It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Dies

page: 1
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Breaking now...Scalia dies of apparent natural causes at age 79.
A Reagan appointee, he was the longest serving Justice on the Supreme Court.

Best wishes and condolences to his family.
Obama will now get to pick his replacement...and, congress will have to approve it.
More as this develops.



U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead at a West Texas Ranch on Saturday.

He died of natural causes, My San Antonio reported.

Scalia, 79, was at the ranch attending a private party since Friday with about 40 people.

When he did not show up to breakfast on Saturday morning a concerned guests checked his room and found his body, according to reports.

Scalia, originally from Trenton, NJ, was nominated by Ronald Reagan to the Supreme Court in 1986.


www.nydailynews.com...
edit on 13-2-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2016 by IAMTAT because: HEADLINE UPDATE




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
He was quail hunting outside Marfa, Texas, and died in his sleep according to reports.


+11 more 
posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

I wonder who all was at the private party.

Now Obama gets pick an appointee...shudders...
edit on 13-2-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Oh that is so sad!


+27 more 
posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

This is a huge blow to anyone who values the constitution for real.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I will say positive energy to his family.

Best I can do.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

I wonder what the Republicans might have in their arsenal to delay the appointment of his replacement until after the federal election for the Presidency.

It is possible that Obama will "go for broke" and attempt to appoint someone completely unacceptable to the Republicans and force the issue with the collusion of the Republican establishment (who are simply the other side of the same coin with the Democratic Party establishment).
edit on 13/2/2016 by Kapriti because: English grammar... oy.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Interesting timing!
West Tx Bush country, wonder if there will be a list of the 40 guests released...doubt it.




Scalia wrote as he adjudicated, from the viewpoint that he was always right, of which he was truly convinced. He was uncompromising in his views, preferring to write a stinging dissent rather than accept less in order to win a majority.

One of history's most vehement proponents of the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, Scalia believed the Constitution should be interpreted as it was when it was written, according to the intent of those who wrote and ratified it. Original Intent is a school of constutional thought held by political and legal conservatives.

Scalia spoke out against “judicial activism,” when judges take the values of contemporary society into consideration when they interpreted the Constitution. He believed the Constitution was not there to facilitate change, but to impede it.


www.waff.com...
edit on 13-2-2016 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)

edit on Sat Feb 13 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed overly long quote IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

edit on Sat Feb 13 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: lost the tag by mistake



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapriti
a reply to: IAMTAT

I wonder what the Republicans might have in their arsenal to delay the appointment of his replacement until after the federal election for the Presidency.

It is possible that Obama will "go for broke" and attempt to appoint someone completely unacceptable to the Republicans and force the issue with the collusion of the Republican establishment (who are simply the other side of the same coin with the Democratic Party establishment).


I certainly hope so.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

The Reagan Nominated Judge who was a Leader in the Supreme Court will be sadly missed, and Condolences to His Family and Friends and America.

I will fully expect this seat to be vacant until at least late January 2017, and it will be interesting to see how split decisions, should they occur, be decided by the Obama Administration, since I think the Office becomes the deciding factor in that case.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapriti
a reply to: IAMTAT

I wonder what the Republicans might have in their arsenal to delay the appointment of his replacement until after the federal election for the Presidency.

It is possible that Obama will "go for broke" and attempt to appoint someone completely unacceptable to the Republicans and force the issue with the collusion of the Republican establishment (who are simply the other side of the same coin with the Democratic Party establishment).


I'm sure it will be a messy fight to get Obama's choice through congress. I don't know how long it can be delayed.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: IAMTAT

Interesting timing!
West Tx Bush country, wonder if there will be a list of the 40 guests released...doubt it.

Foul play suspected?
He died, I believe, in his sleep.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Here's his voting record...it's going to matter who his replacement is

Antonin Scalia On the issues



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
9 children and 35 grandchildren. What a great legacy.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
newrepublic.com... older but oddly relevent article talking about what we get to deal with now ,expect stalling foot dragging and hoping and praying by those in congress and the house that they can stall this until after the election


On Friday, New York magazine's Jon Chait argued that the media has "wildly overstated the legislative importance of Republican Senate control" while at the same time understating its judicial importance. As he put it, "The contest to control the Senate is about one thing: whether Obama can confirm judges and staff his administration." A GOP Senate would spell "two years of likely gridlock," and "if a Supreme Court justice becomes incapacitated or dies, the judicial gridlock could become a Constitutional struggle." Chait is absolutely right—and the possibility of a constitutional crisis is all the dramatic because there's no modern precedent for it. The Constitution doesn't require the president to fill a Supreme Court vacancy on any particular timeline. But since World War II, vacancies on the high court have not caused partisan gridlock. The closest precedent is then-Associate Justice Abe Fortas, whom President Lyndon Johnson nominated for chief justice; a Democratic Senate filibustered Fortas over concerns about his liberal opinions and close relationship with Johnson. There were Supreme Court deaths—justices Wiley Rutledge, Fred Vinson, Robert Jackson, Frank Murphy, and, most recently, William Rehnquist—but their seats were filled in a timely manner. Even in the pre-WWII era, when a much higher percentage of justices died in office, vacancies were generally filled with little delay. The rejected nominees of presidents James Madison, James Buchanan, Ulysses S. Grant and others fell for a variety of quirky reasons unique to their situation, not because of gridlock; in fact, those presidents generally faced a friendly Senate. John Tyler succeeded in having only one of his six nominees confirmed, but his party also controlled the Senate.


en.wikipedia.org... list of possible replacements i guess as i dont even know how to research for this this is the best i could find

edit on 13-2-2016 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
I will say positive energy to his family.

Best I can do.


Same here. His recent rulings have been, at best, bitter angry rants. Well - this should be an interesting battle. The GOP might just have to be sensible for once on who Obama appoints to replace him.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Condolences to the family.

Hunting party... conservative... Texas ranch...

Deja vu

Someone would have eventually wondered about it, may as well do it now. Where was Mr. C ?






posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT
I wish he could take Citizens United with him.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
If Obama nominates a white male centrist, what do the Republicans do then? do they concede, or do they continue to try to stall until after the election?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
This is huge. The senate will likely confirm someone before the election so we're probably going to get someone very moderate.

The best I could find on duration without a justice came from Wikipedia:

Before 1981 the approval process of Justices was usually rapid. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, Justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. Some believe this is because Congress sees Justices as playing a more political role than in the past. The perceived politicization of the process has drawn criticism. For example, columnist George F. Will termed the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination "unjust". Will wrote that the nomination process does "not delve deeply into the nominee's jurisprudential thinking." Supreme Court nominations have caused media speculation about whether the judge leans to the left, middle, or right. One indication of the politicized selection process is how much time each nominee spends being questioned under the glare of media coverage; before 1925, nominees were never questioned; after 1955, every nominee has been required to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee and answer questions; and the hours spent being grilled have lengthened from single digits (before 1980) to double digits today.




top topics



 
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join