Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Justice Antonin Scalia dies at 79

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Justice Antonin Scalia dies at 79

Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1114609

    Pablo
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Cbussmallbiz wrote:</div>
    Obviously a black conservative needs to be told what to think/do.

    Personally, I read Pablo’s comment as a commentary on Thomas’ infamous lack of engagement at SC sessions, rather than on his race, but it’s interesting that’s how you took it.

    That is exactly how I meant it – lack of engagement!

    #1114669

    NEOBuckeye
    Participant

    Scalia was a man of his time. He has now passed, and his time is soon to follow.

    Neither will be missed by the people and groups he pompously and self-righteously held himself above.

    #1114695

    Nancy H
    Participant

    When Obama first took office, it was speculated that if he served two terms as President, he could end up filling four seats to the Supreme Court. And, that could still happen. Three current judges are getting up there in age.

    I have always though the most significant long lasting influence a US President has on this country is their nominees to the supreme court. Reagan filled three seats on the Court, and they have had lengthy influence. (O’Connor 25 years – Scalia 30 years – Kennedy 28 years) Justice Kennedy is still serving.

    Delaying filling the seat until after the 2016 presidential elections means the seat will sit vacant for 18 or more months. And, what happens if one of the other older judges dies between now and January 20, 2017. We have a three branch government. Filling vacancies in one branch should have zero influence on filling vacancies in another branch.

    #1114712

    UrbanPlanner2112
    Participant

    I think the talk about the Senate blocking the nomination until the next president is a rather short sighted prediction. It seems to imply the republicans are more than 50-50 confident that they will win the white house and retain the Senate. Not to mention, I am not sure a Trump or Cruze nomination would really please republicans all that much more than a moderate Obama nomination.

    Forget Trump or Cruz, what if they end up with Bernie nomination? LOL.

    #1114716
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>wygand wrote:</div>
    I think the talk about the Senate blocking the nomination until the next president is a rather short sighted prediction. It seems to imply the republicans are more than 50-50 confident that they will win the white house and retain the Senate. Not to mention, I am not sure a Trump or Cruze nomination would really please republicans all that much more than a moderate Obama nomination.

    Forget Trump or Cruz, what if they end up with Bernie nomination? LOL.

    Super delegates and the DNC will make sure that doesn’t happen.

    #1114717

    UrbanPlanner2112
    Participant

    Super delegates and the DNC will make sure that doesn’t happen.

    That’s what they said when Obama was taking early races in 2008.

    #1114725
    Ned23
    Ned23
    Participant

    There is absolutely no way the DNC can afford to usurp the election with superdelegates. The party would self-destruct. 2016 will go down in history as a watershed year when the electorate revolted against the party establishment of both major parties. Whatever the outcome in 2016 the 2020 election will look very different than past elections, IMO.

    #1114792

    Mike88
    Participant

    There is absolutely no way the DNC can afford to usurp the election with super delegates. The party would self-destruct. 2016 will go down in history as a watershed year when the electorate revolted against the party establishment of both major parties. Whatever the outcome in 2016 the 2020 election will look very different than past elections, IMO.

    If it got to that point they wouldn’t usurp the electorate; but in the run up they will constantly throw out counts including super delegates to discourage Sanders supporters. If they can get the young electorate that Sanders is doing so well with to feel like their cause is hopeless then he will lose voter turn out and falter. One way to make sure that happens is to constantly talk about how many “delegates” Clinton has and how ‘few’ Bernie has, and never mention that those ‘delegates’ have never gone against the will of the primaries since 1968.

    #1114897

    thomaspickles
    Participant

    Does anybody else think it’s particularly insulting to Scalia, of all people, for the Senate to skirt its constitutional responsibilities?

    Responsibility is to vet the nominee.

    Just listen to Obama’s stance on the issue from 2006 (of course he was a Senator at the time, so probably preferred the Senate have a little more say then, lol):

    “There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

    I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.” – Barack Obama, Jan. 2006

    Source: http://obamaspeeches.com/046-Confirmation-of-Judge-Samuel-Alito-Jr-Obama-Speech.htm

    #1114907
    Chris Sunami
    Chris Sunami
    Participant

    Responsibility is to vet the nominee.

    Very true. I think the issue is the pledge to not consider any nominee regardless of merits:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/more-republicans-say-theyll-block-supreme-court-nomination.html?_r=0

    Senate Republicans on Monday began to close ranks behind a vow by Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, to block consideration of any nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died over the weekend, for the remainder of President Obama’s term.

    #1114910

    Alex Silbajoris
    Participant

    Block consideration of any nominee: “Whatever it is, I’m against it”

    #1114912
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    Never knew that Groucho was on the Clintonville Area Commission. ;)

    #1114940
    Ned23
    Ned23
    Participant

    Well, This story just suddenly got a lot more interesting:

    Scalia’s Luxury Hunting Resort Trip Was Gifted By a ‘Friend’ Who Had Business Before the Supreme Court

    In late 2015, the Supreme Court declined to hear an age discrimination suit (Hinga, James V. Mic Group, LLC) against a subsidiary of the manufacturing company J.B. Poindexter, which is owned by John B. Poindexter. Poindexter also owns the 30,000-acre Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas, where Scalia was vacationing when he died last weekend. According to the Washington Post, Scalia didn’t pay for his flight to the ranch, or for his room at the luxury ranch. His food and beverages were also free. Poindexter maintains that Scalia wasn’t given any preferential treatment,…

Viewing 13 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Local journalism is more important than ever. Please take a moment to read a bit about our mission and consider financially supporting our cause.

CLICK HERE