The decision not to do an autopsy was made by the family. Many families choose not to do an autopsy because they do not want to "desecrate" the body or they think the medical history clearly showed that a cardiac event was likely. Scalia was overweight but I don't really know anything about his medical history.
Scalia
- Thread starter TheCainer
- Start date
I do not believe in it either as much as I realize and accept it happens. I could have worded that better.
I have said what I think will happen(deny judge or block vote/make election a 2nd amendment referendum) and what I think should happen(have a hearing/vote/yes for a moderate, no for a rubber stamping of a political party)
I have voted Democrat before.
For the record, as of now, if Biden or Bloomberg jump in I would likely vote for them in GE. After that I would choose Kasich or Rubio. I would not vote for Clinton, Bernie, Trump, Cruz, Carson, but would consider Bush. I think Kasich while not flawless has the best record out there.
Voted Perot in 92 as well.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Differing stories but supposedly had high bp and was told he was not in good enough shape to have shoulder surgery. Which makes me wonder two things 1) Why did the Dr release that information 2) Kind of odd that he would go hunting not being in good enough shape.
That said, you are right about families wishes. I do think a lot of this conspiracy talk started due to what the man that found him said about the pillow. But really, pretty crazy to think that this was an assassination(not insinuating you do)
1. Not sure Bernie is likely to win a GE. And the news about Clinton just gets worse each day. Just heard her she received an indictment in the fall about her "charity". Not to mention with all of the new emails being found she can no way claim she wa and is not lying. The democrats in debates have been nice to her-will not happen vs Republicans or in GE debates. She will be asked. I think Biden would win comfortably, likely Bloomberg too.
2. I am not seeing the same election numbers from 270towin among other places. And if the Republicans in those states say they have said no to a new SCJ due to 2nd Amendment Rights I can see that being pretty favorable for them in WI, CO, and IL. I find it interesting that all of the Republicans in blue leaning states have already signed up for the block the SCJ movement.
3. Two things-No lose for who? If the lower courts ruled for the left, Republicans have nothing to lose by blocking a new SC. Also, no 4-4 decision will be made. Pretty sure the way it works is any court cases the SC heard while Scalia was in on them are nullified. They do not go to 4-4 or issue a ruling on a case without his vote/argument.
I'm not even going to touch 1-2 but both are pretty much wrong. But 3 is absolutely wrong. they absolutely do go 4-4. The Court has two options, vote with what they got, and if it is 4-4 then the lower court holding stands. That has happened many times in history. It happens because of a vacancy or when a justice recuses themselves. The other option is to hold the case over until the next session. They absolutely do not "nullify" the cases Scalia was on. Either he voted or he didn't. If he voted before he died, it counts, if he did not, then they move on with 8.
It doesn't happen. Talking about it happens, but just flat out obstructing or refusing to review a nomination would be unprecedented, meaning it doesn't happen. Rhetoric about doing such things is all too common, which has been my point to all the folks running around having a hissy fit about what some politicians have said.
I see what you are saying.
I think it was 25 Democrats voted to filibuster Alito. Among them Obama, Biden, Kerry, Clinton, and I think Reid. All big wigs in his Admin. That is not a mistake or by chance. I think we are splitting hairs here but IMO trying to filibuster a SCJ is basically the same as just saying one will deny a hearing or have a hearing and a vote and automatically vote no. I am not buying the regret and symbolism crap he is trying to sell.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...o-filibuster-supreme-court-justice-alito.html
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. That said, as for 1 and 2, everything in there has been reported on. Disagree with it if one wants. As for # 3,I have heard and read this more than one time. And heard it from some real liberal law professors at Harvard as well. I imagine they know what they are talking about. Republicans have nothing to lose by hoping they win an election and appoint a Conservative Justice.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...upreme-court-cases-in-the-2016-term.html?_r=0
did you even read your own link??
Without Justice Scalia, a 4-to-4 split would automatically affirm the appeals court’s ruling without giving reasons and without setting a precedent. In this case, that would uphold the restrictions and close all but about 10 clinics.
I can't recall where at the moment, other than that it was a reputable source (CNN, MSNBC, something like that), but I read an article the day after Scalia died that pointed out that a judge has to be present both at the vote and at the presentation of the ruling for it to be valid. That is, to say that "if he voted before he died, it counts" is incorrect. He would have to be present at the ruling for said vote to count.
Not disputing that, that's true (thus how we are going to get to some 4-4 decisions). What I am disputing because it's completely false is:
"Also, no 4-4 decision will be made. Pretty sure the way it works is any court cases the SC heard while Scalia was in on them are nullified. They do not go to 4-4 or issue a ruling on a case without his vote/argument."
What is even more crazy is he typed that, then went and found the right answer, linked to it, and then doubled down on it.
What this all boils down to is Obama has a choice and then republicans have a choice. Obama can choose a moderate. That will then put pressure on republicans. Of course, to them, anyone to the left of Scalia is a liberal, so not sure there would be a "moderate" they would accept currently.
Obama could choose a liberal...that will probably give the republicans more "room" to block without as much pain. However, the reality is that if (and IMO when) the Dem nominee wins, that nominee will be a liberal, and the Dems will almost certainly win the senate given the landscape. So they are risking getting a more moderate choice now with some control, vice the chance that they have all of the control later (but a much stronger chance of having no control at all).
So, this is the classic bird in the hand situation.
Nice try. But you supplied a link under one of my posts and combined it with wording from another. True, they might or might not go 4-4. If the SCOTUS wants to set a precedent in he case case they likely do not. Anyway, Republicans have nothing to lose by holding out for a conservative justice like I said and supplied link too. Bottom line if the lower court ruled right it likely stays that way due to probable tie. If lower court ruled left, if they hold out for and get a conservative justice with a win in Presidential election, the ruling likely goes back to the right in future.. And yes, Scalita's votes if he did vote are nullified-we will just agree to disagree.
WTF are you talking about? You made a completely wrong argument. I said it was wrong. You directly responded to that with that link and said, see Harvard guys so they must know what they were talking about. I quoted that link to show you how you were, really really wrong and either did not read it, or did not remotely understand it.
Just go ahead and sit the next couple of plays out Champ.
There's really no "agree to disagree" about what the court will do; it's not an opinion. If they vote a 4-4 split, the two options are: re-hear the case when the seat is filled or uphold the lower court's decision. It is unlikely they'll re-hear cases in a situation where the seat is vacant for months. Most of those rulings, but not all, favor a liberal view right now. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about this, or why there's any disagreement. It's a procedure, not an opinion. Saying "no 4-4 decision will be made" indicated a lack of understanding of that procedure.
Let's talk about the "signed up for block the SCOTUS appointment." There isn't a list. There's no binding document requiring them to go with what they said on Monday, February 15th. I think what you're going to see is that Obama's going to nominate a moderate, and the Democrats won't have much issue finding 14 Republicans to go along with them to reach 60. When they weigh the potential backlash amongst independent/moderate voters vs. losing the "base", they're going to recognize that being viewed as obstructionist is not going to help them, particularly those up for election in purple states. Yes, red-blooded Republicans from Red states are going to block the appointment because they've got nothing to lose by doing so.
I suspect both Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio will also vote to block the appointment so long as they're still in the running for the nomination. I suspect that Rubio would work to confirm a moderate if he weren't in the race because he's smart enough to see that getting a moderate in now is better than risking a Ginsberg clone in the event that the Democrats take back the Senate and retain the White House come November. Cruz? He's dumb enough to block it without thinking about the consequences. While I don't share qaz's outlook of inevitability as it pertains to the Democrats winning everything in November, the possibility exists, and I would have to be awfully damn confident in my party's ability to win those elections to employ the "delay, delay, delay" tactic.
I see no reason at this point for the Republicans to harbor such confidence to blindly take so consequential a path. I think many in the party are smart enough to figure that out, and that's why I continue to espouse the notion that all this obstructionist rhetoric is just that.
Let's talk about the "signed up for block the SCOTUS appointment." There isn't a list. There's no binding document requiring them to go with what they said on Monday, February 15th. I think what you're going to see is that Obama's going to nominate a moderate, and the Democrats won't have much issue finding 14 Republicans to go along with them to reach 60. When they weigh the potential backlash amongst independent/moderate voters vs. losing the "base", they're going to recognize that being viewed as obstructionist is not going to help them, particularly those up for election in purple states. Yes, red-blooded Republicans from Red states are going to block the appointment because they've got nothing to lose by doing so.
I suspect both Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio will also vote to block the appointment so long as they're still in the running for the nomination. I suspect that Rubio would work to confirm a moderate if he weren't in the race because he's smart enough to see that getting a moderate in now is better than risking a Ginsberg clone in the event that the Democrats take back the Senate and retain the White House come November. Cruz? He's dumb enough to block it without thinking about the consequences. While I don't share qaz's outlook of inevitability as it pertains to the Democrats winning everything in November, the possibility exists, and I would have to be awfully damn confident in my party's ability to win those elections to employ the "delay, delay, delay" tactic.
I see no reason at this point for the Republicans to harbor such confidence to blindly take so consequential a path. I think many in the party are smart enough to figure that out, and that's why I continue to espouse the notion that all this obstructionist rhetoric is just that.
Last edited:
obama already said he won't nominate a moderate. This is a man who in the senate voted more along the lines with Democrats than Hillary. He is nothing but a shill. The repubs in all their stupidity, actually should block this. They own both houses and the most popular prez candidate. Easy decision. Absolutely no reason to accept another new york city lawyer wingnut into the SC.
Please cite the quote where Obama said that. In fact, he hasn't. He HAS specifically said he will not nominate a hard liberal justice to unify the Democratic party in an election year. He specifically said he hasn't determined if he will nominate a moderate or not. He has not - not once - said he will not nominate a moderate.
Furthermore, who do you think is the "most popular prez candidate"? I'm assuming you think it's Trump, who gets trounced in every poll against both Democratic candidates (Clinton +3%, Sanders +6% as of today according to RCP), and who doesn't have broad support of his own party yet.
Winning a primary and being "popular" within your party are two different things. Remember, a majority of Republicans at this point do NOT support Trump. (In fact, they don't support any particular candidate). A Trump nomination will be the equivalent of handing the election to HRC/Sanders, make no mistake about that.
If Obama goes hard left, that's his right. Now, will he have given up some "high ground?" Sure. There's plenty of precedent blocking/voting down an extreme nominee on both sides. It does not make him a "shill." Alito is a far right wing nominee...was Bush a shill to nominate him?
The bottom line is, the President nominates who he/she wants. If you want conservatives on the supreme court, then elect a President. If a Dem is elected, guess what, you will get liberals on the court. Pretty easy formula.
I personally am fine with a moderate to an extent. But to be honest, would prefer he nominate a liberal judge. We've had decades of a conservative 5-4 court...so it's mighty fine to flip that for a little while.
The bottom line is, the President nominates who he/she wants. If you want conservatives on the supreme court, then elect a President. If a Dem is elected, guess what, you will get liberals on the court. Pretty easy formula.
I personally am fine with a moderate to an extent. But to be honest, would prefer he nominate a liberal judge. We've had decades of a conservative 5-4 court...so it's mighty fine to flip that for a little while.
No need to sit out. Go back up and look at the posts. My quote and the post about Harvard is in no way tied to the comment on 4-4 but in how the Republicans have nothing to lose by waiting it out which you did not agree with farther up.
"They absolutely do not "nullify" the cases Scalia was on. Either he voted or he didn't. If he voted before he died, it counts, if he did not, then they move on with 8."(Quote farther up from another poster).
Sorry, simply not true.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/what-happens-the-big-supreme-court-cases-after-scalias-death
Fourth paragraph down. Yes, we agree to disagree. From Harvard Profs I just spoke too and now a UM Prof that interned for RBG per article. I think they know what they are talking about. Scalia whether he voted or not, and his arguments, are essentially nullified. I even supplied an article from MSNBC-so no FOX bias can be claimed.
A case that is 4-4 is basically nil. Just supports the local court in its jurisdiction. Not the law of the land. I suppose with Kennedy switching sides some of these could go 5-3 which would make it legit US Law.
Like my original argument at the beginning of thread said, Republicans really have nothing to lose by waiting this out if they choose to wait. A 4-4 does not make decision law of land. And if it is re heard with a conservative justice they would win.
I would like to see a moderate be nominated and voted on as well. Not sure that happens with Obama's track records and recent quotes. I agree that Cruz and Trump will delay and block all day long which is why I do not want them to win. Those moves typically get held against people when one needs to work with them in the future. I think Rubio will do what he thinks will best help him win Presidency and does not care much if a Ginsberg ends up getting in. He has said he is not running for Senate and is basically moving on if he does not win Presidency.
I think either party counting on winning in the fall is being too optimistic. I also think that people are over reacting to what McConnell said. What he actually said that caused a firestorm was really pretty benign. I think the 5-6 Senators that have a tough re election evantually say they support a hearing and a vote. Then with looking at polling considering the states they are in-they either make it a 2nd Amendment referendum or evantually approve nominee..
Well he recently just said twice, while laughing and looking amused, that he never said he would be nominating a moderate. Do the math-listen to what he said and look at his track record. I do not disagree with your opinion about Trump and support for him among Republicans. However, some polls done show that up to 20% of Dems would vote for Trump over Hilary-so who knows?
And those polls you mention are a bit dated. There are some new ones out. Pretty surprising in some instances.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
You can infer what you think based on what he's said, but to say Obama has come out and said he won't nominate a moderate is false. He's not said that. I also don't think he'll nominate a liberal this time because he knows it won't get confirmed. We can agree to disagree on that... I understand that arguing Obama as anything but a left-wing devil meets with disapproval from the right just like any criticism of any policy of his meets with disapproval from the left.
"Dated"? I quoted the RCP aggregate polls which show Sanders +3, Clinton +6 based on the latest from each poll. Yes, the Q polls now show Sanders +6 and Clinton +1, but that still doesn't make Trump the "most popular candidate". He doesn't even have anything close to majority support in his own (supposed) party.
Based on those latest Q polls, the most popular candidate right now is Sanders, and I seriously doubt that's what the previous poster was trying to say given the rest of his post.
Thanks for clarifying agree to disagree. I misinterpreted what you were disagreeing about.
I disagree that Republicans have nothing to lose. They have nothing to lose if Obama nominates a hard left liberal. They could lose big if Obama nominates a moderate.
I also think there's a difference between calling a split vote "nil" and established Supreme Court precedent. Upholding a lower court decision doesn't establish precedent, but it supports the current status of the district court ruling. Until the case is heard again, which would require a new case on the same subject being heard by SCOTUS, whatever ruling the lower court comes up with stands and is enforced. Unless SCOTUS picks it up again, it is the law of the land.
If the district court rules that qazplm is a girl, qazplm is treated as a girl until argued otherwise in a separate case heard by a higher court. No legal precedent is set, but it's still the law.
LOL it's been a long time since I've seen someone try to bob and weave to pretend they didn't say what they said. Here let me help you again and directly quote you:
"Also, no 4-4 decision will be made."
Wrong. 4-4 decisions will be made if that's how they fall. So will 5-3 decisions, and 8-0 decisions, and 6-2 decisions and 7-1 decisions.
"Pretty sure the way it works is any court cases the SC heard while Scalia was in on them are nullified."
Wrong. Scalia's vote is not "nullified." If he voted and was at the ruling, it most certainly counts. If he wasn't, then it does not.
"They do not go to 4-4 or issue a ruling on a case without his vote/argument."
Yes, they do without his vote/argument the case drives on. The case has no precedential value but the lower court ruling absolutely does, and it will control in that circuit, and will continue to have persuasive value outside that circuit.
You are now trying to spin that to say what you are really saying is that Scalia's vote is nullified, not the actual case...even though that's not what you said. You are trying to spin it to, no I was saying what you are saying now all along.
Hilarious.
You also appear to believe that circuit court decisions aren't important because they aren't "the law of the land" again showing a pretty strong ignorance of how the law and courts work. The ONLY thing more important than a Circuit Court decision is the Supreme Court in the world of law. A 4-4 decision keeps things status quo which is PARTICULARLY important in cases where the Supreme Court WOULD have changed the status quo, e.g. public sector unions. So "the law of the land" NOT changing is a victory for one side. So your "analysis" is completely off.
If you believe 20% of Dems would vote for Trump I don't know what to tell you.
It's also persuasive. If three circuits rule one way, not only is that pretty compelling, but in circuits where that circuit hasn't ruled, then odds are most courts in that circuit are also going to follow those rulings more often then not. And in cases where one side or the other is trying to change the law of the land...like the affirmative action case, or the case involving public sector unions, the fact that the circuit court decisions agreed with prior SC precedents means that those stand, and they stand in favor of Dems/liberals. And there are quite more of those cases then the other.
IIRC there might only be two significant cases that were before this court where a 4-4 ruling hurts a liberal cause...the rest are quite helpful. So it most certainly is true that the Republicans have something to lose. If Obama nominates a moderate, that moderate might, well, moderate some of the rulings on those 4-4 rulings. If it ends up being a liberal by President Clinton or Sanders, then that's a big loss.
They are simply counting/hoping on winning the presidency at this point.
Please cite the quote
Asked by a reporter if we should interpret his comments to mean he will choose a moderate, the president quickly responded.
"No. I don't know where you found that, you shouldn't assume anything," the President said
Asked by a reporter if we should interpret his comments to mean he will choose a moderate, the president quickly responded.
"No. I don't know where you found that, you shouldn't assume anything," the President said
I did change part of it. I thought I had admitted that there would be a 4-4 ruling. I do still say that in one of your retorts you combined a link with a statement I made in another post which was not the message I wanted to convey. Anyway- I do disagree about what you are stating in regard to Scalia and if he voted his vote counts. He supposedly needs to be present at the actual ruling. Have heard that from some big name attorneys and posted you the link as well.
I appreciate what is done at the Circuit. Not discounting it all. What you state about a lot of the circuit ruling being for the left is actually why Reps do not have anything to lose in terms of waiting for election. Even if they lose election they are still in same boat as now imo
Last edited:
Which isn't the same as him saying he would "not appoint a moderate".
The full quote: "No. I don't know where you found that, you shouldn't assume anything," the President said, "other than they're going to be well-qualified."
Which isn't remotely saying he's not going to appoint a moderate. He said you should not interpret his comments to mean he will choose a moderate. He hasn't decided who to appoint, moderate, liberal, or otherwise. Only a "shill" would read that comment in context the way you chose to.
or... OR... it's all just a bunch of BS rhetoric and totally dependent on who Obama nominates.
At the end of te day, we can all say what we think will happen and what we would like to happen.
Bottom line is after all that rhetoric went out what is certain there is a lot of polling going on to see how it impacted dems/reps/independents. I suspect we will see different tones of rhetoric, different messages from different candidates in their states and that will be analyzed as well-polls will be taken, analysis will be done to see if better results were achieved.
Here is the link to that poll. I will say this article added much more information. It states that 20% of Dems would move from Clinton to Trump, and 15% of Reps would move from Trump to Clinton. Article goes on to say that Dems are more confident in their choice. Note the pollster-hardly biased. It did involve showing a Trump add so that would seem to help him. That said Fox and CNN had polls that showed smaller numbers but still a net positive for Trump in this category.
Cannot say that excites me.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...ald-trump-is-a-real-threat-to-hillary-clinton
"If he voted and was at the ruling, it most certainly counts. If he wasn't, then it does not."
Can you read?
LOL bro you can be mad all you want. I'm independent. I just call out stupidity when I see it. You're just mad I was right. If he was trying to select a moderate he would have replied with something along of the lines of "I am looking for a great candidate who has worked with multiple administrations and will represent Americans fairly". Instead he acts like a petulant 2 year old. Worst prez. He's so immature and does not care one iota to have a properly functioning government. He would be happy to have the seat empty for a year so he can bitch about republicans.
I'm not mad. You're hardly independent. Maybe you don't affiliate with the party, but calling yourself "independent" is an out-and-out lie... you can tell yourself that, but don't try to pass it off on others as truth.
And no, you're not right. You took a single sentence out of context and read into it what you wanted to read into it. I'm no lover of Barack Obama by any stretch of the imagination, and even I can see that.
Exactly right. He'll nominate someone to the left of center, it's just a matter of how far left of center. To dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, anyone he nominates will be a bleeding heart liberal, so we should all be prepared for plenty of "OBAMA BAD!!" no matter who he names.
I suppose the issue is most of the "important" legal battles are fairly black and white these days.
Pro-Roe = not a moderate. Don't believe the 2d Amendment is a purely individual right = not a moderate. On and on. And yes, if you flip the beliefs, it still stands the same way.
I'm a pretty strong believer that Presidents win elections, they nominate, and the Senate should confirm unless they are either unqualified (like Harriet Miers for example) or they are SO extreme that they are off the chart of reasonable (arguably Bork). So folks like Scalia or Alito get on, on the right...and folks like Ginsburg get on, on the left. What the court ends up looking like (right or left) is the consequence of said elections (and to some extent random timing).
Wow this is frightening. The senate should NOT confirm anything it doesn't want to. The ENTIRE point of having the senate review the nomination is checks and balances. Senators win elections too. You need a civics class.
"unless they are either unqualified (like Harriet Miers for example) or they are SO extreme that they are off the chart of reasonable (arguably Bork)." There's your review...and the civics of it have been for most of our history as a nation most nominees get in and fairly easily. The times they don't have been and should be rare.
The entire point is advise and consent. The history is that up until a few decades ago, even folks as extreme as Scalia got in with almost unanimity. Are they qualified? If yes, and if they aren't a raging nutcase, then they should get in. What should not happen is that each side of the aisle demands someone that is more on their side then the other, and ignore that elections have consequences.
The whole point of this is that the public sees the court lean one way or the other and is either collectively ok with that or not, and that becomes a factor in future presidencies. It is not to turn it into year long battles where the court sits below strength for months or a year, and where cases end up left in limbo, not fully resolved, or forced to be re-heard years later.
But hey, if you want to wait for President Clinton/Sanders and a Dem Senate...that's fine with me.
I'm not the one who wants a war over it. I'm for a PROPERLY FUNCTIONING government. But, another new york city lawyer wing nut isn't (and shouldn't) happening.
