The death of the the most conservative judge on the Supreme Court just made the 2016 Election that much more important

Antonin Scalia had been on the Supreme Court since 1986, and he had been one of the most conservative judges on the bench. Among his worst rulings, Scalia gave us a Bush win in the 2000 election over Al Gore and Citizens United. He had also fought hard against a range of progressive issues, from gay marriage to birth control. Scalia had been a rather troublesome character for progressives to say the least.

But now that Antonin Scalia has passed, an interesting dynamic now shadows the 2016 election: whoever wins the election replaces Scalia and will control the court. President Obama has a zero-percent chance of successfully appointing a replacement to the court with a Republican controlled Senate.

Anyone who thinks the Republicans in the Senate won’t block a nomination, clearly hasn’t been paying attention to American politics for the past seven years. In fact, Republicans in the Senate have already vowed not to confirm an Obama nominee, which means this will play out over the course of 2016, and whoever wins the election will decide the succession.

With Antonin Scalia’s passing, there are now four conservative justices and four liberal justices. If a liberal replaces Scalia, it would tip the balance of the court for the first time in nearly twenty-five years.

The 2016 Democratic Primary is showcasing a dynamic shift in American politics. Being progressive is no longer a taboo. Liberals are arguing (at last!) about who is the more progressive candidate just as Republicans argue every primary about who is the most conservative.

For years, Democrats were scared to argue who is the more liberal, scared to wear those words as a badge of honor. This has changed. The question that will be duked out now in the Democratic Primary is who will appoint the more liberal judge?

It seems the passing of Antonin Scalia will cause a large ripple in the 2016 election. His legacy has helped to create a divisive social politics in America, and his immediate death exposes both a risk and an opportunity. The court can turn liberal or stay conservative. What happens next rests with the voters.


  1. Of course the best possible scenario is for Obama to appoint a Trans sexual,Muslim abortion doctor to replace Jehovah Jr. wannabe . As the second best option let’s give Republicans what they want. What could be better than President Sanders appointing Barack Obama to the Supreme Court after the election? Antonin Scalia was the poster child for faith deranged dementia , having an invisible friend negates all cognition. Believing in GOD means never having to think again. A handful of despicably insane fruitcakes like Scalia,Cruz, Snyder and Bush have already destroyed democracy and are hard at work to eliminate freedom and peace from America in the name of God.

  2. Seems to me I just read yesterday that this scenario has occurred 14 times in the past, and in every single case, the nominee the sitting president appointed to fill the vacancy, was confirmed.

    If the republicans are ignorant enough to think that if this becomes common knowledge, a political football, if you will (I have to admit my motivation here) and the people learn this, it could cost them votes in the upcoming election.

    Although the racist faction of the R side will not be affected, it might send some of the more intelligent ones to the other side.

    It seems that this a coin flip with a one sided coin and there is no situation that can work in the republican’s favor. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t trouble spot…We’ll see.

  3. Interesting, isn’t it, that Republicans, on the one hand, have consistently crowed about Justice Scalia’s record of constitutional fundamentalism/literalism but, on the other hand, are implying that, no matter what the Constitution says about the obligatory duty of the president to nominate a replacement , it should be left to “the next president.” I guess that constitutional literalists, like biblical literalists, are only literalist to the extent that being so fits their respective ideologies.

    McConnell is right that the American people should have a “voice” as to who replaces Justice Scalia. They do! According to the Constitution, that “voice” is the president whom they elected—in the last election, by 5,000,000 votes and an electoral landslide. To deny the president that choice is, in essence, to disenfranchise all those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012, to take away the very “voice” of the people about which McConnell seems so concerned.

  4. If McConnell persists in his call to wait until after the election to fill Scalia’s seat, then the next president whether it be Clinton or Sanders should appoint President Obama to fill the seat. I believe he is a Constitutional scholar. It would blow the minds of the racist pigs who infest our country who insist that President Obama is violating the Constitution. He has more knowledge of the Constitution than any of these racists.

  5. Then we have the right-wing aholes led by McConnell saying that they won’t fill the position until after the election. Wasn’t Scalia appointed during Saint Raygun’s last year of his first term? I am sick of McConnell’s treasonous pronouncements. We need to land on this SOB and teach him a lesson. He led the call for letting nothing that President Obama proposes become law. He should be removed from our Senate, tried for treason and hanged..

  6. Life certainly has its interesting turns. Scalia was a deeply religious man who would believe that God’s hand is in all that happens; therefore, given Scalia’s religious views one would have to think that his own departure at this time seems to bring with it some message, or maybe it should. I don’t wish anyone ill-will, but brilliance aside, the man was wayyyyyy too conservative to serve on the SC.

Leave a Comment