finally the presidential cycle will have a reason to get contentious.

i just had a really excited reaction to this news. Now I feel like a horrible person.

wow. What's the procedure for replacement here? IIRC Obama gets to nominate, but how quick is that process, especially in relation to the upcoming election?

You're not. Scalia was an awful human being who did terrible damage to America on virtually every front imaginable.

I was thissssssss close to singing "ding dong the witch is dead"

most recently on climate. thank you Putin, for absolving me. I feel better now.

Rip he was a good man and justice. You freaks celebrating this are fucked up.

My condolences to his family. Soon the question will be who takes his place on the bench, and we can assume they'll be liberal, giving the court an edge in that direction, but not so much that a Republican Congress would contend too much with whom Obama wants in.

I'm not going to celebrate anyone's death, and condolences to his family and friends, but he was neither a good man nor a good justice.

While I offer my condolences to his loved ones, I again must wonder if a system where someone can hold a position of power for life is a wise one, as it means at any time a large majority of a key section of the federal government is stuck in the politics of 20 years past. Politics change a lot faster than they did when the nation was formed after all, and like the electoral college, that particular peice of the supreme court is something that was created to serve the needs of the time.

I wouldn't like to judge his goodness. Still from what I've heard he lived his life in line with his beliefs, and you can't ask much more than that.

A good innings and decent health. Not a bad way to finish at all.

I had the misfortune of seeing this guy speak in person at the SC. The group listening to him were all 14-16, including myself. He went out of his way to bully, humiliate and insult a female student who asked him a simple question. He was really a nasty person.

Looks as if Obama gets one more notch to add to his belt. Interesting too because it makes the marijuana laws, healthcare laws, and gay marriage laws seem all but permanent if the courts swing left. perhaps a full federal revocation of pot as a controlled substance is now a reality. I cant smoke but pro pot enthuisiasts are celebrating this news I imagine.

It's also a big blow to anti-choice terrorists around the country.

This will be a tremendous test of the Senate's ability to function. It's close enough to the presidential election that the Republicans may choose to stall the process indefinitely. It'd be a classic gamble, tho. Obama is likely to nominate someone fairly moderate in hopes that the Senate will confirm. A Democratic win in November would mean a significantly more liberal nominee (plus a public mandate, making opposition much more difficult).

Best case scenario, Obama appoints a moderate who is filibustered by the usual crazies in the Senate, which is used to bludgeon Republicans in November.

I mean we don't even have an ambassador to Mexico I don't expect we'll get a nominee through.

http://mexico.usembassy.gov/eng/ebio_ambassador.html

Putin's back! That's bigger news to me

Scalia made good decisions and bad decisions much like any other justice.

Is it customary to replace Justices on ideological lines? I.e., to keep a moderate balance between the representation of liberal/conservative views?

Or is that not an absolute necessity? Could a Democrat President with a Democrat-controlled Senate replace dying/retiring Justices so that the Supreme Court was dominated with liberals? Or is there an unwritten (or written?) integrity for balance on the Supreme Court?

(I know the Democrats don't currently control Senate, just wondered as a hypothetical)

No it is not. Presidents appoint whomever they wish to. We've had a conservative leaning court for a long time despite having two, two-term Democratic Presidents. Conservative justices tend to retire when GOP Presidents are in power, and vice versa.

SCROTUS is reporting...

The best example of this is when O'Connor retired. She was a moderate who toward the end of her years was increasingly liberal, and she was replaced by the far-right Samuel Alito.

Ok -- do you find that a useful system? Or is not a rather skewed way of running the Supreme Court?

Also, if Presidents can skew their Justice nominations entirely without integrity for balance -- why did George Bush I nominate David Souter (a liberal-sided Justice?) and not someone more conservative? Or is that a rare exception? I don't much about the various previous Justices, but I know Sotomayor replaced him and he replaced the famous William Brennan (also a liberal Justice nominated by a Republican President?)

Souter wasn't considered a liberal when he was nominated. He had very little record of written statements on policy questions, much like Elena Kagan. Some Presidents appoint candidates like this because it's more likely they will pass.

I think the Supreme Court has been given way too much power. If I had my druthers the whole thing would be scrapped, along with the Senate and the Presidency.

That sounds rather Putinesque.

It has to be approved by the Senate (only the Senate, the House doesn't get a say in it.). So Obama does have to find one that he can pass by the Senate before he is done this year.