[LOCKED] OT: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dies of Natural Causes while on Hunting Trip in Texas
He was on a hunting trip in West Texas. He complained of not feeling well Friday evening. It is reported that he passed in his sleep.
Edit: Folks, don't think it needs to be said, but let's remember to avoid the politics. Just wanted to post the news as it's current events and sometimes I first get news from you guys while refreshing the site.
MOD EDIT - a couple people are starting to say things which could lead down the path of politics, so we'll lock it here. I know I'll get flack for this, and if you disagree, you can always find me on Twitter if you've got it and we can talk. - LSA
February 13th, 2016 at 5:52 PM ^
ABC7 reported that Scalia died in his sleep after a day of quail hunting. Unconfirmed reports indicate that as Scalia was being processed at the Eternal Afterlife immigration station, he was heard muttering "Goddammit, I never should have gone hunting with Cheney."
February 13th, 2016 at 5:52 PM ^
February 13th, 2016 at 5:54 PM ^
Not trying to make this "political" at all but an interesting trivia question is, when was the last time a SC Justice was nominated or confirmed in the last year of a presidency?
February 13th, 2016 at 6:05 PM ^
February 13th, 2016 at 6:09 PM ^
And Kennedy was confirmed by the Senate Reagan's last year in office, though the president had technically first nominated him the previous fall.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:18 PM ^
Sort of. Abe Fortas was already as associate justice on the Court and was nominated to be the Chief Justice by LBJ. Fortas later withdrew the nomination.
The second guy LBJ nominated was supposed to replace Fortas as an associate, but that obviously coudln't happen because of the withdrawal.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:36 PM ^
If Obama were to nominate someone with a history of middle of the road decisions, he/she would potentially be confirmed before Obama leaves office. If not, the decision would probably not go through until the next president is sworn in.
February 13th, 2016 at 5:56 PM ^
He was the first Italian-American justice. Crazy that it took so long considering how many people of Italian descent live in the US, particularly in the Northeast, where a lot of justices come from.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:01 PM ^
All the Italian organizations are paying tribute to him.
February 13th, 2016 at 5:56 PM ^
Holy shit. Out of the blue.
No politics, so I will only say that this will likely lead to a MAJOR shift in the Supreme Court, and thus I foresee a more agressive battle for confirmation than we've seen in a long time.
Wow.
February 13th, 2016 at 5:58 PM ^
Yeah, some spokespeople for members of the Senate are already saying on Twitter that they will refuse to confirm anyone until there is a new president. Pretty hot start to what will be a hell of a fight.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:00 PM ^
February 13th, 2016 at 6:05 PM ^
Both sides have legitimate points.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 13th, 2016 at 6:16 PM ^
Yeah, actual arguments can be made for either side, but when it comes down it, what governs how the actual players will behave is just going to be politics, imo.
Apropos of Stu's point below, I think this could really boost voter turnout if the Senate does refuse to confirm anyone. Dems have decent turnout in presdential election years, though I think they still don't make it to the polls as much as R's do generally. So this could swing the election either way.
February 13th, 2016 at 7:26 PM ^
February 13th, 2016 at 6:23 PM ^
I guess arguments could be made on both sides, but only one of those has a constitutional basis. There's no textual support for the idea that confirmations should be stalled until we get new data from voters.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:48 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 13th, 2016 at 7:26 PM ^
The fact that the Constitution doesnt specify a time frame is hardly support for the idea that the Senate can simply refuse to take action. The text says that the President shall appoint new justices with the consent of the Senate. Of course they can reject a particualr nominee, but stalling until the end of a Presidency is a pretty blatant perversion of Article II.
I suppose you could make an argument that in fact the Framers wanted to give the Senate power to delay indefinitely, and the mechanism for fixing that gridlock would be the midterm elections. It's plausible, but it still leaves us with huge delays in appointment, and it's a far cry from saying we should wait just to get more political data.
February 13th, 2016 at 7:29 PM ^
Given how the ACA was passed, I guarantee the Republicans under McConnell will follow the letter, if not the spirt of the law with a big shit-eating grin.
You don't need to wait to see the reaction from both sides; WaPo has a live stream on various politician's reactions. As expected, Dems want Obama to nominate someone, Repubs are saying cold chance in hell we approve an Obama nominee.
February 13th, 2016 at 7:36 PM ^
Republicans may do so, but they will be facing enormous pressure to confirm and I think a stalling strategy could backfire if it helps democrats erase the disparity in voter turnout. A big risk.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:56 PM ^
True, but just because the Constitution is silent on something doesn't mean that the Senate can't or shouldn't do it.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:06 PM ^
Which is absurd. I don't care what party you belong to, you can't deprive the country of a new justice for an entire year purely out of politics.
On another note, I wonder if this will significantly increase voter turnout.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:48 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 13th, 2016 at 7:20 PM ^
It may help Democrats.
If you look at the participation, by party, from the Iowa caucuses and the NH primaries. Democrat turnout has been down 20-30% from 2012 (let alone the record turnout of 2008), while the Republicans have had record turnouts for both.
This may give Democratic voters something to come out to vote for. Republicans appear to be motivated already.
IMHO No Obama apointee is going to be confirmed. Especially to replace Scalia. McConnell has already issued a statement against it.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:42 PM ^
February 13th, 2016 at 7:23 PM ^
It will only hurt the blue/swing-state Republican Senators (Kirk from Illinois, Johnson from Wisconsin, Ayotte from NH). Maybe Rubio's seat in Florida as well.
However, would bet the RNC would take losing the Senate over changing the balance of power within the Supreme Court.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:05 PM ^
the US Senate will even vote on a confirmation until after the election. The new term starts 01OCT16 so his loss, while tragic, will not affect the USSC rulings. There are 8 others so a deadlock could be in order should any urgent cases need to be heard.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:18 PM ^
Umm, they are mid-term right now, with a huge docket of high profile cases. His death absolutely affects the outcome of these cases.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:10 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 13th, 2016 at 6:17 PM ^
at least you're honest (or funny)
February 13th, 2016 at 6:17 PM ^
February 13th, 2016 at 6:17 PM ^
mgoblog, your source for obituaries
*mods please change banner to read: covering michigan sports and people that die.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:22 PM ^
Rest in Peace...Maurice White. Earth, Wind and Fire gave us beautiful music, music that soars to the heavens. Music that brings people together. Music that makes us see that best in each other and in ourselves. Music that reminds us of our very best days and speaks to us of better days when we are at our lowest.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:27 PM ^
My prediction: Obama nominates a liberal-ish justice. Senate R's don't like him/her (as well as not liking the idea of any nomination going through), then election gets very heated. Dems turn out in droves, Senate flips back to D's, and Dem president is elected, and that president nominates Obama for the open seat on the Court.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:32 PM ^
There were rumors that if Al Gore won in 2000 that he would nominate Clinton.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:50 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 13th, 2016 at 7:23 PM ^
Seconded. I think this is a very plausible scenario.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:30 PM ^
- From the day of death until interment of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a secretary of an executive or military department, a former vice president, thePresident Pro Tempore of the Senate,[45] or the governor of a state, territory, or possession.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:34 PM ^
until after the election. It's kind of been a consensus that the Supreme Court should be mostly middle of the road. Replacing Scalia with a liberal judge could threaten the stability of the country in significant ways.
February 13th, 2016 at 6:40 PM ^
February 13th, 2016 at 6:49 PM ^
Wait what?
Have you been living under a rock?
The last time we had a liberal Supreme Court, we got equal education among the races. Yeah... real travesty.
The Supreme Court being unabashedly right-wing hasn't helped shit in the past 2 decades.
John Roberts is the middle of the road.
Antonin Scalia was absolutely not!
February 13th, 2016 at 6:58 PM ^
February 13th, 2016 at 6:51 PM ^
February 13th, 2016 at 6:44 PM ^
If Obama wants to make sure Hillary wins the nomination, he should name Bernie Sanders to be the next nominee for the SCOTUS. I kid. We need Bernie to president because I want everything for free and have you pay for it!
February 13th, 2016 at 6:57 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 13th, 2016 at 7:15 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 13th, 2016 at 6:55 PM ^
February 13th, 2016 at 6:58 PM ^