Secretary of State and U.S. Senate candidate Jason Kander (D) [March 2015 file photo].

Missouri Secretary of State and U.S. Senate candidate Jason Kander (D) issued the following statement:

The Constitution requires the President to nominate Judges of the Supreme Court, so any Senator saying otherwise clearly hasn’t read it. This political pandering is another reason why Missourians are so fed up with Washington. If Senator Blunt thinks the nominee eventually chosen by the President isn’t qualified, he can vote no. But to not have the political courage to even take a vote shows a complete inability to do his job.

Shorter version: do your job.

Previously:

The world has changed (February 13, 2016)

Originalism in a time of argle-bargle (February 14. 2016)

Clarity in a time of right wingnut political fog (February 15, 2016)

At SCOTUSblog:

Amy Howe Editor/Reporter
Posted Sat, February 13th, 2016 11:55 pm
Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years

In the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, questions have arisen about whether there is a standard practice of not nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices during a presidential election year. The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years….

“…The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election…”

Going back 116 years.

The right wingnut controlled U.S. Senate just makes stuff up. But, we already knew that.

Previously:

The world has changed (February 13, 2016)

Originalism in a time of argle-bargle (February 14. 2016)

What is written:

United States Constitution
Article II

Section 1.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years….

Section 2.
….He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law….

Apparently the President of the United States holds office and exercises executive powers for a full four year term. Included in that is the power to nominate individuals to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

What is said – Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (March 4, 2008):

….I belong to a school of interpretation called ‘originalism’. Uh, sometimes people come up to me, screw up their faces and ask, ‘Justice Scalia. When did you first become an originalist?’ [laughter] Like it’s a terrible disease [laughter]….

….It used to be orthodoxy….

….The Constitution does not change. It means today what it originally meant when the people adopted it. Now, of course, you have to apply some of its provisions to new phenomena. In so far as it applies to existing phenomena, it’s the same. It does not morph….

“….In so far as it applies to existing phenomena, it’s the same. It does not morph….”

A press release from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (r), via Facebook:

….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…

We’d all have to wait at least another year. Evidently not an originalist.

Previously:

The world has changed (February 13, 2016)

Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia [2008 file photo].

Oh, my.

Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch
By Gary Martin
Updated 4:05 pm, Saturday, February 13, 2016

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.

Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa.

According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.

Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, of the Western Judicial District of Texas, was notified about the death from the U.S. Marshals Service….

Previously:

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 1 (March 5, 2008)

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 2 (March 6, 2008)

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 3 (March 7, 2008)

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 4 (March 7, 2008)

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 5 (March 9, 2008)

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, Missouri on March 4, 2008:

[Do you believe that there is a right to privacy under the United States Constitution?]

Oh, there certainly is and it us, uh, contained in the Fourth Amendment. And it says “that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Period. There is not a generalized right of privacy, whatever that means. What is a generalized right of privacy [garbled]? One of our, one of our, one of our opinions says it means “the right to be left alone”. [laughter] Right. This is anarchy…

…[wire tapping] So, there is no, what should I say, exclusion from democratic debate of – conversations. It’s something for the people to decide whether you should have wiretapping or not….[as practice now]…This generalized right of privacy which comes from, what is it, penumbras and emanations from the Fourth and a lot of other ridiculous stuff. Uh, you know the consequences of that? Surely one of the major policy issues around these days is whether, uh, the Federal government can listen in on these international phone calls to find what the bad guys are doing. It used to be up to the Congress to decide whether the danger was high enough and the risk of invading people’s privacy high enough to permit that. No longer. It’s a question for me now. It’s a question for me. That’s what happens when you, when you read more and more stuff into the Constitution – you reduce democracy.

[emphasis added]

Speaker Pro Tem Denny Hoskins (r), today:

Denny Hoskins, CPA

Speaker Pro Tem

Missouri House of Representatives

District 54

[….]

Capitol Report

March 13, 2014

Prioritizing Missourian’s Privacy

The United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to privacy, but with the law failing to keep up with technology sometimes that right can fall into question. HB 1388 (Cornejo) prevents law enforcement from tracking the location of your electronic devices without a warrant. Exemptions are made if the device is stolen, an emergency call is made from the device, in life-threatening situations, and if the owner gives consent. This bill would make information obtained outside these exceptions inadmissible in court and helps protects Missourians from law enforcement encroaching in their private lives.

[….]

“…The United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to privacy…”

“…There is not a generalized right of privacy, whatever that means…”

Representative Denny Hoskins (r) isn’t quite subscribing to “originalist” doctrine. The thing is, Antonin Scalia is one of nine people who would have the final word on the matter.

Previously:

Antonin Scalia: on privacy, then and now (May 8, 2009)

Antonin Scalia in Warrensburg, part 4 (March 7, 2008)

Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on March 4, 2008 in Warrensburg, Missouri:

[Do you believe that there is a right to privacy under the United States Constitution?]

Oh, there certainly is and it us, uh, contained in the Fourth Amendment. And it says “that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Period. There is not a generalized right of privacy, whatever that means. What is a generalized right of privacy [garbled]? One of our, one of our, one of our opinions says it means “the right to be left alone”. [laughter] Right. This is anarchy…

…[wire tapping] So, there is no, what should I say, exclusion from democratic debate of – conversations. It’s something for the people to decide whether you should have wiretapping or not….[as practice now]…This generalized right of privacy which comes from, what is it, penumbras and emanations from the Fourth and a lot of other ridiculous stuff. Uh, you know the consequences of that? Surely one of the major policy issues around these days is whether, uh, the Federal government can listen in on these international phone calls to find what the bad guys are doing. It used to be up to the Congress to decide whether the danger was high enough and the risk of invading people’s privacy high enough to permit that. No longer. It’s a question for me now. It’s a question for me. That’s what happens when you, when you read more and more stuff into the Constitution – you reduce democracy.

This is now:

Fordham Law Class Collects Personal Info About Scalia; Supreme Ct. Justice Is Steamed

Posted Apr 29, 2009, 01:58 pm CDT

By Martha Neil

Last year, when law professor Joel Reidenberg wanted to show his Fordham University class how readily private information is available on the Internet, he assigned a group project. It was collecting personal information from the Web about himself.

This year, after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made public comments that seemingly may have questioned the need for more protection of private information, Reidenberg assigned the same project. Except this time Scalia was the subject, the prof explains to the ABA Journal in a telephone interview…

…And, as Scalia himself made clear in a statement to Above the Law, he isn’t happy about the invasion of his privacy:

“Professor Reidenberg’s exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any,” the justice says, among other comments…

Justice Scalia Responds to Fordham Privacy Invasion!

It must all depend on whose ox is getting Gored.

(Hat tip to skippy for the title of this post.)

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaking in Warrensburg, Missouri on March 4, 2008.

Scalia tells FAU student: ‘That’s a nasty, impolite question.’

Brian Haas | South Florida Sun Sentinel

7:53 PM EST, February 3, 2009

WEST PALM BEACH – In a room filled with some of Palm Beach County’s most powerful people, it took a 20-year-old political science student to throw off U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday afternoon.

Student Sarah Jeck stood in front of 750 people and asked Scalia why cameras are not allowed in the U.S. Supreme Court even though the court hearings are open, transcripts are available and the court’s justices are open enough to go “out on book tours.” Scalia was at the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts in part to do a book signing and wasn’t happy at the question.

“Read the next question,” Scalia replied. “That’s a nasty, impolite question…”

“Ask me no more questions, I’ll tell you no more lies…”

He doesn’t like to answer some questions. Almost a year ago, on March 4, 2008:

[What disadvantages do you see in the increasing scope of executive power under the Bush administration?]

[sound: Pppfff] [laughter] What’s the next question? [laughter]

[In your view what is the appropriate level of senatorial review of Supreme Court nominees?]

…I think they’re entitled to ask whatever they want. And I think the nominee is entitled not to answer as much as he thinks he can get away with. I didn’t answer anything. [laughter, applause]…