(February 13, 2016 at 7:39 pm)Cecelia Wrote: I'm sure History will not remember him as well as Conservatives are hoping it will.

Why not? Even Kissinger is hardly ever mentioned as the war criminal he is. But I guess, a guy like Scalia will only be remembered in conservative circles. He didn't leave a real imprint on history.

(February 13, 2016 at 7:49 pm)Minimalist Wrote: 3 words for McConnell.

GO.  FUCK. YOURSELF.

Well, there should also  be some invective for Harry Reid for fucking up the status quo.  Obvious to EVERYONE except Harry, there would be a day of reckoning for his fuck up.  And here we are, a self inflicted wound of significant import.

Lindsey Graham was on making this point, and I may not be happy admitting it, but he's 100% correct.

Keep in mind though, if it looks like the 'pubs are not going to win and Hill/Bern's nominee is going to be worse (from the 'pub perspective) Obama might still get his pick.

Also, I keep hating to harp on Souter, but I could see a similar scenario happening.  Historically, it does occur, despite attempts to prevent it.

Scalia said the worst thing I've ever heard a jurist say: 'Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.' More concerned with the process than actual guilt or innocence.

Boru

(February 13, 2016 at 8:42 pm)abaris Wrote: Why not? Even Kissinger is hardly ever mentioned as the war criminal he is. But I guess, a guy like Scalia will only be remembered in conservative circles. He didn't leave a real imprint on history.

Kissinger is still alive, and there's many years yet before History will judge either of them.

(February 13, 2016 at 6:38 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Yeah, in the current polarized climate, even a someone viewed as a 'centrist' might not garner any republican votes, and if the democratic nominee is looking shaky in the run against Trump or Cruz or Rubio, Obama might muff his chance and it gets handed off to next prez.

Sitting on a Supreme Court nomination in an election year would be very dangerous political for the Republicans, and is a move that could easily be leveraged against them.

I for one will not shed a single tear at Scalia's passing.

(February 13, 2016 at 8:44 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: I keep hating to harp on Souter, but I could see a similar scenario happening.  Historically, it does occur, despite attempts to prevent it.

It's more likely to happen if Obama manages to push a compromise justice through but:

If a Republican wins the Presidency and gets to make the pick, their guy would probably pick somebody worse than an anti-Souter. If a Democrat wins, we get to pick 1-3 to replace Ginsburg, Breyer and/or Kennedy anyway. It seems like the odds are better for Obama taking a chance if he gets it.

The New York Times is reporting that no cause of death has been reported.

Autoerotic asphyxiation?

Too soon?

Nope, not too soon for  that fuck.

(February 13, 2016 at 9:05 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: The New York Times is reporting that no cause of death has been reported.

Autoerotic asphyxiation?

Too soon?

That would be hilarious, lol.

He supposedly said he didn't feel well went he went to bed. My guess is something cardiac-related. Perhaps an undiagnosed arrhythmia. It was obviously unexpected.

(February 13, 2016 at 8:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Scalia said the worst thing I've ever heard a jurist say: 'Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.' More concerned with the process than actual guilt or innocence.

Boru

To be fair, he never actually said that.

http://news.lawreader.com/2008/08/30/bar...-to-agree/

The decision was about whether or not new evidence received should be a de facto reason to re-try a case for capital crimes. Scalia's opinion was that the definition of "new evidence" was broad enough that the courts would be choked with cases being retried.

Still, the idea he put forth was that the inevitable backlog was sufficient enough of a reason that if a person uncovered exonerating evidence, the court was not compelled to re-try the case. Not that they couldn't, just that they shouldn't be required to.

So, still shitty, but not as cut and dry as "if we find them guilty, fry 'em."