Oh wow.

Gonna be quite a battle for the next nominee. I don't envy the crap they'll go through.

Pretty insane timing indeed.

Out of curiosity (can't find this on Google) - what happens when rulings under only 8 judges end in a 4-4 tie? Is there some kind of alternate judge until a 9th permanent one is selected?

I think the prior ruling from the lower court stands.

You are correct.

Shit just got real.

So, liberals will have a 5-4 advantage?

If Trump or Cruz are nominated (and lose) the court the balance will favor the Democrats more.

Yeah very shocking. I never agreed with his views, but it was a very influential person. It will be interesting to see how much chaos this brings.

GOP about to embarrass themselves and try to block Obama's nomination.

This is huuuuuuuuge.

How much can the GOP fronted Senate attempt to block President Obama's appointment before it makes them look really, really bad?

If he was clever, which he is, he will nominate a minority canidate that just recently passed the Senate on the way to a Circuit Court and then rail that the GOP is racist or sexist. Or nominate, from his POV, a "moderate" that the GOP would normally sign-on for and watch the party fight it out internally. The Cruz v. Graham/Ayotte/Kirk wing.

Scalia is the thirty-fifth Justice to die in office. William H. Rehnquist was the previous passing in 2005.

Ok. This makes sense due to the life time appointment and the now extreme importance of them since around FDR's time.

I think most died in the 19th century. Most of those guys stayed there to life. I know John Marshall died in office.

Yep.

I am not mourning this evil man.

http://ventrellaquest.com/2016/02/15/wh ... lias-gone/

I saw a Facebook post slamming the President for not wearing a tie when talking about his passing.

/dead

HA! I told my wife while we were watching it live "let's see how long it takes before people start slamming him for that."

Didn't give you a click.

Glad you are big on the Confrontation Clause.

I clicked it twice to make up for it.

Actually, there should be No Interpretation of the terms other than (a)the terms as defined by Webster's at the time of the drafting of the document, and (2) obeying the Legal Terminology in use at the time of the document. Terms such as "An Establishment of Religion" and "Free Exercise" are specific, and yet, 'the Interpreters' conveniently ignore them. Else they are Plumb Ignorant people.

"An Establishment of Religion" was defined as a State Church by Charter of The King. They were established by Charter or by Edict. And "Free Exercise" is defined as "without support or political empowerment". As in "Free Exercise" vs. "By Charter". This was enacted with respect to establishments such as "The Catholic Church of The Massachusetts Bay Colony" and their powers to tax separately from the government, to enforce religious dogma as The Law, to arrest, torture, deprive life and Liberty without a fair trial, to burn. Dowse. Hang. Or Execute anyone who was branded a Heathen and an enemy of God.

And this is why religion pays no taxes. Unless they exercise politics, they are effectively Separate but Equal. And if they do try politics, then they are likely violating The First Amendment's "Establishment Clause". Apart from the church, the people are subject to the same considerations as anyone else. Or should be.

OK. So, should the government be allowed to regulate the internet?

No.

Could a Republican President interpret Obamacare to have really been about general regulation of health care for the general welfare and use it to remove the individual mandate? Interpreted from the meaning of his time in, say, 2024? It not, why not? Shouldn't that person view the law's meaning within his time rather than 2009-2010?

At what point does the meaning of a law as written change?

You missed my point, I think.

The Founding Fathers didn't write about the internet, or airplanes, or television, or a million other things because they did not exist. Is TV or the internet "press" as defined by the 1st amendment? Who knows what the Founders would have thought? Maybe they would have said "No, that's not what we were talking about."

To think that we can know what the Founders thought and should only do what they thought in a time when we still thought the way to treat illness was to drain someone's blood is ridiculous to me. (Not to mention the fact that even the Founders disagreed on the meanings, hence Supreme Court decisions within their lifetimes to interpret what the Constitution meant.)

This is similar to religious fundamentalists who believe that the Bible only means one thing and they know exactly what that one thing is (which, amazingly, always lines up perfectly with their already-existing ideas).

Basically, "Original intent" is a bullshit excuse that people like Scalia used to justify whatever crap he wanted.