That was my first thought too! My second was, uh oh here comes Eric Holder.

That is the best one I have heard yet... frankly I am surprised it took this long.

This reminds me of how screwy the US system is.

"This reminds me of how screwy the US system is."

Agreed. Just elect King Bush III or Queen Clinton and let's get back to our hushed admiration for our betters.

Enough of this screwy US system!

You should slap him for that. No one needs to contemplate our horrorshow of a President on the high bench.

He could, however, nominate Hillary after she loses to Sanders.

For Obama to make any nomination, first there has to be a vacancy. Then it has to be approved by the Senate, which currently has a Republican majority, and almost certainly still will have one after the election. The only way that will happen for any controversial nomination is if the Senate leadership sells out - again - and 50 Republican Senators once again fail to do something about it.

It could happen, but it's likely to be the end of the Republican party establishment.

As if the thought hasn't already crossed his mind already. Ha! I'll bet he had Scalia bumped off just so he could have the opportunity. It wouldn't be the first time he "erased" someone to make way for him.

But, on the bright side; while Obama was in the senate (less than a full senate term it should be noted) he rarely voted and when he did it was often a vote of "present." So, just how much more damage can he do sitting on the Supreme Court? In fact, he will more likely than not spend his time playing on the basketball court instead.

Or just think how delighted the ladies on The View would be when a current Supreme Court Judge comes n their show!

Seriously though, Obama would not take Scalia's seat. Why? Because only Chief Justice would be good enough for him.

I like the way Scalia opined that just because you're wrongly convicted of murder the state doesn't have any obligation not to execute your innocent ass.

Because Constitution, and applesauce, and jiggery-pokery, you hippies!

That's quite an unique Valentine's day gift.

God called Antonin to heaven because He knew that he was suffering tremendously under the iron fist of the gay agenda.

I liked this, posted on another board:

I will only paraphrase what the great Bette Davis allegedly said upon hearing of Joan Crawford's passing: "My mother told me to only speak good of the dead. Antonin Scalia is dead. Good."

Apparently Greg's thoughts weren't unique. Fark is covered in calls for him to nominate himself, Hillary, or Warren.

Mitch McConnell: "The American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice. There, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

I'm really touched by McConnell's concern for the American people. If a Republican was currently president, and the most liberal SC justice just died, I'm sure he'd be expressing the same concern.

Somebody needs to alert Mitch that the President is in the White House because the people DID speak (in much the same way that Mitch got his own little spigot on the Congressional gravy boat).

Personally I'm hoping Obama nominates a pierced and tattooed purple-haired left-handed soccer-loving Zoroastrian mycologist.

Just because of the fireworks.

Okay, off to the late show. It is, after all, Saturday evening! People to do, things to see.

It's the president's prerogative to appoint a Supreme Court justice when a vacancy occurs. Nay, it's his job. It's his job to carefully consider candidates and pick the most qualified one (in terms of legal knowledge, temperament, and wisdom). The Senate's job is to weigh the chosen candidate and confirm or reject the candidate based on a thorough review.

The president should be especially judicious in his nomination when the Senate is of his own party, as a like-minded Senate will be less likely to critically evaluate or reject a nominee.

Obama has failed in his duty with the nomination and rubber-stamp confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor. She is the least intellectually qualified justice in years. The "wise latina" is a bust.

With the Republicans holding the Senate and a Democrat in the White House, we won't be subjected to another partisan puppet like her, but we will be subjected to a protracted and bitter fight over the next nominee. Accusations of racism and sexism will be rampant as Obama pays off whichever ethnic group he's indebted to with his choice of nominee and Republicans "obstruct" him getting what he wants.

Obama's unwillingness to compromise, partisanship, and favorable views on legislating from the bench mean we'll get a nominee who has never deviated from leftist positions. Republicans will rant and do all they can to block the nomination, demanding the moderate nominee they're unwilling to put forth when they completely control the process.

Perhaps a Socialist president (Feel the Bern) and a left-wing court is what we need to finally put Western flirtations with Communism and Socialism in their well-earned graves. So far a morally and financially bankrupt Europe and millions of murdered innocents across Eastern Europe and Asia haven't been able to do it.

I like the way Scalia opined that just because you're wrongly convicted of murder the state doesn't have any obligation not to execute your innocent ass. ~ Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 13, 2016 7:34 PM

Scalia's position was that there is no tradition in American jurisprudence of being able to overturn a conviction based on new evidence.

Once convicted, one can appeal on procedural grounds. In the event of newly discovered exculpatory evidence, one can request an evidentiary hearing (which Troy Davis requested and got), The pardon/commutation power of the executive branches is generally regarded the fail safe for wrongful conviction.

While Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu took up Davis' cause, a deafening silence from the White House greeted the failure of the evidentiary hearing to overturn Davis' death sentence. Although Obama may have lacked the power to overturn a state court conviction, his lack of jurisdiction never stopped him from weighing in on local law enforcement matters before (remember "the police acted stupidly" and "if I had a son").

In the end, Davis may not have been all that innocent. His lawyers at the evidentiary hearing failed to produce new evidence that he was wrongly convicted in his first trial. His lawyers didn't call witnesses from his earlier trial who had submitted affidavits that they were rescinding their earlier testimony - despite the fact that many were present in the courtroom. Affidavits cannot be cross-examined and so they were assigned less weight than actual testimony given by police to a thorough and impartial investigation. In addition, ballistics showed that the .38 used to kill McPhail had been used in an earlier shooting in which Davis was a suspect.

But yeah, let's blame Scalia - 'cause Conservative grumpy old man and Reagan.

An unexpected friendship, but one that perhaps we should use as a role model for how to disagree and still be civil to each other, to focus on what unites us rather than what divides us.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/141707-this-one-rbg-quote-perfectly-defines-scalias-legacy

Hmm. Scalia was invited on a hunting trip, said he didn't feel well the first day and went to his room to bed. He did not get up the next day, and instead of ANYONE looking in on him, they all happily left to hunt. Hell, if my no-one-important mid-30's friend said they didn't feel well, I'd check in on THEM. Yet it occurred to no one to check in on an elderly Supreme Court Justice?? And the US Marshalls see no reason to investigate? He was killed (possibly by the marshalls supposedly providing security to him). And if Obama gets someone on the bench HE wants, it's the end of our Constitutional Republic. The Founding Fathers had a great vision, too bad it fell so quickly. YouTube search breadlines in Russia-they're coming here soon. Rules for power-hungry government: first you take their guns, then their ability to travel, then their food. Ultimate control.

Conan: An unexpected friendship, but one that perhaps we should use as a role model for how to disagree and still be civil to each other, to focus on what unites us rather than what divides us.

Ginsburg's quote: I disagreed with most of what he said, but I loved the way he said it.

There's a difference, of course, in being friends with someone you disagree with on all (or most) issues, and in being civil to them. I think we should strive to be civil to each other -- and it's very easy to not do that on the internet, where one can hide behind an alias -- but I don't see actually being friends with others as an important goal.

I'm of two minds regarding Ginsburg's quote. One one hand, it seems admirable. But on the other hand, one can view it as elevating style over substance (e.g. Russian woman: "I strongly disagree with Putin's annexation of Crimea but, on the other hand, he's so charming and really has a way with words so he can annex the rest of Ukraine and I'd still support him."

And the US Marshalls see no reason to investigate? He was killed (possibly by the marshalls supposedly providing security to him).

If there's a thorough investigation, I'm sure they'll find out they were gay US Marshalls.

"Scalia's position was that there is no tradition in American jurisprudence of being able to overturn a conviction based on new evidence."

Lost in the trees and unable to see the forest again. Maybe some more corporate-funded "retreats" could have helped him.

Who gives a crap if they were gay? What does that have to do with the fact that he was killed? The JP they finally got to declare him dead of a heart attack Without Even Going To The Scene, may have been gay too, but again, who cares?? Does that make this entire situation any less suspicious? He died and was embalmed, with no one but the Marshalls having seen him. Butbyeah, let's talk about the French and their kids a little more.

Knowing Obama, he'll probably nominate a fucking Muslim.

Triple SJW points if it is a black, gay, Muslim.

momof4 says:

"What does that have to do with the fact that he was killed?"

You do understand the difference between a fact and your opinion, right?

A fact is something we have obtained sufficient evidence to support.

Your opinion here is based upon wild speculation and the complete absence of evidence.

You keep talking about what is wrong with this country and how we are apparently heading to hell in a hand basket.... well at least part of that must be related to people jumping to wild conclusions without a shred of tangible evidence to support what they are saying.

Exactly what tangible evidence do you have that suggests that Scalia was murdered?

If you have no evidence might I suggest that you head to your kitchen to start fashioning an aluminum foil hat for yourself... after all, its the only reliable way to keep out all of those pesky government mind control rays.

Knowing Obama, he'll probably nominate a fucking Muslim.

I've read that Obama has two basic choices: nominate someone he'd ideally like, someone who is more progressive but would likely be stonewalled by the Republicans in Congress as a "dire threat to the future of the U.S." (or some other claptrap like that), or nominate someone more mainstream, which wouldn't please progressives but would clearly highlight Republican obstructionism as a purely political move.

One person in the latter scenario is, apparently, Sri Srinivasan, a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was confirmed 97–0 by the Senate (in 2013) so the Republicans certainly didn't have an issue with him then.

In any case, the Wikipedia entry doesn't say anything about his religion but even if he's Hindu (or Christians or areligious) your typical uneducated conservative (the kind who is still convinced Obama is a Muslim) is probably going to think he's a Muslim.

Exactly what tangible evidence do you have that suggests that Scalia was murdered?

Artemis, a person doesn't need any tangible evidence when they have a rabid hatred of Obama.

JD,

I understand what you are getting at, but my larger point is that even if one harbors a rabid hatred for Obama as you call it... that doesn't suddenly elevate their opinions to facts.

There is too much confusion among what should be fully formed adults on the difference between their feelings and what constitutes verifiable fact.

I see that confusion on this particular board far too often and every once and a while I decide to point it out in the hopes that people might grasp the important difference between that they feel is true versus what they can demonstrate it true.

When it comes to politics this is the source of many of our current problems... the inability of our elected officials to distinguish between their unsubstantiated opinions and verifiable reality.

Lots of Constitutional arguments being thrown around. The two that are relevant are:

1. The sitting President can nominate a Justice, regardless of at what point in his term the President is.

2. The Senate can reject anyone that the President nominates.

My guess: Obama is going to try a stealth nominee, someone who has no public record of taking any positions on any controversial issue, but is a person that the Left considers a reliable member of their tribe. They will then launch an all-out media blitz to make that person seem like a moderate, and accuse the Republicans in the Senate of being obstructionist. Whether that charge will cut any ice with anyone that isn't already a confirmed Democrat voter remains to be seen... the way Obama has been going lately, he's likely to blow it by once again trying to spike the football before he reaches the end zone.

that doesn't suddenly elevate their opinions to facts.

Artemis, it doesn't to people like you and me, but it does to them.

This isn't, of course, confined to Obama haters. Plenty of Bush haters claimed it was a fact that a Bush-Cheney conspiracy was behind 9/11.

JD Says:

"Artemis, it doesn't to people like you and me, but it does to them."

Yes, and I find this to be profoundly disturbing and counter productive.

As for the conspiracy nuts that believe Bush-Cheney were in some way behind 9/11, those folks also don't appear to have any tangible evidence to support their case.

The truly sad part about all of this is that there are actual conspiracies out there... ones we have evidence for and can prove and people don't seem to harbor the same anger and resentment for those as they do the ones they have concocted out of whole cloth.

We have banks that have admitted to laundering money for drug cartels, manipulating financial markets, and defrauded customers where no one has been indicted, gone to jail, or been held criminally liable... and here we are with folks concocting ideas that is is somehow totally outlandish for an 80 year old overweight man might succumb to a heart attack.

It tells you a lot about some people who don't think it is even remotely plausible for an 80 year old overweight man to have a heart attack without it being part of some vast government conspiracy.

And if Obama gets someone on the bench HE wants,
___________________________________

Call it a hunch, but since Obama certainly wants the Democrats to win the election, *I* suspect he'll choose someone he doesn't agree with very much - someone whom no one would call a liberal. (A moderate, maybe.) Otherwise, Trump and Cruz will get even more voter support than they already have.

BTW, someone at Slate said in the comments section:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/antonin_scalia_s_death_will_change_the_2016_election.html

"Obama doesn't want a SCOTUS nomination, for blindingly obvious reasons."

I don't know Lenona. Obama is an odd duck on party viability. There is a fairly good chance he will just go with the extremist because that is who he wants and damn the consequences.

Artemis, for you. I saw this posted on another board. From the website RightWingWatch:

In an “emergency transmission” to his Facebook fans today, conspiracy theorist radio host Alex Jones floated his suspicions that the late Justice Antonin Scalia was “murdered,” just like conservative activist Andrew Breitbart. While accusing Obama of a litany crimes, including secretly funding ISIS and blackmailing Supreme Court justices, Jones said that “this is the season of treason, this is the time of betrayal and we would be fools not to ask the question” if Scalia was assassinated, suggesting that bad actors may have slipped something into the justice’s drink to trigger a heart attack. “You just get used to this, ‘Scalia found, it’s natural, nothing going on here, he just died naturally,’” Jones said. “And you’re like, ‘Whoa. Red flag.’ Then you realize, Obama is one vote away from being able to ban guns, open the borders and actually have the court engage in its agenda and now Scalia dies. I mean, this is hard core.”

It wouldn't surprise me at all if a lot of people on the right believe this.