Posted on 02/14/2016 7:00:08 AM PST by Enlightened1
The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't merely mark a tragedy for Constitutional philosophy - it may mark the death of American Constitutionalism as a whole.
Scalia's philosophy of jurisprudence is well-known and shaped two generations of conservative thinkers: the Constitution ought to be interpreted according to its original meaning. This shouldn't have been a groundbreaking notion given that most legislation is interpreted according to those rules, but because leftist jurists have spent a century chiseling away at the meaning of the Constitution based on their personal political beliefs, Scalia's reinvigoration of traditional interpretive methodologies made him a historic figure. Scalia's brilliant, passionate writing style made him author of some of the most famous dissents in Supreme Court history, and channeled the modern conservative frustration with the continuing abandonment of the Constitution.
Scalia's jurisprudence also reminded conservatives that there is no substitute for proven Constitutional originalism. Most conservatives ignored that when they greenlit the appointment of cipher John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a point I made when he was appointed. But Scalia provided a consistent reminder that Constitutional philosophy matters. It isn't just a game of doing whatever you want politically. Constitutional jurisprudence is about recognizing the limits of the federal government - and recognizing the limits of the politicization of the Court itself.
In the end, Scalia's death could mark the end of the Constitution itself. That's because the current Supreme Court rested, until Scalia's death, on the vague, confused, indeterminate philosophy of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who apparently decides cases on the basis of whether he has a solid bowel movement that morning. That means that half the time, the Constitution has a shot, as in Citizens United; the other half of the time...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It’s pretty well-known that Ginsberg thinks Obama is a Jew-hater and has vowed that only death will allow him to name her replacement.
(”It can be arranged,” smirked Valerie Jarrett.)
It is the party of infinite replication of animatronic lawn jockeys. Failing that it will settle for Mexicans.
I can see that. The only amusing thing about this is the thought of the RINO leaders like McConnell, Cornyn, et al crapping their pants at the thought of being exposed as the business-as-usual RINOs they are.
Congress can change the number of justices on the Supreme Court without a Constitutional amendment. They did it several times in the 1800’s. Maybe it’s time they at least doubled the Court to 18. With more members, it wouldn’t be so dependent on one member to tip it this way or that.
No, a simple majority vote on confirmation is all that is required. It takes 60 votes to bring about cloture (force an actual final vote on the nomination) in the event of a filibuster (Jeff Sessions, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and many others are SURE to filibuster ANY attempt to confirm Obozo's nomination. OTOH, it is the Demonrats who want a vote and they don't have anything like 60 votes to invoke cloture.
Additionally, any Obozo nomination can be tied up in the Senate Judiciary Committee until Obozo leaves office or Armaggedon whichever is first to occur.
Additionally Mitchie McTurtle says that the nomination "should" not be voted on until the people have spoken in the 2016 election. Mitchie can refuse to bring up the nomination even if it clears Judiciary Committee (see behavior of Reid, Harry). Mitchie MUST at the very least keep the Senate "in session" until Obozo is gone. The SCOTUS ruled unanimously in 2014 on "recess" appointments that they are not allowed in the absence of a formal recess.
Also see the final sentence of Article II Section 3 of the constitution as to recess appointments.
1,150 posted on February 13, 2016 at 9:10:02 PM CST by BlackElk
Then the media must be high priority on the SHTF target list.
Scalia wasn't exactly a finger in the dike preventing a deluge of radically leftist laws from cascading down on the American people. By the time he showed up the dike was already gone, and he was one of a few people left to start building another one after the town was already inundated by the flood.
If anything, Scalia's presence on the Supreme Court was a scathing indictment of what the Federal court system has become in this country. I look at the U.S. Supreme Court justices who have served in my lifetime, and I have a hard time figuring out how most of them were ever licensed to practice law -- let alone serve on the highest court in the land.
It’s already a 3 ring circus.
They would serve 15 year terms. I think it’s a great idea. The decisions would be by 2/3 of a majority vote.
Having 9 people hold this much power is insanity.
I did not know this fact this puts my mind at ease for the time being!!! GINSBERG is right about this you know!!!!
Obama is peeing himself and can’t wait to put the third stooge on the court
It does not have to go anywhere if it is ignored and there are no consequences to those who do the ignoring!
If we get Trump or a Democrat, it’s definitely over.
Cruz will lead the effort to prevent Obama from appointing Scalia’s successor. Trump will ramble incoherently about constitutionalism. It may be enough to swing some Trump supporters to Cruz, but it’s unlikely, because Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue...
His death won’t mark the end of the Constitution. The ball is in the Senate and those eunuchs will fumble it so the death of the Constitution and America will be their fault.
If Ginsburg retires, it swings the Court to seven (cases can be decided by a 4-3 majority) thereby taking the urgency of replacing off the table. She’ll hang on.
Now I’m going to put on my asbestos here...cause I know the flames are going to come. But (not knowing the wide field of judicial candidates already sitting on benches across the country) the first name that comes to my mind as a STRONG Constitutionalist is Sen Ted Cruz. He’s a young man...four or eight years in the White House can do a lot—but THIRTY years on the SCOTUS would, IMO, do much more for the Country.
Just my two cents. An “r” wins and nominates Cruz (from some sort of back room deal they looks at the big picture—keep the Senate R and take the WH). That’s why the backbiting and middle school antics of ALL last night (exceptions for good behavior for Dr Carson and Gov Kasich) was so infuriating.
If the Constitution isn’t more than one man, no matter how great, it wouldn’t have lasted ten years.
Ugh. Please understand that you are ignorant. Against Hillary, polls show Cruz doing better than Trump. Trump’s negatives are yuge, while Cruz’s are much smaller.
Anyway, compare my comment with this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3396895/posts?page=6#6
-— NO ONE PERSON SHOULD HOLD THIS MUCH POWER OVER 300,000,000 PEOPLE.
NO. ONE !!! -—
I hope you’re supporting the Convention of the States. Levin has been talking about this since his book, Men in Black.
What I want to know is how the regime managed to kill him. I hope the autopsy is thorough!
Name calling DOES NOTHING to enhance your cause!!!! Have a nice day regardless!!!
Response: Replace "could" with "shall"
Comment: Organize and find leaders ready to fight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.