Death of a Justice - And The Nation?

Antonin Scalia's inopportune passing is a 10.0 earthquake to America.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, revered and reviled as the staunchest of constitutional conservatives to sit on the high bench for many decades, has died at 79.

Without wanting to be disrespectful or macabre, it's easy to imagine Justice Scalia having a good chuckle upstairs at the expense of our politicians.  Never one to shy away from the dramatic gesture or pointed remark, he could have hardly found a more earthshaking moment to shuffle off this mortal coil.

For with his departure, the delicate balance of the Court that has prevailed for lo these many decades is fundamentally shattered.  For a generation, there have been nine on the Supreme Court: four liberals who'd vote for anything liberal short of Karl Marx himself, four conservatives who stay just this side of David Duke, and one, Anthony Kennedy, who can't make up his mind.  Whenever a truly contentious issue makes its way before the Supremes, the result is nearly always a 5-4 decision: four from one or the other of the two opposing poles, plus Justice Kennedy.

In the absence of Scalia, the left now has a commanding position: The best the conservatives can accomplish, if they persuade Justice Kennedy to side with them, is a tie. They can't actually win anything at all.

A tie is a win for the left more often than not, because it means that the lower court ruling which was appealed to the Supreme Court is allowed to stand, however wrong it might be.

So, the far left has been gifted with a golden opportunity not seen since the 1930s when President Roosevelt threatened to "pack" the Court by increasing the size of the bench to fit his own picks - whereupon, in "the switch in time that saved nine," the sitting Justices abruptly started voting his way.  America has not been the same since.

Eighty years on, how far left can our country's legal structure be pushed in a Court term or two of unchallenged liberal hegemony?  The infamous "frog in hot water" theory will be put to the ultimate test.

A House of Cards

This would most likely have happened sooner or later regardless; nobody is immortal, not even Supreme Court justices, but the timing is impeccable.

Had his demise occurred shortly before the election, it would have been just another issue to consider at the polls - a big issue, to be sure, but this election is so full of major concerns that one more wouldn't make much difference.  Then the new president would use his nice fresh mandate to push through his pick.

Had it happened a few years ago, the ending would be predictable and unstoppable: President Obama would appoint a series of far-lefties until the Republican Senate got sick of the press excoriating their "unreasonable obstructionism" and let one be confirmed.  This is what has happened the last few decades: a President who faces a Senate of the opposite party may have to abandon a few appointees along the way, but he'll get one through eventually.

But now, smack in the middle of the lamest of lame-duck presidencies?  We have nearly a whole year to go before a new president arrives on the scene, yet the consequences of an Obama replacement for Scalia are so dire that it must be prevented at any cost, since, technically the Senate could stall an appointment for a year.  It's happened before.

Stand and Fight?  Or Sit and Spin?

That is, of course, always assuming that our feckless and irresponsible congressional Republicans actually want to prevent a Supreme Court which will gleefully torpedo every single conservative law and policy for decades yet to come.

Have our Republican leaders been willing to fight the mass importation of socialist foreigners who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats?  No.  In fact, nearly all of them are as much in favor of open borders as the left, though even a child should be able to understand that it means the doom of Republican power.

Have they managed, at least, to refrain from spending your tax dollars on paying for abortionists, as the Republican Party platform has sworn to do for years?  Nope: just the other month, our Republican Congress once again used your money for something which most Republican voters see as a moral abomination.

So what makes us think that the Stupid Party will be any more bold or effective than they ever are?  Well, to be perfectly frank, not much.

Which is why we'll try to stiffen their spines just a bit, by making a prophecy and a promise:

If the Senate confirms an Obama appointee to the Supreme Court - any appointee, no matter who it might be, the Republican Party is finished.  Done.  Over.  Dead, once and for all.

There are two reasons for this.  The obvious one is - with a commanding leftist majority, every leftist policy will be sustained and ever conservative one struck down, thus ending any possibility of stopping illegal immigration and our demographic conversion into the third-world socialist country of our elite's wildest fever dreams.

Before this happens, though, the Republican base will abandon the party for good.  We are already in the midst of a "pre-revolutionary" election with more widespread voter fury, fear, and aggressive contempt than has occurred in living memory.  If the solid mass of stalwart Republicans is so blatantly betrayed, in such a permanent and consequential way, then why on earth should anyone ever bother to vote for a Republican ever again, much less to stump, promote, or donate to them?

For sure, we won't.  Most of us would prefer even a Bloomberg-based 3rd party to that.

And maybe, just maybe, Justice Scalia would crack a smile at this result: as Reagan's greatest and longest-lasting appointment, what could be more appropriate than to force a monumental decision for the ages of "No pale pastels, but bold colors"?

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other articles by Petrarch or other articles on Law.
Reader Comments

.... four liberals who'd vote for anything liberal short of Karl Marx himself, four conservatives who stay just this side of David Duke ....

TRANSLATION: Four corrupt and Rule-by-Fiat fascisSocialists and four able to honor the promises made by all nine to support and defend the united States' Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same and noting that every one of them took his obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and promising to well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which he was about to enter, so help him God.

(The mention of David Duke, he of the "Democrats'" terrorist wing and who is as-fascisSocialist as are the court's four activist "Democrats," - makes no sense)

Nor - unless his ego is factored in - does Mr Kennedy.

February 15, 2016 12:57 AM

.... If the senate confirms an Obama nominee to the court - any nominee, the Republican Party is finished. Done. Over. Dead, once and for all ....

True! But my money says Soetoro declares another of his arbitrary senate recess and makes a direct appointment.

February 15, 2016 1:01 AM

It amazed me that during the Democratic Power days, that the old liberals didn't decided to retire and allow themselves to be replaced with younger idealogs: Ginsberg in particular. Now if we can seize the White House and gain 60 votes in the Senate, we might even remove some Justices if death takes too long.
Trump can show his presidential chops by having a talk with Senate Leaders and getting their agreement to block any appointment. McConnall has already announced plans to do this. The Court ruled 9-0 that the Senate can do this by remaining nominally open for business. It would also be a good move to appoint Cruz to the Court. Get him out of the Senate and gain support from Conservatives. Also get Cruz to throw his support to Trump so that there would be no brokered convention.

February 15, 2016 6:41 AM

The idea that a President Trump would nominate Cruz to the bench is a fantasy in the mind of Trump supporters. I've heard this a couple times today, and it makes me chuckle.

Trump _hates_ Cruz because Cruz is able to debate him into a crumbled-up ball on the issues. The most recent debate made that clear. Probably the best moderated/structured debate yet, it made Trump actually open up about what he really believes. The list of utterly non-conservative statements and opinions that came out of his mouth was ridiculous.

And Trump knows it which is why he's now being the litigation route:

Trump will gladly destroy the GOP nomination process, handing the election to Democrats, if it means taking Cruz and others down with him. Nothing new here of course for anyone who has watched Trump's antics for the last decade.

If lawsuits don't take down Cruz, Trump will probably bounce from the race, declare the RNC is out to get him and start a third party run.

Besides, Trump already said who he'd nominate to the Supreme Court - his liberal feminist sister of course! From the horse's mouth:

February 15, 2016 5:02 PM

You would think Info was not born until today. I would guess this is the first election he has paid attention to. There is little recall for him. All this noise in the election will disappear once the election is decided and the world will go on. Question Whom did Obama appoint as Sec State? Question 2 Why did she accept? Question 3 didn't they then hate each other? and Question 4 don't they still hate each other? Of course the answer is that's Politics. So Trump won't possibly nominate Cruz? Info is clueless.

February 15, 2016 11:47 PM

Trump would be very proud of his disciple. Sparky follows the antics of his savior quite well! Notice the pattern. I call out specific problems with Trump. Sparky avoids the substance and calls names "clueless" "born today" etc.

Has Sparky not seen that Trump already said he would nominate his far left liberal sister to the bench?

Has Sparky not heard that Trump is going to sue Cruz? Did Obama ever sue Hillary or call her a liar directly in the 2008 election?

Since he can't win the debate on the issues, perhaps Sparky will threaten to sue me next.


February 16, 2016 8:34 AM

It has been said that man is a rational animal, and Info is certainly an animal. Trump said it was a Joke about his sister, but Info only sees what corresponds to his very logical world. He is also a great debater in his wonderful world. The only problem is that he is wrong and his world an illusion.

February 16, 2016 9:18 AM

I actually originally thought it was a joke myself ("ha ha, I'd put good old sis in there!") but everything I've read suggests he was serious.

I just now Googled to see if he made any retractions or claims that it was a joke and can't find any.

I then re-read the original interview to see how he phrased his comments to see if that was a joke too. It appeared to be completely serious.

Do you have an actual link or source showing he was joking?

February 16, 2016 9:23 AM

I actually originally thought it was a joke myself ("ha ha, I'd put good old sis in there!") but everything I've read suggests he was serious.

I just now Googled to see if he made any retractions or claims that it was a joke and can't find any.

I then re-read the original interview to see how he phrased his comments to see if that was a joke too. It appeared to be completely serious.

Do you have an actual link or source showing he was joking?

February 16, 2016 9:24 AM

Ah, here we go. He did actually say he was joking two days ago:

BUT NOTICE what he says...

He didn't say he wouldn't vote for her (or someone like her) because she isn't conservative (which she's isn't). He said it would a "conflict of interest" because she's his sister, but he goes on to say that other than that she would be a great pick.

Let that sink in... He WOULD vote for someone like her (a pro-PP liberal activist judge) if only she wasn't his sister.

February 16, 2016 9:27 AM

We need a Constitutional Amendment. As the Supreme Court currently operates, the Constitution means whatever 5 Justices say it means. Clearly, if the timing of the death of one justice is a 10.0 earthquake, the Supreme Court needs a check on it. I think that if the legislatures of a majority of states vote to "ratify" a minority opinion that disagreed with the majority opinion in a Supreme Court case within 2 years of the decision, then the minority opinion should come into force as if it were the majority opinion. This has several benefits. For one thing, the Justices would be encouraged to moderate reasoning to justify decisions and prevent dissents which would attract support in the states. For another, unlike term limits or other removal from office mechanisms, this goes to the heart of the problem. It changes the offending decision itself. There are plenty of judges who would be glad to be removed from office if their decision would stay in force. www. conservativeruckus .com

March 23, 2016 3:13 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...