13
103

[–] bfriend13 13 points 103 points (+116|-13) ago 

Ahh crap. Here comes another brilliant Latina or some other enlightened progressive.

11
58

[–] watitdew [S] 11 points 58 points (+69|-11) ago 

he will nominate a tranny black jew and then browbeat anyone who opposes the nomination as a transphobic racist bigot

5
15

[–] Mysterian 5 points 15 points (+20|-5) ago 

Last ditch effort by the Dems. Gonna have both a republican President and congress next year. They'll do whatever it takes to keep something in DC a shade of blue.

5
47

[–] Thewitchisdead 5 points 47 points (+52|-5) ago 

Elizabeth Warren😊

18
21

[–] watitdew [S] 18 points 21 points (+39|-18) ago 

I actually wouldn't mind her.

1
5

[–] Bubbha 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Can we start a petition wh.gov?

0
1

[–] oedipusaurus_rex 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'd rather she got the VP nod.

0
1

[–] Tacklebox 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That would be a GRAND improvement.

0
7

[–] RedditAdminsShillTPP 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

As opposed to the gems he used to throw out: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."

3
1

[–] InnatelyAcidic 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago 

Scalia was a piece of shit. I'm bewildered why anyone would be upset about his transversal to the fiery chasms of hell. Dude voting for Citizens United is a prime example of that fact. Not to mention he supported catering to the mongoloidian, jigaboo, shit-skinned niggers, wanting to give them their own schools, with a lower level curriculum than whitey/slant eyes have. While I'm all for segregation, catering to those literally retarded drain's on the economy is worse than affirmative action; or at the very least, just as bad.

Now Republicans in congress just need to block any potential justice from confirmation until after the election.

Good riddance, scalia. I'll see your ass in hell.

1
4

[–] SullyMatrix 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

No way Congress would confirm anyone in an election year. Just makes the campaign that much more important.

Trump 2016 MAGA

0
2

[–] Totenglocke 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Every time that Republicans start to boycott confirming a Marxist, as soon as the Democrats start throwing insults, the Republicans cave and give the Democrats whatever they want.

0
0

[–] carlosos 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Obama is president for about another year. There is almost no chance that this will get delayed for that long. I read somewhere that it was never delayed by more than 4 months.

4
80

[–] virge 4 points 80 points (+84|-4) ago 

So a Supreme Court Justice seat is now open to the highest corporate bidder.

Fuck.

5
35

[–] cli-che-guevara 5 points 35 points (+40|-5) ago 

Well it was Scalia... so you could say this just changes one corporate PR rep for a new one.

1
1

[–] Bubbha 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Weekend at Tonie's?

1
-1

[–] Broc_Lia 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Would I be correct to say that you're referring to citizens united? If so, would you really want your government to regulate the things people can say about candidates on the lead up to an election?

1
1

[–] Alexwo1 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

More like Barrack ideals

5
56

[–] Girthcontrol 5 points 56 points (+61|-5) ago 

"Natural causes"

Maybe I'm getting too cynical with all the shit that's happening

[–] [deleted] 3 points 80 points (+83|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

1
8

[–] gramman74 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

0
18

[–] Vaati 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

Dude outlived the average life expectancy. Natural causes is a perfectly likely cause of death.

1
21

[–] Lake 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I mean, you wouldn't pick the youngest, healthiest one to kill. You'd pick the one that is most likely to die of natural causes.

Edit: Not saying I believe it. Just pointing that out.

0
1

[–] rwbj 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Totally off topic and in no way endorsing the absurd allusions to conspiracy theory going on here, but this isn't so simple. The number you're referencing is your life expectancy from birth which is inappropriate to use for the entirety of a person's life. The CDC has a comprehensive table cross referencing age reached at nominal health and then a corresponding life expectancy.

Only reason I mention this here is because it's kind of silly seeing people think otherwise healthy 74 year olds (to reference another political example) suddenly drop dead and it's normal because they lived longer than the average male. For instance if you make it to 75 years old in otherwise reasonable health, your average life expectancy is 87 years.

2
1

[–] Totenglocke 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

The timing is very convenient for Democrats, since a Republican is likely to win the presidential election. I'd demand an autopsy.

0
0

[–] WittyBlurbSlashWitty 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Dick Cheney prolly shot him in the face hole.

7
46

[–] shill343 7 points 46 points (+53|-7) ago 

Well shit. Get ready for a SJW to be appointed

9
31

[–] Super_Cooper 9 points 31 points (+40|-9) ago 

Well shit. Get ready for a Marxist scumbag to be appointed

FTFY

1
19

[–] dv1155 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

Is there a difference?

3
5

[–] Porom 3 points 5 points (+8|-3) ago 

More like corporate shrill, like the last appointees.

0
1

[–] pinkmagnet 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Well shit. Get ready for a useful idiot to be appointed

FTFY

2
5

[–] dildonkers 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

Bet you $10 it's going to be a Muslim.

0
2

[–] staroath 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Maybe a Black Muslim with ties to the New Black Panther Party?

12
-4

4
33

[–] reivin 4 points 33 points (+37|-4) ago 

Well, now Barry gets to put another of his yes men on the Supreme Court. Fantastic.

2
43

[–] go1dfish 2 points 43 points (+45|-2) ago 

Senate won't confirm and stall out till next year.

1
36

[–] Exiled 1 points 36 points (+37|-1) ago 

Hopefully, but I don't trust senate republicans to be that smart.

0
8

[–] scrotums 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

We also have the potential for an election between two sitting senators (Sanders vs. Rubio or Cruz). Cruz has a history of blocking Obama's appointees.

This is going to be interesting.

0
4

[–] jackofdiamonds 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

If it were that easy, every Senate from the opposing party would have done it every time throughout history. There is a reasonable limit to how long you can stall. If an entire year, why not four years? Why not literally eight, twelve, or as many as it takes until your party is in power again?

0
3

[–] ipsocannibal 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

At which point you'll have a new Dem president. The GOP can't stall a SC nomination for 9 years, but I know they'll try.

3
10

[–] watitdew [S] 3 points 10 points (+13|-3) ago  (edited ago)

0
2

[–] scrotums 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Legally, could he appoint himself?

Just let Biden finish out the end of the term?

0
5

[–] watitdew [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

That's terrifying.

0
0

[–] Gargilius 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It could have been worse: this could have happened after the end of his presidency, making him eligible for that seat. Think about it.

13
30

[–] novictim 13 points 30 points (+43|-13) ago  (edited ago)

Let me point out to some of you that Scalia supported the notion that our Campaign Finance system SHOULD be owned by the wealthiest campaign contributors suggesting, even, that this was a good thing. Wealth and power having undue influence was celebrated by him.

That same mindset has led to 40 years of American Jobs being off-shored to China/Mexico etc.

The ability of the Campaign Finance systems to continue to act as a tool to bribe law makers through the power and wealth of a self-interested and unpatriotic few is due in large part to Scalia and the Citizen's United decision/logic. (Also to the earlier Buckley vs Vallejo and the later McCutheon rulling).

So hold your horses in feeling too bad here. (Err...Well, unless you are a rich oligarch pillaging the USA, that is.)

0
4

[–] Gracchi 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

He also thought the court should ignore the NSA since they supposedly aren't qualified to know the threat. Ignoring his role as check to protect the people.

4
1

[–] TheRealVladimirPutin 4 points 1 points (+5|-4) ago 

Please cite the case where the Supreme Court stated that "our ... system should be owned by the wealthiest campaign contributors." Otherwise, show cause why you should not be sanctioned.

2
11

[–] novictim 2 points 11 points (+13|-2) ago  (edited ago)

That would be in chief Justice Roberts' statement when he gave the majority opinion stating this notion. Further, he ADMONISHED those favoring limiting money as speech to stop because the system is the way it is meant to be.

By the customary vote of five-to-four, with an opinion by Roberts, the Court declared the system unconstitutional. As Kennedy had in Citizens United, Roberts said that governments could never take steps to equalize opportunities for candidates in electoral contests. “ ‘Leveling the playing field’ can sound like a good thing,” he wrote. “But in a democracy, campaigning for office is not a game. It is a critically important form of speech. The First Amendment embodies our choice as a Nation that, when it comes to such speech, the guiding principle is freedom—the ‘unfettered interchange of ideas.’ ” The Roberts Court, it appears, will guarantee moneyed interests the freedom to raise and spend any amount, from any source, at any time, in order to win elections.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited

14
1

[–] watitdew [S] 14 points 1 points (+15|-14) ago 

i don't give a fuck about that; i care about him being replaced by someone worse

6
20

[–] SellecksBush 6 points 20 points (+26|-6) ago 

Seeing a majority of Scalia's quotes, your going to have to dig in the shittiest, and dumbest, places in the US to find someone shittier and dumber than him.

1
5

[–] novictim 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Well, we would all care about that. But what can be worse than the other two arms of government being bought and paid for/bribe collecting machines??

2
0

[–] GoatSLAVE 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Yeah, I'm glad he's dead tbh. He spent his entire professional career making the US a worse place in which to live, and like Reagan who appointed him, I spit on his name and piss on his grave, rest in pieces douche bag

0
0

[–] DoucheBagMcGee 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

better the douche you know, than the douche you don't know.

The hidden douche is the deadliest.

6
20

[–] EarlPoncho 6 points 20 points (+26|-6) ago 

great a conservative is going to be replaced by an affirmative action hire

0
7

[–] jackofdiamonds 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Doubt it. Obama has appointed a Jew and a Latina, both women. He knows he needs to get this handled with little consternation, and is replacing a conservative. My bet is that he nominates a Kennedy type center-left white man this time.

1
6

[–] ArchmageMordenkainen 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Doubt it. From his executive orders to the crocodile tears about chilluns and gun control, it seems like he's desperate to leave some sort of legacy as a President, seeing as his one claim to fame, Obamacare, is going to be either gutted or modified beyond recognition by every candidate that has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

2
1

[–] Bubbha 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Or woman. Is Warren eligible?

0
1

[–] OpenCommunity 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I hope so

0
0

[–] John_Templeton 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Hah!

5
16

[–] Jazzerus 5 points 16 points (+21|-5) ago 

He was one of the main proponents to citizens united. Good riddance.

5
1

[–] watitdew [S] 5 points 1 points (+6|-5) ago 

Look man I'm not a scalia fan. It's just the potential for obama to appoint someone even worse.

3
5

[–] Jazzerus 3 points 5 points (+8|-3) ago 

So they are replacing a Reagan yes man with an Obama yes man, the cycle continues.

load more comments ▼ (39 remaining)