was a one-term president, and the people of Kentucky re-elected him by a comfortable margin. BTW, things like that are the reason I am pessimistic about getting back the House, and winning the WH by a comfortable margin. Sometimes, it almost seem as if we are surrounded by zombies…or traitors.

        • @HawaiianTater says:

          The worst part of this scenario is definitely not the fact that Republicans will reject whomever President Obama nominates… that’s the BEST part of this scenario. It should give you all the optimism in the world concerning the presidential election and the Senate. Of course, the House is an entirely different matter altogether.

          • RED says:

            I’d be ecstatic to see Bernie nominate not only the next justice butya couple more after that. Might actually save our country from the toilet the Cons are bent on flushing it down.

        • nana4gj says:

          We should do as they do. We should file a class action sit against the Senate for non performance of their Constitutional duty and for negligence in the performance of their duty if they do vote categorically against whomever is nominated, even if credentials make that individual perfectly non controversial.

          They abdicate their Constitutional duties and violate their Constitutional Oath of Office in any case and for the upteenth time. In this case, it is bordering on criminal negligence, all for politics.

          I know it would be unprecedented, never done before, maybe even not allowed to be done, but, these are unprecedented behaviors of Republican elected officials in the most powerful offices of this country.

          We may even file to Impeach them, the Senate Judiciary Committee. Where is the team of attorneys, forget their names, Bois and the other fellow, who argue before the SC, “rivals” who joined in a suit on behalf of LGBT rights?

    • charleo1 says:

      Well, you say Constitutional Scholar. Yes of course. But, for half the RW that would be huge disqualifier right there! The formal book learnin’ I mean.

    • Sand_Cat says:

      You write as if there’s some doubt the GOP will oppose his choice.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Mitch McConnell promised to block any and every SCOTUS nominations made by President Obama. However, some senior Republicans are already backpedaling, and are making statements such as Obama has to nominate a consensus builder. I think they realized that it is not in their best interest to keep a SCOTUS with an even number of progressives and conservatives for a year, and that such a split would be a disaster if they try to pull a pregnant chad caper again. Add to that the probability of a Hillary or Bernie presidency, and the Dems in control of the Senate and it will be game over for conservatives. They will block President Obama’s first nomination, but they will confirm the second or third.

  20. Whittier5 says:

    “conservative” does not describe Scalia at all accurately. He was a paleo and a Radical Reactionary, Activist Revisionist. He wanted to take America back to BEFORE the Beginning.

    Before and in the Beginning, America was a Cotton and Tobacco Republic. In Nov 2000, in the age of Global Climate Chaos, he spearheaded efforts to turn America into a Banana Republic – and succeeded.

    Scalia, an ardent Opus Dei member, will be remembered as the single greatest destroyer of the Republic. He will be remembered, but as one of the worst of Americans.

  21. Scalia was a living judicial symbol of a force that resists Progress and Reconciliation, similar to the executive symbols like Reagan, Nixon(and other Conservative POTUS’s from the dim past up to the Bush Era). Most of the Legislative Branch is afflicted with the same “disease”. These branches have for much of America’s history mirrored this dysfunctional and disjointed way at looking at society and at humanity as a whole.

    The dysfunction I speak of is based on a distortion of human reality which is motivated by a compelling urge to categorize people based on the man-made concept of race and the connection of that term with skin color, religious background, tribal affiliation, national origin, and/or ethnicity.

    That categorization was formalized by those “Africans” who migrated into what is called Europe, some 30,000 years or more ago. Their words and writings valorized the evolved change in skin color and outer features they developed by associating such outer “garments” with the notions of “good/pure” and “evil/bad”. Anyone, or group, which failed to meet that new “European” criterion constructed by those African-descendants, was deemed as “inferior”, “the other”, the “outsiders”, and similar negative connotations.

    The desire to separate into groups along tribal, family lineage, culture, outer features is part of being human. As a visitor to Nigeria, Liberia, Oman, Brazil, I saw similar expressions of differentiation(some overt, and some subtle), along lines of tribal/ethnic affiliation, degree of lightness of skin color, facial features, as I interacted with people.

    Scalia, as an Italian immigrant, as well as others from Europe, brought to America this tendency to compartmentalize humanity according to outer features, of which skin color is the most striking form. Laws were enacted in the early colonies to legalize discrimination along “race” and “color” , became part of the judicial code, and was enacted by the Executive branches.

    Scalia, Reagan, Nixon, et al, were sincere in their desire to maintain this categorization and the attendant power structure and status quo, despite the obvious devastation it inflicted on those who were at the bottom of the “Purity” scale.
    The concept of “purity” led to “Anti-Miscegenation” laws which were put on the books in Maryland and Virginia first in the 16th Century, was upheld by the Courts as “proper”, and dutifully enforced and carefully coded by the Legislative and Executive branches of America—“Jim Crow” laws in the South were a natural outcome of such a social atmosphere.

    Scalia and his ancestors were at first denied the status of “whiteness”, as were other non-British arrivals. But later they were “elevated” to that rank, and derived the privileges that came with the membership—“Blacks and Native Americans need not apply”. Ironically, Scalia fought to deny the same basic human rights and privileges that were eventually granted to Italians by blocking efforts to afford equality to other disenfranchised humans. Catholicism and other Christian sects were unable to dissuade him from such attitudes because such institutions no longer had/have the “New Wine” required to enlighten him.

    And now, Congressmen, and their constituents back home, want to insure that that stale and worn-out beat goes on—such a motivation is woven into the very fabric of being “Conservative”. Only one force can break this spiritual/social impasse, and that “force” gave rise to a revitalizing breeze enshrined in words such as these:

    “O YE children of men! The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity.”—-From ‘Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah”.

    The Religious systems of the past didn’t have the mandate to bring about the mind-set called for in the above sample passage.because humanity wasn’t ready. It is from Religion that real change in attitudes and feeling comes. Laws and man-made principles can dictate what or how things should be—but such things don’t change the “heart”; they merely “inform” the mind.

    As a result, such Systems didn’t have the efficacy to edify the consciousness of Scalia, other conservatives, and the rest of the world’s human family to embrace the “new consciousness”. This is why the attitudes of “Us Versus Them” still resound so loudly in our thinking, actions, and conversations. This is why Scalia and others remained, and remain, adamantly opposed to an ideal like affirmative action and insist on looking though the lenses of “Separation of the ‘Races’ “, or via the false notion of “Separate but Equal”—the latter is one of the great oxymorons of America. The High Court struck down “separate but equal” but the spirit of that ideology remained and informed the notions of Scalia, and other Conservatives then and now.

    I need to keep working on ridding myself of every vestige of that “Old World” thinking. It’s hard, but it can be done.

    R.I.P. Antonin Scalia

  22. Nick says:

    A thorough investigation is needed before this president can even consider anybody else. I’m not buying this natural causes for a sitting judge. This looks like foul play. We are owed this investigation, and we should not put him in the grave yet.

    • @HawaiianTater says:

      LOL

    • Bob Eddy says:

      Of course you’re not buying it. That’s what rightwing whacko nuts do. Deny reality. Let’s face it, no matter how many investigation prove it was natural causes, you would be convinced that somewhere out there one email is lurking that would prove your case. Let’s bury the loathsome SOB and move on.

      • Nick says:

        If you think a thorough investigation was done in less than 24hrs then you’re the nut. Stop watching TV and take a course at your local community college.

        • Bob Eddy says:

          I have no idea if a through investigation has been done or if the investigation is over. What I DO know is that a half dozen investigation exonerating Hillary Clinton in the Bengazi matter was not enough for right wing crazies. That 25 years of harassment and character assassination without uncovering any credible evidence of any criminal wrong doing does not satisfy the whacko right that the Clinton’s aren’t criminals. A 4 year $10 million investigation by the Bush administration that failed to turn up evidence of any systemic voter fraud does not convince you it does not exist. BTW, you wretched little puke, I seldom watch TV and have degrees in biology and physics with a minor in political science. I doubt a course at my local junior college will teach me anything I don’t know.

        • Sand_Cat says:

          Well, I see how you could suggest it. I think Bob Eddy has answered your question more than sufficiently, and I add my support to his answer.

    • angryspittle says:

      Are you fucking kidding?

    • Independent1 says:

      His family and physician apparently were not overly surprised about his passing; as it was his family that nixed having an autopsy done. His physician said he suffered from several chronic illnesses; being fairly overweight one of them may have been sleep apnea and he may have simply stopped breathing long enough during his sleep for his heart to have simply stopped. The last I read was that they didn’t suspect a heart attack; but rather that his heart just stopped which is what the article said would be on the death certificate: death by natural causes.

    • Sand_Cat says:

      Another witch hunt to blame Obama and Hillary (and now Bernie, too) by the jackasses in the majority in the House and Senate? How could you even think it?

    • pisces63 says:

      It was God trying to tell you something.
      How dare you say there should be this investigation. There you go again, bigots united. Look at the idiot republicans telling a sitting president what he can and cannot do. Name a president where this happened. One!! Some had nominees that were rejected like Bork. The bigotry will show every time and then you will say I played the race card. No, dear, I played the hand I have been given since a 6th grader. I’ll be 67 on the 27th. This was God’s work. Period. In fact, THAT’s how he works. Not get after gays. People you do not like. He goes after the mean spirited, hateful people. He was at a luxury resort, with whom and doing what. I’ll bet there is a cover up, knowing how rich white men cover their collective butts.

  23. angryspittle says:

    Adios you short fingered vulgarian. And good riddance.

  24. Insinnergy says:

    About time. His opinions… the ones actually written by him… were starting to contradict themselves.
    I doubt the Constitution was the reason. More: pure political idealism.

    A great argument for term limits.

  25. Sand_Cat says:

    He appears to have had a fine sense of humor and apparently was a warm and faithful friend, but the man did enormous damage to the country, then had the effrontery to whine that bad court decisions are undermining our democratic system after having just voted for several of the very worst.
    I’m glad he won’t be on the court anymore, but the GOP obviously plans to try to install someone far worse to replace him.

  26. rick gureghian says:

    No tears here!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.