Free Markets, Free People

Scalia’s death and the state of politics in this country

It would have been nice if the Democrats could have at least let the body get cool before making political demands and unleashing the usual hate, but then that is the state of politics in this country.

Frankly, I mourn Antonin Scalia as one of the few important bastions against the “living Constitution”, defined constantly on the fly as whatever the left wants it to be.  Lately it’s been all about granting liberties willy nilly (which, the smart person would realize, would mean they can “ungrant” them as well as those that you thought were inalienable, such as your 2nd Amendment right).  That was one of Scalia’s greatest fears and why he stood athwart the path that led to that.

And, of course the hate – the woman who tweeted that she hoped, as he’s always want to do, that Clarence Thomas followed Scalia’s example this time.

And the politics – the conveniently amnesiac Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer demanding that the GOP accept and approve the Obama nominee immediately – whoever that might be.  And don’t pay any attention to what they’ve said or done in the past, it is the duty of the GOP to play their game.

Of course, if the GOP has any desire to remain a mainstream party, they better grow a brain, spine and develop some guts and follow Nancy Regan’s advice – “just say no”.  Obama’s had 8 years to work his tragic magic on this country, we don’t need to be giving him a lifetime appointment to continue the work.


Finally, the possible silver lining – do Trump supporters really want him naming a SCOTUS justice?  Or Hillary, if Trump in the GOP nominee?


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

27 Responses to Scalia’s death and the state of politics in this country

  • do Trump supporters really want him naming a SCOTUS justice? Or Hillary, if Trump in the GOP nominee?

    >>>> Meh. This argument leaves me colder than anticipated. It’s not like nominating John Roberts has really paid off very much has it?

    • Well, it’s kind of a toss-up.

      Roberts is at worst a loose cannon. Remember, he was instrumental in Citizens United

      Of course, loose cannons can do a LOT of damage, and Roberts certainly HAS. .

  • What I’m enjoying is the rush by lefty pundits to insist that if the Senate won’t consent to an appointment for a new justice lickety split it will probably mean the loss of the Senate for the Republicans in the coming election…

    because Americans will….blah blah blah – pick your flavor of lefty delusion going around at their liberal inner circle wine and cheese parties.
    Wake up America! You should be listening to these liberal wonks spouting off to readers of the New York Times and Washington Post and obey!

    Pay no mind to what it means when Gallup does a poll on Scalia within the last 24 hours, where 44% of the population polled either didn’t have an opinion on the guy or plain didn’t KNOW who he was.
    Sounds like a population ready to punish the Senate for not replacing him doesn’t it.
    I wager if Gallup polled further they’d discover that easily 40% of the population is unaware of the role the Senate plays in appointing a justice, and more than 60% would be completely unaware of what the term “Borking” is, or where it comes from.

    So, my bet is that’ll be a ‘yugggge’ (that’s the in phrase now, yes?) factor for the party running their un-indicted felon and their socialist whacko-bird candidates for President.
    Destined to be the magic vote getting thingamabob that will allow them to keep the White House and take back the Senate in 2016.

    • ” ‘yugggge’ (that’s the in phrase now, yes?)”

      Leave it to Donald the extravagant to turn a single word into a phrase. 😉

      • Or Alan the bozo – you think Donald might find a place for me in his administration?

  • Of course the real point is the fact that 9 unelected and unaccountable appointees hold so damn much power and sway.

    No matter who serves, we already lost you know.

    • That’s because we were supposed to have more control over the other people we chose to pick the guys who were going to be unaccountable.
      You know, before they figured out super delegates and making sure our choices were Shirt sandwich A or Shirt sandwich B, both of whom were already bought by people from some other state with lots of money.
      Back when money didn’t flow from foreign princes and potentates, and taking their money would have had you riding a rail after getting your new tar and feather suit.
      When your honor meant more than your life and friends on K street.

      • At least your corruption was local. 🙂

        • Given the realism, I might call it the cynicism, of the Founding Fathers, I am sure the superiority of local vs. distant corruption was taken into consideration.

          • My usual snark, but sincerely meant.
            “Better the devil you know…” is not at all outlandish when you consider that there will almost always be corruption.
            They were practically “The Shadow”, they knew what evil lurked in the hearts of men.

    • Its bad when the fate of so much turns on one man. It means you already lost and expecting luck to save you. Its only a matter of time.

  • If the Republicans had any brains they would let Obama do as he wished and keep their damn mouths shut except to quote Schumer et al. until they vote no.

    • That was the “evil” Chuck Schumer (Star Trek, season 1, episode 5, “The Enemy Within”)

      But so is this one

    • The Republicans want to engage in ‘opposition theater’ where they shoot off their mouths but do the opposite. If they shoot them off to the point of putting their foot in it they have to re-establish the peace by rubber stamping the vote.

      Then people wonder why Trump being a bullshitter doesn’t lower his ranking.

      • “If they shoot them off to the point of putting their foot in it”

        Surely, you jest.

  • Finally, the possible silver lining – do Trump supporters really want him naming a SCOTUS justice? Or Hillary, if Trump in the GOP nominee?

    The candidate with the best chance against Hillary is Trump. Not that makes him the best choice. Trump would just rip out a huge part of her base. People normally scared away from considering a Republican, not only because they has a pre-propaganda opinion of him but they like what they see. It wouldn’t matter if a huge part of Republicans pouted and stayed home.

    By the same token, people soon will be using elect-ability to dismiss Cruz. I believe once Trump was a non-factor that was stage two of the plan for the Establishment to regain control of the election. Stage one isn’t going so well and they are running out of time, so they’ll move to stage two soon anyway.

    • The candidate with the best chance against Hillary is Trump. Not that makes him the best choice.

      Not accord to anything OBJECTIVE. Cruz does MUCH better against Hellary than does T-rump in polling.

      But the real point is this: if T-rump is the nominee, we have a choice between which old Collectivist puke to vote for, or not to vote for ANY old Collectivist puke.

      Der Donald has ANNOUNCED that there’s nothing to distinguish his economics from Bernie Sanders.

      • Not accord to anything OBJECTIVE. Cruz does MUCH better against Hellary than does T-rump in polling.

        Lol yes, for now. Give the MSM a few weeks to paint him as the worlds greatest boogeyman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-woman…and what kind of fake white Hispanic is he? He can’t even speak Spanish very well etc etc.

        Trump- while unquestionably scum- is kind of insulated from a lot of this crap.

      • Given the list of candidates of both parties, I am reminded of the old joke about the guy whose parachute didn’t open. There ain’t a damned thing you can do, so might as well relax and enjoy the view.

  • Perhaps Trump should announce publicly that he would let Ted Cruz choose his Supreme Court appointees.

    Trump supporters who know what that means on the right would mostly be all for it. Trump supporters who don’t know what it means would mostly not care.

    • Trump has already suggested William Pryor and Diane Sykes, both of which have solid conservative bona fides.

    • The main problem there would be that you can’t believe anything that Der Donald says.

      He lies. Constantly.

      But he HAS come out as a Code Pinko. He’s also come out as a real Collectivist.

      • lies constantly, like 99% of the Republicans claiming the mantle of conservatism?

        How much smaller did government get under Bush, the Republican Congress?
        Didn’t the powers that be just purge out the ‘Tea Party’ candidates?
        Didn’t congress approve two blatant party apparatchiks from Obama to the Supreme Court? If they hadn’t we wouldn’t be sweating the Scalia death like we are now.
        I’m sick of opposition theater when they’ve had real the power to kill Obamacare for years now.

        For all the lies and fake conservatism people connect to Trump, I’m convinced Trump is right where he belongs.

        Like I said, the big horror is that Trump’s Cronies aren’t the Republican’s main Cronies of recent times. They are afraid of losing their position near the head of the dinner table.


    Vis Der Donald, I thought that was a pretty great synopsis.

    Especially because he agree with me…


  • Turns out the New York times felt in 1987 that the new Democratic Senate was perfectly justified in resisting the Presidents Supreme Court nominees because they won the election in 1986.

    Payback – she is a nasty tempered female yes?

    • Or – perhaps a foul tempered cross dressing man who’s not sure of his gender.

      It is so very difficult to tell these days.

      Or – maybe a rhinoceros who has cake crumbs inside his skin, and they tickle.

  • There was much that was conservative about Scalia. He was not, for instance, a liberal, and so he was not a neurotic or a social justice warrior. He was a textualist, meaning he belonged to the world where words mean things, and he adhered to the original meaning. But, and there’s nearly always a but, like Bork, he was a legal positivist — the positive law is based on the positive law, the positive law is based on itself.

    If one looks to the founding document, not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence, which throws the colonies into a state of nature, it adheres to natural law, the laws of nature and nature’s God. It adheres to and recognizes *truth* as an absolute: “We hold these truths.” And it holds them as a priori and axiomatic: “…to be self-evident.”

    Nino was a great one, but he was not a natural law jurist.