View Full Version : Supreme Court Justice Scalia's Death
Williamsmith
2-15-16, 3:38am
I'm kind of surprised the way the death of a Supreme Court justice is handled. Reports I have read say that he was pronounced dead by a district justice over the phone and that a decision was made not to have an autopsy conducted. The body was then moved to a funeral home where it was embalmed before being flown to Virginia for a private autopsy.
First, embalming destroys much of the ability of a medical examiner to make reasonable medical observations of the condition of the body as it applies to manner of death and a cause of death. Second, inputs regarding the scene are helpful to provide context for the Medical Examiner. Kind of shocks me that it is reported he had no official protection service by the Federal Marshalls. Asphyxiation and poisoning are two things I would want to rule out with the kind of conspiracy ramifications that could abound in a case like this.
I would have have hoped for better in a first rate country like this.
early morning
2-15-16, 9:17am
My first thought....where was Dick Cheney?
But yes, I would have expected a more thorough, professional examination of the body, as Scalia was a high-profile, important figure. I understand, though, that his health had been poor and his family did not want an autopsy. Still, the conspiracy theorists will no doubt have a field day.
I seldom agreed with the man, but I enjoyed reading his opinions. A great loss of a great mind.
rodeosweetheart
2-15-16, 9:35am
Wow, Williamsmith, I sure hope you are not on to something here. Chilling.
The latest eructation from the conspiracy theory fever swamp.
Williamsmith
2-15-16, 10:08am
The latest eructation from the conspiracy theory fever swamp.
It would be nice to not feed the monster.
I thought it might be suicide--simply because no cause of death was reported. And if he were in ill health, that might explain it. I thought it might be Dick Cheney, because the wag in me can't be suppressed. I agree that the way his death was handled just adds to the speculation.
Those who knew him say he was extremely bright and enjoyable company. I would have preferred that he hadn't served on the Supreme Court, but I could say that about others, as well. Like his witless yes-man, Thomas.
I don't think, in the long run, there is ever a downside to the truth.
I've heard that his wife adamantly refused an autopsy. Were any of his family at the lodge he was at? It would be sad if they weren't. Who knows......maybe he said his goodbyes ahead of time. I wonder what kind of illnesses he had?
What bums me out is the conflict (in addition to all the others) this is going to cause in choosing a new replacement. As usual, the republicans are already saying they'll refuse Obama's choices. And now the Supreme court is tied.
We just keep getting more and more gridlocked.
iris lilies
2-15-16, 12:00pm
I Agree with CathyA, Scalia's family would have the decision on an autopsy. Really, how much of a question is it? He is an elderly man who died in his sleep (with a known illness???) a good way to go.
Its rude to imply that this life long Catholic took his own own life. geesh.
State law would ultimately determine if an autopsy must be performed, not rumor mongers.
It sounds like they followed the protocol in Texas. The ride to the funeral home took 3 1/2 hours. He was pretty far out. And the decision was the family's along with the advice of his DR. Not unusual when you are far out of the city.
The gridlock is an issue however, a real challenge to Obama. He can't just pick anyone because there are balances in place, but those balances can make the entire political system look like a California traffic jam when you get people from the country who do not get this gridlock thing. (in Denver we have more people who do not get the system of city driving, argh, that is my visual)
I Agree with CathyA, Scalia's family would have the decision on an autopsy. Really, how much of a question is it? He is an elderly man who died in his sleep (with a known illness???) a good way to go.
Its rude to imply that this life long Catholic took his own own life. geesh.
State law would ultimately determine if an autopsy must be performed, not rumor mongers.
Agreed. The cause of death was he was 79 years old and not in the best of health.
Unfortunately, in this country, no one can die of old age anymore. You'll read an obit about some 92 year old dying and the report will say some thing like, 'Cause of death to be determined later'. Really? Is there really a question?
Of course, some republicans (and they are the ones with the most conspiracy theories) want to blame Obama or liberals. LOL
As far as the next Justice, it's actually pretty cut and dried if you actually go by the constitution. The President, who happens to be Obama despite what some may think, puts forth nomination and the Senate does the 'advise and consent' thing. No, there is no 'tradition' of not nominating in an election year. The simple fact that seldom throughout history is a seat vacated during an election year does NOT a tradition make. I'm pretty sure Justices throughout history did not thoughtfully refused to die during an election year because it was a 'tradition' not to do so.>8) And as far as Cruz saying, 'Let the people have a voice/speak', well, they kind of did when they elected Obama President..twice and by a huge margin.
You know what's really sad. I may not have agreed with this guy, pretty much ever, but sheesh...the man wasn't cold yet before McConnell was up and in front of a reporter declaring his obstruction to whoever Obama picked because of, reasons I guess.
And as far as Cruz saying, 'Let the people have a voice/speak', well, they kind of did when they elected Obama President..twice and by a huge margin.
The other thing I find odd is that someone who is considered a "constitutional originalist", and even carries a copy of the damn thing around with him all day at work, would think that "the people" should have input into supreme court nominations, considering that as the constitution was originally written "the people" didn't vote directly for the president or for senators. And for senators they didn't even vote indirectly for them.
The other thing I find odd is that someone who is considered a "constitutional originalist", and even carries a copy of the damn thing around with him all day at work, would think that "the people" should have input into supreme court nominations,
The people do have input. They vote for the President (well, sorta...), and for their Senators. Who participate in the selection process. As the Constitution specifies.
considering that as the constitution was originally written "the people" didn't vote directly for the president or for senators. And for senators they didn't even vote indirectly for them.
That part there is a bit of a red herring, as those features were added through the process for amendment contained within the Constitution. I don't know of many "constitutional originalists" who claim that the amendment process isn't part of the original text.
Ted Cruz goes to work? :devil:
Williamsmith
2-15-16, 5:12pm
Well, trying to separate politics from proper investigative procedure..........I can't vouche for Texas law nor am I specifically criticizing what happened here but I will say only what probably would have been done had I been lead investigator. Given his death was unattended and given he is only one of nine Supreme Court Justices in the entire country......irrespective of his age.....the only way an autopsy would not have been done is if he was being attended to by hospice type treatment and by common knowledge not expected to return to hear cases. That may have been.
But In Pennsylavania it is not the families decision to have or not have an autopsy. That is totally up to the Coroner/Medical Examiner at the request of the investigating agency. The report I read said that a private autopsy was being conducted which would be terribly embarrassing for the investigating agency if something were to be found.
freshstart
2-15-16, 6:27pm
not a fan but I found it surprising that he complained of not feeling well the night before, didn't show up at breakfast with his group and they went off hunting without checking on him. Sheesh, good friends he had there.
I always found his deep friendship with the Notorious RBG interesting, it made me think he must have redeeming qualities I just could not see
Of course, I am hoping for a liberal leaning judge, but suspect it's going to be a mean spirited cat-fight to get anyone in that seat in time
rodeosweetheart
2-15-16, 6:47pm
Some friends, indeed. Just looked at a Washington Post article on it and the lack of autopsy--pretty informative:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-tv-station-scalia-died-of-a-heart-attack/2016/02/14/938e2170-d332-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html
was surprised at how different laws are from locality to locality.
I guess "natural causes" might indeed be true for a 79 year old,but that seems young to me to not wonder, since someone said it wasn't a heart attack (according to the article.)
If there is anything Midsomer Murder teaches us, is that no one is too old to be murdered.
Poor man, dying alone like that, although Elizabeth Kubler-Ross says no one dies alone, so there is that.
The news I heard said that they decided not have an autopsy when the family revealed his chronic health problems. There will probably be more details. I've read some nice memorial articles, but it sure didn't take long for the bipartisan bickering to start. Seems a little disrespectful. One article said he loved to hunt, so died in his element. 79 seems a little young these days, but we could all wish to go in our sleep while off doing something we enjoy. At little further to the right than me, but he seemed like an honorable man who stood fast to doing the right thing.
...
I always found his deep friendship with the Notorious RBG interesting, it made me think he must have redeeming qualities I just could not s
Of course, I am hoping for a liberal leaning judge, but suspect it's going to be a mean spirited cat-fight to get anyone in that seat in time
That softened me a bit toward him, too. That and the fact that I'm strangely attracted to crusty old Latins...:D
freshstart
2-15-16, 9:27pm
That softened me a bit toward him, too. That and the fact that I'm strangely attracted to crusty old Latins...:D
lol
Williamsmith
2-16-16, 12:14pm
Former Washington D.C. Homicide Chief, William O. Ritchie is astounded that no autopsy was conducted on Scalia. Many internet reports about law enforcement incredulity regarding the handling of the death investigation. This is one of the primary missions of an investigator. Most death investigations are not criminal in nature but all must be handled in that manner until it can clearly be documented otherwise.
There are many things we will never to be able to dogmatically say about his death that could have been clarified with a common post mortem investigation. It has been reported that the Federal Marshall involved has passed the responsibility onto the Justice that wasn't at the scene. Federal Marshalls primarily serve arrest warrants on federal absconders. They do not conduct death investigations. And it seems to me the Federal Marshall involved was too compliant to the family wishes for no autopsy. Yes, it is disturbing to have the body of a loved one dissected but it does not affect the ability to have viewing.
Just reminds me of the incompetence of the Kennedy assassination debacle and that happened in Texas too. We have yet to hear from the County Sheriff. I would have thought the Sheriff would have gotten a call.
freshstart
2-16-16, 1:46pm
if nothing suspicious was noted at the scene and there's nothing pointing to it being an unnatural death, I'm ok with backing the family's wishes regarding an autopsy. Having attended countless deaths during my 11 yrs in hospice, families have very strong opinions on autopsies. Some want them, they need the closure of knowing exactly how far the cancer had spread, etc but most families want nothing to do with an autopsy. The most common concerns being that the body has to go to the hospital instead of the funeral home, thus the loved one is alone in the morgue and the mutilation of the body, no matter that this can be totally hidden by the funeral home director. It's that gruesome thought of the body being desecrated at all. The family has to live with that unseen memory forever, I can't fault them for not wanting that.
rodeosweetheart
2-16-16, 1:50pm
I think that[s a really good point, freshstart, that the wishes of the family might be very strongly held and that might be all that was going on. I think I would have the same reaction were a loved one to die--I would think, he already gave so much to his country, does he have to now sacrifice his dignity and autonomy even in death? Irrational, perhaps, but that word desecration really resonates for me.
Williamsmith
2-16-16, 2:40pm
I understand the pressure to bend to the family wishes of such a politically powerful family. Certainly, overruling their insistence for closure would not be popular or the easiest route but it is the right one. It is not even feasible to visibly examine a body thoroughly at the scene let alone be assured that no pertinent evidence exists within the body that would change your opinion of cause and manner of death.
I had a female hanging victim that I allowed to be taken to the funeral home without an autopsy. I was called to the funeral home because there was reverse writing on her body that was not documented. An embarrassment but a learning experience. An autopsy confirmed suicide but the damage to my pride had already been done.
What would that dignity cost if it were at the price of a misplaced confidence in natural death without a sound basis? I never slept well at night without answers to questions that need to be provided. We have the ability to put to rest any suspicious thoughts and we should do it. The family can be explained these things with compassion and professionalism.
iris lilies
2-16-16, 2:51pm
That softened me a bit toward him, too. That and the fact that I'm strangely attracted to crusty old Latins...:D
He wasnt crusty, he was charming and supprtive to all, and very well liked. Does that change your mind? Haha
But of course he is dead so he will be lionized.
Teacher Terry
2-16-16, 2:51pm
At 79 with chronic health problems I don't think they did anything wrong. Just a few days ago a friend's family had a 40 yo die in her sleep. Turns out it was a heart attack and she didn't know she had any problems. At 79 it is not really that unusual. At one point I was going to college in Wis and because the class was on death & dying we got a tour of a funeral home. The director said that if you die in a car crash you can be pronounced dead at the scene and the coroner does not have to be a doctor. Then you go straight to the funeral home. He said that when he got a case like that the first thing he did was to make a small cut near the jugular vein to see if it was pulsating. If it was he called an ambulance. He had seen a few cases like this. Pretty scary stuff. Also of course the bags are air tight so you are lucky if you don't suffocate in it on your ride to the funeral home.
iris lilies
2-16-16, 3:01pm
At 79 with chronic health problems I don't think they did anything wrong. Just a few days ago a friend's family had a 40 yo die in her sleep. Turns out it was a heart attack and she didn't know she had any problems. At 79 it is not really that unusual. At one point I was going to college in Wis and because the class was on death & dying we got a tour of a funeral home. The director said that if you die in a car crash you can be pronounced dead at the scene and the coroner does not have to be a doctor. Then you go straight to the funeral home. He said that when he got a case like that the first thing he did was to make a small cut near the jugular vein to see if it was pulsating. If it was he called an ambulance. He had seen a few cases like this. Pretty scary stuff. Also of course the bags are air tight so you are lucky if you don't suffocate in it on your ride to the funeral home.
that is cheerful news! :~)
Yes the coronor in many rural counties is a funeral home director.
DH just came out of a long stint on grand jury and learned a few things. Here, there are set protocols --dont know if it is actual law, or internal rules. But things like: if somone of a young age dies outside of the hospital, the medical examiner always takes charge of the case and there may or may not be investigation including autopsy. If someone young dies in hospital the medical examiner MAY take charge, he may not necessarily accept a physician's report on cause of death.
on his visit to the city morque DH saw a dead body, covered, but with some identifyng characteristics that he now thinks was our neighbor who committed suicide.
my sister in law, an RN, worked for the medical examiners office in another state and she was taught that at any death scene, her office has precedence over police or any other agency on the scene.
I understand the pressure to bend to the family wishes of such a politically powerful family. Certainly, overruling their insistence for closure would not be popular or the easiest route but it is the right one. It is not even feasible to visibly examine a body thoroughly at the scene let alone be assured that no pertinent evidence exists within the body that would change your opinion of cause and manner of death.
I had a female hanging victim that I allowed to be taken to the funeral home without an autopsy. I was called to the funeral home because there was reverse writing on her body that was not documented. An embarrassment but a learning experience. An autopsy confirmed suicide but the damage to my pride had already been done.
What would that dignity cost if it were at the price of a misplaced confidence in natural death without a sound basis? I never slept well at night without answers to questions that need to be provided. We have the ability to put to rest any suspicious thoughts and we should do it. The family can be explained these things with compassion and professionalism.
I guess I see a difference between a hanging victim and an old, overweight smoker dying in bed with no indication of foul play.
freshstart
2-16-16, 4:02pm
just for fun, I'll throw in my hat. I could not understand why I was made charge nurse on the evening shift just barely out of college. I quickly learned why, one nurse sent a DNR patient down to the morgue and called the family, having either ignored the protocol for assessment of death or was too stupid to identify it. The patient came back up but luckily truly, actually died before the family got there. Another nurse did that twice, only the patients both lived, one for a few days, the other eventually well enough to go home! And being in charge meant I had to tell those families we were wrong and that sucked.
Then I got to hospice and someone did that to one of my patients at night, they got a free ride home from the funeral home. I know sometimes determining death is tricky, especially with someone who has been dying for days and has stopped breathing 1.2 million times over those last few days, only to gasp and take in a large breath. It can be hard to hear the heartbeat if family is talking or see the chest rise in a dark room. But it takes an hour usually for the funeral home to come and you are just present with the family and patient. You bathe them, move the body around, that would give you some clues about whether they are still alive. I thought this problem was following me everywhere I went, lol. But seriously this kind of stuff haunts family. If you're not sure if a heart has stopped beating after 5 mins, you do another five, you put your hand on the chest to feel for breaths, check their pupils, etc. Do everything in your power to be as close to 100% sure of your assessment.
so I get it, williamsmith when you questioned yourself on that suicide, it's obvious from your posts that you are methodical and would want that to be the case with such an important person. Is your gut telling you foul play or something? My people were not a fan but I don't get any inkling someone wanted him gone so Obama could nominate someone. If they were gonna do that, they would've done it sooner to give Obama time to get past the Senate. Or is it the lack of protocol that bothers you?
Teacher Terry
2-16-16, 4:09pm
IL: No the funeral home director was not the coroner and he did not think that someone that was not a doctor should be pronouncing people dead at the scene. The town had about 70,000 people but he was talking about not even being taken to a hospital. Ugh! That's why he was so careful before he started draining the blood.
In my state, Washington, it is not legal for the coroner/ME to be a funeral director. My county's coroner is also our county prosecutor.
In my state/county, all sorts of qualified people (EMTs, paramedics, physicians, nurse practitioners, PAs, RNs, ...) can *pronounce* death, a smaller subset are able to *certify* death. The coroner/ME's office isn't even notified until the death is pronounced by someone.
Whether there is an inquest/autopsy or not is entirely in the hands of the coroner/ME's office. I responded to a call at 5am this morning for a medical emergency. ~90 year old fellow, he's on a dozen different meds, is on oxygen and in poor overall health. Living alone. We visit him on aid calls every week or so. We've med-evac'd him a dozen times. One of these calls will be the last one, and I don't think there will be an autopsy. And we don't treat his home like a crime scene every time we show up. On the other hand, we came across a very very dead person in a tent in the woods last year - he'd clearly been dead for months. We did an autopsy on that one, and treated the scene very carefully to preserve what evidence there was.
It's pretty obvious sometimes, when you go into someone's home for a welfare check because a neighbor hasn't seen them for a few days, and they are dead in their bed, and have clearly been dead for many many hours.
Williamsmith
2-16-16, 7:16pm
Freshstart,
To answer your question and clean up a little......I have no problem with no autopsy in many cases. And I have no specific knowledge giving me standing to question the details which led to this decision. So my only point is, no matter how a Supreme Court Justice dies in an unattended manner.....it cries out autopsy in order to show no possibility of foul play being undetected. Especially, the conservative tie breaker in a contentious election year.
There are obvious costs associated with post mortem examinations by medical examiners and an investigator who ships every unattended death to the morgue will soon be encouraged to be more selective.
I empathize with the Scalia family. A grieving widow is a powerful influence. My father died under circumstances I felt bordered on medical malpractice. I was given the burden of deciding to have a post mortem for possible legal action. I actually made the call to the medical examiner but while on the call I realized that I didn't want to submit my father to that even though his spirit was gone.
No I have no doubt Scalia died naturally in his sleep. But his position requires tighter scrutiny. Ore wise, why call anybody at all.
freshstart
2-16-16, 7:27pm
I am surprised Supreme Court Judges lack a security detail
rodeosweetheart
2-16-16, 7:32pm
I am, too, freshstart!
iris lilies
2-16-16, 7:55pm
i have no interest in paying for security guards for this contingent of government.
Justice Field was the subject of an assassination attempt in 1889, by a California Supreme Court Justice. Field survived, his attacker did not.
I don't think the Supremes live the sort of lives that Tom Clancy novels are made of. They are pretty light on their security arrangements, and don't seem to have much of a problem with that.
...the man wasn't cold yet before McConnell was up and in front of a reporter declaring his obstruction to whoever Obama picked because of, reasons I guess.
I have to admit I'm not entirely clear on the President's obligation regarding a timeline to name a replacement, but I really did find McConnell's remarks egregious both in terms of content and the timing. I'm sure it would have been more convenient for everyone if Justice Scalia had been able to hold on until October. I'd naively hoped that the SCOTUS would somehow be able to rise a tiny fraction of civility above the congressional fray, but apparently that's not going to happen.
Here's a link to a white paper discussing "advice and consent".
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf
I would think the GOP's interests would be better served by waiting for the President to make a nomination. If the candidate is halfway acceptable, there might be one less possible Clinton or Sanders nominee subject to the litmus tests both have proposed (which seem based on the general level of squishiness on the First Amendment). If not, there is always the Bork option.
Simply refusing to play doesn't strike me as the best move politically.
Teacher Terry
2-17-16, 1:39pm
I read that he declined the security detail that they would have sent with him on the trip.
It seems to me like the court appointments should not be so partisan in the first place. Who ever makes the choices can stack the deck for decades. It makes for a good example of why their terms should be limited? Depending on how it goes, if they wait until after the election the appointment could actually be a backlash for the conservatives.
freshstart
2-17-16, 9:21pm
I just read in the NY Post that the ranch owner found him with a pillow over his face, described it as looking like he was taking a nap. Do you ever take a nap with a pillow over your face? WTH.
Maybe this is old news to everyone else but this is the first I heard it and it is the NY Post after all.
It seems to me like the court appointments should not be so partisan in the first place. Who ever makes the choices can stack the deck for decades. It makes for a good example of why their terms should be limited? Depending on how it goes, if they wait until after the election the appointment could actually be a backlash for the conservatives.
I actually agree that the Sup. Ct. judges should be limited in term, and one suggestion was 16 years. I think that's plenty of time to serve and then let the next generation take the seats. It would also have to be set up not to overlap with presidential elections, which would also make it easier.
Finally, did anyone else see Lawrence O'Donnell's discussion on MSNBC about the fact that these appointments became much more contested as soon as they began to be televised? Makes sense that politicians would seize their chance to get on TV and have their constituents think they are representing them when they're in fact just blustering for show.
I just read in the NY Post that the ranch owner found him with a pillow over his face.....
If I ever die in my sleep with a pillow over my face at the ranch of a big time Obama donor, someone please order an autopsy.
I just read in the NY Post that the ranch owner found him with a pillow over his face, described it as looking like he was taking a nap. Do you ever take a nap with a pillow over your face? WTH.
Maybe this is old news to everyone else but this is the first I heard it and it is the NY Post after all.
Well i heard that was not true, that the pillow was beside his head.
Yes, i have slept with a pillow over my head. When the sun comes up sooner than I want to I sometimes pull a pillow over my head to block the light. Or noise.
Although i can see Williamsmith's point, i still think it was perfectly appropriate to not do an autopsy. I mean really, only the usual suspects are 'questioning' his death. For god's sake, the man was 79, which really isn't all that young, and he had health issues. Supreme or not, life really really isn't a Clancy novel. No one but no one, except maybe Trump supporters, suspects foul play. And even if he did have secret service, I'm pretty sure they don't sleep with you. :0!
The process is pretty clear. We elected a President, a vacancy is on the court, he nominates someone. There is no controversy, there is no question...President Obama isn't fighting or pushing or challenging anything.
I'm left wondering why they are trying to deny this President the very thing that every other president in history has simply taken for granted. Simple. To republicans he was never president. Just a place holder. Well tough. Elections do have consequences.
No one but no one, except maybe Trump supporters, and Williamsmith, suspects foul play.
Fixed that for you. Williamsmith is definitely not a trump supporter and probably wouldn't want to be accused of being one. :)
I actually agree that the Sup. Ct. judges should be limited in term, and one suggestion was 16 years. I think that's plenty of time to serve and then let the next generation take the seats. It would also have to be set up not to overlap with presidential elections, which would also make it easier.
.
I kind of like that idea although I'd make it 18 years so there could be a new one every two years. Plus I'd want to put a required time frame for the senate's "advise and consent" role with automatic approval if the senate refused to have an up or down vote within that time frame.
I'm left wondering why they are trying to deny this President the very thing that every other president in history has simply taken for granted. Simple. To republicans he was never president. Just a place holder. Well tough. Elections do have consequences.
Has every other President really taken it for granted? You may recall Senator Obama attempting to filibuster Bush 43's nomination of Samuel Alito in 2006, or if you don't recall that you might remember Senator Schumer's call for Democrats in the Senate to reject any Supreme Court nominations President Bush may make during his last 18 months in office.
There are also many more historical examples of reality not matching your claim. My favorite is the several year Supreme Court vacancy during the 1840's when the Senate rejected 9 separate nominations made during the Tyler administration.
Personally, I think the Republicans should (and I expect they ultimately will) invite the President to make a nomination of his choice, and if that nomination may appear to upset the balance of the court, do the entire Bork thing on whoever it may be. You remember that episode don't you?
I just read in the NY Post that the ranch owner found him with a pillow over his face, described it as looking like he was taking a nap. Do you ever take a nap with a pillow over your face? WTH.
Maybe this is old news to everyone else but this is the first I heard it and it is the NY Post after all.
I heard it was above his head, but yes--I take naps with a pillow over my face. Only when the neighbors are operating their various noise machines and my earplugs aren't cutting it, I deploy a pillow over my ears. Since I sleep on my side, it ends up being over my face.
People talk like it's a bug in the Constitutional system when the different elements of government don't agree on a course of action. I see it as a feature because I view the primary design objective to be limiting the power of government rather than ensuring administrative efficiency.
That's one reason I wouldn't see, say, a Sanders presidency as the end of the world. He can talk all the socialism he likes, but there is a system in place to keep the rest of us relatively safe from having to live his vision.
Has every other President really taken it for granted? You may recall Senator Obama attempting to filibuster Bush 43's nomination of Samuel Alito in 2006, or if you don't recall that you might remember Senator Schumer's call for Democrats in the Senate to reject any Supreme Court nominations President Bush may make during his last 18 months in office.
There are also many more historical examples of reality not matching your claim. My favorite is the several year Supreme Court vacancy during the 1840's when the Senate rejected 9 separate nominations made during the Tyler administration.
Personally, I think the Republicans should (and I expect they ultimately will) invite the President to make a nomination of his choice, and if that nomination may appear to upset the balance of the court, do the entire Bork thing on whoever it may be. You remember that episode don't you?
Apples to oranges Alan. First, are you really going all the way back to when civil war was brewing? Really?
Second, Bush did get his ultimate nomination, didn't he. Of course he did. Trying to justify denying Obama Any one is NOT the same as advice and consent. Sure, Presidents in the past have put forth candidates who were not accepted. Individual candidates who were completely unacceptable. That's the whole advice and consent. Completely NOT the same as stating from the start we won't even consider anyone he puts forth, or saying he doesn't even have the 'right' to put forth any one. That's BS and you know it.
I'm pretty sure you have read the Constitution, Alan, and don't just wear it as a pocket accessory. The Republicans have zero leg to stand on. The so called examples you gave are all straw men.
These men have not only no intention of doing their jobs (which is a continuation of the last 7 years) but they even have the nerve to brag about it. I know they are pissed that not only have they not been able to disenfranchise this President and wipe him from the history books, but that his legacy as a really great President will live on forever. And of course on the Supreme Court for a few decades at least.
Sorry Republicans. This is how it works. Unlike the bible, you can't just cherry pick and re-write to suit your purpose. It's much shorter and more people are apt to check it out instead of just taking your word for it.;)
Fixed that for you. Williamsmith is definitely not a trump supporter and probably wouldn't want to be accused of being one. :)
Ha Ha! Well no, I specifically didn't say williamsmith thought so because earlier he said he didn't think the man was killed but was looking at it from a purely legal point of view. That's why I said I could see that argument, even though I disagreed. :)
Trying to justify denying Obama Any one is NOT the same as advice and consent.
That's correct, and since no one has been nominated and no one has been denied a hearing, your straw man may be on the other foot.
I accepted President Obama's explanation this week of his earlier actions as "well, ya know sometimes politicians say and do things to pacify outside interests" (paraphrasing). As I mentioned earlier, I suspect hearings will be held in the Senate regardless of McConnell's earlier statement, but you gotta give them a chance to fail before you flunk them entirely.
That's correct, and since no one has been nominated and no one has been denied a hearing, your straw man may be on the other foot.
So are you saying that Mitch McConnell didn't say what he said, or just that we should pretend he didn't say what he said until Obama nominates someone and we get to see if he meant what he said? I suppose the later is justifiable since, after all, he's a politician so he's probably not going to stand by his words. And especially since he personally has a history of not standing by his words. Even on this specific topic, if one is able to remember back to just over ten years ago.
So are you saying that Mitch McConnell didn't say what he said, or just that we should pretend he didn't say what he said until Obama nominates someone and we get to see if he meant what he said?
The latter, it's sort of like "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
iris lilies
2-18-16, 11:55am
That's correct, and since no one has been nominated and no one has been denied a hearing, your straw man may be on the other foot.
I accepted President Obama's explanation this week of his earlier actions as "well, ya know sometimes politicians say and do things to pacify outside interests" (paraphrasing). As I mentioned earlier, I suspect hearings will be held in the Senate regardless of McConnell's earlier statement, but you gotta give them a chance to fail before you flunk them entirely.
I watched that. The President said calmly, in response to the question about why he himself stalled a Court appointment, that it was politics as usual.
He gets a few points with me for honesty in his answer, he gets mega points for his cool delivery, but I marked him down on using too many words.
All of those words were designed to deflect attention from his own activity in Senate hearings about Supreme Court Justices.
edited for recalibrated Prez' "points." haha
Williamsmith
2-18-16, 2:25pm
Of the remaining eight justices a lottery to seat seven and one in abstentia for each case. No need to fill the position and no authority to demand nine justices. Continue until five justices remain.
freshstart
2-18-16, 9:12pm
I kind of like that idea although I'd make it 18 years so there could be a new one every two years. Plus I'd want to put a required time frame for the senate's "advise and consent" role with automatic approval if the senate refused to have an up or down vote within that time frame.
agreed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/meet-merrick-garland-president-obamas-nominee-for-the-supreme-court/2016/03/16/b63a54e8-eb86-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
And let the fun begin! Now we get to find out if the Republicans were serious about abrogating their constitutional duty. I haven't dug too deep yet, but this guy sounds like he's certainly qualified considering that his current role is chief judge of the D.C. federal circuit court.
Ultralight
3-16-16, 2:21pm
I knew it. Another republican. haha
I guess if I'd been President for nearly 8 years now, I might have had a short list in my desk drawer of possible candidates, and put forth my choice somewhat more rapidly and decisively...
Heck, I have a short list right now of plumbers and electricians to call if my regular folks go out of business or are overbooked...
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/131676/orrin-hatch-said-no-question-merrick-garland-confirmed-supreme-court
Apparently Orrin Hatch recommended Garland as an excellent candidate for supreme court. Perhaps now the republican senators will actually do their job...
Williamsmith
3-24-16, 10:42pm
Orrin Hatch is hardly a respected US Senator.
And republican are hardly ready to do their job.
I'll tell you what really ticks me off about this is, first they try out several ridiculous 'reasons' for not doing their job. But seem to have settled on 'let the people's voice be heard'.
Well guess what? The people's voice WAS heard. Twice. This really angers me when McConnell says this. he is trying to nullify my voice, and the voice of 66 million+ of my fellow Americans.,
Williamsmith
3-25-16, 6:50pm
Dnt worry. Trump will set things on the right path.
freshstart
3-25-16, 6:54pm
And republican are hardly ready to do their job.
I'll tell you what really ticks me off about this is, first they try out several ridiculous 'reasons' for not doing their job. But seem to have settled on 'let the people's voice be heard'.
Well guess what? The people's voice WAS heard. Twice. This really angers me when McConnell says this. he is trying to nullify my voice, and the voice of 66 million+ of my fellow Americans.,
couldn't have said it better myself.
So, I see we still have a vacancy on the Court...
Shameful.
So, I see we still have a vacancy on the Court...
Shameful.
Amen.
So, I had a case I've been working on for years finally *almost* get in front of the Supreme Court last week. It was a fairly cut-and-dry takings/land-use question. The Supremes handed down some pretty clear decisions some years back, but various states have been trying to subvert their instructions.
We had several cases that had gone up through the system, resulting in demonstrating that different parts of the country were intepreting the law in conflicting ways.
Our local case was carefully nurtured through the system, at great expense and trouble, through the various levels of appeal required before the Supreme Court will hear a final appeal. The other side, our County, barely had a case, and wasn't fighting particularly hard. Our group had national-level financing and legal council.
While nothing is a slam dunk, this one likely was.
Except....
Because the Court has a vacancy, they currently seem hesitant to take substantial cases up. There are 3 other cases similar to ours also moving through the system, coming out the hopper in another year or two. So, at the 11th hour, they decided not to hear our particular case.
They are waiting until they have a full bench for lots of issues. Meanwhile, important business of the nation isn't getting done.
For shame.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/03/supreme-court-cautious-on-new-cases-as-term-begins-under-cloud-vacancy-politics.html
So, I see we still have a vacancy on the Court...
Shameful.
I've really disliked this "wait for the people to decide" thing. I already decided - in 2012. But my decision has been ignored.
An even bigger shame. Republicans aren't even trying to pretend or hide it any more. Bragging even, about their obstruction now. Pretty sad indeed when one major party runs on the 'promise' that 'We will never ever work with the other party, country be damned.' This is their platform. This and Trump.
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/17/498328520/sen-mccain-says-republicans-will-block-all-court-nominations-if-clinton-wins
A pretty good reason to vote all republicans out of office.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.