Scalia found dead at West Texas Ranch

[Berkut]

Shrug, seems like a good move, but it gives the Republicans an easy out.

"Obama caved to our pressure and nominated a Republican! Hah!"

[Capetan Mihali]

The combination of Justice Scalia's opinion in Crawford v. Washington and withering dissent just seven years later in Michigan v. Bryant alone would warrant my earnest "R.I.P."  But more broadly, I remember and respect his steadfast (if not total) defense of the protections that the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment extend to everyone present in the U.S. 

The courts test, define, narrow, and expand these protections in their decisions.  It's an odd part of the system, though, that essentially the only parties who can bring a suit on the scope of these Amendments are convicted criminals -- often even ones who unquestionably did a bad deed.  A lot of people, understandably, hate to see criminals "getting off on a technicality" and instinctively disagree with the decisions that let them off "scot-free."

But there's a cliche dear to many public defenders' hearts: "The Bill of Rights is not a technicality."  Over his 30 years on the S. Ct. bench, I'd say Scalia guarded the 4th/5th/6th Amendments a good deal more carefully than most of his colleagues; wasn't afraid to be the only "conservative" justice to cross over on these cases; and tended to be less swayed by arguments that constitutional rights should give sway to the practical difficulty/danger of policework (unlike Breyer, a supposed "liberal" justice, who has often been very receptive to those arguments). 

At the same time, it's clear that Scalia had very little sympathy for these litigants on a personal level.  He expressed as much in oral argument at times -- one that I remember is him openly stating that rehabilitation is no longer a goal for imprisonment at all -- and I think it runs through his opinions.  He and Thomas were about as unsympathetic as you could be towards 8th Amendment and s.1983 claims by prisoners (most famously regarding the death penalty [even more famously as applied to the mentally retarded], but also on gross disproportionately in prison sentences, LWOP for juveniles, prison medical negligence, guard brutality, etc.)  Scalia's language in describing the inmates in his Brown v. Plata dissent (re Calif. prison overcrowding) makes his attitude pretty clear.  So Scalia's criminal-related jurisprudence an interesting juxtaposition for someone, lawyer or not, who is concerned with criminal justice.

Regarding his death, I think it's clear that Antonin (a great first name, IMO) enjoyed the good things in life.  It's well-known that he was a serious smoker right up to his death (although I didn't know that he enjoyed a pipe on top of all the cigarettes).  And it's clear he did his share of banqueting: one imagines him bringing his opera guests (why not Ruth B. and Martin D.?) to a typical post-performance repast, serving them with succulent Texan quail and pheasant from an ample platter, and filling their glasses with generous quantities of the finest Italian wines. 

The reigning health ideology would demand that we be aghast at how he treated his body, and even I admit it was perhaps a bit de trop, especially as he aged. (Though he came nowhere close to Thurgood Marshall's excessive indulgence during his protracted, bitter withdrawal from Court activity during his later years on the bench.)  On the other hand, I don't doubt that Scalia enjoyed himself plenty with life's gustatory and fumatory pleasures, yet still died in his sleep, with his his mental faculties seemingly intact, just shy of 80 -- a pretty happy outcome for anybody's life, I'd say.

[Capetan Mihali]

Couldn't work the "snip" function, so watch 3:05 - 3:56 for some footage of Scalia puffing away on the pipe on the Senate floor during his confirmation hearing in August 1986. 

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4558563/scalias-pipe

[Habbaku]

 

[derspiess]

Couldn't work the "snip" function, so watch 3:05 - 3:56 for some footage of Scalia puffing away on the pipe on the Senate floor during his confirmation hearing in August 1986. 

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4558563/scalias-pipe

You also get some classic Foghorn Leghorn Howell Heflin around that mark.

[Tonitrus]

So rumors aflame--Obama to nominate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court. This is genius on so many levels:

1. He's Hispanic, so the GOP looks bad with an important constituency in 2016 if they block him.
2. He's a Republican, so the GOP look even worse in terms of obstinancy if they block him.
3. He is supremely qualified, he's a former AG of Nevada and a former federal judge. When the Senate confirmed his nomination to the bench under George W. Bush, he was confirmed unanimously 89-0, with 11 Senators not present.
4. Game theory wise, it's brilliant. If they don't confirm him he's basically the best pick to make the Republicans look bad in the 2016 elections. If they do confirm him, he's a moderate Republican who will be akin to a second Kennedy on the court. That's a huge net gain to replace Scalia for the left. It also puts the Senate Republicans in a tight game theory box. They know if they lose control of the Senate and Clinton is President, the judge to replace Scalia ain't gonna be a moderate Republicans--it'll be a much more liberal judge, so now the Senate GOP has to consider they have a realistic chance of putting a Republican on the bench, not a theoretical chance of doing so in January if a Republican wins the White House.

I suspect they still obstruct, but Obama has them in a puzzle box.

I agree - looks like a very clever move.

Indeed.  It also:

5. Takes out a GOP governor
6. Takes out possible appealing future national-level GOP politician (Senate at least, maybe POTUS?)

[derspiess]

5. Takes out a GOP governor

  Didn't our president ask for more civility in politics??

[celedhring]

Could this Sandoval fellow refuse the nomination? Or you just don't do that?

[Eddie Teach]

Could this Sandoval fellow refuse the nomination? Or you just don't do that?

Sure he could, but why would he?

[The Brain]

For the lolz.

[Tonitrus]

Could this Sandoval fellow refuse the nomination? Or you just don't do that?

Sure he could, but why would he?

Indeed, a USSCJ is a better job than being President.  Good pay, job security, high prestige, the ability to affect national policy and far less public scrutiny, such that you can enjoy a good family life.  For a lawyer/politico...unless you ambition is ultimate power, it's the best job there is.

[derspiess]

One could argue that the Supreme Court represents the ultimate power on several occasions.

[Gups]

So rumors aflame--Obama to nominate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court. This is genius on so many levels:

1. He's Hispanic, so the GOP looks bad with an important constituency in 2016 if they block him.
2. He's a Republican, so the GOP look even worse in terms of obstinancy if they block him.
3. He is supremely qualified, he's a former AG of Nevada and a former federal judge. When the Senate confirmed his nomination to the bench under George W. Bush, he was confirmed unanimously 89-0, with 11 Senators not present.
4. Game theory wise, it's brilliant. If they don't confirm him he's basically the best pick to make the Republicans look bad in the 2016 elections. If they do confirm him, he's a moderate Republican who will be akin to a second Kennedy on the court. That's a huge net gain to replace Scalia for the left. It also puts the Senate Republicans in a tight game theory box. They know if they lose control of the Senate and Clinton is President, the judge to replace Scalia ain't gonna be a moderate Republicans--it'll be a much more liberal judge, so now the Senate GOP has to consider they have a realistic chance of putting a Republican on the bench, not a theoretical chance of doing so in January if a Republican wins the White House.

I suspect they still obstruct, but Obama has them in a puzzle box.

I agree - looks like a very clever move.

I don't suppose there's any possibility that Obama thinks he's the best nominee with a chance of getting confirmed?

[Malthus]

So rumors aflame--Obama to nominate Republican Governor Brian Sandoval to the Supreme Court. This is genius on so many levels:

1. He's Hispanic, so the GOP looks bad with an important constituency in 2016 if they block him.
2. He's a Republican, so the GOP look even worse in terms of obstinancy if they block him.
3. He is supremely qualified, he's a former AG of Nevada and a former federal judge. When the Senate confirmed his nomination to the bench under George W. Bush, he was confirmed unanimously 89-0, with 11 Senators not present.
4. Game theory wise, it's brilliant. If they don't confirm him he's basically the best pick to make the Republicans look bad in the 2016 elections. If they do confirm him, he's a moderate Republican who will be akin to a second Kennedy on the court. That's a huge net gain to replace Scalia for the left. It also puts the Senate Republicans in a tight game theory box. They know if they lose control of the Senate and Clinton is President, the judge to replace Scalia ain't gonna be a moderate Republicans--it'll be a much more liberal judge, so now the Senate GOP has to consider they have a realistic chance of putting a Republican on the bench, not a theoretical chance of doing so in January if a Republican wins the White House.

I suspect they still obstruct, but Obama has them in a puzzle box.

I agree - looks like a very clever move.

I don't suppose there's any possibility that Obama thinks he's the best nominee with a chance of getting confirmed?

Sure. That's part of his plan, that this fellow actually is very well qualified, and if the system worked as it should he'd have every chance of being confirmed. However, it defies reality for Obama not to acknowledge that his opponents have stated, in as many words, that they will not confirm the appointment of anyone he nominates.   

[Tonitrus]

Could this Sandoval fellow refuse the nomination? Or you just don't do that?

Apparently he pulled himself out from contention.