Terrible news: Scalia found dead
This is terrible terrible news on every level.
We are all hostages to fate, are we not?
First, tragic for Scalia’s friends and family.
Second, the left will be crowing and celebrating in the end zone, and you can easily see it already if you look at comments to the first articles about the event.
Third, Obama gets to appoint Scalia’s successor. That’s a very different thing than what people have long been speculating about, Ginsberg’s possible retirement and his appointment of her successor, because this event changes the entire makeup of the Court into a liberal one. It will deeply affect our entire country and the direction in which it goes.
Fourth, cue the conspiracy theories. This can only raise the temperature of the bitterly divisive hatred that’s become standard (and in many ways understandable) these days.
This is such a blow that I really feel at a loss right now.
RIP.
[ADDENDUM: It occurs to me that since the GOP controls Congress, they at least theoretically have the power to block Obama’s appointment of a successor until after the 2016 election, and if a Republican wins they might want to extend it until after the inauguration (in which case they also run the risk of a Democratic Senate being elected, which would probably then block any GOP president’s appointment of a successor). Whether the current GOP in the Senate will exercise their power to say no right now is another question. I’m going to have to research the question whether this has ever happened before; I’m not really conversant with the history on it, just offering possibilities here.]
[ADDENDUM II: Some reactions here from William Jacobson. And Glenn Reynolds points out that in 1968 the GOP delayed a SCOTUS appointment by blocking it with a filibuster, although they were in the minority at the time.
The potential nominee was Abe Fortas, and he was controversial enough that he may not have had majority support anyway, although we’ll never know. Other federal judge nominees have been blocked by minorities. However, right now the Senate is controlled by majority Republicans. That’s a very different kettle of fish. And this isn’t just a federal judge, this is a Supreme Court Justice. And the objection wouldn’t really be to a particular chice of Obama’s; it’s probably going to be about any of Obama’s picks, which would leave the Court at an 8-person level for quite a while.
Of course, we know that there’s no rule that the Supreme Court has to have nine members. That current number was set by an act of Congress in 1869 and has stood at that level ever since. FDR tried to expand on that with his court-packing scheme, but this would be something very, very different—an unofficial, and temporary, reduction in the number.]
[ADDENDUM: I have to add that if the current Senate doesn’t fight this, I think that really would be the end of the GOP. I know that Cruz will certainly be in there fighting. Of course, I also wonder how many people pay a particle of attention to this sort of thing. How the Senate rules actually work are somewhat arcane. How many voters even know the numbers in the current liberal/conservative split of the Court, for example, and what it all means?
Also, a commenter at Instapunit writes this: “Court doesn’t begin until October, and of course the election is 4 weeks later. The current session is pretty much over; only awaiting publication in June or so.” I’m not sure whether that matters; Obama and the Democrats will push the need to nominate and approve now for all they’re worth. And I’m not sure the commenter is correct; does that mean that opinions in all the current cases have been written already? Are posthumous opinions possible?]
Well; if the republicans can’t work up the will to filibuster until the election… then it all dies with a whimper. Constitution is toast.
The wind is taken from my sails.
Cruz is calling for a “filibuster”.
The founders never intended for one man’s vote to be so important.
Technically, I don’t see how it’s a filibuster. The GOP is the majority. The Democrat minority would only have the power to block a vote, not to force one.
That’s my reading, anyway. Maybe Cruz just means “filibuster” as in “a lot of talking to stall things.”
McConnell would need to go nuclear and change the Senate rules from when Reid changed it to 50. Maybe Rubio! Cruz, Lee, Cotton, and Paul can come up with something otherwise stock up your guns and ammo now.
Another really serious problem is if McConell doesn’t come up with some way to halt this he might as well personally extend his hand to President Trump.
Beth:
I don’t understand why you say a rule would need changing.
That rule was about the majority forcing a vote. The minority used to be able to stop a vote, but the nuclear option meant a federal judge could be appointed by simple majority vote.
But here the GOP is the majority. They are trying to block a vote. How do you think the minority Democrats could force a vote, if the majority GOP doesn’t want it?
Obama cannot be permitted to nominate another Supreme Court justice.
If the GOPe can’t prevent that, then it’s time for civil war. Simple as that.
I’m not wishing or hoping for it, but just stating a fact.
The idea that we can simply allow another leftist justice to overturn the Constitution is unacceptable.
I said “filibuster” not Cruz. My apologies.
Blocking action. McDonnell not allowing to floor.
Something.
Sounds like this is one of those “black swan” thingies.
I just did a quick search and the nuclear option change in filibuster rules does not apply to Supremes.
My mind is reeling. We were on the knife’s edge of disaster anyway.
Many pundits have said that the Democrats are going to win the presidency again anyway with their 242 electoral vote blue state lock. If that is the case then all this does is shorten the timeline to Armageddon
McConnell said the American people should have a say and the decision should be left to the next president. History appears to be on his side.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIYaMiW4AIU4ZB.jpg
Bob_CA:
But did you see my comment above? None of that applies here.
This is not about a minority blocking an appointment. This is about a majority blocking an appointment. There’s a big difference.
PatD:
That’s good news, at least at the moment.
But it will be a bitter and horrific battle to keep it that way.
Bho will not get to appoint a replacement. The gope senators may be slimy as eels, but I can’t see them allowing the messiah to have his way in this case. What would they gain except more loathing and ridicule?
Parker: I’m not sure what they gained all the other times.
It seems as if every time the GOP doesn’t literally give Obama or Democrats every single they want, they throw a tantrum and stomp their feet and call the GOP names, like “obstructionists,” and then the GOP folds like a cheap tent and lets them have everything they want. I honestly have no idea what they’re thinking, or what the play is.
Hopefully, Parker. Hopefully.
See my new post right above this one, particularly the end.
McConnell says that they will not let Obama appoint anyone during his term.
Civil war looks ever more likely. Yet…
McConnell may hold firm. In the next Presidential term, Ginsberg may retire or become infirm. Another liberal justice may die. A republican President may then have the opportunity to appoint another conservative justice, restoring the semi-balance that has existed.
But if McConnell caves and Obama get his way and then, a democrat is elected President… it’s over and an ideological war becomes inescapable.
neo: A filibuster by conservatives may be necessary if enough RINOs cave. I am not at all sure how Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins or Mark Kirk or other liberal Republicans will vote if McConnell “lets” the Democrats outmaneuver him and bring an Obama nomination to a vote. The filibuster rule is also important for the battle in 2017.
The rule will be moot, of course, if the Democrats win the Senate in 2016 because they will nuke the filibuster for Supremes if they find it necessary.
I think you misspelled “shooting war”.
McConnell shouldn’t block the nomination. He should let it go before the Senate for an up or down vote. We can all guess the kind of person the President will nominate, but he should get a fair hearing. Politically, it’s great theater to do it, and it’s politically damaging not to. (It’s particularly damaging to Cruz’s and Rubio’s campaigns.) More importantly,a hearing would be an opportunity to have a real debate about policy.
We need to stop being cowards. We need to take our case before the people.
Nick Says:
February 13th, 2016 at 7:40 pm
OK, I give up.
Have at it, RINOs.
This made me cry out with dismay. I’m very, very scared, folks.
Pray, pray like you’ve never prayed before.
A Rockefeller Republican friend of mine said, when I broke the news to her, “He was murdered.” I was shocked, but she added, “Too much is at stake. And there are ways to assassinate people that are undetectable, and we know the Left is ruthless enough.”
We shall see.
rickl:
Fortunately, I don’t think McConnell has Nick as an adviser.
On the other hand, I don’t trust McConnell’s resolve. However, in the Senate they understand that if they don’t fight this they will never be elected again.
I think.
The best I can say about Nick’s comment is that Nick is an idealist living in a dreamworld. And that’s the sort of thing people usually say about me.
The Left cheering of Scalia’s death is not surprising. Their contempt for all things non-“progressive ” speaks about their lack of character.
Jeez as a nurse, I have to ask why people Scalia’s age go traipsing around the country to unfamiliar settings, eating atypical foods, the stress of traveling ( did he get an airline blood clot ???) & landing in
an atypical setting, maybe he was even far removed from a doc or hospital as it says he was on a ranch, anyway it is a huge invitation
( in my professional opinion) to a disaster. When you are nearly 80 getting out of your medical support system isn t a wise thing. I am sure he felt invincible (sigh), maybe you guys are laughing at my
observation but some notables have paid a price for subjecting their bodies to unfamiliar scenarios, Tim Russert (he had just gotten back from Italy) mayor Menino in Boston he came back from Italy & his health totally deteriorated (diabetes, cancer other setbacks) in about a year he was dead, & James Gandolphini too
but he died in Italy, Now how on earth does Michael Moore manage to get through it ???? LOL
But cheer up fellow conservatives as dark as things seem now may be something is in the works for us that will be positive !
MollyNH:
My guess is that he felt fine and had a sudden cardiac arrest or similar cardiac event.
If someone of 79 with the sort of stress he has in his job can’t take a vacation, I think that would also be stressful.
Grassley (chair of the Judiciary Committee) has stated bho will not get a nominee out of committee. No nominee has been appointed in a presidential election year in over 80 years. 4 senate gopers would have to side with the dems to reach a 50-50 tie which would be broken by Biden; that is unlikely.
I understand the pessimism voiced here, but in this particular case I think it is unnecessary angst. Blue state repubs up for reelection have nothing to gain by turning squishy on a SCOTUS appointment.
Idealist? Fair enough. I’ll tell you this though: every day from now until the election is going to be “X days of the Cruz / Rubio Senate blocking the President’s nomination” on the nightly news, unless we actually have the fight.
Actually neo I saw on CNN that he felt “unwell,
ill” either during or after dinner & went to bed.
So yes it could have been a cardiac event but also a massive stroke (brain clot or ruptured blood vessel) is a possibility too.
There is no guarantee that he could have been saved even if he got medical help, so sad.
Nick,
It will not be Cruz or Rubio blocking a nomination.
Neo – It is my understanding that the Justices vote after they hear the case and if it is not deadlock then the majority and dissents are issued to be written. So it is possible that these cases are already decided with just the opinions waiting to be finished / filed. The worry would be if he was the 5th vote.
Scotusblog has a post up.
s1c:
Thanks. So it’s vote first, explain later.
Justice Scalia was the lion of the constitution fromthe bench. He will be greatly missed and his untimely death is indeed a tragedy for the country. But just maybe the Senate can show some cojones or at least just do nothing for a few more months.. And let Obama try that recess nomination trick.
When there are only eight justices sitting, if the vote is 4-4, the decision of the lower court stands. So, once again, it all comes down to Justice Kennedy. How our country got to the point of one-man rule by an unelected man is a disgrace to all of us.
@ Richard: “How our country got to the point of one-man rule by an unelected man is a disgrace to all of us.”
I’d like to know the history of how this began.
There are 11 GOP members on the Judiciary Committee.
Two are rock solid conservatives (Lee 100%, Cruz 97%) and one solid enough (Sessions 80% ). The Chairman (Grassley 66%) and two others (Vitter 69%, Perdue 67%) hover around passing grades.
That leaves five who cannot be counted on: Hatch 41%, Flake 45%, Graham 37%, Tillis 33% and Conyn 50%.
We can only hope their constituents hold their feet to the fire.
MollyNH:
Scalia “felt tired” and retired early, as many of us do from time to time. Most of us waken the next morn.
No doc or any other resource could have helped him; being in an ICU would have given him a chance, albeit slim.
A great and good man.
RIP.
GRA: The Court almost invariably divides 4-4 on constitutional questions – Ginsberg, Souter, Kagan Sotomayor are the lefties; Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts are the conservatives (although Roberts will vote with the lefties if he thinks he has to save the government, as in the Obamacare cases). Aside from those situations, the deciding vote on constitutional questions is Kennedy — by which I mean, the only one whose vote is not always with one side or the other is Kennedy. Even with the Court down to eight members, the deciding vote is still Kennedy’s — if he wants to uphold the lower court’s decision, he votes with that three; if he wants to overturn it, he votes with the four opposed.
We got to this situation because Souter, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan don’t actually care what the law is, they just vote the left’s position on any constitutional question. So the conservative members of the Court have been forced into the same position on the right. Kennedy is the only one whose vote is not predictable, so he’s the ultimate decisor.
frog the remark on CNN was “unwell” last night ,
reporting it as “tired” now would reduce liability for this
exclusive resort ranch
Richard Saunders:
Kennedy is the same age as Scalia was, 79. Ginsberg is older. Of course, people can sometimes live, and function at a high level, many many years beyond those ages.
Age can have unfortunate effects on Justices, and plenty of justices have stayed on the court to a ripe old age. Toward the end of Byron White’s tenure on the USSC, there was apparently some concern that one of the other justices (Marshall, I think) was starting to lose his mental capacity. As a result, an idea was apparently secretly floated among the justices to “fix” the votes on cases so that Marshall’s vote was never the deciding vote.
White opposed the idea, and Marshall independently decided to retire. So the idea was quietly dropped.