Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead on January 13, 2016 at his home in Texas. This became the hot topic at the Republican debate in Greenfield SC last night. Every candidate said that Obama should not put forth a replacement candidate in spite of the requirement that he do so. The President of the United States (POTUS) says he intends to present a name to the Senate and asks that they have a hearing for that person. He has nearly a year remaining until a new president takes office in January 2017. The obstructionist Senate including Mitch McConnell has vowed to stop him in his tracks.
They have vowed to not do so. Come on now, guys; take a quick look at decisions of Scalia (mostly dissents) and you will clearly see why they agreed with him on the Supreme Court of the United States. (SCOTUS) Five decisions have been zeroed in on by the legal profession to show exactly why the regressive republicans will not allow him to be replaced by POUTUS Obama. Was Scalia truly such a great jurist? This writer thinks he was not, disagreeing with other justices rather frequently.
In 2003 SCOTUS struck down an anti-sodomy law in Texas. In his dissent Scalia said the decision was “the product of a law profession culture that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda.”
So Scalia continually dissented with other justices and wrote scathing dissents in some cases using his “colorful” language. Exactly why was he such a legal scholar? This writer believes he was not. In 2008 the majority ruled that detainees in GITMO ( Guantanamo Bay Cuba) had the right to seek their release in federal court. His dissent said SCOTUS had conveyed legal rights on non-citizens.
In an earlier case Scalia wrote against the Bush administration saying the US could not hold a detainee indefinitely without charges being filed against that person. Scalia again dissented and wrote in his dissent that Congress had not suspended civil rights when it passed the Authorization of use of force.
In 2008 Scalia actually wrote a majority opinion for SCOTUS when it struck down a statute prohibiting the registration of certain handguns saying it was the violation of the Second amendment. Oh, yeah, he certainly was not for the protection of the many Americans who have died by guns since then.
In 2015 Scalia again scathingly dissented in a case legalizing same-sex marriage in the entire country. He said the majority decision was “a threat to American Democracy.” OK, Mr. Scalia, you are gone but certainly not forgotten and did you truthfully carry the Constitution and were you cooperative with the other justices. Not in the opinion of this writer.
POTUS Obama wishes to appoint someone to keep the court from 4-4 ties on SCOTUS. He has a list of potential nominees, some women, some black, an Asian women and all moderates to suggest replacing Scalia. Isn’t moderation exactly what is needed at this time? This writer believes it is. The SCOTUS blog in a first draft of an article about the death of Scalia says:
If there is a truly endearing part of his legacy, it surely will be his role as the patron saint of modern legal conservatism and especially the branch of it that believes that the Constitution was essentially embalmed in 1789 (or when an amendment was added) preserved for addition and imitation and almost always a bit musty and antique.
(Bonner is a freelance writer who writes from her home. She may be reached electronically at email@example.com; by snail mail at PO Box 3712, Rapid City, SD 57709-3712; or by phone
at (605) 342-5834, ext. 120. Be sure to dial 120 after reaching the number to reach me directly)