Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 79, Has Died, Officials Say

@Aljosa23: Just a loss in general. Loss of life is always sad.

No it's not...

@Serraph105: If Obama is smart, he will select a moderate. Would the Republicans let a moderate on the Court or honestly let the winner of the Presidential election (likely a democrat) possibly pick a flaming liberal for the Court. Letting a moderate on there seems like the better option of the two. Actually, there are some interesting choices for Obama. One is a black justice that is a moderate that is highly recommended, (I forget his name, starts with a V) and one is an Indian American (from India) who also comes highly recommended and the last is a woman, (who is more liberal than moderate) that he is supposedly looking at, in regards to nominations.

@Allicrombie:

Haha watching the Walking Dead marathon right now....you remind me of Morgan:

"All life is precious" - Morgan (from Eastman)

I'll never understand the "life is precious" argument when there have been close to 100 Billion humans that have lived and died over our history. Life is only precious to the living.

@AFBrat77: I like Morgan !

No surprise certain people on this forum would be happy he is no longer on the supreme court even in death which is sad.

Whether you agree or disagree with his positions(disagreed with virtually every social stance he took) the FACT is that this country and the world lost an absolute brilliant mind.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Like the man or loathe him, his world ended yesterday. It's just a matter of empathy.

It is a mindset that is factually WRONG. Not all life is precious. The world would be IMMENSELY better had the likes of Adolf Hitler never existed, and his death was one of, if not THE most POSITIVE things to happen last century.

That type of sappy thinking is just plain naive and is not based on reality. It needs to be thrown out along with the likes of the thinking that nothing is worse than death. There are most certainly things worse than death and it bothers me that we as a society refuse to recognize this. We would rather keep people on living absolute NIGHTMARISH existences rather than let them have their release, even when they ask for it. If more people got to actually see the hells that some people live I think they would change their tune quickly, but then again people might just be too afraid to recognize such a hard fact of life.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Very intelligent and, as a result, a very dangerous man. A self-loathing Justice that tried to destroy the system from within. Inflexible due to his "originalist" dogma, and corrupt because of his conservative beliefs.

The world is a better place without him.

generally I'd agree with you, but I make an exception for Scalia.

I thought the cold hard fact was that the world wouldn't be better off if Adolf Hitler never existed? I mean your very first sentence is such a contradiction to the context it's not even remotely funny. It's not even a minuscule thought process when the very idea that the masses have benefited from such morally heinous people existing have been portrayed time and time again in different PC ways. But regardless of that, no, the world is not better off.

I hear this guy was a "scumbag homophobic racist". I tend to spit on all they're graves.

@LostProphetFLCL:

Adolf Hitler had such a massive influence on the shaping of the modern world you have absolutely no idea what would have happened to the world if he never existed.. It is extremely ignorant to suggest that the world would be better or worse with out such a key figure, regardless of how heinous their crimes have been.. For all we know with out his existence the human race could all be dead because the Cold War for one reason or another led to a nuclear exchange leading to a nuclear holocaust where we all died.. You can't just take a central figure in one of the largest events in modern human history, and declare that the world would be a better place if he never existed.. It is impossible to make such a conclusion with the billions upon billions of factors that would change with him not existing..

without hitler 1.100.000 jews, 140.000 polish, 20.000 Sinti/Roma wouldnt have tourched to death, and thats only the numbers from one KZ ... are these enough factorsts to calculate how much better it would hav been if hitler never existed ?

you have to draw a line some were

fun fact: Hitler was about to commit suicide before his time as political leader, but fellow american friends who admired his standpoints succeded in changing his mind ...

I beg to differ. When someone like Margaret Thatcher died it was a joyous, happy day.

For anyone suffering the delusion that Republicans will be blocking any Obama appointment to the SCOTUS because they want to preserve the sanctity of the court.. it's not about that at all. As long as they can stonewall appointments through the campaign cycle, it will energize their shattered base to actually show up to vote for whomever gets nominated by their party to run for President. In fact, it's the only blue chip they have to play for people that will either need to show up for Trump or Jeb Bush.

If you think this is about anything other than that, I do laugh at you. The GOP is factional and divided. The party leadership literally got wood at the news scalia died. Don't get it twisted.

Ah the age old moronic attitude defending racism and bigotry as not getting caught up in PC "bullshit".

so anyone saying he 'died on purpose' so someone can benefit from a deadlocked court ... ?

The court is not deadlocked, Kennedy is more liberal than conservative even tho he was appointed by Reagan.

He went for both in the same-sex marriage and obamacare.

So i do get why republicans are fighting hard to make sure that Obama does not get a chance to appoint a 6th liberal judge to the bench.

Right, what ever lies that make you sleep at night.

Bill Maher reminds us how big of a nutjob Scalia really was.

I don't wish the man dead, but him off the Supreme Court is the best news I've heard in a while. Now to watch this shitshow of a congress come up with non-partisan excuses as to why they can't approve Obama's next nomination.

The guy is a moderate republican. And while he did side with gay marriage (which any sane person would do) and obama care, he is more likely to side with republicans than democrats.

Kennedy tends to be more socially moderate for reasons which are debatable, but he is rather consistent in his support of corporations. Situations such as this are exactly why I tend to bristle at viewing political party association as a "spectrum". But it is what it is.

He is not a moderate republican and no he is not more likely to side with the republicans. He may have been and if you look at his decisions they did in his early years side with Scalia and the other republican conservatives on the bench. But in the later years he has been far more liberal than conservative and he was the deciding vote for as i said in same-sex marriage and Obama Care to take two of the biggest cases.

the ****? They're just adding on made up words now?

Those are 2 decisions he made that leaned more to the left. But 2 decisions does NOT override the fact that in general, he is more likely to vote in favor of what hte republicans want.

The guy is if anything, a centrist on the spectrum of political ideology. Leaning left on social issues but right on financial issues. Of course, everything is a spectrum, so dont expect him to vote consistantly for it. Still even on the spectrum, he would lie slightly to the right, but only by an inch.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/24/upshot/24up-scotus-agreement-rates.html?rref=upshot&smid=tw-upshotnyt&_r=0

It is clear you do not understand US politics.

You clearly have no clue about what Justice Kennedy is .

Calling him a republican and more likely to vote with them is not the case, particular when he in 4 Major cases has voted with the more liberal justices. areas which are considered the cornerstone of republican politics. He may have certain republican "ideas" but he is more a moderate independent than a moderate republican.

So talk about not having a clue.

Also it´s a interesting tidbit that Kennedy got voted onto the bench 97-0 by a democratic controlled senate.

Yet the actual statistics would sya otherwise. The fact is, he is more likely to vote for republican ideals than democratic ones. As article quite clearly showed. Not siding with republicans on their fringe lunacy doesnt make you a liberal or more left than right. Unless no true scotsman is something more than a logical fallacy. He leans somewhat to the right by a minor ammount which means that no matter how you spin it, he is closer to a conservative than a liberal. Statistics prove you wrong, and to continue in denial is to commit willful ignorance.

I hope you are not implying same sex marriage is a major case? Because same sex marriage is by all means pretty minor. Letting new couples get married (that might in total embody little more than half of a percentage of all marriages) and a minor economic boost is hardly something major. The only notable thing about it was the comedy that could be derived from the utter stupidity of those who opposed it.

And he got appointed by Ronald Reagan, who is the true god of the Republican religion.

He is the guy I respect the most in SCOTUS by a long shot. He actually makes deciisons based on individual cases instead of ideology. He isnt as prone to double standards like someone such as say... Antonin Scalia is.

Your not grasping my point.. Adolf Hitler and by extension World War 2 dramatically changed the economic, political climate of the world... Who in the hell is "admiring" his standpoint? I specifically pointed out in my comment that he was a horrible person.. But to suggest that the world would be a better or worse place if he didn't exist is absurdly ignorant.. For all we know with the USSR not getting the kind of losses in WW2 could have made them far more dangerous in the Cold War era.. And the United States would not be the military powerhouse it became due to no WW2 build up.. There are billions of variables to throw in there, especially when we look at the decades past in which a nuclear holocaust WAS possible where every one on the planet could have died..

Same idea as a Butterfly effect, only your not upsetting something small that cascade into something massive.. Your upsetting something incredibly massive that has a pronounced massive impact on modern world history.. Hopefully you understand that before you try to bring out appeal to emotion fallacies to cover up something you don't grasp..

And your trading lets say 50 million lives for the possibility of every one in the world perishing due to wildly different out comes..

No idea who the guy was, still thoughts go to his closest family.

Another quote from the compassionate left.

He was one of the greatest minds in our country and his rulings made America a better place.

He did not tolerate anything that would destroy our nation and he fought against all sorts of trends his entire life to make sure we were all safe.

He was a true hero, a champion of the people.

Im just happy he helped pass Obamacare before he died. RIP Scalia, hopefully we find your replacement soon, we need someone fast so America can continue to be the best. Obama better hurry, its the Presidents job to find a replacement asap so America can get back to important work.

So where are those global warming links?

It is a shame your education doesn't allow you to do your own research or are you to lazy?

So you made a claim and now you are dancing around having to provide proof of your claim. Do you ever wonder why nobody on this forum respects you Jim? Because this is a perfect example.

I wonder what Justice Kennedy thinks. Are last year nominations a bad practice?

*too

I just expect evidence if you're gonna claim something.

When people call me on things, I provide evidence.

I expect the same of otherss.

According to TIME, Obama won't be going to his funeral.

You don't rush a supreme court nomination. It's arguably the most important position in the US. I kinda wish justices were elected so the people get to choose who is on the bench rather than the president putting up someone that agrees with their politics.

@Toxic-Seahorse: I think may be best for someone more qualified to choose. Maybe if they let us vote and then they vote also. But its a hard job, you have to be very qualified and im not sure most understand how important it is. Its why America has survived so long using the federalist form of government. It keeps everyones powers balanced.

@Toxic-Seahorse: The entire point of not having them elected is to separate them from electoral politics as much as possible. If all three branches are subject to elections, then the majority can trample over the rights of the minority at will.

Valid point. The things is that I don't think the president is necessarily qualified to choose a justice because most of the time they just pick people who have the same ideals as them. Maybe have the lower federal court judges vote on it? People that are actually being judges and dealing with law. I don't know. Now that I think of it there's not really a solid good way to do it.

@Toxic-Seahorse: Funny thing, only two governments nominate Justices, the President, and the Justices themselves. Its very rare though, since the President is the leader. But yeah, the Justices themselves can choose a new member, its legal by law under the United States Constitution.

Good riddance, so far to me I've stumbled upon enough information convincing me that he was an almighty disaster to have in the Supreme Court. Choose wisely Obama, I think you can make the right choice on appointing a far better replacement.

Interesting. I did not know that.

I do find it rather distasteful that people are celebrating the death of a person who did no harm to them. I didn't agree with most of his views but I would never say "good riddance" to a human being that wasn't hurting other people.

How is that any different from the majority gaining both legislative and executive branch and then appointing their friends to the supreme court? I guess the lifetime term helps get rid of those types of things but what you say is definitely still possible.

@Toxic-Seahorse: Thats true, there is always an angry type side or whatever with people. Just like people will wish harm on Hillary or Obama, it just comes with the job kinda. Bush got it too. Anyone that is against others political agenda will always be in the cross-hair of some.

It doesn't rid it entirely of influence, but as the idea of the judicial branch is to interpret laws it's necessary to separate it where you can. Otherwise it just becomes a rubber stamp for the legislature.

It's similar to the idea behind walling off the Federal Reserve from electoral politics. Fed chairs are appointed be elected officials, but after that they no longer answer to those officials. This allows the Fed to act quickly, decisively, and independently from a body of officials that are often slow, paralyzed, and/or incentivised to appease a group of people who don't understand monetary policy/theory.

I understand the reasoning and it works in theory, but is still easily corruptible in practice. If they wanted to truly separate the judicial branch from the other 2 branches the justices shouldn't be appointed by those branches. While it's true they don't answer to those that appoint them, when the president is only appointing people that support him or are part of his "party" it kinda defeats the entire purpose of separating the branches.

#

and till you choose those variables that lead to the death of millions of people ? ... so at some day someone knocks at your door and sais, well you are one of the 50million that were choosen to be sacrificed so the rest of us can live ... idk call it socialism or fascism ... its not working that way ... we dont know were we would be if nazi Germany wouldnt have had the idea to go to war and would have instead used all its power and knowledge to develop things that mankind actually benefits from ... but at this point u are the one being okay if they decide to develop nukes and camps and ideiologies ...

oh look, a sack rice has fallen apart in china and ... nothing ... humanity needs fixed values as orientation, and if 50million people die something is going extremly into the wrong direction