Real Time with Bill Maher:

“It’s unprecedented, by the way, for the Supreme Court to do this, because this has not been adjudicated so far by the federal appeals court, but they had to step in, or else an oil company might have been hurt. And, my question is, one, how are these other countries going to trust us now, on taking the lead on global warming? And two, how can anything get done in America when you have to run it by Antonin Scalia first?”

And:

“It’s so interesting to me the way Republicans always rail against activist judges, except when they don’t get what they want, and then they run to the judges to solve it. Obamacare, McCain-Feingold, climate change, gay marriage, then they want Scalia to step in. And again, this is so political. You don’t think this is political, on the part of the judges? Because this is the oligarchy at work. Americans, including Republicans, want action on climate change.”

Aired 12/2/16.

My guess is that the Republicans in Congress will do everything they can to not confirm whoever President Obama nominates. They are the party of obstruction and destruction. (Ronald Reagan nominated a Supreme Court Justice in Reagan's last year, and the Democratically controlled Congress managed to confirm the appointment.)

Republicans are obsessed about Obama. Scalia's demise will raise their hysteria a notch or two. Supreme Court nominations are always an issue in elections. In my youth it was the Warren Court, after Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1953–1969 that the conservatives hated. It was a solidly liberal court, and the right wing absolutely despised the court for Brown vs. The Board of Education (desegregation); Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, one man one vote which dealt with reapportionment and the over-representation of rural voters and under-representation of everybody else; Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, establishing the rights of indigent defendants to representation and to the rights of people being taken into custody (the Miranda warning); First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rulings expanded bill of rights coverage to the states, expanded the right to privacy, and laid the groundwork for Roe Vs. Wade; mandatory school prayer was ruled unconstitutional.

A lot is at stake. The liberals now have a court that justly deserves loathing for rulings such as Citizens United and for future rulings that may further harm the rights of the people, and may further enshrine the privileges of the plutocratic, cleptocratic, antidemocratic class.

It presents the Republicans with a challenge. They are caught between a rock (whomever Obama nominates as Scalia's replacement) and a hard place ( tie court votes, or the Supreme Court leaving its decision making up to the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 9 of 13 were Democratic appointees).

It will also mean that the GOP's focus of attention will be blurred between, holding the party together, winning the election, and seeing to it that Obama's nominee does not get appointed.

If you think the GOP appears to be in chaos now, just wait.

Ding dong indeed! Good riddance. I'm afraid I don't know who it ultimately favours, but currently it seems to favor the president and his party, since the president has said that he intends to name a replacement in due time, rather than leave it up to the next president. Although intention alone is insufficient, and Republicans in the US Senate will probably try to prevent him from doing so.

It's a no-win for Republicans. If they obstruct, they'll get called on it, and with the Reagan precedent, there's nowhere to hide. Plus they'll probably lose in November anyway and be faced with a Clinton/Sanders nomination. The smarter ones will want to play ball with Obama on anyone who's not too far left. I reckon. But they're probably in a minority. So, looks like more Republican self-destruction on the way.

Plus they'll probably lose in November anyway — Baden

Pray that they lose -- big time.

If you think the GOP appears to be in chaos now, just wait. — Cavacava

While you're at it, pray for more GOP chaos.

Well, actually, while you're at it, pray that they all follow their belovéd's precedent and just drop dead.

I think the Republicans will try to block whoever is nominated in the hopes that a Republican president will be elected. The Reagan precedent will hold little weight. The country is far more divided now than before and obstruction from both parties is the norm. Also Obama is far less popular than Reagan was.

It's also not like we have to read the tea leaves: "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tonight issued this statement: 'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.'”

In terms of party self destruction, did anyone notice that the mid-term elections resulted in historic Republican gains in the House, Senate, state legislatures, and state Governor offices? It took a GW to create an Obama and an Obama to create a Trump.

The mid-term elections were pre-Trump. The party is in now in bits. Only an empty suit like Rubio can save it. Anyhow, not much to the Trump/Obama comparison except in the very narrow terms of down-ticket negatives. Obama is a mainstream run-of-the-mill Democrat. The only really exceptional things about him are that he's black and has a funny name. Trump is obviously not a mainstream Republican but a kind of a random populist with a big mouth. His positions are all over the place. It's strange actually. As much as I hate a lot of what he says, I find myself almost liking him at times because he looks like he doesn't give a damn about playing the game (one thing that makes him so good at it maybe). Unlike, say Obama, who on the surface I agree with on lots more but I recognize is just a great politician with all the pejoratives that that implies. (Hillary is a disgusting liar who should be either burned at the stake or driven into the sea, eh, metaphorically. Maybe we can agree on that at least.)

Much like 1972 this election will be an opportunity for the U.S. to make a momentous mistake. Hillary Clinton is in the best position to exploit this situation but I'd advise that she avoid hunting and Baden, and perhaps Texas altogether.

And here I thought you were feeling the Bern BC, but it turns out you're on Cruze control!

If they obstruct, they'll get called on it, and with the Reagan precedent, there's nowhere to hide. — Baden

Reagan nominated Robert Bork in July 1987 and he was rejected by the Senate. He then nominated Douglas Ginsburg who withdrew for personal reasons. Then in November 1987, Kennedy was nominated. The presidential term ends in January.

So, the nomination process actually began for Reagan about a year and a half prior to the end of his term, where this process will begin 10 months prior to the end of the term.

So what? Even if a second presidential term is coming to an end in 10 months, there is PLENTY OF TIME for a nomination, confirmations hearings, and a vote. If the Senate votes no, they vote no -- but there is no reason to not consider the candidate fairly. Give the electorate a chance to choose? They did have a chance to choose, and they chose Obama--a second time.

The ONLY reason the date is an issue is that Republicans hate Obama, and if they could hold back the sunrise and then blame it on the president, they would. They're just being spiteful. Wasn't the Supreme Court's slipping George W. Bush past the 2000 vote count enough of a break for Republicans?

And here I thought you were feeling the Bern BC, but it turns out you're on Cruze control! — photographer

I am feeling the Bern, decidedly, Photographer, but I must say, Cruz's ad is one of the best pieces of poli-advert I have seen in years. It should win a Clio award.

In terms of party self destruction, did anyone notice that the mid-term elections resulted in historic Republican gains in the House, Senate, state legislatures, and state Governor offices? It took a GW to create an Obama and an Obama to create a Trump. — Hanover

The GOP has no one but themselves to blame for Trump. The GOP has for years railed against "elites" and Washington "insiders," and inculcated an anti-intellectual streak. Now that the largely white, low-education, low-information, mid-to-low income voters who normally fall in line with the establishment candidate (provided he talks about Jesus enough and pretends to be a cowboy once in a while) have fallen for the crackpot media star because he spouts the fact-free, xenophobic, populist rhetoric that gets them fired up, the GOP establishment is panicking. The GOP is getting what it deserves.

There is very little chance of a Republican winning the presidential election, so their likely obstruction will prove a futile waste of time as always.

He was given a four year mandate not a three year 2 month mandate. Period. Anyway, this is partisanship at its worst. Let's not insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that the Republicans wouldn't try to nominate a conservative justice if they were in Obama's position, and cry foul if the Dems tried to obstruct them (which they probably would).

Thought this was pretty clever. If I read it right, it's an appraisal of the republican reaction in the style of a scalia-type originalist giving a SC opinion.

Obama should pull a fast one and say he's gonna nominate someone even more fascist than Scalia, the Republicans are all like "okay, we'll do it", and then he comes out and says "see, you guys are full of shit" and proceeds to nominate a Marxist.

There is very little chance of a Republican winning the presidential election, so their likely obstruction will prove a futile waste of time as always. — Thorongil

Neither of the Democratic candidates in this election strike me as being particularly automatically electable on a nationwide basis. I don't think that a woman or a socialist Jew are exactly guaranteed to sail through the general election. And many Republicans who now intensely dislike, say, Cruz or Trump, will likely hold their nose and vote for either them over Hillary or Bernie. When it comes down to it, party purity and self-interest will trump (no pun intended) the best interests of the nation for those voters.

So what? Even if a second presidential term is coming to an end in 10 months, there is PLENTY OF TIME for a nomination, confirmations hearings, and a vote. — Bitter Crank

The argument submitted by the Republicans was that typically Presidents don't appoint Justices in the last year of their term. The Dems responded by saying that the Reagan precedent makes that argument inconsistent. My point is that there really isn't a Reagan precedent because Reagan had been making efforts to appoint a Justice well over a year prior to the end of his term.

The GOP has no one but themselves to blame for Trump. — Arkady

There's no more reason to look for blame for the existence of Trump than there is for looking for blame to explain the existence of Sanders or Clinton. I'd vote for Trump over any Democrat. In truth, I see the existence of Sanders as better evidence of the sorry state of affairs than the existence of Trump.

Let's not insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that the Republicans wouldn't try to nominate a conservative justice if they were in Obama's position, and cry foul if the Dems tried to obstruct them (which they probably would). — Baden

Sure, they're both equally inconsistent. There is some tradition, though, about not making lifetime appointments during a lame duck period, so it makes sense that it would be argued. I do agree that the underlying tradition of fair play and civility is a thing of the past, although I wonder if it really ever was.

Let's just agree that we're all going to argue in favour of whichever outcome satisfies our principles and personal interests.

Let's just agree that we're all going to argue in favour of whichever outcome satisfies our principles and personal interests. — Michael

I don't want to find common ground. It only humanizes my opponents and makes their destruction that much more draining.

Favor has no u.

Favor has no u. — Hanover

Por favor.

Suppose there is no precedence of a second term POTUS appointing a JOTSC. I don't know if it ever happened before or not. I don't care, either. Had George II had the unfortunate opportunity to appoint someone in the 2nd month of his last year in office, that would have been just too bad and we would have had to suck it up. Precedence is useful for guidance but no more than that.

As for Trump, I'm disappointed that you would prefer a schlockmeister Trump to any, perhaps very superior, Democrat. As Martin Luther said, "It's better to be ruled by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian."

Precedence is useful for guidance but no more than that. — Bitter Crank

I get that the tradition argument is pretext, but so is the argument that Obama was elected, so the Senate must honor his wishes and vote as soon as possible. It is true that the Republicans must suck it up that Obama gets to pick the candidate, but the Dems must suck it up that the Republican Senate gets to decide when (and if) they vote. No one gets to tell the other what to do, and each gets to explain why they can do whatever they want to do, and we the electorate get to decide who we despise more.

As for Trump, I'm disappointed that you would prefer a schlockmeister Trump to any, perhaps very superior, Democrat. — Bitter Crank

I disagree with Sanders on much more than I disagree with Trump, so that's why I'd vote for Trump if I had to choose between those two.

There is a good critical opinion piece on CNN, written by Carolyn Shapiro, regarding Scalia's legacy, not in respect of his specific decisions, but rather in respect of his promotion of originalism (as a form of textualism).

Nope, I disagree. The numbers are simply not on the Republican side. In other words, this has to do with demographic facts that I see no reason to disbelieve, not ideology. The 2012 election especially showed that a much criticized Democratic candidate on both the left and right can still crush the Republican candidate. It was not without reason that so many right wing pundits in that election's aftermath blamed women, young people, blacks, and Hispanics for their loss.

The Republican party has moved so far to the right that it is incapable of winning a general election. It survives almost solely through gerrymandering in the House of Representatives. The Democratic party, meanwhile, is squarely centrist. Even someone like Sanders does not veer much past the center, despite whatever provocative labels he applies to himself.