After a bunch of greats shuffle off this mortal coil, Death finally gets one right.
Interesting things just got way more interesting.
I assume the grim reaper doesn’t entertain dissenting opinons.
One should speak only good of the dead.
“He’s dead. Good!”
So … the Republicans once again prove that government doesn’t work when they’re in charge, jam up the government, and prevent Obama from appointing anyone, and then next year Clinton appoints Obama?
Or next year Trump appoints himself?
Just a couple of days ago I read an article wondering why the Supreme Court hadn’t yet been an issue in the presidential campaign. Well that’s just changed.
Feel bad for his family and friends who lost a loved one, but feel pretty good for the country that might be better off for it so maybe it balances out? 
My admonition to Democrats and liberals over the years is that the most important reason to vote Democrats into the White House is the Supreme Court. Too often, Democrats and liberals fail to recognize how important this issue is. Now this issue is front and center, putting it directly into the consciousness of liberals. Also, watch as the Republicans engage in obstructionist policy, further highlighting who they are.
In the meantime, as long as the Republicans delay, the SCOTUS is evenly balanced at 4-4 conservative to liberal; it is no longer a majority conservative court. This, with many vital rulings coming up.
This could be big. If everything goes well, it could mean an end to the stranglehold that the conservatives have had over America for decades. I sure hope so. As usual, voting is imperative.
(And to anyone who says “He just died; it’s too early to talk politics!”: Mitch McConnell already vowed to obstruct Obama’s appointees. So he, a Republican, has already put an end to the non-political mourning window.)
[quote=“Chris”]My admonition to Democrats and liberals over the years is that the most important reason to vote Democrats into the White House is the Supreme Court. Too often, Democrats and liberals fail to recognize how important this issue is. Now this issue is front and center, putting it directly into the consciousness of liberals. Also, watch as the Republicans engage in obstructionist policy, further highlighting who they are.
In the meantime, as long as the Republicans delay, the SCOTUS is evenly balanced at 4-4 conservative to liberal; it is no longer a majority conservative court. This, with many vital rulings coming up.
This could be big. If everything goes well, it could mean an end to the stranglehold that the conservatives have had over America for decades. I sure hope so. As usual, voting is imperative.[/quote]
Here’s a look at the docket and likely outcomes of a 4-4 split. thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/0 … ias-death/
And Obama’s likely nominee: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan
I still can’t get over how the DNC is still not running candidates in every district. How irresponsible can they be? Scotus and Bernie need to have a supportive, or at least, non-obstructionist house and senate to fulfill the promise of the American potential. Letting teabaggers in gerrymandered districts keep their jobs is, imo, as disrespectful to the people as the GOP’s embracing of this canoe of douches they have running for their nomination.
RBG wants to retire as well, but won’t unless her seat can be filled by a progressive. I’d say Obama would likely take her spot if he can get Srinivassan seated.
Interesting. Approved by the Senate 97-0 in 2013 to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Obama could highlight the Republicans’ hypocrisy if they try to obstruct his appointment to the SC.
This might be politburocracy’s big chance to put a stake thru democracy’s heart and complete its takeover of American government.
It’s like I tell my libertarian and conservative friends though. Laws enacted out of thin air by unelected, unaccountable public officials appointed for life are illegitimate and the day will soon come when we have no choice but to seek a civil divorce, most likely a very messy one.
Nah, I think their position has been weakened by the passing of their anti-democracy champion, the activist justice Antonin Scalia.
Hopefully we can save America from being taken over by the far right, I mean politburocracy, now.
Onion headline: Justice Scalia Dead Following 30-Year Battle With Social Progress
[quote=“Winston Smith”]This might be politburocracy’s big chance to put a stake thru democracy’s heart and complete its takeover of American government.
It’s like I tell my libertarian and conservative friends though. Laws enacted out of thin air by unelected, unaccountable public officials appointed for life are illegitimate and the day will soon come when we have no choice but to seek a civil divorce, most likely a very messy one.[/quote]
I agree with you but the problem then is, what’s the solution? Are you proposing that supreme court judges are elected to a specific term? By the people or by government? Or are you proposing that all laws be made by the elected government? Is there a better way to do it than the current system?
One thing is for sure though, politburocracy should be included in Webster.
We can only hope Republicans succeed in obstructing this devious left-wing coup, after which the most important reason politicians are elected is not so they can legislate but so they can appoint officials who can evade the democrat process and legislate for thrm.
[quote=“BrentGolf”][quote=“Winston Smith”]This might be politburocracy’s big chance to put a stake thru democracy’s heart and complete its takeover of American government.
It’s like I tell my libertarian and conservative friends though. Laws enacted out of thin air by unelected, unaccountable public officials appointed for life are illegitimate and the day will soon come when we have no choice but to seek a civil divorce, most likely a very messy one.[/quote]
I agree with you but the problem then is, what’s the solution? Are you proposing that supreme court judges are elected to a specific term? By the people or by government? Or are you proposing that all laws be made by the elected government? Is there a better way to do it than the current system?
One thing is for sure though, politburocracy should be included in Webster.[/quote]
I’m proposing democracy, a system of checks and balances in which elected representatives legislate, appointed judges judge and an elected president presides over it all administratively. A system in which the only recourse of any faction is persuading enough citizens to support its policies so that they gain the votes necessary for passage into law. If the electorate is so polarizd that neither side can gain the advantage for a time so be it. That’s better in the long run than a coup after which some faction impatient with the democratic process reverts to some failed form of government and creates illegitimate law by fiat.
That’s what we have already in the US.
I thought he was talking about the Voting Rights case when Scalia and the other conservatives overturned a law that passed the Senate 98-0 by pulling a totally made up Constitutional doctrine out of their asses. Let’s face it, neither he nor his right-wing buddies give a damn about the Constitution as long as the Supremes come to decisions that favour whites, the wealthy, straight males, conservative Christians, or some combination thereof.
Scalia was as wrong as you guys are wrong. Bottom line though is government in America is no longer legitimate because it’s no longer democratic.
We are talking about the aftermath of Scalia’s death here, right?
We are talking about the aftermath of Scalia’s death here, right?[/quote]
That’s the small picture. The big picture is left-wingers are gleefully plotting a coup now that the the stars have finally aligned for them. Soon they’ll be able to pack the Supreme Politburo with enough left-wing activists to enact all those policies they can’t get passed into law democratically.
We are talking about the aftermath of Scalia’s death here, right?[/quote]
That’s the small picture. The big picture is left-wingers are gleefully plotting a coup now that the the stars have finally aligned for them. Soon they’ll be able to pack the Supreme Politburo with left-wing activists who will enact all those policies they can’t get passed into law democratically.[/quote]
So if I understand you correctly, you consider it a coup as long as a left wing judge gets appointed and not a coup as long as a right wing judge gets appointed. But you also state that you want the system to be democratic. So, if the “wing” of a judge is determined by the “wing” for which the majority most recently voted, isn’t that already the kind of system you say you want? Or are you proposing a reshuffle of the SC after every election?
Btw are there any American judges generally regarded as centrists or non-partisans? And do you think they would be more democratically appropriate despite the majority (both wings combined) being vehemently partisan?