Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dead. The maneuvering begins!

They could be worse - as young Drew Peacock will testify.The Best for News, Sport, Showbiz, Celebrities

Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emieritus of Boston University, was a longtime friend of Scalia. He was interviewed by Meghna Chakrabarti on local NPR radio station WCRB yesterday. Excerpts were broadcast last night, and at one point she quoted the same passage from the NYT that you did. Cass responded that Scalia was not an adherent of original intent but of textualism. Scalia believed original intent required the impossible task of getting inside the heads of long dead people to discover their intent, while textualism involved the entirely realistic task of discovering what people thought they were agreeing to when they set words on paper.Scalia felt that we are bound today by what people agreed to over 227 years ago. I'm sure to many of us that sounds absurd on its face. Times inevitably change, something the founders knew well since they were the principle movers behind change. Better to stay true to the principles embodied by the Constitution, which are hopefully timeless.I'm not sure the distinction between original intent and textualism is all that great. Even Cass said they were only "a little bit different." In my view either approach gives a jurist the excuse to deny nearly anything he pleases just because it isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, something Scalia seemed to do a lot.Cass did have a funny Scalia story. Apparently he was enjoyable and fun to be with. Once on an airliner the flight attendant mispronounced his name and he corrected her. She asked, "You mean like the Supreme Court justice?" and he responded, "Yes, exactly like that." And he left it at that.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix gramatically awkward 2nd sentence in 1st para.

So was Scalia pro-guns or anti-guns? Did he believe in the constitution? I guess promoting attacks on 'original meaning' would include those who are anti-constitutional.

Yes that's true if you subscribe to the proposition that the only legitimate way to interpret the constitution is to take an impossible poll of the opinions of the founding fathers and to only use the result as your interpretation.Would that population of subscribers include you?

Those two doctrines are quite distinct. They are complementary and Scalia used both even though he often claimed to only use original intent. Textualism better describes Scalia's opinion in that ACA case we discussed awhile back. I think something similar can be said about any one of the traditional methods for interpreting the constitution. They are all subject to bending to the will of the Justice. Every method of interpretation has its strengths and weaknesses. Scalia was of the opinion that doctrines like 'legislative history' have weaknesses that are too strong to justify their use, ever.In my opinion, Scalia was enamored of some particular techniques because they worked well to yield the conservative answers he wanted to give. For that reason, when Scalia departed from those techniques on major cases (like DC v Heller and Bush v. Gore) his opinions generated lots of derision and accusations of hypocrisy.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Doesn't this suggest that the choice of president does make a significant difference? Certainly it is more speculative to talk about what the losers would have done, but aren't we speculating here? It seems likely that the winner of the election will be picking not only Scalia's replacement, but also the replacement of one or more of the less conservative Justices as well. That issue alone is enough to not only get me to the polls, but to get me knocking on your door (well not literally your door in NH) to get others to the polls. I certainly don't want Trump or Cruz in that position.One of Obama's greatest failures, in my opinion is represented by all of the open federal judge positions that he did not get filled. Not all his fault, but he gets some of the blame as do those of us who could not be bothered to vote in Senate races.

Of all of the things said about Scalia, the statement that he is irreplaceable irks me the most. Let's recall that Thurgood Marshall was 'replaced' by Clarence Thomas and that Bork would have been Justice Marshall's replacement.I assume that anyone making statements about Scalia being impossible to replace is really speaking about their own political ideology.

Well since you are open to interpreting the constitution, I would be interested to know what your thoughts on the second amendment would be.

Sorry to irk you, but

• he is irreplaceable;
• I am glad that he is irreplaceable.

I can do without another Scalia on the court. The next appointee to the court should be there in his own right, and not as a Scalia replacement.

Discussion about gun control should be taken to the Gun Control Again thread.

I'm sure I've discussed my views on that already in an appropriate forum. That discussion would not be on topic here.

Ahhh gatekeeping at its finest. From what I understand, Scalia was pro-guns and pro-original intent.

Wouldn't it be easier if your brought your comment to the appropriate thread instead of being a whiny titty baby.

I'm convinced he died while having sex with an underage black male prostitute.

You are an officer and a gentleman ("of the system") and I couldn't expect a more fitting response ("pure aggression").