Great News: Antonin Scalia Dead at 79!

Death could not happen to a nicer guy, so I feel no guilt in my schadenfreude. Hey, everybody’s got to go sometime anyway, so I’ll dance on his grave all I want. Go ahead, shoot me. See if I care.

It’s not enough that he did a lot of harm to me and mine, but to make things even worse, he was going to do even more harm to us in the future. This guy was actively hurting me. I do not mourn it when people who hurt me and mine die and cannot hurt us anymore. Why should I? Further, he will be replaced with someone who will be a lot less likely to hurt me and mine.

Boy nobody saw that coming, now did they?

Thing is there is no way that this can turn out anything but good. All of those horrific 5-4 reactionary decisions by Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Kennedy are over once and for all and may we bury them with a stake through their heart so they never come back to hurt us again. Kennedy was supposed to be a wild card, but instead he has turned rightwing on us.

The Republican strategy has been to stack the court with Catholics: Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy are all very conservative Catholics. Why all of these rightwing White Protestants are so hip on having a bunch of Papists on our highest court is beyond me, especially because their Christianity is so insane that many regard Catholics as heretical non-Christians.

So the Supreme Court that our fundamentalist Protestants love so much is stacked top to bottom with Christ-killers and Popish Romanists. There’s hardly a Protestant or “real Christian” on the court! Nevertheless, these reactionary pre-Vatican 2 Trad Mel Gibson types fill the role of reactionary Protestants, as one is about as fanatically Christian as the other.

There is no way out of this catastrophe for the Republicans. The court now has eight members, an even number. Bad idea. Guess what? Although the numbers of judges on the Court has varied through time, one ting stayed constant: that there were an odd number of justices on the court. The Supremes are not alone in this regard, as all other federal district courts also have odd numbers of seats.

There were never an even number of seats on the court as there are now. There were never an even number of seats on US district courts either. If someone died, the position was immediately filled with an appointment. No one, not even these insane Republicans, wants an even number of justices on the Court. It’s too inane even for the Republicans.

Anyway, there is not much benefit to the Republicans in having an eight-man court. All of those horrific 5-4 conservative decisions would now be 4-4 ties. This stasis benefits the Republicans how now? Tied decisions have no meaning at all, and the case just reverts back to whatever the last district court ruled. You would have an impotent Court that not only could be counted on not to make the liberal decisions the Republicans hate but also would be so floppy that they could not render the conservative decisions that the Republicans want either. In other words, a completely useless Court of the sort you have in a lot of dictatorships.

An eight man court is bad for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats too.

This sort of legal nihilism benefits nobody but the Libertarians. I would assume that since it renders one third of the federal government useless, the Paultards would be quite happy. But most Republicans are not Paultard Libertarians. They actually believe in government – conservative government! They don’t want a do-nothing Court, they want the same thing they accused of Left of – an activist court – but in this case a reactionary activist Court to roll back all of the progress we have made since the 1890’s, which is where Karl Rove and I assume the RNC want teleport us back to. They want a government that does things, lots of things. Reactionary things!

The Republicans will make a big huff and puff show out of this, and the Tea Party will probably be as insane as they usually are. It would not surprise me if the Tea Party would want an eight man court, as they seem to prefer a Somalia-style state anyway. But that’s not for the Republicans who, as nuts as they are, are not that nihilistic. As much as they take money from the Kochs, most Republicans do not subscribe to the fanatical Libertarianism that the Kochs do. Republicans don’t want an ancient  broken stopped Libertarian clock that’s right twice a day. They want a finely tuned top-of-the-line handmade Swiss clock manufactured specifically to run backwards!

So we will be treated to a Republican theatre piece/charade where they will demand a reactionary appointee from Obama and will stonewall everyone else. But this cannot not hold, and soon enough playtime will be over, and they will have to swallow hard and ratify someone from the hated Obama. You can rest assured that Obama will not cave in to menacing Republican demands that he appoint a reactionary or else. He’s not that much of a pussy.

The Democrats themselves will conduct their own little theatre piece. First they will appoint as liberal a nominee as they can tolerate (probably not very liberal in Obama’s case). Of course, the Republicans will shoot them down with much pompous circumstance. The sleazy press will play the whole choreographed show to the hilt for the same lowly reason they always do, to sell more birdcage liner.

But the band must play on. The dice must be rolled, and odd must win and even must lose. At some point in this absurd theatre, the Republicans, barf bags in hand, will essentially cave and ratify the most liberal nominee that they can tolerate while clutching their groaning stomachs and reaching for the Tums.

So it’s all good for our side no matter what. Things are looking up in our benighted land for the first time in a while now. Let’s all go have a drink now. See you at the party tonite!



Filed under Catholicism, Christianity, Conservatism, Democrats, Government, Law, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Religion, Republicans, US Politics

18 responses to “Great News: Antonin Scalia Dead at 79!

  1. bob

    It will be very interesting to see how Republicans play this. Could they dig in, hoping to win in November and get their guy/gal in? IOW, could they risk Europeans seeing the U.S. in gridlock again? Cruz might tend to that. Heck of a risk. Adelson types will decide. Trump would love it. He’d shit all over Cruz’ cornflakes.
    Should be quite a show. A pandora’s box could open up.
    Would love to hear others thoughts.

  2. Hasdrubal

    Either the Republicans in the Senate do their job and we end up with moderate who will be willing to overturn Citizens United on the SC or they stonewall and reduce their already meager chances to gain the White House and increase the likelihood of the Senate and the House flipping to the Dems as Citizens United becomes a major campaign issue and no one but billionaires likes that decision.

  3. Jason Y

    I wish I wasn’t happy when certain person died, but was such a bully that I can’t honestly can’t shed any tears. That person was so mean, he’s probably still mocking me from beneath the grave. LOL

    • Jason Y

      Not really mean, just your typical white nationalist who hates all non-whites and won’t tolerate an opposing opinion without massively tearing apart the opponent. Is that what real democracy is about?

      Now the fuck-face is dead. He’s dead. There should be at least a temporary hell for such people.

  4. Ed

    “There were never an even number of seats on the court as there are now.”

    I hate to burst your bubble, but the first Congress provided for a Supreme Court with an even number of justices. The Supreme Court had six justices starting in 1789, and the number wasn’t expanded until nine until 1869. And there have been several instances of really long vacancies after that.

  5. James Schipper

    Dear Robert

    There are zero Protestants on the US Supreme Court. If there had been no non-whites, that would be a scandal. It goes to show that in today’s politically correct America, diversity means racial, not religious diversity. Hispanics are of course a pseudo-race for purposes of political correctness, and Jews are honorary non-whites. The rather white Sonia Sotomayor counts as a non-white member of the Supreme Court because her parents are Portorriqueños.

    The US is probably the only country in the world where Supreme Court judges can get lifetime appointments. In other countries, they have to retire at a certain age or have a limited term. For instance, in Canada or Brazil, they have to retire at the age of 75.

    I believe in minimal constitutions, that is, constitutions without policy content. A minimal constitution will only determine who can govern the country, how governments should be formed and what the administrative division of the country should be. It is silent on how the country should be governed. As soon as the constitution has policy content, as the American one does because of the Bill of Rights, then there are in fact 2 governments in the country, the government itself and the Supreme Court. Since the Supreme Court is the second government in the US, it is of course very important who is appointed to it because they are in fact political appointments.

    Regards. James

    • Ed

      Bills of Rights are standard features of all constitutions except for the not-constitution of the UK. The UK has signed up to the EU’s bill of rights, and the historical respect for liberty by English and British governments in the past is really quite overstated, they could be incredibly arguable during periods of their history with arbitrarily detaining and even executing people.

      They are needed mainly as guarantees that people can take part in the political process without being harassed by the government if they support the opposition. That is why there are protections for speech and against arbitrary arrest, conviction, and loss of property. They also draw a line fencing off areas where people in authority are just not allowed to go; eg impose slavery, torture, invade peoples’ homes, etc.

      I suspect the objection here is really towards periodic bouts of policy-making by the U.S. courts. This doesn’t actually happen much often in other systems of governments. The cause with the US isn’t the Bill of Rights. Its due to a combination of really poor drafting of laws, including the Constitution itself, the reluctance of members of Congress to actually set policy as is their Article I obligation and instead leave things to the other two branches, and a widespread but inaccurate perception that only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution.

  6. pepperroncini

    Not soo great news because Obama might nominate 1 of 2 Indian-Americans being talked about in MSM.
    Obama probably thinks it would be good for the country to have an Indian-American SC justice since there has never been one and it would show how diverse and tolerant the US and his admin are.

    • Tony Swagger

      Robert did you get to watch yesterdays debate. Trump just swept across his rivals like they are some dust. It was a smooth, suave and comprehensive victory for Trump, It was one of the finest debates Ive watched. Save the boos from psychotic RNC scumbags

      • EPGAH

        Your link is dead. What was it originally? HOWEVER, I’m glad that Trump now considers the RNC in default of their own Loyalty Pledge.

    • EPGAH

      The Affirmative Action President pushing ANOTHER Affirmative Action Supreme Court Justice?

      And importing from India no less. I see GREAT Conflict Of Interest ahead, especially given IP Theft by India, and H1B vs. American workers!

      Seriously, if it’s a security breach to have EMPLOYEES from India, how much more would it be to have a SCOTUS Justice from India?

      Robert has subtly hinted that India’s a shithole, and putting That into a position of power makes America That too!

  7. Jason Y

    White nationalists will only be happy once Dred Scott is declared a non-person again. That must have been the greatest supreme court decsion for those fuckers, lol

  8. Tulio

    Looks like Obama may be replacing him with an Indian.

  9. EPGAH

    Who is Scalia’s death good for?
    Who has he harmed? HOW has he harmed you and yours exactly?
    If anything, he was the last barrier against Government overreach.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s