R.I.P Justice Scalia

[Voelker]

The same ideology which would howl about FDR attempting to "pack" the court would now try to prevent the President and Senate from doing their job.

A curious example, given that they had every reason to "howl" at such antics. Especially curious when the possible repercussions of an unfettered New Deal, considering that the fettered New Deal was no great shakes, are taken into account.

[James_Gale]

I argued way upstream that President Harrison misconstrued Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy. This account illustrates the point.  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/02/16501/

From The Account Of Scalia's Remarks:

In the lunch session, he was asked a question about his views on “natural law.” He said, wittily, that he practices “American law.” Natural law might well be something appropriately taken into account by legislatures but not by courts. Whatever he might think as a Catholic citizen was one thing; his role as a judge was another.

In illustrating this point, he used an example he has often used before. He would “no more hold” that states are required to ban abortions than he would hold that they are prohibited from banning abortions. The Constitution simply said nothing about the issue. It didn’t embrace his Catholic view of the humanity of the unborn any more than it embraced a constitutional right to kill the unborn.

[James_Gale]

Good grief... it's all politics.  The Dems have no moral high ground for they did in the past and would today be saying the same things as the Repubs if the shoe were on the other foot and the Repubs would be expressing moral outrage just like the Dems at the idea of not filling the vacancy.  There are few men of principle left in Washington and Scalia was surely one of them when he was there -- stalwart yet friendly, eloquent yet readable, with invective for all fools.  It is a snub for the Pres not to attend the funeral (unless the family said not to) and it is a political opportunity to direct the court that the Pres will not miss.  Scalia was not unfamiliar with it all but he himself did say he would be a fool if he were not disconcerted at the prospect of someone undoing what he had spent 30 years doing.

I largely agree.  The Senate is fully within its right to withhold consent.  Whether it acts wisely or well in doing so is a purely political question.  In other words, the voters will decide, either rewarding senators for being stalwart or punishing them for their obstructionism. 

[Eileen Smith]

And there have been plenty of precedents for a late-in-term president to nominate to the Supreme Court. The suggestion that the "right" to fill the vacancy somehow "belongs" to the next president is unconstitutional and absurd.
The same ideology which would howl about FDR attempting to "pack" the court would now try to prevent the President and Senate from doing their job.

I think that criticism of the current Senate majority is warranted as long as one realizes that the opposition engaged in the same maneuvering when the ball was in their possession. Listen to the vids of the two Senators from NY in 2007. Listening to Clinton lecture on appropriateness is like listening to her spouse excoriate others for infidelity.

Agreed.  I tend to chalk it up to Politician Alzheimer's.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Rejecting unacceptable nominees is the Senate's job. As long as everyone remembers that the Senate has no obligation to automatically rubber stamp every nominee that the President submits, then I assume the Senate will do its job.

Yes, but neither are the Republicans to automatically oppose everyone that a democratic president nominates. Each nominee should be judged on their own worthiness to serve as a justice on the supreme court.

[Charles Austin]

There is no protocol or "custom" that says every president has to attend the funeral of a Supreme Court Justice. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't happen. No big deal should be made of it.

[FrPeters]

Yes, but neither are the Republicans to automatically oppose everyone that a democratic president nominates. Each nominee should be judged on their own worthiness to serve as a justice on the supreme court.

And they haven't... so we have Sotomayor and Kagan - neither of which fit the Repub list of top candidates.

[Richard Johnson]

And there have been plenty of precedents for a late-in-term president to nominate to the Supreme Court. The suggestion that the "right" to fill the vacancy somehow "belongs" to the next president is unconstitutional and absurd.
The same ideology which would howl about FDR attempting to "pack" the court would now try to prevent the President and Senate from doing their job.

I think that criticism of the current Senate majority is warranted as long as one realizes that the opposition engaged in the same maneuvering when the ball was in their possession. Listen to the vids of the two Senators from NY in 2007. Listening to Clinton lecture on appropriateness is like listening to her spouse excoriate others for infidelity.

No argument from me about that; I've always thought the Democrats started us down this road with the attacks on Judge Bork. But multiple wrongs don't make a right.

[Richard Johnson]

Scalia was not unfamiliar with it all but he himself did say he would be a fool if he were not disconcerted at the prospect of someone undoing what he had spent 30 years doing.

Long-term pastors know this only too well. 

[Charles Austin]

Actually, whether long-term or short-term, pastors should not expect everything they did in a parish to last forever.

[Richard Johnson]

Actually, whether long-term or short-term, pastors should not expect everything they did in a parish to last forever.

I don't recall saying that they should expect that.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384

This frankly does not bother me in the least.  President Obama will pay his respects at the Court on Friday.  At the funeral mass, the president would have been a distraction.  Because of security concerns (even higher than with other public officials), president are always distractions at events they attend.  But in this case, there's more to it.  Justice Scalia and President Obama had no personal relationship.  Their professional interactions -- almost all indirect -- were less than warm.  I think that it makes sense for the president to permit Justice Scalia's family, his colleagues, and his friends to mourn (and as Christians, to celebrate) in peace.

Security will be high anyway.

"While Earnest has not said definitively what Obama’s plans are for Saturday, the expectation that the Bidens – and not the Obamas -- will represent the White House at the funeral was met with bipartisan criticism.

'Refusing to attend the funeral does more than insult the memory of a life-long public servant. It is a failure to perform a basic presidential duty. Obama has shirked his responsibility to all of us,' Charles Lipson, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, said in a column for Real Clear Politics Thursday.

It is rare for a sitting Supreme Court justice to die during any administration. But in recent history, the sitting president has attended these funerals.

George W. Bush attended the funeral of Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2005, and Dwight Eisenhower did the same for Chief Justice Fred Vinson in 1953.

Earnest would not offer details Wednesday on what the president’s plans are for Saturday.

Asked if he could rule out the possibility of golf, Earnest said, 'I don’t have a sense of what the president’s plans are for Saturday.' He said the White House would have 'some more details' about the president’s plans for Friday and Saturday later.

'The president obviously believes it’s important for the institution of the presidency to pay his respects to somebody who dedicated three decades of his life to the institution of the Supreme Court,' he added. 'And the president gave some pretty thoughtful words in discussing Justice Scalia’s service on the Supreme Court, not just Saturday night but also yesterday in his news conference. And Friday will be an important opportunity for the president and the first lady to pay their respects to Justice Scalia.'

Even from MSNBC, the decision raised eyebrows. 

Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC’s 'All In with Chris Hayes,' tweeted: 'Some amazing advice my mom gave me once: ‘If you’re wondering whether you should to go the funeral, you should go to the funeral.’'

Jeb Bush spokesman Tim Miller responded, 'Same.'

If Obama does not attend, the president also potentially risks angering Republicans whom he will need to help confirm his eventual nominee to succeed Scalia.

Los Angeles Times opinion writer Michael McGough raised this possibility in calling the decision a 'dumb political move.'

'By attending the funeral Obama would have underscored the importance of nonpartisanship when it comes to the court. That could only have helped him make the case that the Republican-controlled Senate has a duty to give fair consideration to the person he nominates to succeed Scalia,' he wrote."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/18/obama-faces-backlash-over-prospect-missing-scalia-funeral.html?intcmp=hpbt1

[bookpastor/Erma Wolf]

    President Bush didn't attend the funeral of Justice Byron White.

[Donald_Kirchner]

    President Bush didn't attend the funeral of Justice Byron White.

"It is rare for a sitting Supreme Court justice to die during any administration. But in recent history, the sitting president has attended these funerals."

"However, attending a sitting Justice’s funeral is viewed by some as being completely different in significance. According to Townhall, this may be the first time in the last 65 years that a current president skipped the funeral of a sitting Justice, although early records are not completely clear. Scalia is the only justice to have died in office since Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who passed away in 2005. Bush attended Rehnquist’s funeral and said the eulogy. When Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson died in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower was photographed at his funeral."

http://heavy.com/news/2016/02/why-isnt-obama-attending-scalia-funeral-reason-president-supreme-court-justice-funeral-history-bush-rehnquist/

I see a significant distinction. Attending the funeral of a sitting justice is more than a manifestation of a personal relationship or respect. It's a respect for the office representiitive of one of the three branches of government.

[MaddogLutheran]

    President Bush didn't attend the funeral of Justice Byron White.

True.  And President Bill Clinton did not attend the funeral of Thurgood Marshall.  Vice President Gore did.

I haven't been able to find out if there was a (good) reason that Clinton did not attend the funeral.  (prior foreign travel commitment, logistics/security, etc).  What may be problematic for President Obama is if he is seen golfing locally within a 24 hour window around the funeral, which is in Washington, DC.  Or golfing elsewhere without another good reason to be traveling outside the capital.

At least it will be a problem for some people, if it turns out anything like that.  Those people are unlikely to include many of the punditry elite...although I am always prepared to be wrong and surprised.

Sterling Spatz