I'm very saddened by it. I watched a long interview with him several years ago and I was very impressed with him as a man. I loved the fact that no matter what his decisions were and no matter how great the differences, he was best friends with Justice Ginsberg......and Iove the fact that no matter what her decisions were and no matter how great the differences were with him, she could be great friends with him. Too bad the rest of the country can't be like that.

Now the GOP will dig in and resist anyone the President nominates. Ten months of stonewalling. (I'd feel the same regardless of which party did that, and I never want to see three branches of government all ruled by one party.)

This is a sad day for America. Scalia was one of the best Supremes ever...because he never deviated from the Constitution. And he was a remarkable human being. RIP

I agree, Wanda. Sad day.

Ugh, why oh why did I even both going to Hot Topics. Praising his death, saying ding dong the witch is dead, geez.

I agree with you Georgysmom, the rest of the country could learn something from him and Ginsberg.

I also agree with you Chisue, I'm seeing poor behavior from both sides and its appalling.

This is a big deal, for sure!! He and Ginsberg had a deep friendship in spite of their great differences. The Court members must be in shock, but especially Ginsberg. It's not surprising though, several of the justices are getting up there

Thanks for the warning Chisue. I'll pass on Hot Topics!

And they're planning to stonewall already, not even knowing who he might nominate.

I won't miss Scalia. I'd like the chance to miss Thomas. (Has he died and we just don't know it?)

Thomas's ultimate departure from the court, whenever that is, is likely to be as uneventful as has been his service on the court. It was said at the time that he was nominated to replace Thurgood Marshall. True insofar as their both being African-Americans (who should be well represented on the court), but beyond that any comparison between the two should end abruptly. Marshall was a giant of the 20th century, his pre-Court legal work arguably having a greater contribution to Civil Rights than King's work ever did. His work on the Court was similarly significant. Thomas is little more than a yawn and a me-too vote.

The Supreme Court is not about keeping up with the latest PC crap social babble. They are to keep the greatest government ever designed on track with it origins as spelled out in the Constitution. If you find it sooo behind the times, feel free to move on!! Scalia was a justice of great insight and strength. We can only hope he is not replaced by some party line democrat hoping to change the world to suit the new world order.

Arcy, I agree. We have the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and make decisions based on it. PC crap should never under any circumstance have any role in their decision making and thankfully, Justice Scalia stood his ground for doing what's right, and not to go along to get along. He was brilliant, and will be missed by many. I sincerely hope that a man of his convictions and mind will be able to fill his seat.

People, please remember each Justice interprets the Constitution in his/her own way--impossible not to do so. I find Justice Scalia's interpretations, in a word, awful.

I am thinking you are probably very liberal, whereas I am middle of the road. Let us never forget that the eagle, as grand and regal as it is, cannot fly without both a right and a left wing.

INO, Scalia failed to interpret the Constitution as a living document. I suspect his view of religion was also absolute.

Chisue, I disagree completely, but we all have our own ideas of what's right or wrong, and there is nothing wrong with differences of opinion, as Scalia and Ginsberg demonstrated perfectly.

" the greatest government ever designed on track with it origins as spelled out "

Arcy, I don't think there is another developed country in the world that has chosen to have a presidential (executive branch) system like the US has. You may think it's great but yours is a view of limited popularity. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the one that is most copied and so then the most admired government system in the world, and one that is also many hundred years older than ours, is the parliamentary system of the United Kingdom.

In the depths of obstruction and logjams caused by our system and both parties, I often wish we had a parliamentary system. One party is in power, it can enact what it wants and when people get angry and tired of what they do, another party is elected to reverse what the first one did and try other solutions to the same problems. It works very well, nothing gets stalled.

Yes, but our system of government was designed precisely to be slow moving and require a degree of consensus. :)

While strict constructionism, like fundamentalism to religion, is a valid theory of constitutional interpretation, it is not the only one. Many believe that the constitution, or any other foundational document, is meant to be interpreted and reinterpreted according to the mores and culture of the society it represents. As those change, so does the nature of the constitution. One of the beauties of our constitution is that we amend it when needed--rather than throwing it out and writing a new one, forming an entirely new country--leaving the previous, potentially offensive, language of its historical origins. We are always conscious of who we were. We are an entirely different society, now, however, and the great function of the supreme court is to make sure that the innovations and adaptations of the laws we create for our ever evolving society fit within the framework which was set down. It's not a matter of making sure that everything stays the same as it was a couple hundred years ago, but that everything that we do now fits within the legacy which we've been given. None of this should be for political purposes (though justices have said on record things about outcomes for "our side" referring to a political party or agenda), and certainly not to serve political dogma, fashion or popularity, but change is inevitable, and denying change is about as fruitful as holding back the tides.

I half agree and half disagree with what you've said. As far as the need for laws (and the interpretation of same) to evolve to keep pace with changing views, I think that's essential.

Is our system well designed or poorly designed? I think it's the latter, especially with how extreme both parties have become. It came about as a knee-jerk reaction to the status of the colonies at the time as unrepresented constituencies that were being taken advantage of by a distant government. Those circumstances are long gone. Having reverence for and maintaining a system designed to protect only certain citizens (wealthy white male landowners) from a detached and arbitrary legislature and the whims of a monarch is ridiculous.

Amendments? Right. There hasn't been a significant one in a very long time, and some think seeing a new one of substance in the future is unlikely.

I won't say I'm happy he is dead, but I am happy he is no longer a
Supreme Court Justice. People always praise his opinions as
well-written, witty and acerbic, but to me the carefully chosen words
seemed to only thinly veil a mean-spirited, small-minded, spiteful world
view that would be more in line with the 1800's then today.

As
for the claims of him being driven by a strict view of the Constitution,
that was only true when he wanted to prevent rights from being extended
to those who weren't granted such rights by the white, male, landed
gentry that originally wrote the Constitution, or to quash such rights
after they had been granted. When his politically-motivated interests differed from a rational view of the Constitution, he'd soldier on proffering some tortuous logic claiming, for instance, that corporations are people, and that money is speech, therefore since the First Amendment prohibits laws abridging the freedom of speech therefore laws that try to prevent corporations or people from making unlimited campaign contributions and essentially buying elections, are unconstitutional.

Thank-you, SW. That was a nice, thoughtful, discursive counter, without being disagreeable.

In an age when those elected to office are actively trying to prevent the other party from participating in governance, rather than working together in the end, and just trying to get more of their own wants into the laws, I don't think a parliamentary system would work any better. At least with a two party system, all the little factions are already in coalition. There's nothing like watching the enmity of the two largest parties in parliament prevent either or both of them from forming a government, and the whackadoodality of the tiniest ones, with those essential last two or three seats, hold the rest hostage, and the country at a standstill, while their peculiar demands are attended to, to make one really love our system, where the government is forced toward the center and can't do anything radical very easily or very fast.

A bit off-topic, but jeeze, wouldn't you think man in the public eye would take better care of his teeth - yellow fangs, ugh.

It will be ironic if President Obama nominates the Indian judge who recently was approved for his current position with 100 % of the vote. He is said to be in the lead for potential replacements. It will be interesting if the same people who voted for him then, refuse to now. President Obama has a few weeks short of a YEAR to be in the White House and could potentially make decisions until 11:59 AM ,January 20th.

Lily, I truly believe the republicans will do all in their power, and that's a ton, to prevent an appointment by Obama. However, if the shoe were on the other foot you'd hear no end of screaming and yelling that the current pres should have the privilege.

Bob, very well said!! There are many people who seem to believe that if we hold onto the old, our society will revert back to the happy 50's; ain't gonna happen because life always moves on.

Larry, I love your post best of all!!!!!!

I must join in with those who are glad he is no longer serving on the court. He was not a strict constitutionalist, despite what he proclaimed in his books and his opinions. Instead he was a hypocrite who used strict constructionism to justify his bigotry, while liberally interpreting the constitution when it fit his needs. He said that the framers could not have envisioned gay marriage and therefore it is outside of constitutionally protected rights. But he does believe that the framers could have envisioned the creation of pseudo-individuals (i.e., corporations) AND that they intended for those non-human corporations to have unlimited free speech rights? It's non-sensical. It's not his political beliefs on these issues that bother me -- it's the hypocrisy. Good riddance to this one.

'The shoe' has been 'on the other foot'. A Democratic Congress approved Reagan's nomination of Justice Kennedy during Reagan's last year in office.

I thought this statement from Elizabeth Warren was right on the money:

The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

I agree with the hypocrite label for Scalia. He was too prone to selective indignation and the invention of creative arguments to support what he disliked. He often decided what he wanted and THEN tried to build a rationale to support it. Politicized and biased jurisprudence at its finest.

plog, parliamentary systems tend to foster more moderation than we have with our system. No better example of that than the UK - the Tories aren't that far to the right and Labor isn't that far to the left. Two main parties and coalitions there aren't that commonly needed. By tradition, the populace after awhile tires of the party in power and voters will cross party lines to give the other side a turn.

You have countries like Belgium and Italy that have too many parties and always seem to be engrossed in a "government crisis". These are both good examples of the difference between the politics of government and the business of government. Both have gone months and years at a time with so-called caretaker governments and yet the governmental functions continue, providing all the services and activities that are required on a day to day basis.

In many conversations I have with friends on either side of the political spectrum, the word I hear over and over is "moderate." I'd venture to say that the majority of republicans do not like being associated with the views of the tea party. Similarly, there are a good number of democrats who do not agree with the very liberal views of some of their party (the opposite equivalent of the tea party). I'm curious the experiences of others, whether you too are hearing a call for moderation on both sides. Because I cannot understand how it has become that the extreme ends of both parties control. I am admittedly on the younger side of this board and so maybe it's naivety, but I honestly don't understand why moderation isn't the rule when (IME) the great majority of Americans trend moderate? Any thoughts?

Atomic, I find nothing moderate (or even sensible) in the chants repeated ad nauseam by today's crop of Republican candidates. At least they talk specifics, the Demos talk in fuzzy platitudes and (especially for Clinton) often have no firm positions until they get the results of opinion polls. I'm neither a Republican or Democrat, not a Green, not a Libertarian, not an Independent. I'm just me. Can you tell?.

majority of republicans do not like being associated with the views of the tea party.

Count me in that group Jay! I find their inane antics reprehensible. Their bullying isn't reasonable in any way.

There you go again, trying to disagree while making my point. :)

Jay, the extremes are the ones who shell out the money, volunteer and vote in primaries. It used to be that the religious extremists didn't vote at all. I think it was Reagan who got them into it in large numbers. Most people's opinions lie firmly within the middle, but the outliers are the ones who can make or break the numbers. Same as in my parliamentary example above, but this time it's with the party rather than someone needing to be placated to form a government. What I like about our system better in this case is that we can evaluate our leaders' handling of having to cater to the the extreme wings before they're in office, rather than watching them bend when we no longer have a vote.

What gets me are the people who say they don't know which way they're going to vote within a few weeks of a major election. Excluding the ones who say "I don't know" rather than "decline to answer" or "none of the above", you've still got a lot of people, who are the swing votes either way, who are clueless, or who've been living under proverbial rocks.

Nah, read again. The minority party (or parties) not in a coalition in a parliament are powerless to impede or block what the majority does. Countries that require coalitions because of too many small parties form their coalitions and then function as a party in power until an issue comes along to force dissolution and a restart. It works fine and logjams are rare.

majority of republicans do not like being associated with the views of the tea party.

Count me in that group Jay! I find their inane antics reprehensible. Their bullying isn't reasonable in any way.

Count me in on that number. Too many Tea partiers act exactly like liberal progressives, hence just a lot of head butting instead of working together for the good of all.

Snidely - I agree that today's candidates do not represent the moderates, which is why I was curious to know why the extremists, even though smaller in number, seem to have more candidates supporting their positions on both sides of the aisle. I, too, am not affiliated with a party. Unfortunately where I live, we have a closed primary system which means I cannot vote for any candidate in the primary.

I think Plllog gave a good answer to my question: that the extremist outliers on either end can push a candidate over the top and therefore the candidates "have" to pander to them. I'll give more thought to this, it's a very interesting point.

Problem is deciding whether someone is 'moderate' or just rolls over -- over and over. We are all so far removed from the people we are electing. We have to 'try 'em' before we know if we like 'em. (Then they have 'name recognition' and win again, regardless.)

It's a balancing act. The active extremes are necessary to get the nomination, so candidates pander to them, but they have to not bend too far, because in the general election, they need to carry the middle. For presidential candidates, they have to get that 20% dead center who might vote either way. (I don't have an issue with swing voters--just those who don't know enough about the candidates for major office to have an opinion within weeks of the election.)

SW, my example was something that has happened repeatedly, which is the two major parties not being willing to form a coalition for shared rule, and the smallest, minor parties holding out for what they want before they'll join a side. You keep moving the topic so you can disagree more. When it works, it works fine. Same as ours.

Please stop beating that same drum, it's annoying. Don't flatter yourself in thinking that I look for ways to engage with you. I don't.

The only country I can think of that fits the general description you've made is Israel. Sadly, that's a troubled place of hotheads and extremists, it's not a good example of anything as far as I'm concerned. Theirs is not a well-functioning parliamentary system. Don't impute the dysfunction there to the rest of parliamentary systems in the industrialized world, it's a non-fit.

Pillog, I understand this point of view: What gets me are the people who say they don't know which way they're going to vote within a few weeks of a major election. Excluding the ones who say "I don't know" rather than "decline to answer" or "none of the above", you've still got a lot of people, who are the swing votes either way, who are clueless, or who've been living under proverbial rocks. But I remember being there, once. I wasn't "clueless" or living under rocks. I simply, that date, did NOT know which presidential candidate (this was late 80's) I was going to push my (old-fashioned) lever towards, until I was in the booth. I disliked both candidates, for reasons I thought then (and largely still do) find valid. Okay, lesser of two evils -- depress that lever! Done.

Just as an aside, I've never in my life ever voted a straight party line. Doubt I ever will.

artemis- why do people vote straight party? I've never understood that and yet it seems that is what a large portion of voters do.

It's almost as though they can't bother with actually being informed voters so they listen to the rhetoric and let the conventions pick for them.

Thanks, Artemis, for providing a counterexample. I can understand indecision in the absence of a positive choice, and the inability to make the choice until forced. When they interview the people I was complaining about on TV, they often say they don't know enough about the candidates. It sounds like in your case, you knew enough about the candidates but not enough of what you did know made you want to vote for either one. :)

Texas Gem, I'm not Artemis, but I can give you a possible answer or two. Many people are single issue voters. They're so passionate about their one cause, either side (e.g., abortion rights/anti-abortion, kill the unions/support the unions, consumer protection/deregulation, world engagement/isolationism), that they won't vote for the party that's on the opposite side of their issue. Other voters are so anti-left wing, or anti-right wing, that even if there's a great person nominated by the party whose far wing they don't like, they won't vote for that person because they don't want that party having a foot in the door in that office.

Plllog- I suppose I can see that, I just find extremism to be, frankly revolting.

I live in a conservative area and the number of people I encounter who would rather vote for the devil himself than a Democrat is astounding.

Online I frequently see the same thing on the opposing side, I think Hot Topics is a fairly good example. Ask any of the extremists on either side to say one good thing a politician has done from the other side and they usually can't.

T.G., what I was talking about isn't necessarily extremism. An old friend, who is a very reasonable and normal person, and not extreme in her views, won't vote for anyone who favors abortion rights. She's never going to break the law or harm people or do anything else extreme to promote her view, but that's her unbreakable litmus test for candidates. We have had a few devils running, but I don't think she's ever been faced with one in her district.

As far as I am concerned, he epitomized the reason there should not be lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. He was incapable of seeing the world we live in. His outdated and bigoted opinions governed his decisions. I am glad his influence has been removed from the Court.

I am thinking you are probably very liberal, whereas I am middle of the road.

lol Larry_IA_MO_TN_FL I have read your posts in HT. That is some "middle" you are driving! You must be referring to that 21 lane-wide section of I-5 in San Diego as the middle, with one shoulder being the right, and the other being the left.

As far as the opt-repeated claims of him being a "strict constructionist" or a "originalist" where you read the actual text of the Constitution and try to glean and educe what was intended by those that originally wrote the document and then not extend any more rights then what their words indicate they meant.

A simple way to put the lie to such claims for Justice Scalia is to read the Second Amendment where it says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Any attempt to deduce the original intent behind the statement, must acknowledge that the subordinate clause at the beginning of the sentence, clearly intends to influence and limit the main clause. What exactly is intended by the clause? I'm not sure. It must have been intended to mean something, otherwise why would it even be there. However if you read any opinion by Justice Scalia its clear he felt those words held no more meaning then if they were stray inkblots on the paper.

Sometimes, in various countries, one wonders whether, for a number of political operatives, their loyalty to their party isn't stronger than to what they claim to be their beloved country itself.

ole joyful