Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died At Age 79

[Greg Rx]

I'm really annoyed with what I hear republican leaders saying about this upcoming nomination. They are saying crap like "the next president should nominate the next SCJ, be it Sanders or Clinton or one of the several republicans."

 

What a joke. They must think we are stupid

 

Any right-minded constitutional conservative should support that the current president should nominate the next SCJ.

Nominate all you want, they will NEVER be confirmed. Just the way it is.

[+Malamute]

Republicans are useless, and even worse, purposefully destructive, obstructive and harmful to government.

[beourbud]

Republicans are useless, and even worse, purposefully destructive, obstructive and harmful to government.

And that is on a good day.

[cristinew]

http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-death-could-affect-legal-marijuana-2016-2   Never vote republican 

 

In October 2014, a high school student in Boulder, Colorado asked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for his thoughts on her state's decision to legalize marijuana for recreational use in direct contradiction of federal drug laws.

Scalia cracked a smile, then hinted that Colorado's law might not be allowed to stand if it ever reached the Supreme Court — at least if he had anything to say about it.

"The Constitution contains something called the Supremacy Clause," Scalia said, referring to a provision that says state laws are trumped by federal ones.

He declined to elaborate, saying that speaking further would force him to recuse himself later.

On Friday, the Supreme Court will decide whether to hear a lawsuit that Nebraska and Oklahoma filed against Colorado over its legalization and regulation of marijuana, but Scalia won't be around to participate in the decision.

He died on Saturday at a West Texas resort at age 79, leaving behind an outsized legacy as a polarizing conservative legal scholar, as well as many questions about how America's highest court will operate until his replacement is appointed.

Scalia's death will likely affect several divisive, high-profile cases that are currently pending before the court — including ones that deal with abortion, unions, voting rights, affirmative action, and immigration — but marijuana activists and some legal experts are paying particularly close attention to Nebraska and Oklahoma v. Colorado. 

Because the lawsuit was filed directly with the Supreme Court, no lower court has ruled on its merits. If the justices decide to take the case, they could deliver a ruling that invalidates the recreational and medical marijuana laws adopted by 23 states and Washington, DC. They could also uphold Colorado's law, setting a precedent that allows state-level legalization to continue on sturdier legal ground, or decline to hear it and allow the status quo to continue.

Experts say that Scalia's death and the fierce political fight to determine his replacement changes the dynamics of whether the court will decide to weigh in on the issue legal weed. It also raises a thorny question about what would happen the justices take the case and end up deadlocked in a 4-4 tie with no lower court ruling to fall back on.

"This is, in many respects, a one-of-a-kind kind of lawsuit with one-of-a-kind kind of claims and a one-of-a-kind moment with the politics over drug law reform," said Douglas Berman, a professor at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law. "That might make me think the court would be willing to embrace a one-of-a-kind resolution."

Berman, who authors the Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform blog, thinks the court is unlikely to take the case, echoing an opinion voiced by several other legal experts who spoke with VICE News.

Typically, four justices need to vote in favor of accepting a case, but the fact that Nebraska and Oklahoma requested to file their lawsuit directly in the Supreme Court raises an issue of jurisdiction, which means it would take five votes to agree to hear it. (US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.filed a brief with the court in December arguing that the suit represents "a substantial and unwarranted expansion of this Court's original jurisdiction.")

[t-pain]

I don't think the American people will forget such a slap across the face.

unfortunately you are wrong.

 

the people vote for republicans to obstruct the president. look at 2010 midterms.

that is what most of the senators were elected on. "we will block the president at every turn".

 

the problem is that people vote against their own best interests. religion and guns it seems.

[t-pain]

If the justices decide to take the case, they could deliver a ruling that invalidates the recreational and medical marijuana laws

i disagree with the article, medical marijuana laws were already tried at the supreme court in gonzales v raich.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich#The_decision

 

i dont see the court invalidating that ruling. could be wrong.

 

they could rule that the states are not allowed to participate in medical marijuana. e.g. no review panels, no cards issued, no fees accepted, stuff like that.