@Liberty For All --"Based on the loss of our First Amendment
rights to freedom of religion. "WHAT loss?? Please be
specific.And please, don't hand me any claptrap about bakers
and wedding cakes. Civil Rights Act, 1964.Since this is an article
about Scalia, the following quote is especially relevant --Antonin
Scalia writing for the majority, Employment Division v. Smith:"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him
from compliance with an otherwise valid law.... On the contrary, the record of
more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that
proposition. [....] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of
religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every
citizen to become a law unto himself..... the right of free exercise does not
relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law
of general applicability....""if prohibiting the exercise of
religion...is not the object..., but merely the incidental effect of a generally
applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been
Based on the loss of our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. I
believe the good Lord concurs with our Republican Leaders and Presidential
candidates. The voters should decide from the next election who they want to
appoint to the Supreme Court.
@one old man--why do you want a communist for president?
@ Frozen Fractals:It's alright for Democrats to appoint liberal judges ---
But not for Republicans to appoint conservative Judges. Little Hypocrisy
don't you think ---You call them activist judges. --- I think that label
would surely apply to to the liberal judges on the court now more than to the
conservatives in my opinion. -- You are entitled to your opinion but you
can't have it both ways.
Obama is free to nominate someone to fill the vacancy. No one can stop him --
However the Senate also has the right to confirm or not confirm.Looking at the 2
he has already put on the court we know he does not have the courage to nominate
someone who will be more like Scalia .The majority of the people prefer a
conservative judge like Scalia than a liberal like the 2 he has nominated. I
have no problem on the senate disapproving some one that doesn't fit the
profile of Obama's thinking.They should do all in their power to do so if
he nominates a liberal like the 2 he has already done.
The final GOP obstruction should cost them big in the elections.
TRUTH,Salt Lake City,UT;"Delay delay delay until after
election......sad day for the constitution and real Americans"This is exactly what is wrong with the republican party. Their mentality of
obstructionism has set this country back. They have the mind set that, "If
we don't get what we want than the whole country will suffer'. How
completely disgusting of them! Their behavior once again is treasonous. The American family, our vets and our future has been derailed by
stubborn and ridiculously stupid behavior. It is time to put an end to it and
work for America.
Hey Harrsion Bergeron -"Just when you think things cannot get
any worse..."Ha!We all KNOW things can get much,
much, much worse.Who can forget the horrible malfeasance of our last
Republican administration? The whole world is STILL suffering from that.Hey Mick -"It is well within the rights of the
republicans to block any nomination by Obama."Well . . .
Congressional Republicans routinely exercise their "right" to obstruct
progress in this nation.They might as well enjoy it while they
can.Let them obstruct Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court
. . . Because in 2017, after Hillary Clinton takes office along with Democratic
majorities in both Houses of Congress . . . SHE can appoint the next Supreme
Court Justice.. . . Someone with character, wisdom, knowledge, and a
sense of justice . . . Hmmm . . . Someone like Barack Obama.Haha!PERFECT!So yes . . . By all means . . . Let them obstruct.
I'm sure President Obama won't mind that much . . . And he can be
preparing for his next role in government throughout the rest of the year,
can't he?Supreme Court Justice . . . Barack Hussein Obama will
be an invaluable addition to the judiciary, won't he?
@mick So it is the duty of congress to impede the work of the SCOTUS for a
full year? Some might call such behavior dereliction of duty.
This makes it even more important that we elect a sensible -- progressive
I'm surprised at how deeply saddened I feel considering how much I
disagreed with him philosophically. But I saw a few of his speeches and read a
few things about him which gave me a fuller picture of this remarkable human
being. And I genuinely admired his frankness. I like people who aren't
afraid to be exactly who they are. I'm terribly sorry for his family. I
can imagine that a personality such as his will leave a gaping hole.I am sickened by the reaction of the GOP.
It is scary to see people on here advocating for the overtun of the Citizens
United decision and thus an overturning of the 1st amendment. People have the
right to speak about political issues, and to speak you need to use money.
I hope the Republicans in the senate stand true to their duty to monitor
appointments and make support for the Hobby Lobby decision and the right of
unborn children to be treated as people non-negotiable points on any nominee.
Delay delay delay until after election......sad day for the constitution and
Then Dems may have won the WH but there have been two landslide midterm
elections in favor of the republicans. And it is their responsibility to vet
and confirm a nominee. It is well within the rights of the republicans to block
any nomination by Obama. His nominations thus far have been bench legislating
Scalia is known as an "originalist" in how he viewed the Constitution;
decisions should be made based on original intent of the Founding Fathers. But
I'm not sure that's an accurate statement, because so much has changed
since the Founding Fathers created our Constitution.For example,
Scalia said that regarding the 2nd Amendment, the framers of the Constitution
intended any weapon that could be carried on your shoulder, which he admitted,
included Stinger missiles and bazookas, and could conceivably include nuclear
weapons. I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers would not agree
with that position, on that type of weaponry. If Scalia was a literal
"originalist", the 2nd Amendment would apply to pistols of that day, and
muskets, not the laser-sighted AR-15s we have today.
@Mad Hatter: "As usually, the Republicans continue to disrespect President
Obama and interfere with his duties."Senate Majority Leader
McConnel immediately declared "The American people should have a voice in
the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice" and promised to block any
Obama nominee. Obama is the legally elected president of the United
States, elected by a clear majority of voters. Seems like the
American people *do* have a voice, and seems like the party that lost the White
House to Obama twice don't like it. As usual, the Republicans
are disrespecting the Constitution and the American people.
@Hutterite:"He was proof positive that judges are not detached,
professional adjudicators of the law. They're political lapdogs."Now there will be one fewer actual adjudicator of the law to point out the
lapdogs. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
@Vanceone: "Looking around the internet, Democrats and progressives are
saying the most vile things about you and cheering your passing."Scalia said some pretty horrible things about many Americans, and his hurtful
words weren't just idle chatter in cyberspace- they we official SCOTUS
decisions and dissents. He hurt people. He interpreted the Constitution like he
thought the slave-owning white male aristocracy of 250 years ago wanted it
interpreted and he helped limit rights and freedoms and hurt people. I don't celebrate the death of anyone ever. But I certainly understand
the angry expressions of some at the death of Scalia. I saw him as brilliant if
self-centered, I know his family will miss him, and I wish him well on journey.
We need another Ginsberg. Brilliant. Witty. Wise. Aware of real
people in the real world today. And a woman. For two centuries the court was 9
men. Time for it to be 9 women for a hundred years or so.
Cruz and Rubio state that the will of the people should be heard? Already
making this a political issue.The will of the people has been heard,
the majority of Americans voted Obama President. That is the current will of
the people.What will they say if the GOP looses the Executive branch
this election? "We meant the next will of the people."
I've already read comments that President Obama should not be allowed to
nominate a justice. The people who say that often speak of 'the
constitution' yet only when it suits them. The Constitution calls for the
President to nominate justices for the Senate to approve. It's part of our
"checks and balances". Ok you "Constitutionalists",
let the document work! I'm including those members of the Senate who cry
about the Constitution the loudest.
Thank you for your service Justice Scalia, Let this country move forward with a
new justice picked by the President and vetted and approved by Congress. Change
is good, obstruction is what is hurting this great nation.
President Obama is President of the United States of America for nearly another
full year. It is his responsibility and duty to nominate a person to fill the
vacancy on the Supreme Court.
The Senate Majority Leader is already saying that they shouldn't approve
any nominee until after the elections. The Republican party is trying to steal
the court because we know full well that if RBG were to pass or reisgn during a
President Rubio or Cruz's term, they would have no qualms with appointing a
conservative justice. Democrats supporting Clinton or Sanders need to keep this
in mind and vote for the nominee in the general so that the Supreme Court
doesn't take away decades of progress just because a Rubio or Cruz wants to
stack the court with conservative activist judges.
Condolences to the Scalia family although I was not a big fan. Justice
Scalia's interpretation of the Constitution and conservative views did not
settle well with me. This comes as a shock. However, and I am saddened when
anyone's life is cut short.Isn't it the prerogative of the
president to nominate Supreme Court justices? Turing the death of Justice Scalia
into a political fight means going on without a full Court for more than a year.
As usually, the Republicans continue to disrespect President Obama and interfere
with his duties.
Justice Scalia, rest in peace, you served your country honorably. Now, hopefully
the POTUS will quickly nominate a liberal to the bench and the country can build
on the momentum from the recent most historic and correct SCOTUS decisions.
Times they are a changing and for the better.
"How enviable a death", huh Mr. Scalia? May your family find comfort,
and you rest in peace.
Justice Scalia was one of the keenest legal minds of our times. He was not an
"activist" and therefore reviled by the liberals, but he was an
"originalist" determined to perform the Supreme Court's duties as
the founders intended and specified in the Constitution.Aside from
the loss of a great individual, this provides and unexpected opportunity for
President Obama to appoint yet another hard left activist judge who will hasten
the demise of our once great nation, instead of preserving and protecting it.
RIP Justice Scalia. You are missed already.
He was proof positive that judges are not detached, professional adjudicators of
the law. They're political lapdogs.
This is terrible news.
Just when you think things cannot get any worse...
Wow! . . . What a shame . . . And so totally unexpected.I wonder
where President Obama is going to find anyone else as "Conservative" as
Scalia?Hmmmm . . . Obama will probably have to settle for a Liberal
to take his place.And then maybe we can revisit the Citizens United
decision??It's not too late to rectify the mistakes of the
past, is it?
WOW! I'm shocked. Rest in peace, Justice Scalia.