[LOCKED] OT: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dies of Natural Causes while on Hunting Trip in Texas

Submitted by VicTorious1 on

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

MGoBoard

Don

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."

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 148565

Optimism Attache

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.

Joined: 09/13/2011

MGoPoints: 24008

buddhafrog

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. 

Joined: 09/28/2009

MGoPoints: 21397

carolina blue

February 13th, 2016 at 6:05 PM ^

Not surprised. Many arguments here to be made in regards to whether a lame duck appointment should be made. One side would say it's no different than year 2. Another would say let's wait and see where the nation is on the conservative/liberal scale. We haven't had a data point since '12 ( yeah midterms and all, but turnout is always low). And here we are four years later and the nation is about to be heard again.

Both sides have legitimate points.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 02/12/2014

MGoPoints: 30295

Optimism Attache

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.

Joined: 09/13/2011

MGoPoints: 24008

Stu Daco

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.

Joined: 08/23/2015

MGoPoints: 8748

gopoohgo

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.

Joined: 09/12/2011

MGoPoints: 10660

gopoohgo

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.

Joined: 09/12/2011

MGoPoints: 10660

schreibee

February 13th, 2016 at 6:42 PM ^

This is more in the manner of relating a story than judging the viewpoint (although I realize it will get slaughtered by people of a certain political stripe) - but Mitch McConnell said the day after Obama was inaugurated first time, when asked about the Senate's agenda in dealing with the new President, that his only agenda was making sure Obama was a one-term President. So it's hardly surprising that GOP Senators would be rushing to social media to reinsure their supporters that they won't vote to confirm any Obama nominee. How that plays out remains to be seen. Some will face reelection themselves this year, and may find they can't afford to be that obstructive.

Joined: 11/02/2009

MGoPoints: 21183

MGoSoftball

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.

Joined: 10/18/2010

MGoPoints: 8892

Clarence Boddicker

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.

Joined: 05/27/2011

MGoPoints: 72131

Optimism Attache

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.

Joined: 09/13/2011

MGoPoints: 24008

BlueMk1690

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.

Joined: 02/04/2011

MGoPoints: 13011

BursleyBaitsBus

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!

Joined: 01/20/2016

MGoPoints: 12434

schreibee

February 13th, 2016 at 6:51 PM ^

Wait? - wait for one whole year to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to honor "a kind of a consensus"?! The Senate may try to wait a year - or more - to confirm, but you can't seriously expect the President to wait out his final 11+ months in office before making a nomination? It doesn't matter how conservative you are, that would be ludicrous.

Joined: 11/02/2009

MGoPoints: 21183

MoJo Rising

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!

Joined: 10/09/2014

MGoPoints: 2158

stephenrjking

February 13th, 2016 at 6:55 PM ^

There's some slanted opinion in this thread disguised as "fact," but overall it's pretty fair so far. I support those who are critical of people who have no inclination to care about who SC justices are. The SC is, whether one likes it or not, a massively important institution in the governance of our nation. Just in recent years major decisions on huge issues like health care legislation and gay marriage have been national news for days; if you had an opinion on those issues, positive or negative, you are foolish to ignore the identities of the justices. And its significance goes back centuries. Roe vs. Wade, Brown vs. Board, and others continue to be defining decisions in our country's politics and in the day-to-day lives of those living in it. Now, for what comes next: the stakes could not be higher. The court has been a "split" court for many years, with Anthony Kennedy as the "swing" vote holding the keys. The impact of one of the judges on a "side" cannot be overstated. This becomes the defining issue of the presidential election, starting tonight. It is a defining legislature issue--the president will probably try to nominate a justice. The Senate, in opposition control, will not confirm. Every Senator up for election will have a strong position about this as well. It's going to be intense. Unbelievably. No matter what side you're on. The only way it isn't is if Obama convinces a liberal justice like Ginsburg (who was Scalia's closest friend -- apparently they can look past idea logical differences even if many of us can't) to retire, and nominates one justice of each persuasion, in a West Wing-style gambit. It could actually work.

Joined: 03/15/2012

MGoPoints: 20144094

schreibee

February 13th, 2016 at 6:58 PM ^

There's some "slanted opinion" in your comment, as you failed to mention Citizens United, but saw fit to include Gay marriage. One has impacted every single citizen of this nation, one has impacted only those persons who had previously been denied the very questionable pleasure and priveledge of getting married - said the man married since 1989...

Joined: 11/02/2009

MGoPoints: 21183