February 13, 2016
Oh Hell
Supreme Court Justice Antonine Scalia was just found dead.
This is quite possibly the worst possible thing that could have happened at this time. This will tear apart the country worse than it is. Neo Neocon has thoughts here and here. And I think Jonah Goldberg nails it here...
Crap. Just ...Crap.
As Instapundit notes,
WELL, THIS UPS THE STAKES
Rather understated; that Instapundit fellow.
UPDATE: Here's a stream of consciousness on the subject and a collection of early reactions from Professor Jacobsen.
If the GOP can't fail to take a stand on this. Saving the very constitution from another Obama appointee, then the GOP needs to be put away.
This should be a relief, but it's McConnell so it isn't really.
Scalia was deeply hated by the left, but he seemed a very cheerful man and was an American of great intellect and consequence.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at
05:14 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 2 kb.
1
That man at this time...just awful.
Posted by: Clayton Barnett at Sat Feb 13 20:03:11 2016 (lU4ZJ)
2
Genuine tragedy.
Posted by: Ben at Sat Feb 13 20:43:54 2016 (DRaH+)
3
Oh dear.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Sun Feb 14 00:15:23 2016 (KiM/Y)
4
And from what I've seen, those on the Left are treating this with their typical level of grace and respect.
Posted by: Mauser at Sun Feb 14 06:17:40 2016 (5Ktpu)
5
While I don't disagree with the belief that "the next president should decide", on my part I admit it's pretty much for completely partisan reasons.
Would we feel the same way if it was a Republican president in office in his final year? And what is the "cutoff date" for such beliefs? If he had passed away in October 2015, what then?
Does "the next president should decide" have any legal legs to stand on?
Would we feel the same way if it was a Republican president in office in his final year? And what is the "cutoff date" for such beliefs? If he had passed away in October 2015, what then?
Does "the next president should decide" have any legal legs to stand on?
Posted by: Wonderduck at Sun Feb 14 07:59:44 2016 (KiM/Y)
6
'duck, based on everything I've read, and not being any kind of legal scholar, such a concept is usually described in terms of "tradition". To me, it's perfectly fine to keep it in the realm of politics...if you don't want the current President to pick the next justice, then you're free to try to stop the confirmation. Which goes for any political side. I think we get the language we've seen because polling and focus groups tend to claim to dislike "politics" in governing. Which is one of the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of, as "politics" in governing is the thing that keeps the government from running straight over you no matter what.
Posted by: Ben at Sun Feb 14 08:37:16 2016 (S4UJw)
7
Remember Robert Bork.
Posted by: Mauser at Sun Feb 14 16:31:08 2016 (5Ktpu)
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at Sun Feb 14 22:49:20 2016 (AaBUm)
9
Hey, I sleep with a pillow over my head. Proves nothing, unless you are found dead with itsy-bitsy broken veins in your eyeballs and other signs of suffocation.
Does suggest that the party may have been getting a little noisy.
Does suggest that the party may have been getting a little noisy.
Posted by: Suburbanbanshee at Sun Feb 21 13:44:05 2016 (ZJVQ5)
35kb generated in CPU 0.06, elapsed 0.4286 seconds.
71 queries taking 0.4195 seconds, 366 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
71 queries taking 0.4195 seconds, 366 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
