search
top

With Scalia’s Passing, What Now?

Antonin Scalia

I’m not going to sugar coat it, Scalia’s passing likely marks the end of the Second Amendment if the Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans don’t grow a pair. Just because Obama appoints a replacements doesn’t mean the GOP Senate has to confirm him or her. Once a replacement is named, I would make crystal clear to your Senator that you fully expect them to vote against any nominee who does not profess unwavering support for Heller & McDonald and the Second Amendment.

Oppose, Block, Filibuster. Run out the clock. Obama has had two appointments, and that’s enough for any President.

30 Responses to “With Scalia’s Passing, What Now?”

  1. Miguel says:

    Don’t expect much from Florida: One senator is firmly anti gun and the other is crawling for President

  2. Malcolm says:

    So far the conventional wisdom seems to be that a new justice is unlikely until after the election. All Republicans have to do is show some spine and refuse Obama.

    Stop laughing.

    • Shawn says:

      “I’m not going to sugar coat it, Scalia’s passing likely marks the end of the Second Amendment if the Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans don’t grow a pair.”

      They won’t. According to you we’ve lost. You might as well give up now because according to you literally every fight we will have will be lost until possessing a gun is made blanket illegal.

      I really like reading your posts and you’re a daily ra and you’re a daily read but when things like this happen you’re a constant doomsayer.

      • jerry says:

        He is just being honest. McConnell is a despicable little coward and his band of merry men led by Lindsey Graham are nearly as bad. If Obama is allowed to place another justice on the court, the 2A is just one area in which this country will suffer.

      • Sebastian says:

        McConnell has already said there will be no confirmation. I just spoke what reality is. You’re the one adding the chicken little spin.

        • jerry says:

          I was actually backing you up, I agreed with your headline that the 2A is in trouble unless the republicans take a stand. I was not adding any “chicken little spin” I don’t give a good goddamned what McConnell says. I stand by my contention that he is a weakling and a coward. If the GOP stops this, it will be because of men like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, not McConnell.

  3. The longest confirmation process in Supreme Court history: 125 days.

    Days until a new president is inaugurated: 361

    Buy ammo. We’re going to need it.

  4. Ian Argent says:

    Well, there went any chance of an official recess of the Senate; after the last recess appointment shenanigans, I don’t see the Pubs allowing ANYONE to be recess-appointed

    • Obama has until Feb. 22nd to make a recess appointment that would comport with the recent SCOTUS ruling on recess appointments.

      What he’ll do, God only knows.

  5. Richard says:

    No pasaran.

  6. HappyWarrior6 says:

    Passing federal preemption should be a priority TODAY. Maybe this is the way it gets pushed to the forefront. No more sitting on pins and needles waiting for SC verdicts.

  7. Brad says:

    If, for whatever reason including Obama packing the Supreme Court, the Federal Courts abandon or nullify the 2nd Amendment, that will guarantee a constitutional conventional. And I will support that convention.

  8. Brad says:

    As if the 2016 election wasn’t already going to be about gun control, the death of Scalia just turned that up to 11.

    • RAH says:

      His death certainly highlights that this year is important for gun right supporters to make sure the GOP wins the Senate and Presidency.

  9. Stephen says:

    The sad thing is that who chooses a Supreme Court justice can have such an effect on the reading of the entire constitution and the liberties it protects. You’d think a judge would just be a judge with minor differences — so sad it’s not true and that the courts are as partisan as the congress.

    If the judges are this extremely different at the top end, how bad are they in the field? I’m guessing just as bad. If you’re going in front of a judge for some crime better review that judge’s politics …

    • Ian Argent says:

      First principles problem – if you start with different first principles, you get different results.

  10. RAH says:

    My first reaction was this is Bad, Bad , Bad.

  11. Greg says:

    It is time to come to the realization that the second is not beholden to rulings from SCOTUS and that it is a right you are born with. All SCOTUS can do is slap down the insipid regulation imposed by an out of control and incompetent government. They use their failure at controlling crime as the excuse to attack the citizenry, while they excasterbate the crime problem by making everything a felony. Yes the government is our problem.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      Agreed. And for years, even with favorable rulings from the high court up until now, we still await something resembling a preemption bill that takes the political football out of the hands of the courts.

  12. Bondurant says:

    There is supposed to be a tradition of replacing one justice with a like minded justice. I’ve heard progressives make this pitch for Obama’s nominees. Something tells me this is going out the window.

    Given the ramifications, I expect the GOP to hold in against Obama hard unless he offers up a judge that is not a hardcore progressive.

    • Alpheus says:

      Silly commentator, that tradition is for Republicans! Democrats are supposed to nominate whoever they want!

  13. Chris from AK says:

    Assume POTUS puts up an unacceptable (from our POV) nominee.

    Scenario 1: GOP Senate obstructs until election season. GOP will be hammered for opposing the first ever Mixed-Race Black Hispanic Asian LGBT nominee in the media, and the GOP will be dragged into Social Issues land.
    – Likely cost is a few Senate seats in purple or blue-ish states. Senators like Ayotte (NH), Portman (OR), and Kirk (IL) would be at risk.
    – If Hillary wins, loss of the Senate could be a serious blow, especially if the Dems then blow away the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees.
    – If a GOP candidate wins it could severely complicate getting our nominees (for SCOTUS and all other posts) confirmed.

    Scenario 2: GOP Senate puts up a lukewarm fight then caves.
    – GOP will still get hammered but to a lesser degree; maybe fewer seats flip and we hold the Senate.
    – SCOTUS swings from 4-1-4 to 5-1-3 for liberal positions.
    – If Hillary wins, she gets three more picks over the next 8 years, leaving us with a liberal court for generations.

    This is really a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation.

    I would have preferred to see Sen McConnell say, “Yeah, we’ll consider each nominee.” Then drag it out and Bork the first and second candidates to run out the clock.

    • SDN says:

      “GOP Senate puts up a lukewarm fight then caves.”

      Hillary will win since 15-25% of the Republicans will say “Let It Burn” and stay home.

  14. yellowfin says:

    This is why I said the people who refused to fight against Sotomayor were idiots. It should NEVER come down to one man to make or break us. Why in the heck has it taken decades for our side to wake up and fight back hard enough to not get stuck in this position??? Are people really that lazy and stupid to not have stood against the Marxists all this time when they’ve been fighting against us since the 60’s?

    • jerry says:

      It goes back to my earlier comment. The republican leadership in the senate is filled with cowards and weak little men. They were, and are, afraid to fight Obama for fear of being labeled racists or obstructionists. It did not take a crystal ball to realize that Sotomayor is a left wing extremist. The President, no matter who he is, does not have the final say on who does or does not sit on the federal bench. The senate’s role is to advise and consent. Consent. You know, to give permission. The republicans have been unwilling to take this role seriously, and their counterparts in the House have shown a similar lack of courage on a number of other issues. It is no surprise to me that Trump and Cruz are leading the pack, while republican establishment candidates are lagging behind.

  15. Alpheus says:

    Am I the only one who is half-afraid that this can cause a revolution?

    Part of it stems from our current political situation: we have a country increasingly divided into red and blue regions, gradually becoming polarized. We have a spineless GOP and a rigid, crusty Democratic Party, both of which really mess things up either by responding to fear (mostly for the GOP) or acting according to their party principles (mostly for the Democratic Party). And now one of our conservative, constitutional voices (for the most part) has passed away…

    To be sure, I’ve been listening to a podcast on revolutions, and it’s amazing how many times a given revolution twists and turns on the (usually natural) death of an important person–usually someone who could be “reasonable” and convince his side that they didn’t need to act too hastily. The English Civil War seemed particularly susceptible to this, but you can see it here and there in the French Revolution as well. (Of course, the French Revolution was one of those things where a lot of deaths hinged on an event, rather than the other way around…)

    (I don’t recall examples in the American Revolution or the Haitian Revolution, but that may also be because I’m working while I’m listening, and because of that, sometimes I’m merely “listening”…)

    In any case, I’m a little nervous. I’m just being half-paranoid, right? Right? Oh, I hope I’m right that I’m just working up a fear that’s not really justified…

  16. Ian Argent says:

    I think McConnell shouldn’t have showed his hand. Let the White House propose and the Senate dispose. All announcing did was let the attack wing of the Democratic Party get a head start.

top