Supreme Court Justice Scalia dies

[W!nston]

Supreme Court Justice Scalia dies
Yahoo! News | By Olivier Knox | February 13, 2016

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/Jim Mone, File)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a tart-tongued champion of conservative interpretation of the Constitution, has died at a West Texas ranch resort, government officials said Saturday.

“While our opinions on the law and jurisprudence were frequently at odds, he was steadfast and true to his beliefs during his tenure,” the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said in a statement. “My thoughts are with his family and loved ones at this time.”

The news was first reported by mysanantonio.com, which cited federal officials.

Scalia, who was 79, was the longest-serving justice on the high court. His death is sure to trigger a pitched political battle in Washington, with President Obama likely to nominate a successor before the November elections.

“Justice Antonin Scalia was a man of God, a patriot, and an unwavering defender of the written Constitution and the Rule of Law,” Texas Governor Greg Abbott said in a statement on his official website. “We mourn his passing, and we pray that his successor on the Supreme Court will take his place as a champion for the written Constitution and the Rule of Law.”

Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, one of the contenders for the GOP’s presidential nomination in 2016, called Scalia “one of the greatest justices in history.” Cruz, who served as a Supreme Court clerk, said Scalia “was an unrelenting defender of religious liberty, free speech, federalism, the constitutional separation of powers, and private property rights. All liberty-loving Americans should be in mourning.”

Donald Trump, one of Cruz’s rivals, tweeted that the “totally unexpected loss” was a “massive setback for the Conservative movement and our country.”

SOURCE

Let's hope President Obama appoints and Congress confirms Scalia's replacement. Please!

 

[gb2000ie]

I was not expecting that.

On the one level, he was a human, he had family, he had friends, so this is a loss, and I feel for those who are mourning.

On the other hand, I can't help but feel happy that a strong retrograde force which excerted a really negative influence on the US is gone. This feels very much like the death of Margaret Thatcher - 'ding dong the witch is dead' is definitely leaping to mind. THe difference is, Thatcher had finished exerting her negative influence before she died, but Scalia had not.

I wonder whether it will be possible to get an appointee through on an election year. This is a good test of just how broken Washington is.

B.

 

[Stonecold]

Thank you Sniffit for making my day with this news. Scalia died with blood on his hands. He favored the death penalty for children and low IQ adults. He also voted to deny medical care to millions. I wonder how many people died due to his rulings. I am not a fan of Thatcher but Scalia was more like Hitler then Thatcher. Scalia and his kind also helped in the death of many Gay teens. I offer condolences to his family and I am grateful he lived long enough to see Gay marriage become legal in the United States.

 

[W!nston]

The Simply Breathtaking Consequences Of Justice Scalia’s Death
Think Progress | BY IAN MILLHISER | FEB 13, 2016 6:27 PM

Twenty-four hours ago, Republicans were headed into what remains of the current Supreme Court term with a solid majority and a docket strewn with some of the most consequential cases in decades. Affirmative action, abortion, birth control, immigration, an effort to shift congressional power to Republicans — all of these issues are before the justices this term.

The issues remain before the Court, but the balance of power just changed. Justice Antonin Scalia, the longest-serving member of the Court and one of its most outspoken conservatives, is dead. When the sun rose this morning, Republicans enjoyed a 5-4 majority on the nation’s highest Court. It sets on an evenly divided bench.

President Obama will undoubtedly nominate someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court (pro tip: you should probably get used to hearing the words “Judge Sri Srinivasan” a whole lot in the coming months). The GOP-controlled Senate, meanwhile, is overwhelmingly likely to refuse to confirm anyone Obama nominates. News of Scalia’s death had barely broken when one Senate Judiciary Committee member’s communications director offered this assessment:

Conn Carroll @conncarroll
What is less than zero? The chances of Obama successfully appointing a Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia?
4:56 PM - 13 Feb 2016

The most important rule to bear in mind now that the Court is likely to remain evenly divided for the foreseeable future is that, when the Court divides evenly on a case that is pending before it, the lower court’s order stands and the Supreme Court’s consideration of the case has no precedential value. Ordinarily, it is as if the justices never agreed to take up the case in the first place. For this term, here’s how this rule is likely to impact the Court’s docket:

Immigration

United States v. Texas concerns the legality of Obama administration immigration policies that, if allowed to take effect, will temporarily enable close to five million undoented immigrants to remain in the county. It is also the case that presents the most opportunity for chaos if the Court evenly divides on the outcome.

In a highly unusual order, a federal district judge issued a nationwide halt to the policy and refused to stay that decision. A conservative panel of the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld those decisions by the district judge. Thus, if the Court splits 4-4 in the Texas case, the Fifth Circuit’s order will stand.

Where things get complicated is if the Justice Department successfully obtains an order from a different circuit upholding the program, or if an immigrant who hopes to benefit from the program obtains a similar order. The Fifth Circuit is among the most conservative courts in the country, and it is unlikely that every circuit will follow its lead. In that case, there will be competing court orders holding the policies both legal and illegal, and no possibility of Supreme Court review. It is not immediately clear what happens in such a case.

Abortion

Another case out of Texas, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, also could lead to confusion if the Court evenly divides. Whole Woman’s Health is the greatest threat to Roe v. Wade to reach the Supreme Court in a generation. If five justices back the Texas law in this case, it is unclear that there will be any meaningful limits on states’ ability to pass anti-abortion laws.

Without Scalia’s vote, however, the chances that the Supreme Court will uphold the Texas law outright is vanishingly small. Should they split 4-4, however, the Fifth Circuit’s decision upholding the Texas law will stand and states within the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi) will most likely gain broad discretion to restrict abortion while Scalia’s seat remains open. Meanwhile, the fate of the right to choose would rest upon which federal appellate circuit a woman happened to reside in. Women in fairly liberal circuits would likely continue to enjoy the same rights they enjoy under existing precedents, while women in conservative circuits could see their right shrink to virtual nothingness.

Birth Control

Geography could also play a significant role in deciding women’s ability to access birth control. To date, every federal appeals court to consider the question but one, the Eighth Circuit, has upheld Obama administration rules enabling women to obtain health plans that cover birth control even if their employer objects to contraception on religious ground.

There is a good chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who occasionally votes with the Court’s liberal bloc in politically charged cases, could vote to uphold these rules as well, producing a 5-3 vote. If Kennedy votes with the conservatives, however, women’s access to birth control will vary from circuit to circuit. Though it is likely that most circuits will follow the majority rule and uphold the rules, women in the Eighth Circuit (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota) will not be as lucky.

Unions

Public sector unions are saved, at least for now. After oral arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, it appeared likely that an ambitious effort to defund public sector unions would gain five votes on the Supreme Court. Now this effort only has four votes. Moreover, because the plaintiffs in this case lost in the court below, a decision affirming the lower court in an evenly divided vote is effectively a victory for organized workers.

Redistricting

Similarly, the plaintiffs in Evenwel v. Abbott, a case that could have effectively forced many states to redraw their congressional maps in ways that would give more power to white voters and less to communities with large numbers of immigrants, almost certainly will not have five votes. Because the court below ruled against these plaintiffs, states will not have to redraw their maps, for now.

Affirmative Action

One case where Scalia’s absence could matter less is Fisher v. University of Texas, a challenge to affirmative action programs in university admissions. Although the court below upheld the University of Texas’s program, liberal Justice Elena Kagan is recused from this case. Therefore, four votes are enough to make up a majority. If the Court’s remaining conservatives vote against affirmative action, that is enough for them to get their way.

That said, Justice Kennedy did appear somewhat reluctant to kill affirmative action outright at oral arguments (although he may want to task a lower court with the job of killing Texas’ program). In any event, if Kennedy votes with the three liberals who are not recused from this case, what would have otherwise been a 4-4 decision will now be a 4-3 decision in the liberals’ favor.

The Fate of the Earth

As a final note, it’s worth nothing that Scalia’s last act as a Supreme Court justice may have been to supply the fifth vote in a series of orders handed down on Tuesday halting President Obama’s most ambitious effort to fight climate change. If the Court remains evenly divided in this case, it could matter a great deal that the two judges assigned to this case in the court below are Democratic appointees. If they vote to uphold the administration’s policies, that order will stand unless there is a fifth justice who votes to reverse that decision.

SOURCE

 

[pinklee1]

good riddance

 

[trencherman]

Here is – Bette Davis (1908-1989) on the death of Joan Crawford: “Mother always said that you should never say bad things about the dead, you should only say good things. Joan Crawford is dead. Good.”

 

[whtlkn4blknil]

Thank you Sniffit for the wonderful update on the upcoming Supreme Court agenda. I'm sure the Republicans will not confirm any of President Obama's apointees in the near future, it at all. Just look how long it took them to confirm Loretta Lynch, and that was when they wanted to get rid of Eric Holder.

 

[gb2000ie]

Thank you Sniffit for the wonderful update on the upcoming Supreme Court agenda. I'm sure the Republicans will not confirm any of President Obama's apointees in the near future, it at all. Just look how long it took them to confirm Loretta Lynch, and that was when they wanted to get rid of Eric Holder.

Saddly, I think that is true.

The latest BS they are trotting out is that a president in their last year can't do a judge, because it's just not right or something.

Funny how it was just fine for saint Regan to appoint a supreme court justive in his last year, but before we even know who Obama has chosen, the Republcians are saying NO!

These morons need to read the constitution, and, remeber their oath of office. They are making a mockery of American democracy.

B.

 

[viviank]

I am really glad this guy is dead. Shouldn't wish ill on others but dead isn't necessarily bad.