15 ms·

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

• nbadg 11y ago
  This has been confirmed by the governor of Texas. https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/698629632816500738 https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/698629632816500738
• udfalkso 11y ago
  A judge quoted in the article said, "my educated guess is nothing will happen before the next president is elected." Presumably he's talking about selecting a replacement to the supreme court. Is this accurate? How long does this process typically take?
  • aklemm 11y ago
    That struck me as premature and unlikely. There's 11 months left in Obama's term, after all. That seems like enough to get a replacement in there.
  • scruple 11y ago
    Well, considering that the Presidential election is this year... (the Republican) Congress will not confirm any nomination from President Obama before the election is over. So, I imagine that the appointment won't happen until after the election cycle. This makes the Congressional races a bit more interesting. edit/ Some words.
    • aklemm 11y ago
      Won't they be under an awful lot of pressure considering it will be obvious they are obstructing normal business?
      • sbarre 11y ago
        Did you forget the /s tag at the end there?
        • aklemm 11y ago
          Hah, good point. But I guess the idea is that this is a major issue that will be in the spotlight. Tons of scrutiny and no way to cover what might be their obvious motives to avoid an appointment. The circumstances are extra-ordinary.
      • hwstar 11y ago
        No. Look what happened when Bush was president, and the democrats stalled the election of supreme court justices. The republicans control 53 senate seats, and can refuse to confirm any justice till they know the outcome of the presidential election. If Trump wins, they'll stall until he takes office. If Sanders or Clinton wins, then they will grudgingly confirm who Obama chooses with some limits.
        • LargeWu 11y ago
          To be fair, one of those was Harriet Miers, who was eminently unqualified for the position, and 100% deserved to be blocked.
          • myko 11y ago
            Another key point: the Democrats didn't say going into the nomination that no matter who Bush nominates they will reject. They were prepared to debate and decide on the nomination based on the merits of the nominee, not a blanket statement saying "we will not agree to anything, ever" - which is how the GOP has behaved during the Obama administration.
        • cowsandmilk 11y ago
          uhhhh... might want to check your facts on that one. Both Roberts and Alito went through on timelines similar to judges nominated by Reagan, H.W., and Clinton. The only nomination from Bush that faced extreme opposition was that of Harriet Miers, and that was from conservatives, not the democrats.
          • nwhitmore 11y ago
            Does the name Robert Bork mean anything to you?
            • tptacek 11y ago
              Reagan nominated Bork, not GHWB.
      • scruple 11y ago
        I'm merely speculating as to why the Judge who was quoted said what he said. But, yes, of course. 10 months is a long time to stall a nomination. I don't know of any precedent in this situation.
      • PKop 11y ago
        I said this above, but I'll repeat: if they do not reject, their Republican base will revolt and not vote in the upcoming election. They will absolutely be expected to reject and oppose until Obama is out of office. There are 2 sides in the political game, remember. And since supreme court nominations are so important, and this changes the balance, voters will demand they reject his nominees.
        • ethbro 11y ago
          I don't know. Given the timetable and the fact that neither the Republican Party or voters can say who will win the presidential election, it seems like there would be room for a qualified, centrist candidate. Especially if Sanders and Trump stay in the race. Better the devil candidate you know, etc etc
        • hackuser 11y ago
          > if they do not reject, their Republican base will revolt and not vote in the upcoming election. The upcoming election is a general election; they need to appeal to more than their base. In the past year the Republicans in Congress have been trying to shed their obstructionist, irresponsible reputation as the party that shuts down government, holds the solvency of the U.S. hostage, etc.
          • 13thLetter 11y ago
            I wish them good luck with that, considering that the reputation of the GOP as uniquely obstructive in comparison with previous Congresses is purely a construction of media propaganda and is therefore not going to be overturned merely by their good behavior. (A Democratic Senate slow-rolled or blocked innumerable Bush judicial nominees, some for several years, and the Democratic Congress shut down the government several times under Reagan. Both sides have the power to do these things, and have exercised them freely in the past, and somehow the world continued to turn.)
            • hackuser 11y ago
              > the reputation of the GOP as uniquely obstructive in comparison with previous Congresses is purely a construction of media propaganda I'm pretty sure that's not the case. For example, I know the recent GOP Senators used dramatically more fillibusters than anyone before. Also, I'm pretty that some basic fiscal issues like raising the debt limit weren't politicized before recently. > somehow the world continued to turn I think this is a dangerous belief. Actions, especially by the U.S. Senate, have serious consequences for millions to billions of people. The world merely continuing to turn is not a standard; there are serious problems in the world that need to be addressed well, or human welfare in the U.S. and elsewhere will suffer greatly.
      • SturgeonsLaw 11y ago
        This has been one of the most obstructionist congresses in recent history, far from being under pressure, I would call it business as usual for them.
  • nbadg 11y ago
    Unlikely to be correct re: nomination, though it's difficult to know how the election will effect the confirmation process, and vice versa. Kagan was nominated May 2010 and confirmed August 2010; Sotomayor was nominated May 2009 and confirmed August 2009. I'm inclined to expect a nomination sooner rather than later, potentially of a candidate with very strong Democratic support. If Republicans oppose the nomination, that could be used as political leverage against them during the election. Edit for some further thoughts: I could see this play out several different ways. Dems could potentially stall on the nomination, to maximize the "gamesmanship" rhetoric leverage of any Republican opposition to the nomination. But if the nominee were confirmed by June, the whole thing might be largely forgotten by the election in November. So potentially, we could see a very quick confirmation. This definitely is a massive boon to the Democratic party; they've just been handed a wildcard and have every ability to choose exactly how to play it. I'm no fan of dehumanizing death, but Scalia's death will have enormous ramifications. Keep in mind: 1. Burwell v Hobby Lobby (private corporate responsibility for birth control re: Obamacare) was 5-4 2. Legal pragmatism arguments against criminal justice matters under equal protections grounds have already been very close to succeeding (or actually have). Could mean the end of the death penalty in the US. 3. Scalia opposed Guantanamo inmates' ability to challenge their detention in US Courts in the Boumediene v Bush decision 4. Scalia consistently opposed expansion of national healthcare 5. Citizens United was 5-4 with Scalia supporting the decision (this is what created superPACs), so potentially this could result in a limitation of corporate personhood 6. Potential liberalization and modernization of intellectual property rules, particularly in context of software (see: denial of certiorari of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google...) Further edit: SCOTUSblog analysis on the political situation: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/first-reactions-on-the-passing-of-justice-scalia/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/first-reactions-on-the-pas...
    • PKop 11y ago
      OK, but if they do not oppose, their supporters will not support them in the election. They have a duty and obligation to oppose.
      • 11y ago
  • tunesmith 11y ago
    Seems like it usually takes a month or two for presidents to appoint someone new, and this might be affected by the supreme court's schedule, too. The game theory of this is interesting, for instance, what if Obama nominates someone that is seen as more moderate than someone that Hillary or Sanders would nominate?
    • xbmcuser 11y ago
      I will be shocked if Hillary nomination is more liberal than Obama's. Hillary is a conservative in Democrats clothing currently she is spouting liberal agenda to get the nomination once elected whe will go for conservative options under the umbrella of getting things done.
      • bmelton 11y ago
        Warning: Rhetoric and opinion Hillary, in my opinion, is whatever she needs to be to get her way. My biggest concern with Hillary is that in order to win the high office, she'll have to embrace the progressive mantle. If so, her first appointment would likely be one that leans progressive, if only to ensure that she keeps the peace enough to be re-elected to a second term.
    • xbmcuser 11y ago
      I will be shocked if Hillary nomination is more liberal than Obama's. Hillary is a conservative in Democrats clothing currently she is spouting liberal agenda to get the nomination once elected whe will go for conservative options under the umbrella of getting things done.
  • fennecfoxen 11y ago
    Conn Carroll, spokesman for Mike Lee (R, Utah, on the Senate Judiciary Committee) concurs, inquiring: "What is less than zero? The chances of Obama successfully appointing a Supreme Court Justice to replace Scalia?" and proposes that "If anything this will put a full stop to all Obama judicial nominees going forward." https://twitter.com/conncarroll/status/698626902160838656 https://twitter.com/conncarroll/status/698626902160838656 https://twitter.com/conncarroll/status/698627015159644160 https://twitter.com/conncarroll/status/698627015159644160
  • Steko 11y ago
    The longest confirmation in history was apparently Brandeis at 125 days. Assuming Obama takes about a month to get a nomination together that leaves just over 300+ days left in this administration. That said, would not surprise me to see the Senate serially find reasons to reject say 3-4 candidates or screw precedent and just take forever to run out the clock on purpose. They will likely also have pro forma sessions to deny a recess appointment as well [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Noel_Canning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLRB_v._Noel_Canning One option Obama would have that might fill the seat before his term is up is to go back to providing a real list of a number of candidates instead of the "list of one". The chance of this happening is near zero of course; I guess he'll nominate someone a bit closer to the center and let them be stonewalled, something which may help the democrats in the election. I imagine a lot of good candidates, knowing the nomination is destined for limbo, might opt out of the media circus and decline it. Of course if the Dems win the election the incentive to stall fades considerably.
    • bradleyjg 11y ago
      Abe Fortas resigned May 15, 1969 and Harry Blackmun wasn't confirmed until May 12, 1970 (362 days) after the failed nominations of Haynsworth and Carswell. Likewise, Lewis Powell died June 26, 1987 but Anthony Kennedy wasn't confirmed until February 3, 1988 (222 days) after the failed nominations of Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg. There may be other similar situations but those are the ones that came to mind.
      • josephscott 11y ago
        Perhaps it would have better been described as 'The longest single confirmation process in history'. In terms of the whole replacement process, where it included candidates that were rejected, there have been times over 125 days ( as you mentioned ). Raw data is available at http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nomin...
    • michaelt 11y ago
      Do you think candidates who turn the job down will be expecting another chance later?
  • ck2 11y ago
    Any senator can put an anonymous hold on any nomination. It's never been used for a supreme court judge. This will most likely be the first time and it will be a new low.
  • tptacek 11y ago
    The longest Supreme Court confirmation took ~4.5 months. But that's the process for one candidate. The whole process of replacing a candidate will take longer.
  • geofft 11y ago
    Ted Cruz has already called for the process to get delayed for the next president. (Which seems ridiculous to me, since that's not in line with either Cruz's or Scalia's commitment to constitutionalism and the rule of law, but hey.) https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/698634625246195712 https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/698634625246195712 The Senate had been (apparently) filibustering presidential appointments quite a bit more of late, both Democrats against Bush and Republicans against Obama, concluding in the Republican-devised "nuclear option" being used by the Democrats in 2013. Nominations by the president now only require a simple majority, not a supermajority, with the specific exception of Supreme Court nominees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#Recent_filibusters_of_nominations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State... It would not be surprising at all to see the same sort of filibustering that was previously applied to both Obama and Bush's nominations be applied to whomever Obama nominates to the Supreme Court.
    • DrScump 11y ago
      <the Republican-devised "nuclear option" being used by the Democrats> How's that again?
      • geofft 11y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option The "nuclear option" was named by Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in 2003 and first seriously threatened by majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) in 2005. It got actually invoked by the Democrats in 2013, in the reverse situation: the Democrats had a majority but not a supermajority of the Senate, and a Democratic president.
  • showerst 11y ago
    The math here is interesting for the republicans. A candidate has to confirmed by the senate judiciary committee (11/9 republican) then the whole senate (54/46 if the independents go dem as usual). The general consensus, however, is that the democrats have a good chance at winning back the senate. So the question for republicans is, do they accept a moderate candidate now, or stall until the election and risk having a democratic senate (and president, but that race is far too early to have a sense of, unlike the senate), and take the heat for taking 3-4 times as long as usual to confirm a justice, and have any cases under review potentially go 4 to 4 on the court, which means the lower court rulings in those cases stand, or the justices can request that they be re-argued. For the democrats, you've got the current situation vs a chance to get someone more liberal in during 20 days of obama + the next senate (although pushing a nominee through in jan 2017 would have terrible optics), or waiting. Your risk is that the republicans win the senate and the president. My sense is that the democrats will put forth someone fairly moderate, but it's hard to tell if the senate will stall it out or not. It likely depends on the nominee. The Republicans hold all the cards, but the dems are probably in a slightly stronger position, because they only need two republican senators on the judiciary to decide that they'd rather not risk it, and two more in the full senate.
    • tptacek 11y ago
      The Republicans have more or less already announced that they will refuse to consent to a replacement this term. That could change if Hillary wins (she will likely take the Senate with her if she does), but, the odds-on outcome is: Obama nominates someone, but no Obama nomination is confirmed. It's not just that it's an election year, but that it's a closely divided Senate with a liberal President replacing the most reliable and influential conservative on the Court.
      • showerst 11y ago
        They're obviously going to say that now (keep in mind so far the people who've said that are Cruz who is on judiciary but will never approve any Dem candidate and McConnell who doesn't matter.) The ones who matter most are probably Flake and Tillis since they're the least conservative among the judiciary members not up for reelection. I think we'll see an initial stall for sure, and then in a few months it will depend on how polls are going, both in the senate and national races. Hillary + dem senate is the nightmare scenario for republicans, so they're likely to make a deal if that's still a strong possibility in July.
  • dragonwriter 11y ago
    Typical is irrelevant, its a political process and the Republican majority in the Senate will be under strong pressure from within their own party's base to block any Obama nomination, both on ideological grounds and for strategic reasons (to preserve the nomination for their Presidential candidate, should they win.) I wouldn't be surprised if there is no action until after the election (if a Democrat is elected), or the inauguration (if a Republican is elected.)
    • tptacek 11y ago
      There's some merit to the argument that the voters should decide, too. It's not like this is a year where the outcome of the election is predictable; in fact, if anything, the GOP is on balance disfavored: call it a 50/50 shot at the Presidency, and a less than 50/50 shot at keeping the Senate, due to the 2016 map.
• vonnik 11y ago
  Let's remember him as the man who opposed marriage equality and help to appoint George W. Bush president. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/13/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dead-at-79 http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/13/supreme-court-jus... "Maybe, in death, Scalia will meet the original Constitution framers and find out their true intent. Assuming they too are burning in hell" --https://twitter.com/lindsaygoldwert/status/698638734791733248 https://twitter.com/lindsaygoldwert/status/69863873479173324...
  • komache2 11y ago
    If you haven't already, would you mind reading about HN's approach to comments and site guidelines?
    • allenbybridge 11y ago
      You read them. There's nothing wrong with the referenced comment.
  • work-on-828 11y ago
    As someone who strongly supports marriage equality and read the full opinion when it came out, I was kinda dismayed to find the dissent a more convincing argument. Did anyone else experience this?
    • scruple 11y ago
      I rarely (I would say never but that would make me a fool) agreed with the man but his dissents were usually well written, worth reading and understanding. For better or worse, he represented the view point of many in America.
      • vonnik 11y ago
        Intelligence is no excuse for harm. And Scalia harmed many, in a multitude of ways, over decades in the court, through his plausible misconstrual of the constitution and the law.
• jakeogh 11y ago
  Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008)[1] for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
• work-on-828 11y ago
  Is it bad that my third thought was about how this will hurt Hillary's chances? EDIT: It directly counters the argument that Bernie supporters are naive to risk a more leftist candidate who would have a lower chance of being able to appoint justices.
  • mikegioia 11y ago
    How so?
    • work-on-828 11y ago
      An argument in favor of Hillary is that the democrats need to be more cautious so as to make sure a republican doesn't appoint folks to the bench who would reverse the decision in Roe v. Wade If Obama appoints Scalia's successor, then that weakens that argument.
  • xyzzy4 11y ago
    It'll increase her chances. One less vote for a Rebublican.
• hwstar 11y ago
  Things are going to get very interesting with the pending court decisions coming at the end of June.
  • jqm 11y ago
    Right? But worst case, they can probably deduce how Scalia would have voted (which certainly wouldn't be allowed even though it's likely to be pretty accurate in this case).
    • mikeyouse 11y ago
      Split decisions affirm the lower court's rulings.. So the initial Appellate Court decisions are probably a good barometer to see where things will land. The ever-helpful SCOTUSBlog with a bit more background: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-terms-close-cases/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-terms...
• jdminhbg 11y ago
  > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
  • dang 11y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426
    • jdminhbg 11y ago
      Well it's your site, so you can do what you want, but allowing these political threads is, in my opinion at least, really dragging down the quality of conversation across the site. It attracts users whose main contribution is willingness to initiate and prolong political flamewars.
      • dang 11y ago
        There are far fewer outright political stories than there used to be. Probably fewer than ever, in fact. So if discussion quality is being dragged down, something else is dragging it. As for this post, experience has taught us that when a story crosses a certain magnitude, there's no stopping it from getting discussed on HN, so we may as well have a single thread.
        • jdminhbg 11y ago
          > There are far fewer outright political stories than there used to be. Probably fewer than ever, in fact. I find that really difficult to believe, but you'd have access to stats and I don't. Maybe just confirmation bias on my part, or maybe disagreement on what's "outright political." > As for this post, experience has taught us that when a story crosses a certain magnitude, there's no stopping it from getting discussed on HN, so we may as well have a single thread. Fair enough, I suppose.
• dredmorbius 11y ago
  Confirmed at The New York Times as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.ht...
• rrggrr 11y ago
  Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint, who believed that the further the Courts stretched interpreting law, the more vulnerable the Courts become to the animosities of the Executive and Legislative branches. The Judiciary, Scalia understood, was the least powerful and most vulnerable of the three branches of government, and its strength and influence rests in its artful and judicious use of its very, very limited authority. A few Scalia quotes that illustrate this: >There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all. >If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility. >“This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of office if they dislike the solutions we concoct. >“Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that ‘established by the State’ means “established by the State or the Federal Government,’ the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as ‘inartful drafting.’ … This Court, however, has no free-floating power ‘to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.’”
  • nemo 11y ago
    >Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint When convenient.
    • vonnik 11y ago
      Totally agree. The stay he supported on the Florida recount was rampant federal interference in a state matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Stay_of_the_Florida_recount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Stay_of_the_Flori... Indirectly, he gave us eight years of incompetence and Iraq, a horrible farce of a war.
      • ethbro 11y ago
        You can't possibly put the result of Bush being elected on a Supreme Court Justice. Any more than you can put it on a single person who voted for him. Yes, they all share some responsibility, but the amount is so miniscule given future actions and how many people were fooled and lied to so as to be almost completely disconnected.
• growlix 11y ago
  Let us honor Justice Scalia's memory by refraining from interpreting or contextualizing any prose for the remainder of the day.
  • ktamura 11y ago
    Indeed. While my beliefs have often diverged from the Justice's, his writing has been riveting to read and inspired me to improve my own. America has lost a towering intellectual, and for that, I mourn today.
    • davidbhayes 11y ago
      …you seem to have missed the joke…
      • rdancer 11y ago
        ...or they just refrained from interpreting and contextualizing...
  • to3m 11y ago
    Instructions very unclear, being a meaningless sequence of symbols. Upvoted. EDIT: Dear me. I hope the downvoters are just doing it randomly, and not pissing on Scalia's memory by actually interpreting my prose!
• greenyoda 11y ago
  So far, the only story that has been posted that has any significant information about Scalia's career has been this one, from the Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-supreme-court-scalia-dead-20160213-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-supreme-court-scalia-d...
  • vonnik 11y ago
    There's no working link now.
    • wging 11y ago
      The Tribune link works for me.
• madaxe_again 11y ago
  Tangential, but if you're sat there going "Marfa, that rings a bell" (he died in Marfa) - this is probably why. Temperature inversion that reflects headlamps, apparently. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfa_lights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfa_lights
  • pepsi 11y ago
    My only knowledge of Marfa is the Prada Marfa: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prada_Marfa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prada_Marfa
• orbitur 11y ago
  He didn't actually say that, and I'm not sure how it spread. However, he's still a terrible person, and here's the quote yours spawned from: “There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.” edit: This was originally in reply to a misquote that has now been deleted. Mods have now made it a parent comment.
  • tptacek 11y ago
    Did you know him personally, or know someone who knew him personally, or is there some other reason beyond "you profoundly disagreed with him" that would lead you to calling him a "terrible person"?
    • jbapple 11y ago
      > Did you know him personally, or know someone who knew him personally, or is there some other reason beyond "you profoundly disagreed with him" that would lead you to calling him a "terrible person"? Is there anyone you would call a terrible person? "No" is an OK answer here. Are any of them people you did not know? Again, "no" is an OK answer here. I'm not the poster you're responding to, and I'm sympathetic to the idea that it's not constructive to call someone a "terrible person", but if we are to ever call people terrible, it seems like there are some public policy actions that might be sufficiently cruel or immoral to justify calling someone a public figure who sought and used extreme power for extreme evil a "terrible person" even without having first-hand knowledge of that person's day-to-day life. Or we could limit our condemnation to their actions and advocacy, not their whole person.
      • tptacek 11y ago
        Yes, there are people I think are terrible. Yes, some of them are people I don't know. Would I say it on the day their death was announced? Tougher question. Candidly: if I felt like most of the people calling Scalia a "terrible person" were well acquainted with his work, beyond sound bites like "opposed marriage equality" or "thought we should shoot condemned convicts first and then hear their appeals", I wouldn't chide. But it seems like the more cut-and-dry an opinion you get about Scalia, the less well-informed and helpful it turns out to be.
• liquidise 11y ago
  This will likely result in a major political shift of the court. Even if Obama places a staunch centrist, it will be a net left swing, as Scalia was perhaps the second most conservative justice beside Thomas. There have been a great deal of 5-4 decisions since Sotomayor's nomination that in the future could easily fall the other way.
  • fennecfoxen 11y ago
    It would be interesting of Obama did nominate a staunch centrist right out of the gate, as a gambit to get in a new justice confirmed before the likes of Donald Trump gets to make a nomination.
    • aioprisan 11y ago
      That's not possible, since a senate confirmation this close to elections is likely to just be punted on for a year.
      • fennecfoxen 11y ago
        Well, consider: You're a Senate Republican. Obama nominates a guy who is certainly no Scalia but legitimately isn't the worst. You can hold out and hope that a Republican gets elected, but there's a good chance that'll be Donald Trump, and what kind of a judge is that weirdo going to nominate? You hate that guy and think he's a blemish to the name of the Republican party. Also, there's still a real risk Hilary/Sanders will win instead. AND you can expect to face more than half the media harassing you over any delay. In fact, the harassment has already begun today, Feb 13. So a real compromise candidate might be possible. It'd likely depend on Obama and the senate Democrats as well, though.
        • lotharbot 11y ago
          > "there's a good chance that'll be Donald Trump" it's actually pretty unlikely. Fivethirtyeight has a bunch of good articles about this, but the simplest piece of information pointing to it: Trump is intensely disliked by about 60% of the voting public. He's got a vocal and enthusiastic following, but once you go outside that bubble, he simply doesn't have room to grow. I voted for Bush twice, McCain, and Romney, and I'll vote for either Hillary or Bernie (two candidates I can't stand) over Trump, and I'm far from alone.
• ck2 11y ago
  Now we get to see the first ever anonymous hold put on a nomination for the supreme court. It's the only way they can try to run out the clock on Obama. Or come up with some kind of fake moral outrage. Can you imagine Trump picking the next three Supreme Court judges? It would set back America for decades.
  • ceejayoz 11y ago
    > It's the only way they can try to run out the clock on Obama. Two words: recess appointment. They've got a recess coming up later this year.
    • ck2 11y ago
      You know they have a trick for that too. Just just put someone there to gavel in each day and they are technically in session. Ironically the court itself ruled that is perfectly okay to do. Senate is the ultimate politics slimebowl of tricks, they are master level.
      • icebraining 11y ago
        Frankly, and as an outsider, purposefully waiting for a recess to appoint someone seems like the trick to me.
        • dredmorbius 11y ago
          Like it or not, that trick's specifically enshrined and established in the Constitution. That same document Scalia claimed to defend to vigilantly. Probably there for good reasons.
          • icebraining 11y ago
            Again, I'm hardly a scholar of the US Constitution, but if the excerpt of the Federalist papers by Hamilton quoted by Wikipedia[1] is anything to go by, the reason is very clear: to allow for an appointment which "might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay" while the Senate is in recess. That it allows for this trick seems like an unintended consequence. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment#Legitimacy_of_intrasession_appointments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment#Legitimacy_...
• lazyant 11y ago
  isn't this the judge that said that torture is not "cruel and unusual punishment" because the Constitution applies to persons and suspects conveniently labeled "enemy combatants" were not persons? good riddance
  • icebraining 11y ago
    From what I understand, that's not his argument. His position was that torture was only unconstitutional when used as punishment (and not for extracting information or other purposes).
• danso 11y ago
  RIP Justice Scalia. Didn't agree with him on * many things but he seemed like a relatively principled judge, as far as they go. (edit: Actually, can't think of too "many" things off the top of my head where I fully disagreed with him. I did enjoy reading his written rulings) In the coming days, it'll be interesting to see retrospectives on how Justice Scalia ruled on such issues as tech privacy and censorship. For example, in Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion which said that "video games qualify for First Amendment protection" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass%27n https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan... edit: More context on the ruling if you don't feel like clicking through: The 7-2 opinion struck down a California law that banned the sales of video games to minors, which had been signed into law by (of all the ironies), Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Basically, the court saw video games as art: > Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection. As described by Wikipedia: > Scalia's decision also stated that the current self-moderated industry standards like the ESRB are operated effectively to regulate the sale of more mature games to minors, and that "filling the remaining modest gap in concerned-parents' control can hardly be a compelling state interest" requiring a law to enforce. The two dissents were Justice Breyer (considered a liberal justice) and Justice Thomas, who is seen just as much of the conservative base as Scalia is. According to Wikipedia: > Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissented, each authoring a separate dissent. Justice Thomas, in his dissent, considered that historically, the Founding Fathers "believed parents to have complete authority over their minor children and expected parents to direct the development of those children," and that the intent of the First Amendment "does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians." Justice Alito and Roberts, the 2 other conservative members of the court, concurred with Scalia's opinion, but had reservations about being too lax in regulating the content of video games: > "There are reasons to suspect that the experience of playing violent video games just might be very different from reading a book, listening to the radio, or watching a movie or a television show," referencing the book Infinite Reality which highlights the psychological effects of virtual reality, and argued that the decision "would not squelch legislative efforts to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing social problem.
• mikerichards 11y ago
  Considering the constant 5-4 decisions, there's 0 chance that a new justice will be confirmed until the next President takes office
  • mrgordon 11y ago
    10 months? I find that unlikely. The conservatives might not LIKE it, but no 5-4 decision in the past is going to help them now.
    • mikerichards 11y ago
      The Republican-controlled Senate can just hold up the nominations until whenever. In fact, Republican voters are going to demand it. The American people should have a voice on this matter, and if the shoe was on the other foot, the dems would be saying the same thing.
      • saalweachter 11y ago
        Well, yeah, but that's why they elected Obama, twice.
        • mikerichards 11y ago
          True, but considering the circumstances, it's not going to happen until at least the next President is elected. The democrats would do the same thing.
          • mikeyouse 11y ago
            I'm not sure about that. I lean to the left but my biggest complaint is how easily democrats get pushed around.. My guess is that after a month of editorials in the WSJ and the constant drumbeat on the trail, they'd offer to vote on a centrist candidate, the republican in office would nominate someone pretty far right, and then to save face, they'd vote anyways and lose the vote.
    • 11y ago
• tzs 11y ago
  There has been some discussion here about whether or not Obama has time to get a replacement nominated and confirmed, or whether the Republicans can slow things down enough to push it to the next President (who they hope will be one of them). I wonder if it might be better for the Democrats to not even try to get a nominee through before the next election. From what I've seen liberal/progressive leaning younger voters are more likely than conservative leaning younger voters to feel that Congress and to a lesser extent the President are totally beholden to corporate lobbyists and that voting doesn't make a difference so why bother. An open Supreme Court position at the time of the election could give Democrats something to focus their get out the vote message on (for both the Presidential election and Congressional elections) that might get through to some of those younger liberal/progressive leaning voters.
  • barney54 11y ago
    Senator McConnell has announced that the Senate will not take up a Supreme Court nomination this year. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIYaMiW4AIU4ZB.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIYaMiW4AIU4ZB.jpg
    • otterley 11y ago
      It doesn't matter; President Obama can fill an vacancy without Senate approval during its summer recess.
  • clavalle 11y ago
    The Democrats have everything to win by trying to get a nominee through. If they get through, great! A Democratic appointment on the Court! If they don't, it can be a call to arms and a constant rallying cry showing how different the Right and Left are. We are not just electing the next President for four years but the next Justice for the next 30. If there is anyone with any motivation to vote whatsoever they will vote and demographics show that is good for Democrats. My guess is that Republicans are scrambling right now to posture for a fight but actually trying to get a moderate they can live with nominated so they can confirm them and not face that and tout themselves as reasonable and willing to work across the aisle despite their well earned reputation of late.
• ianamartin 11y ago
  I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man. He's always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two intelligent, educated people with reasonable minds may legitimately come to different conclusions about the same set of facts. I also found when reading transcripts of oral arguments that Scalia was really terrifically funny pretty often. Once, I was doing some computer repair work for an attorney who was interviewing Scalia extensively for a book about Supreme Court oral arguments. It was late in the day, and all the other staff were gone. The phone rang, and the attorney asked me if I would answer it since I was close, and tell whoever it was that he was busy. I picked it up and the voice on the other end said, "let me speak to x." I said he wasn't in. The voice says, "I know he's in. Let me speak to him please." I tried to deflect again, and he finally says, "This is Justice Scalia. I guarantee you your boss wants to talk to me." Without thinking I piped up and said, "Oh, Justice Scalia! You won't believe who just walked in the door! Just a second." Apparently Scalia thought that was hilarious and told the guy to pay me extra for popping off to a Supreme Court justice like that. Edit: as a quick sidenote, I'd encourage everyone to actually read the oral arguments and the full opinions for important cases as they come up. The media is absolutely terrible about over simplifying or just straight up not getting the issues correct. You will find that there is a hell of a lot of thought that goes into opinions, and there is much less predetermined ideology than the way these things often get painted.
  • sandworm101 11y ago
    >>> I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man. He's always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two intelligent, educated people with reasonable minds may legitimately come to different conclusions about the same set of facts. I didn't have much respect for the man or the justice. As a justice, his interpretations were always based on a selectively warped view of history. As a man, he issued a steady stream of insults against all sorts of people. Specifically, he said of lawyers like me (the not-harvard crowd) "You cannot make a purse out of a sow's ear". And he regularly talked down to anyone he though not ivy enough to share the room. That sort of disrespect isn't forgotten. Nobody should ever take joy in the death of another, but I will not miss his voice on the court.
• teawithcarl 11y ago
  In 1992, I saw Scalia in person preside over a three-judge panel (including two other federal district judges) at Harvard - at the Ames Moot Court, the famous moot (fake) court for the very best two teams of third-year law students. He did an excellent job over the two day proceedings. It was fascinating to watch in person. In a parallel event in the evening, I watched Scalia take questions in an open air pavilion lawn (with no security whatsoever, just an open event on campus). At one point an audience member asked him, "What's the most difficult area of law for you personally to judge?" After seriously furrowing his brow and mind, he finally and sincerely proffered up ... "Indian (Native American) law". My take on his answer - he found that area of law truly difficult as a strict constructionist.
• tomjakubowski 11y ago
  A dumb hypothetical because this will never happen, but: could Obama nominate himself to replace Scalia? And if the Senate somehow approved him, would he have to resign the presidency to take his spot on the bench? I don't see anything in the eligibility requirements to be President or a judge of the Supreme Court that would suggest an incompatibility. Is there relevant case law?
  • peeters 11y ago
    IIRC from a West Wing episode (where spoiler, the Speaker of the House becomes president due to an invocation of the 25th Amendment) one cannot serve two branches of the government at the same time. I'll try to find the law that backs that up. Edit: I think the rule in question is the Ineligibility Clause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineligibility_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineligibility_Clause. Contrary to how it was phrased in the WW, this seems to only affect serving in the Legislative branch and the Judicial or Executive branch at the same time. I don't think it in itself puts limit on serving in the Executive and Judicial branches simultaneously.
    • Anechoic 11y ago
      * Contrary to how it was phrased in the WW, this seems to only affect serving in the Legislative branch and the Judicial or Executive branch at the same time. I don't think it in itself puts limit on serving in the Executive and Judicial branches simultaneously. It doesn't - John Marshall served as the Secretary of State and Chief Justice of SCOTUS at the same time under John Adams.
  • bobwaycott 11y ago
    Well, there is the Ineligibility Clause in the Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 2). But that only concerns the ineligibility of cross-serving in the legislative and executive/judicial branches, iirc. There's nothing I can think of in the Constitution that prevents serving under the executive and judicial branches simultaneously. In fact, John Marshall did exactly that (Chief Justice & Sec. of State, iirc).
• teawithcarl 11y ago
  Lawrence Lessig (@Lessig) has yet to comment on Twitter - he clerked under Scalia. Lessig also clerked under Richard Posner, considered by many to be the top legal theorist in America.
• notthegov 11y ago
  I can't escape the thought of him driving to work and getting all his news only from conservative talk radio. And then declaring he literally believes in Satan. I'm for religious freedom but a Supreme Court judge who literally believes in evil and refuses to read news contrary to his politics beliefs, seems dangerous.
  • splintercell 11y ago
    Are you ok with the President believing in God, believing in praying daily, and receiving guidance at the time of crises? I am no fan of religious people, but a LOT of people are able to do their job properly despite of holding these crazy beliefs, and at the same time a lot of atheist do crazy stuff without having to resort to these beliefs.
    • hyperdunc 11y ago
      Don't you think a person is likely to make better decisions when their beliefs more accurately reflect reality? I would much prefer an atheist president but that's not likely to happen any time soon.
      • emmelaich 11y ago
        From my experience it means very little difference.
    • notthegov 11y ago
      I believe in God and goodness, hope and love. I do not believe in supernatural forces compelling man to be evil. The idea that a judge believes in Satan is absurd and dangerous. And no, it is a tragedy of modern civilization that our Presidents must believe in silly mythological stories. Freedom to be run by stupid people?
  • rdancer 11y ago
    Atheists are a puny minority. Deal with it. Religious freedom is precisely allowing people whose beliefs we're not comfortable with deciding about our lives. (Or not, if you also believe in limited government.)
• throwaway43563 11y ago
  Why should the death of a Supreme Court Justice matter this much, let alone be a cause for celebration (as it clearly is for some in this thread)? That unelected, life-tenured judges exercise this much authority over us, that they routinely subvert our collective democratic will as expressed through elections and referendums, that people even defend their votes for President on the basis of what kind of Supreme Court nominations they will likely make, does not suggest a healthy democracy.
  • splat 11y ago
    > That unelected, life-tenured judges exercise this much authority over us, that they routinely subvert our collective democratic will as expressed through elections and referendums, that people even defend their votes for President on the basis of what kind of Supreme Court nominations they will likely make, does not suggest a healthy democracy. Nor should it! The judiciary is at its best when it is overturning the will of the majority in order to defend the rights of minorities. The Court did precisely that in its most celebrated cases (e.g., Brown v. Board, Lawrence v. Texas), and upheld the will of the majority in its most infamous cases (e.g., Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States).
• brandonmenc 11y ago
  Scalia's appointment was a major point of pride for us Italian-Americans. Even today, if you're wealthy with an Italian last name, people joke about mafia connections. Representation on the highest court has been a great counter to that.
• hysan 11y ago
  Question for those familiar with how the Judicial system works: If Congress prevents any new appointments until after the election cycle, does that mean that the Supreme Court is effectively halted on making any rulings? What happens to the cases currently being taken on and those that are queued up? Would they all potentially be delayed an entire year+?
  • rdancer 11y ago
    No. There are eight justices left. The quorum is six. Source: 28 U.S. Code § 1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1
    • hysan 11y ago
      Ok, thanks. Do you also know how split decisions are handled now?
      • rdancer 11y ago
        Split decision means the lower court decision is affirmed. Simple majority is required for a reversal, or any change to status quo. Think about the Supreme Court as a very small Senate. The individual justices do not make decisions. The whole body does. They do operate a lot like a legislative body procedurally.
        • hysan 11y ago
          Ah ok, thanks for explaining it.
• cmurf 11y ago
  This is a happy day. I am so, so, SO incredibly happy that that cranky, fucking asshole is dead. He was a terrible person, and a complete waste of space, even the space in his grave is too valuable.
  • mcherm 11y ago
    I was trying to figure out how to respond to this. The best I could come up with was this: Mr. Rodgers would be disappointed in you.
  • cmurf 11y ago
    I haven't been this happy since Jerry Falwell died. When it comes to women, gays, people of color, they are both hopelessly lost causes. It is the generosity of the earth that even this abysmal human being will be returned back to nature through bacteria rotting his corpse, and reincorporating it. That's his best triumph as far as I'm concerned. In his opinion, moral objection to homosexuality was the only justification needed to criminalize it. My moral standard is that haters should be hated. So I'm better than he is for simply not saying anything nice about the man. I'm not suggesting he should go to jail for his viciousness. He was a bad person. I'm glad his dead. I wish it had happened sooner.
• dang 11y ago
  A reader emailed to suggest that we change the url from http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Ass... to this more substantive obituary. That seems like a good idea. If anyone can suggest a better URL, we can change it again.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• dinkumthinkum 11y ago
  I'm sorry but I don't think you have any idea how American politics and elections actually work. Democrats in meaningful numbers aren't going to vote for your Cruz, Rubio, Bush, or Trump because the president chose to use a recess appointment because he faced senate leader in McConnell that blatantly proclaimed he and his cohort would not be interested in governance and rather just play obstructionist games. On the contrary, elections in America are more (or less depending on your perspective) complicated than you imagine. First, of course, the idea that this would make democrats vote for Cruz is pretty, I hate to say it but, dumb. Second, presidential politics in our time is only about a small handful of states. Alabama isn't voting for Hillary and New York isn't voting Cruz. Third, you over estimate how much the electorate would care or understand about recess appointment. Have you ever met a voter other than yourself. We have college students at Texas Tech that don't know even know what the civil war was or what country on the other side of the Atlantic the Americans fought a revolutionary war against. You sound like you are probably very educated about those matters but you are hardly a meaningful representation of the electorate. There is so much time between now and the election, there are so many late night comedy skits, gotcha moments, weird and potentially racist statements yet to be said on the campaign trail that your idea that some kerfuffle about "recess appointments", which was actually not committed by any of the actual candidates, would even matter at all in the election seem pretty naive, impractical, and uninformed.
  • waterlesscloud 11y ago
    You're dreaming politics as you want them to be, not as reality is. Not to mention delusional interpretations of what I stated. We'll talk after the returns in November.
  • dang 11y ago
    > I don't think you have any idea how American politics and elections actually work. > dumb > Have you ever met a voter other than yourself. > naive, impractical, and uninformed Personal abuse is not allowed in Hacker News comments. It breaks the guidelines by being uncivil and unsubstantive, and provokes reactions in kind (see below). So please edit it out of what you post here. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11096684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11096684 and marked it off-topic.