U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

RIP Justice Scalia.

This will effectively make the 2016 election decide both the Presidency AND the Supreme Court, as his successor will determine the court's balance. This may very well become one of the most important elections in US history.

Actually, President Obama can pick a successor. CNN is reporting that Obama has said he would name a successor in due time. However, Senate Majority Leader McConnell says the incoming president should pick Justice Scalia's successor. Looks like the most likely scenario will be: President Obama submits a nominee and the opposition party will try and delay action until a new president is elected. That would be a long delay, but it took more than three months to get Justice Thomas' nomination approved.

Actually, President Obama can pick a successor.

He can pick a successor, but don't think that the congress and senate will find time to hold confirmation hearings until after the election. They'll swim to Europe before they let Obama pick a new justice.

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, said the nomination should fall to the next president."

Of course! until the next president is a Democrat again, then they'll say it should fall to someone else -- like...ummm... a right-wing Republican. Nothing more vapid and see through than these guys.

This is the best thing you ever did for my country

Too bad there's no hell for him to go and rot.

It would be a serious affront to democracy to deny the President his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement.

Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by the Senate on February 3, 1988 - the final year of Reagan's second term, a mere 11 days earlier than where Obama is now - by a vote of 97 to 0, including the current Senate leader McConnell and Judiciary Committee head Grassley.

Wow. Was not expecting this one. Love him or hate him, Scalia was an enormous presence in American jurisprudence; his absence will be felt. Rest in Peace, Justice.

It would be a serious affront to democracy to deny the President his Constitutional authority to appoint a replacement.

Except that the legislature approving Supreme Court appointments is one of the checks and balances the founders explicitly envisioned. They created no limit for how long an appointment can be held up.

Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by the Senate on February 3, 1988 - the final year of Reagan's second term, a mere 11 days earlier than where Obama is now - by a vote of 97 to 0, including the current Senate leader McConnell and Judiciary Committee head Grassley.

"On November 30, 1987, Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court seat that had been vacated by Lewis F. Powell, Jr.. His nomination came after Reagan's failed nominations of Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate, and Douglas Ginsburg,[11][12]"

Nominated in 1987 after the Democrats rejected two of Reagan's nominations, most famous of which was Bork. The actual opening or need for a nomination came a full one and half years prior to the 1988 election. Not even close to the same situation. And considering the disgusting way the Democrats, including HARRY REID and JOE BIDEN treated Bork's nomination, the Democrats have no right to complain.

My point above is that the GOP is in danger of painting themselves into a perilous corner. The most recent precedent of a Supreme nominated at the tail-end of a president's term is so recent that most Republican Senators have their voting history attached (yea!). Obama will certainly nominate someone soon, and the GOP will then be faced with the choice of scheduling hearings and a vote - thus perhaps ensuring Obama's third appointment - or continuing their obstructionism that has already alienated so many. If they choose the latter course (which they likely will as they cannot help themselves), they will drive Democratic voters to the polls in November. Imagine a tepid Democratic response to a Clinton nomination superdrived by the knowledge that the vote is not just for the presidency but for control of the Supreme Court.

The GOP doesn't have many good ways to play this (behind-the-scenes assurances that an Obama nominee acceptable to both sides such as Sri Srinivasan followed by well-intentioned proceedings would be their best), but their history discounts this possibility. The election has just gotten very much more interesting.

The GOP will obstruct and we will be with 8 justices for years, potentially. They even block appointing lower level judges that have bipartisan support. Just because.

Let their scorched earth policies begin. It's the only card they play anymore.

It's been custom for US Presidents not to nominate Supreme Court vacancies during Presidential election years. Still, 11 months till the next President, plus nomination hearings and voting - that's a long time without one Supreme Court Justice that's deciding the final Constitutionality for the law of the land.

Even during election years, usually the US govt. has time to prepare for a missing SC Justice when the leaving SC Justice announces beforehand of his/her retirement. But a sudden death like this, with 11-plus months to go, the govt. has no time to prepare for. The Supreme Court works currently in the process can't be halted but still have to continue on, but the Scalia part of the works now go out the window.

Nominated in 1987 after the Democrats rejected two of Reagan's nominations, most famous of which was Bork. The actual opening or need for a nomination came a full one and half years prior to the 1988 election. Not even close to the same situation.

Reagan's first nomination was in July; his third, Kennedy, was on November 30. Either way, we're talking a matter of weeks over eight years of presidency.

You're correct that it is an entirely different situation, but not in the way you suggest. First, Reagan was nominating a vacating seat, which meant that time existed before the court could become deadlocked. Second, Bork was an extremely controversial nominee. The Congressional Democratic had warned Reagan that they would likely not smile on a Bork nomination, but Reagan went ahead with it anyway. (Remember, not only was Bork known for his extremely conservative views skewed towards an "imperial presidency" and against the Constitutional right to privacy, he also had just a decade previously caved in to Nixon's demand that he fire the Attorney and Deputy Attorney Generals, both of whom had refused to fire independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, who was investigating what came to be known as Watergate - and became the new Attorney General in return; this was still fresh in people's memory at the time. ) Finally, the Democratic leaders of Congress did fulfill their role to "advise and consent" - they allowed Reagan's nominee due process and rejected him, as is their Constitutional role.

The GOP-controlled Congress has long abrogated the responsibilities beholden to them, as demonstrated by the huge backlog of vacancies on lower courts due to their inaction. Ironically, these understaffed lower courts may be charged now with the responsibilities due to the Supremes if the Senate stonewalls and the Supremes deadlock. The GOP is treading on very thin - unprecedented - ice here.

The possibilities the GOP is playing with are: (1) The GOP wins big be retaining the senate and winning the presidency. (2) The GOP wins a little by gaining the presidency but losing the senate. (3) Status quo, with the GOP retaining the senate and the Dems winning the presidency. (4) The GOP suffers a huge loss by losing both.

Here's a scenario that could well play out: Obama knows the GOP is not going to allow its senators to approve anyone that Democrats would consider minimally acceptable, so he nominates someone whose rejection by the Senate will do maximum damage to the electoral chances of both the Republican presidential nominee and of the GOP senatorial candidates who will be in competitive races in November. The irony here is that a resulting Democratic presidency and senate would allow appointment of a far more liberal Supreme than Obama will nominate.

The odds suggest that Repubs should accept a compromise candidate, but with their leaders' knee-jerk reactions already ruling this out (geez, can't these guys even THINK?!), they are likely already committed.

The president also has to follow the protocol for nominating a candidate for SCOTUS. It requires a lot of cooperation between the Oval Office, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Senate in its entirety, not to mention the ABA. I'd say Obama has a VERY hard row to hoe, quite likely an insurmountable challenge.

RIP, Justice Scalia. The greatest Justice of the last hundred years, IMO.

Two things. One is that it's beyond me how Scalia is always described as brilliant. Sorry to say he sounded more often like a jerk. Second. Ever notice how conservatives accuse the court of being "activist" only when decisions go against what they desire. And the same when they declare the court should strictly follow the Constitution. Again, only when it suits their purposes.

He can pick a successor, but don't think that the congress and senate will find time to hold confirmation hearings until after the election. They'll swim to Europe before they let Obama pick a new justice.

That's definitely true, don't expect to see any confirmations before or right after the election.

I've been drinking all day in celebration. RIP(purgatory) Scalia!

Wow, dude, just wow. Even I wouldn't wish that on the liberal Judges of the court. I may not agree with them or like their politics, but wallowing in someone's death, in particular a Judge that basically had NO enemies and was best friends with one of THE most liberal judges on that Court: Ruth Bader Ginsberg You just can't get more liberal and yet, Scalia and her were very close. Come on.....

The GOP-controlled Congress has long abrogated the responsibilities beholden to them,

As did the Democrats which we witnessed when they controlled both the House and the Senate trying to steamroll every legislature that they could ram through and as a result of their recklessness, the Tea Party was formed out of the anger over the Dems reckless and insatiable appetite and greediness to overtax the people and they were fed up and didn't want to take it anymore. As a result, this was the beginning of the Dems losing the House and later the Senate. I'm not going to quibble and brag that the GOP has done a magnificent job, they haven't, but for Dems to act like they did a good job and they deserve to regain the majorities is nothing but laughable.

as demonstrated by the huge backlog of vacancies on lower courts due to their inaction. Ironically, these understaffed lower courts may be charged now with the responsibilities due to the Supremes if the Senate stonewalls and the Supremes deadlock. The GOP is treading on very thin - unprecedented - ice here.

Not so sure I'm buying that just yet.

The GOP will obstruct and we will be with 8 justices for years, potentially.

No, impossible. They're not as Weasley smart as Harry Reid to do that, so you libs don't have to worry.

They even block appointing lower level judges that have bipartisan support. Just because.

After almost 8 years of Progressives cheating, lying, scheming, I don't blame them either for wanting to ensure that we have bipartisan court and a level playing field and NOT a ONE-PARTY system which is what liberals want.

Let their scorched earth policies begin. It's the only card they play anymore.

Yeah, kinda like how libs constantly use the race card, it does get annoying and tedious after awhile.

The death of Scalia is very sad for America. He was one of the all time great legal minds and leaves the court greatly diminished. There are very few left now who actually believe in the Constitution that they have sworn to uphold. There are not many left who believe that America was conceived as a nation of laws constructed in compatibility with the nature of human beings. The idea of Constitutional government has all but been undermined by the allure of the Left's belief in the infallibility of their politics - despite all evidence to the contrary.

@joeintokyo

I've been drinking all day in celebration. RIP(urgatory) Scalia!

For the Left celebrating the partial birth abortions is getting a bit passe' so now they are on to celebrating the death of the elderly. Why not up the fun by encouraging your fellow Leftists' to go out and punch old white Christian ladies while you are at it? Good times huh!?! Let's not let human decency interfere with your base desires to defeat your enemies.

I am happy that the Republicans are saying they will not give Obama another Supreme Court justice - I hope they are serious. Not because it will stop the slow and inevitable take over of the court and the nation as a whole by the political Left. Unfortunately that train has left the station. I advocate a rear-guard action to continue to frustrate the Left's goals and thus provide at least some hope to those that still believe in the rights of each person to live their lives free from government coercion. I think that celebrating the frustrations of one's political opponents is much more decent than the Left's reveling in the death of one of theirs.

Yeah, kinda like how libs constantly use the race card, it does get annoying and tedious after awhile.

Yeah, because the problem is pointing out the racism, not the racism itself, right?

For the Left celebrating the partial birth abortions is getting a bit passe' so now they are on to celebrating the death of the elderly.

Funny thing is, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away and if ANY conservatives here or elsewhere would rejoice in her death, there would be condemnation and and anger as to how heartless the conservatives are, but if liberals do it....you guessed, they get a pass.

Why not up the fun by encouraging your fellow Leftists' to go out and punch old white Christian ladies while you are at it? Good times huh!?! Let's not let human decency interfere with your base desires to defeat your enemies.

Democrats/ Liberals and decency, it's like oil and water, they don't go together.

I am happy that the Republicans are saying they will not give Obama another Supreme Court justice - I hope they are serious. Not because it will stop the slow and inevitable take over of the court and the nation as a whole by the political Left. Unfortunately that train has left the station. I advocate a rear-guard action to continue to frustrate the Left's goals and thus provide at least some hope to those that still believe in the rights of each person to live their lives free from government coercion. I think that celebrating the frustrations of one's political opponents is much more decent than the Left's reveling in the death of one of theirs.

I couldn't agree with you more.

"He also advocated tirelessly in favor of originalism, the method of constitutional interpretation that looks to the meaning of words and concepts as they were understood by the Founding Fathers." - article

Scalia firmly demanded a state of clairvoyance.

Herein lies the failure of Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Constitution is an Amendable document. The only Justice who could understand the Constitution was the one who could best channel the Founding Fathers. Scalia, then, created a state of omniscience and a bell jar authority that only he could godly administer. (Unsurprisingly, only Scalia believed he could know the minds of those long dead.)

The GOP ShiaTea now trembles in it's midget intellect: *"What will happen if our class warfare isn't supported by the Supreme Court? What then?!"

So, as some saw, the GOP ShiaTea defaults to their standard operating procedure. "Delay, delay, delay."

The Founders never expected their sprit bodies to appear before Scalia and explain to him their specific demands. The Founders knew every generation sponsors and fosters change in their interpretations and legislative needs. That's why the Founders created an Amendable document.

Justice Antonin Scalia served the temporal gated community of the GOP ShiaTea long enough.

Time for Americans to have their Freedom back.

Time for the Court to move beyond Justice Antonin Scalia's Ouija Board interpretations.

Why would anyone opposing Obama's policies fall in line and support him or his views? Of course delay, delay, delay! I would expect the same if it were the GOP selection with liberal controlled senate. It's not rocket science it's common sense.

Over 7 years into hope and change. What good change came about? What hope is left for the next several months? The economy, stock market, and increasingly housing are in the tank or sluggish. Record high entitlement recipients. The most racial tension I have experienced in my life. I'm paying more taxes ever. And USA owes more than $19 trillion dollars in debt!!! Keep those potential tax payers collecting them instead of adding to them! Way to go!

Why would anyone opposing Obama's policies fall in line and support him or his views? Of course delay, delay, delay

And that's the problem with the republican party these days. They care more about their political views, than they do about the country. To them, stopping Obama is more important than doing what is right for the people.

@kc-tea

Scalia firmly demanded a state of clairvoyance.

You do not know what textualism and originalism mean. Clairvoyance? Not quite. Scalia believed that instead of using one's own point of view to bear in deciding a case, the role of the judge was to read the words and understand them in the context in which they were written.

(Unsurprisingly, only Scalia believed he could know the minds of those long dead.)

Scalia never claimed to know the minds of the Founders by anything other than the words they used and the meaning of those words at the time they were written. By contrast, the courts Liberal',s; Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan believe that the words in the Constitution and the laws passed by the legislature are essentially whatever they think they should be. The actual words in the Constitution and in Laws are for them not as important to their Leftist goals. The idea of a "living and breathing" Constitution is an excuse for imparting their own views onto the law. The Constitution is already a living document in the sense that it can be changed by the amendment process. The Left ignores that and reads into the words whatever contemporary need they feel is necessary to get to their political goals. Hardly the role of a judge.

Justice Antonin Scalia served the temporal gated community of the GOP ShiaTea long enough.

Well, maybe that's how we conservatives feel about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The clock is ticking away on her.

Time for Americans to have their Freedom back.

That's why we have Trump.

Time for the Court to move beyond Justice Antonin Scalia's Ouija Board interpretations.

When a liberal Supreme Court Justice dies, I'll remember to utter the same sentence.

And that's the problem with the republican party these days. They care more about their political views, than they do about the country.

That would be both parties.

To them, stopping Obama is more important than doing what is right for the people.

1) If Obama wouldn't be so toxic and sit down and work with the GOP instead of having this arrogant attitude, it's either my way or the highway.

2) Obama is the epitome of how a president cares for pure ideology. The GOP doesn't have to worry. Thank God we only have a few more months until this Tyrant is finally out of our lives.

StrangerlandFEB. 15, 2016 - 12:28AM JST Why would anyone opposing Obama's policies fall in line and support him or his views? Of course delay, delay, delay

And that's the problem with the republican party these days. They care more about their political views, than they do about the country. To them, stopping Obama is more important than doing what is right for the people.

FYI.....Obama is the least cooperative president in my time. He cares about his political views which have been toxic to the country. To the liberals supporting Obama is more important than doing what is right for the people.

You do not know what textualism and originalism mean.

@Wolfpack (or anyone). I'm interested to know. I'm not from the US or from a country that has an equivalent of its constitution and supreme court. I'm supposing that by "textualism", he meant we should follow the wording of the law to the extent we can. I'm also supposing that he thought that if you don't like the laws as they are written, we should write new ones. Would that be right? I think I would be more comfortable with that approach than trying to twist and torture written laws to mean whatever you want them to.

I don't think you guys get it. The GOP will block the nomination. If the Democrats win the White House, the GOP will again block the nomination. And if Republicans win the White House, well then the Democrats are going to return the favor. Obviously.

I think we will be at 8 justices for years to come. The GOP isn't against any one nominee, they are going to set the precedent that they have the right to simply break the process, and apparently they actually believe their can just restart it based on who gets into office, and suddenly the Democrats will fall in line and work with them after the GOP refused to play by the rules while Obama was in office. In short, the Repubs will give the Dems a blueprint to stop nominations so no one can get appointed regardless who holds the presidency.

Looks like Republicans found a new thing to break.....the Supreme Court. And of course they will ignore the short-sightedness of their actions for temporary gain, and the entire country will suffer. Democrats should mention this daily until the elections and hopefully pick up some extra votes. But in the end once the precedent is made that Congress can gridlock the nomination process then it will become a fixture in American politics.

Welcome to the future of the 4-4 vote.

Thanks to Obama's administration SuperLib you are correct. You can read here "I hate Republicans" and "ShiaTea party" and others. It's not a cooperative 2 party system. It's my way or the highway. Even Hillary said her enemy is the Republicans........ How on earth can anyone expect a functioning cooperative government when one side opposes the other so strongly?

This election is an important one. Hopefully one that brings USA together again. Racists, sexists, and homophobes are in both party's. It's simply how to govern is the difference. For me, I want the debt to come down. I don't want an artist to collect entitlements simply because he or she doesn't want to work and pay taxes like Pelosi suggested. It's about leaving strong fiscally sound USA for future generations.

Let the GOP block any nomination by POTUS before the election this fall. Go ahead. Then when Hillary wins, she can nominate Obama ! GOTCHYA !

MarkG: Thanks to Obama's administration SuperLib you are correct.

You'd have to be an ass to go along with the GOP policy of gridlock. It's not some kind of temporary thing that the poor GOP is forced to use because Obama is just sooooo bad, as if you are some kind of reluctant political destroyer. Gridlock is the only option since Republicans can't agree with each other.

The fact is that your party cannot function within it's own walls. You have to have a GOP consensus on a topic, then you enter into discussions with Democrats. But it never reaches that point. We limp along with the a band-aid budget because the moderate GOP members and the fringe right cannot agree with each other, hence no unified Republican position. While you guys are swapping out your Speaker of the House because of the internal war, you chalk it up to, "Well, we can't have a budget because Obama doesn't compromise." Which, of course, someone in the bubble told you to say.

So is electing Jeb Bush going to change that? How about Rubio? Or Cruz? Or Trump? Suddenly the Tea Party will start agreeing to their budgets? Of course not. They are already working to oust Paul Ryan. But that's probably Obama's fault, too.

So here we are again, another critical decision has to be made and (shock!) the GOP position is gridlock. And of course, it's just a temporary thing until we get rid of the black President. We'll get things back to normal when this extraordinary situation of the world worst president is behind us, right? The Tea Party and moderate Republicans will suddenly start to agree with each other, senators like Cruz will stop stabbing members in the back, Republicans will stop poisoning their own legislation, we'll have an Obamacare replacement, have a vote on immigration, etc.

Once Obama is gone suddenly the GOP will function again, or something like that. The chaos in your party is about to cause chaos in the Supreme Court and you have no one to blame but yourself.

One definition of intellectual handcuffs:

Scalia never claimed to know the minds of the Founders by anything other than the words they used and the meaning of those words at the time they were written.

The ordinary reader sees the fallacy here.

One must first imagine a state of perception to understand "words at the time they were written." (Something actually unknowable until the time machine is invented.)

What the Constitution holds is the belief that interpretation of the words is the responsibility of each generation and an important one.

What the Constitution does not hold is the belief that one can magically transport the needs of 2016 back to 1787, run them through the Scalia translator, and then have the correct interpretation divined by the GOP ShiaTea.

Pure poppycock. Utter nonsense.

Originalism was NEVER mentioned in any founding documents of the United States of America. It's something Justice Antonin Scalia made up to justify his activist judicial interpretations. Happy now?

Obviously you don't see the issues. Obama is not so bad, his ideal for USA is. It's set for self destruction as I type yet it goes unseen by the liberals. Certainly I would do everything I could to derail many of his policies. I see many of them as ending USA as we knew it. You seethem in the polar opposite. Economics 101.... Spend more than you take in = destruction of USA.

I wasn't aware the Democratic Party is so equally cooperative. They are programmed robots or they are equally disagreeing within.

Obama was handed a terrible mess, agreed. Obama had a chance to turn it around, he didn't and spent trillions on no results. When he was elected I had hope for change. It was all the wrong change and the hope is long gone. Ask the minority communities, the hope and change hurt them more than ever.

"Let the GOP block any nomination by POTUS before the election this fall. Go ahead. Then when Hillary wins, she can nominate Obama ! GOTCHYA !" - comments

Obama would make the greatest Supreme Court Justice the States has ever known.

Madame Clinton will likely discuss this possibility with Senator Sanders as they continue to rebuild from the cratering of the States under AWOL Bush and the GOP ShiaTea.

It was mentioned in an interview with HRC about a week or so ago that it would be a good job for him after he left his current post. I imagine that Michelle would have something to say about that though !

I don't think you guys get it. The GOP will block the nomination.

As they should.

If the Democrats win the White House, the GOP will again block the nomination. And if Republicans win the White House, well then the Democrats are going to return the favor. Obviously.

Here is the problem, NO one in the GOP trusts Obama. Clinton was different, the GOP could work with him, he compromised and was more centrist and more pragmatic, this president is far, far from it. You think the GOP will stand by and allow Obama to pick a radical progressive judge to tilt the balance of power which is now a centrist Supreme Court, which is perfectly fine, but to seal the deed, to further destroy the country and to pull it as left as possible, Obama needs to fill the Supreme Court with as many new radical progressive Justices and the GOP would never allow it and if the shoe was on the other foot, the Dems would do the same, so there is no need to complain or be shocked.

I think we will be at 8 justices for years to come.

If that is what it takes to keep the country from becoming a giant Sweden, they should.

The GOP isn't against any one nominee, they are going to set the precedent that they have the right to simply break the process, and apparently they actually believe their can just restart it based on who gets into office,

Super, you are cracking me up. You think if the roles were reversed, the Dems would allow the GOP to pick a conservative nominee or a conservative evangelical? Radicals like Elizabeth Warren would have a heart attack. Maybe you and your progressive friends don't care, but I liked the Supreme Court the way it was and that it was in the middle. I want them to vote on issues based on the constitution and not based on ideology which is what will happen if more progressives occupy the court.

and suddenly the Democrats will fall in line and work with them after the GOP refused to play by the rules while Obama was in office.

What a bunch of stinking pile of BS! the GOP tried so hard to work with this nut job and the ONLY thing he was and ever has been interested in is making sure all of his progressive agendas come to fruition, that's it! He has always been about ideology and NEVER for the people.

In short, the Rvepubs will give the Dems a blueprint to stop nominations so no one can get appointed regardless who holds the presidency.

For the country it's a good and wise thing to do, for the progressives, it's panic time. I can't say I blame you guys, another fork in the road to halt the repressive radical progressives.

Looks like Republicans found a new thing to break.....the Supreme Court. And of course they will ignore the short-sightedness of their actions for temporary gain, and the entire country will suffer.

The country has been suffering for 7 years and will most likely for 267 more days until is all thankfully behind us. Then, the country should begin the process of healing itself with new leadership.

Democrats should mention this daily until the elections and hopefully pick up some extra votes. But in the end once the precedent is made that Congress can gridlock the nomination process then it will become a fixture in American politics.

Hopefully.

Welcome to the future of the 4-4 vote.

At least for the time being, I can sleep well.

You'd have to be an ass to go along with the GOP policy of gridlock. It's not some kind of temporary thing that the poor GOP is forced to use because Obama is just sooooo bad,

Ohhh, yes, it is! That bad!

as if you are some kind of reluctant political destroyer. Gridlock is the only option since Republicans can't agree with each other.

More like, they can't trust this president.

The fact is that your party cannot function within it's own walls. You have to have a GOP consensus on a topic, then you enter into discussions with Democrats. But it never reaches that point.

You are right, the GOP is a mess and at the same time, the Dems are ONLY about ideology, so who gets screwed, the country and you wonder why a person like Trump and a person like Sanders can turn Washington on its head?

We limp along with the a band-aid budget because the moderate GOP members and the fringe right cannot agree with each other, hence no unified Republican position.

That's one reason and the other because we have a president that refuses to budge on ANY issue, if it doesn't benefit liberals, pure and simple.

While you guys are swapping out your Speaker of the House because of the internal war, you chalk it up to, "Well, we can't have a budget because Obama doesn't compromise." Which, of course, someone in the bubble told you to say.

I could swear, if I am not mistaken, you seem very worried and bent out of shape on this issue. Now you know a bit how us conservatives feel back in 2008 and ever since then....

So is electing Jeb Bush going to change that? How about Rubio? Or Cruz? Or Trump? Suddenly the Tea Party will start agreeing to their budgets? Of course not. They are already working to oust Paul Ryan. But that's probably Obama's fault, too.

About Rand Paul, I will say this, nice guy, a lot of interesting ideas some very good, some not, but that's it. He's almost as bad as he's father in many ways.

So here we are again, another critical decision has to be made and (shock!) the GOP position is gridlock.

On this one, I think they will get broad support from the public.

And of course, it's just a temporary thing until we get rid of the black President.

Yes, but he's going to be out because he's time is up, not because of his color. Try again with the race card.

We'll get things back to normal when this extraordinary situation of the world worst president is behind us, right?

Exactly!!

The Tea Party and moderate Republicans will suddenly start to agree with each other, senators like Cruz will stop stabbing members in the back, Republicans will stop poisoning their own legislation, we'll have an Obamacare replacement, have a vote on immigration, etc.

Don't know about all that, but at least there will be more tolerance and ears to at least LISTEN to new ideas and legislation. But why do you complain. Harry Reid was doing the same thing until 2014, blocked every legislation that came from the GOP House and NOW you are complaining and crying foul because the shoe is on the other foot. Seriously, the Dems and libs reap what they sow, I have zero sympathy for them.

Once Obama is gone suddenly the GOP will function again, or something like that. The chaos in your party is about to cause chaos in the Supreme Court and you have no one to blame but yourself.

They will just take their chance. Good on them.

Thankfully, no executive orders can fill this position.

Thankfully, no executive orders can fill this position.

Yeah, god forbid the country move forward instead of having every move blocked for being black.

MarkG: Obviously you don't see the issues. Obama is not so bad, his ideal for USA is.

Let me put it to you like this, Mark. Here is your party's position on the Supreme Court justice: There will be no 9th Supreme Court Justice unless Republicans are allowed to choose who it is.

The end.

Yeah, god forbid the country move forward instead of having every move blocked for being black.

Seriously? This is why people are drowning out the liberal pathetic and feeble race card attacks.

@Strangerland,

There it is. The default setting, Hes black. Doesnt work. How about Clarence Thomas? He`s very respected and nominated by Republicans.

Seriously? This is why people are drowning out the liberal pathetic and feeble race card attacks.

You're right. Racists always ignore the people who point out their racism.

It appears that Obama is going to nominate a moderate judge to replace Scalia. This is not only Obama being a constructive realist, it is also clever politics. If the Republicans obstruct, they are going to look (even more) foolish and petty. Moreover, Republicans will be taking the risk that if a Democrat wins the White House, that president is much more likely to nominate someone who is more liberal. It's a gamble for the GOP: accept a moderate judge now, or take your chances on getting a more liberal one next year. Unless SuperLib is correct and the GOP continues to block for years to come. Personally I don't think that will work, and I hope it doesn't, but who knows.

I really can't see any situation where Republicans confirm a Democratic nominee. The GOP needs this too badly and they know their supporters will go along with anything.

They'll throw out some excuses from time to time as to why they won't touch the issue. It won't matter if the president is Clinton or Sanders. It could be a Republican nominee and I guarantee that the Tea Party will link their support to some radical agenda which will hault the process.

The good news is that the court can function with 8, and losing a very conservative judge could turn a 5-4 loss into a 4-4 tie in which case the lower courts decision stands. If you want to think long term, that should guarantee a few victories for us.

@Super -- I can't see it either. The dysfunction is depressing. On the other hand, the people in the GOP who know what's going on (and there are some) can't be willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The GOP 'establishment' knows that its 2016 campaign has become a comedy show, and it's not happy about it. But then, if we can add a third hand, this situation is so unprecedented and weird and out of control that, who knows, maybe the Republicans will screw the pooch and just say WTF. Let's go the the full Ted Cruz immolation.

The catch is that with an 8-justice SCOTUS, district level decisions that have been moving leftwards (especially on social issues) will stay that way. Which is ironic, as conservatives tend to favor states' rights.

Weird, weird, weird!

It's a gamble for the GOP: accept a moderate judge now, or take your chances on getting a more liberal one next year. Unless SuperLib is correct and the GOP continues to block for years to come. Personally I don't think that will work, and I hope it doesn't, but who knows.

You're right, it is a gamble, but given the political climate that seems to be favoring conservatives and a lot of disgruntled and dissatisfied White people, the chances of a conservative getting into the White House seems very likely, not saying that I'm 100% right, but I have a feeling the Dems are going to lose big, but so far with how everything has been played out politically these 8 months, I wouldn't put anything past anyone.

I really can't see any situation where Republicans confirm a Democratic nominee.

Nor, can I see the opposite.

The GOP needs this too badly and they know their supporters will go along with anything.

As I keep saying, if the Dems were in the same position, of course they would run with it, they'd be stupid not to.

They'll throw out some excuses from time to time as to why they won't touch the issue. It won't matter if the president is Clinton or Sanders. It could be a Republican nominee and I guarantee that the Tea Party will link their support to some radical agenda which will hault the process.

You know what they say about payback....

The good news is that the court can function with 8, and losing a very conservative judge could turn a 5-4 loss into a 4-4 tie in which case the lower courts decision stands. If you want to think long term, that should guarantee a few victories for us.

Oh, really? How so?

The GOP 'establishment' knows that its 2016 campaign has become a comedy show, and it's not happy about it.

But the people also know that the Dems sideshow is even funnier and they are VERY happy about it, particularly the rise of Bernie.

"The catch is that with an 8-justice SCOTUS, district level decisions that have been moving leftwards (especially on social issues) will stay that way. Which is ironic, as conservatives tend to favor states' rights." - comments

Good point. The GOP ShiaTea; "The Party of Personal Hypocrisy"

The GOP ShiaTea; "The Party of Personal Hypocrisy"

And once again, you confuse the parties. Hypocrisy is a word that was invented and cultivated by the Democrats.

Short memories abound. The fact is that the libtard Dumocraps previously promised to do the same thing. Butthurt libtards. http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/

I remember that, but we know liberals have specific selective memory.

"Short memories abound. The fact is that the libtard Dumocrats previously promised to do the same thing. . http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/14/flashback-in-2007-schumer-called-for-blocking-all-bush-supreme-court-nominations/"

But, it's ok to say" Shia TEA"? That's vulgar.

kcjapan - Good point. The GOP ShiaTea

kcjapan, what does "GOP ShiaTea" mean?