Rachel Maddow on the Pitfalls of NOT Nominating a SCOTUS Justice

If conservative Republicans win the PR battle, and manage to stall the Supreme Court nomination process, they have a chance to have a conservative seated. But only if a Republican wins the presidential election. Even with that (for liberal Democrats) unfortunate outcome, the Republicans manage to potentially lose a lot along the way. A number of potential 5-4 decisions, some of which would certainly have gone the conservatives' way, would end in a tie. Meaning they'd lose. So in each scenario where it was that tight, liberals effectively win. This is a huge dice roll for the GOP.

One of Rachel Maddow's biggest strengths is her ability to supply context and history to subjects like this, and tease out the many and sundry implications. One of her best monologues was on this subject on Monday night. Take a look.

Seth Meyers on SCOTUS Nomination Flap

Seth Meyers has hit upon the real opposing forces in the Supreme Court nominating fight that is starting to take the country by storm. It is less between right and left, or Senate vs. Obama. It's really between obstructionist Republicans vs. a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. In effect, it's a battle between the GOP Senate and Antonin Scalia's professed ideology. Isn't it ironic? Don'tcha think?

[Excerpt]

Seth Meyers Blasts Republican Leadership Over Justice Scalia Replacement

The untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia this past weekend immediately morphed into a pitched political war, a war that Late Night host Seth Meyers points out is largely between Republicans and the U.S. Constitution that Justice Scalia so famously wanted to be interpreted as originally written. . .

Read more at: Mediaite

Breaking: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead at 79

Image from Wikipedia

Wow. I have this short list--very short list--of people for whom my compassion runs so low, that mustering even a modicum of sympathy for their passing, timely or otherwise, is very difficult. You could throw a couple of Cheneys in there, maybe a Schlafly and a couple of televangelists. But Antonin Scalia, long-serving Supreme Court Justice is on that list. I'm reminded that he was very good friends with fellow justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so I'll keep that in mind, and remember that he's got a family, and they might have had warmer feelings for him than I do. Maybe. So, I'll give them all my sympathy But I'm going to have difficulty working up a tear.

FOX "News" was in such a hurry to get this story out,
that they only managed a sentence, and a faulty headline.
Scalia was not "Chief Justice."

Now, all eyes will turn to the nominating process, and whether or not the US Senate will try to run out the clock so that President Obama doesn't get a third justice on the bench. I think it would be tremendously bad form, for there is absolutely no reason they should stall other than playing politics.  But the stakes for the presidential election just shot through the roof. And the delicacy of the language that the candidates, pundits and other politicians use around the situation could prove daunting. I say, wait for Donald Trump to say something crass before saying anything but the most boilerplate statements. Then, carefully guide the issue to one of fairness, justice, the American way. Don't play politics, the Senate must do its duty, etc., etc. Force the Senate to do their jobs.

We'll see.

[Excerpt]

Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court justice, dies at 79

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died at the age of 79, a government source and a family friend told CNN on Saturday.Scalia died in his sleep during a visit to Texas. . .

Read more at: CNN

Justice Scalia Proves Himself Unfit for the Bench

Image from Washington Post

I got a bit of a snicker out of hearing that Justice Antonin Scalia still has his face all in a scrunch over the Obergefell gay marriage decision. I mean, the man is such a harumphy sourpuss, it's hard to not take a little joy when he's extra pissed about something.

But Scalia goes a bit beyond whining about the result, and finger-wagging at the other justices. No, in my opinion, when he reaches for something so stupid as to say that the decision goes against a lot of peoples' religious beliefs? That my friends, is where the man proves himself unsuited to his own job.

Why? Because he apparently is unclear on the separation of church and state, which is rather important for a justice whose job is to help decide the constitutionality of things. But even more than that, Scalia also seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what Obergefell was about in the first place.

So listen up, Tony, you demented little religious tyrant: The entire marriage equality movement has been about--has always been about, and only been about--civil marriage. Not holy matrimony. Not church weddings. Religion DOES NOT ENTER INTO THE EQUATION. Even if for some bizarre reason, a person thinks a civil contract between two citizens is against a third party's religion, it does not matter. There is no religious component to a civil contract, any more than there is for a business license or a building permit.

I can't believe he's stupid, and he has no need to pander to any constituancy. So, I can only think he never really grasped the fundamentals of the cases before him.

[Excerpt]

Justice Scalia Is Still Hopping Mad Over The Gay Marriage Ruling
 
With less than two weeks before the start of the new Supreme Court session, Justice Antonin Scalia is still lamenting Obergefell v. Hodges, the June ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. At a Tuesday speech at Rhodes College, which his grandson attends, the justice blasted the decision, calling it the "furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants," according to The Associated Press. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Jon Stewart on the Supreme Court's Questions About Gay Marriage

I was struck by a few of the questions we got to hear, asked by some of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, regarding Prop 8 and DOMA.  I mean, the one about "gay marriage" being newer that cell phones or the internet? There is a generation of humans who have never known a world without cell phones and the internet, and not coincidentally, they have no problem with marriage equality! But more to the point, how is the newness of something a disqualifies to justice? Leave it to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to get to the heart of the matter in an entertaining way.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

FOX "News" Doesn't Understand Context: Maddow, Scalia, Stewart and Trolls

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Troll,
Photographed on (naturally) FOX "News"

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, when interviewed by the host of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart called Justice Antonin Scalia a "troll."

Oh, the faux outrage! Oh, the faux FOX outrage!

Anyone who watches The Rachel Maddow Show would not only understand her usage of the word, but agree with her application of it. For those that don't (and couldn't glean the context from the rest of the conversation), a "troll" is an internet term for a person who trolls the comments section of blogs, newspapers, Facebook, Twitter, you name it, with the aim of stirring up shit. They say outrageous things, deliberately provocative things, with a main (or sole) objective being to get a rise out of people.  They might be trolling using their own real opinions, they might be trolling using extreme examples to cause the most damage, or they might just be ornery, causing a flame war just for fun, regardless of their real beliefs.

That's what Maddow meant by Scalia being a troll. He was bomb-throwing from the bench, causing a stir, getting some press, making a splash. Maddow believes--and I can't disagree--that Scalia revels in the attention. If you still don't understand what she's saying, think of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh; it's their entire schtick. Here's a question though: is FOX "News" serious with this article, or are they trolling?

[Excerpt]

Rachel Maddow calls Scalia a 'troll,' like blogger 'using N-word'
Imagine for a moment a Fox News host calling one of the liberal Supreme Court justices such as Sonia Sotomayor a "troll." Liberal heads would explode across the fruited plain including in newsrooms from sea to shining sea. . .

Read more (if you must) at: FOX "News"

Hal Sparks' Reaction to Justice Scalia Comparing Homosexuality with Murder

Hal Sparks--if you did not know--is a very funny comedian (Charmageddon) and actor (Queer as Folk, Lab Rats). He's also a talented musician, and a progressive radio host. And though he is quite heterosexual, he's a gay rights activist, and a damned good one. Here he is on Talking Liberally: The Stephanie Miller Show, reacting to Justice Antonin Scalia's bizarre comparison of homosexuality to murder.

Antonin Scalia Compares Homosexuality to Murder

Nice guy. Image from Wonkette

Well, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he's not comparing homosexuality to murder. He just likens them to each other on the morality scale. Which is totally different. . .how? Not sure, but I'm not happy having this man on the court that is about to decide the fate of Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, we never thought this jackass was on our side anyway, but still.

[Excerpt]

Antonin Scalia Knows Sodomy & Murder Not Same Thing, He Just Likes Saying They Are 

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia may be an utter asshat, but at least he’s occasionally a funny asshat. Take for instance the latest fuck-tussle over his equating laws against sodomy with laws against murder. Yes, that’s pretty much the comparison he made. But look, it’s not like he thinks they’re exactly the same! He’s just sayin’, is all. . .

Read more at: Wonkette

Scalia and Thomas, and Their Conflict of Interest

Image from source, Addicting Info

Very clearly, this is a clear conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court Justices are not bound by any laws or rules. They're expected to be ethical by the virtue that they were picked for the position. Unfortunately, sometimes unethical people slip in.


[Excerpt]

Scotus: Have Thomas and Scalia Violated Their Code of Conduct Standards as it Relates to HCR?

. . .Justices are appointed for life.  They can be removed from the Court by impeachment or they can recuse themselves from cases before the Bench. Justice Sotomayor has recused herself from cases within the past few months.

Both Justice Scalia, Thomas and Alito have been photographed and in some cases approached by TV camera news crews about their attendance at conservative conferences. . .

Read more at: Addicting Info

What Supreme Court Gitmo Decision Means to the Right

I've been wanting to write a rant about the Supreme Court's recent decision on Guantanamo Bay detainees, but didn't feel that I have the historical and political knowledge to do the subject justice. Most of what I wanted to say, was in regard to the right-wing reaction to the decision (even by dissenting Justices). It's been heralded as the worst decision in history, and Antonin Scalia actually said it would lead to US deaths. But I just couldn't find the vocabulary to express what I felt.

Then I found this post at The Rude Pundit. I've featured posts by Rude on occasion in the past. And I feel I must continue to warn the gentle readers out there that Rude is rude. But he's good. I've censored the excerpt just in case you're one of those gentle ones. . .

[Excerpt]

Gitmo Decision Reaction on the Right: Have You Guys Read the Constitution?

So the Rude Pundit just wants to get this straight: if you think yesterday's Supreme Court decision was a pile of s***, then you believe that the United States has the right to hold foreign nationals without allowing them to challenge their imprisonment in fair, open courts. You believe that a special court with special rules of evidence and special procedures is the only means through which a presidentially-designated "alien enemy combatant" held at a United States-run facility can even say, "Umm, do you have any proof I'm anything more than a f****n' goat herder who was wandering in the right field at the wrong time?" You believe that the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions (except in the narrowest possible interpretation) do not apply to prisoners held at Gitmo. And you're absolutely hysterical, bats*** insane over the idea that a human being held without ever being told why might get to ask. . .

Read more at: The Rude Pundit

Daily Show: Antonin Scalia on 60 Minutes

Well, it's Wednesday, and I neglected to say anything about the Antonin Scalia interview on 60 Minutes. Since I'm late to the party, I'll just let Jon Stewart do my talking for me. He's funnier anyway.