Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted April 2, 2016 Moderators Posted April 2, 2016 Is the following true, or is it false? Following the death of U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, pundits have suggested that the Court is likely to deadlock 4 - 4 on issues that are considered to be important by many people. Is it true, or is it false that a proposal has been made that the deceased Justice Scalia be allowed to vote in order to settle those important issues which would otherwise be deadlocked? What do you think? Would any reasonable person make such a proposal? If so, should Chief Justice John Roberts allow former Justice Scalia be allowed to vote after his death? If so, how would that vote be determined? Answer: In a February speech before the American Family Associations American Family Radio, Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation suggested the above. He pointed out that following the oral arguments, the Justices confer and take a vote as to what they think. With the passage of time, the thinking is put into written form and the Justices sign off and either agree or disagree. He suggested that Justice Scalia's views are known on a number of cases that were argued prior to his death. Therefore Justice Roberts should break the potential deadlocks by counting an assumed vote of former Justice Scalia. One problem with this proposal is that following the Conference, as the discussion takes place, the Justices often change their views, if not in the whole, in part. In this proposal, it could not be known if Justice Scalia would change his mind on any point. NOTE: While the above represents my thinking and mostly my words, I am endebted to an article written by Simon Brown, entitled "The Wall Banger," and published in the April edition of CHURCH AND STATE. Quote Gregory
Administrators debbym Posted April 2, 2016 Administrators Posted April 2, 2016 i would be concerned if they summoned his ghost to vote. phkrause 1 Quote deb Love awakens love. Let God be true and every man a liar.
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted April 2, 2016 Members Posted April 2, 2016 if a Supreme Court decision was going to be based on the ideology of a deceased Supreme Court justice, then why bother to have any that are living? We could just have, say, Louis Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, William Brennan, Earl Warren, Hugo Black and Joseph Story, for starters. CoAspen and phkrause 2 Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others?
Aliensanctuary Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 If the late Justice Scalia can still be a Supreme Court Justice, then I'm going to vote for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or John Adams for president. They'll make Mr. Trump clean their toilets until he can speak with a civil tongue. Quote The Parable of the Lamb and the Pigpen https://www.createspace.com/3401451
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.