RIP Supreme Court Justice Scalia
Ollie RIP, he's done a great job. NJ born & first Italian-American justice. Let's hope Obama chooses a good and unbiased justice.
1988LJ So sad. His originalist views were interesting.
Confirmation hearings will be intense I gather.
strangerdanger 
iRun http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/
I really liked him
Skippy 
brown bear2 "Let's hope Obama chooses a good and unbiased justice."
... also let's hope the GOP controlled Senate blocks anyone Obama nominates, because I guarantee that person won't be good or unbiased.
RIP Scalia, one of the good guys in the U.S.A.
Mark Mc. 
Brad2Mark, when has the senate blocked anything of Obama's?!? Bunch of cowards and crooks and we are the ones that pay in the end.
NoHopeForHumanity If (when) everyone else rolls over, perhaps Cruz or Rubio could filibuster the nomination vote.
This is assuming Obama doesn't risk nominating *nobody* in the hopes that Hillary (should she win) nominates him. She thinks that is a "great idea".
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/26/hillary-clinton-on-nominating-obama-to-the-supreme-court-great-idea/
Thankfully this man is finally gone! Now Obama will get a more liberal judge in there to secure women's right to choose. Maybe now they won't have to drive 500 miles in Texas to get a checkup at Planned Parenthood. Trust me, this man was an abomination and the world is a better place without him.
Larry 
Maybe the people that have to drive 500 miles to Planned Parenthood have to drive 500 miles to *anything*...
Plenty of locations exist where there are population centers and other businesses...
just coach 
eperot 
positive Arrangements for his funeral will be released as soon as all women in America decide what he is allowed to do with his body.
btownguy 79 and protecting, at least in his view, the Constitution. I like a good balance on the court. Change should be difficult.
maja Scalia was a true patriot. A strong defender of our constitutional rights. Arguably one of the most stand up officials in our government today. His passing is a tremendous loss to our country, his family and friends.
Hopefully ... our inexperienced, clueless commander and chief doesn't appoint someone to his liking to replace Scalia. His done enough damage to our country already.
@Larry, it's clear you are ignorant, uneducated and insensitive. A walking contradiction would be an understatement for you Larry. This man served our country well for many years. Have some respect!
"... also let's hope the GOP controlled Senate blocks anyone Obama nominates, because I guarantee that person won't be good or unbiased. "
+100. This is where gridlock can be a GOOD thing.
"Larry, your insensitive ignorant comments never cease to amaze me."
+100. What an asinine statement, Larry. Of course you've got every right to be a JERK, thanks to the Bill of Rights. So go ahead and keep speaking and removing all doubt that you're an idiot.
"Change should be difficult."
+100. As intended and designed by the founders. Gridlock serves a purpose just like everything else does.
JeffersonRepub Yeah, I don't think women have a right to kill their children +Larry & +btownguy.
Pretty terrible that you would wish someone dead to meet your sick and twisted political views. Oh well, I guess when you're anti-life, you're really anti-life.
1988LJ, sorry to hear about your wrong and antiquated opinion. Hopefully it'll come into the modern area soon!
Yes, it's quite "antiquated", not wanting to kill babies. Shame on you, 1988LJ
sparksjbc1964 I'm sure 1988LJ hasn't adopted any... but he hasn't KILLED any either, I'll bet.
I'll bet a lot of people here have.
Terminating a pregnancy is a choice that a woman should make, not judges sitting on a bench. Can't call cells a "baby"
Of coarse because the decision is so black and white. The lyrics to Walk A Mile In My Shoes are especially relevant these days.
"Walk a mile in my shoes, walk a mile in my shoes
Hey, before you abuse, criticize and accuse
Walk a mile in my shoes
Now your whole world you see around you is just a reflection
And the law of Karma says you're gonna reap just what you sow
So unless you've lived a life of total perfection
You'd better be careful of every stone that you should throw - yeh-heh"
Bonv You are nothing cells btownguy, just like the rest of us. Just saying.
The question isn't about a women's right to her own body (it never has been) but about the point at which a bunch of cells are considered deserving of protection as a human being. That universal definition is lacking and is the real problem.
Regardless of the typical rhetoric, no one wants to dictate to women what to do with their body. But they do want to protect those who have no ability to defend themselves.
The conversation needs to be about definitions....
justintime Yep, nothing more "modern" than killing.
A woman has the right to make her own choices. However, she does NOT have the right to end a life, regardless of whether or not it has been given birth to.
You are a collection of cells too...
And YOU do not have the right to dictate a woman's choice until you have walked in her shoes.
"Terminating a pregnancy is a choice that a woman should make, not judges sitting on a bench."
Agree 100%.
Calico696 Some of you people are sick. Justice Scalia was a son, a husband, a father, and a grandfather. And by most accounts liked and respected by all of the other Justices. Can we at least wait until the man is buried to start with the disgusting comments. I guess in the world we live in today that form of respect has gone out the window with a lot of our other values. How sad.
When people choose to take the life of another they usually go to prison, do they not? That's what we do in this society. So if some view abortion as taking a life of another how could anyone think there wouldn't be passion against it?
The definition of when a baby has the protections of society is a huge part of these disagreements, not whether or not any person (woman or otherwise) has the right to do whatever they want with their bodies (hint-as codified by law, anyone can do whatever they please as long as they are not harming others).
If the pro-choice really wanted to make an impact in the discussion they'd knock of the "womans right to choose" stuff because that emotional tactic does nothing except ignore the real problem described above: When does a baby have rights as a human being, and when are those rights to be protected by society? That's all most are saying even if they don't say it that way.
"And YOU do not have the right to dictate a woman's choice until you have walked in her shoes."
True, though I have walked in 'his' shoes. I can tell you that there are long term emotional repercussions of that decision that still haven't healed, many many years later - and based on the amount of time that has passed I don't expect they ever will. Time hasn't healed this wound.
I don't expect that Roe v. Wade to ever be reversed and I know that nothing can be done to change people's minds, but if someone close to me were facing a decision such as this I hope that I could put forth whatever love and support I could to let them know that they truly do have a choice and can choose life.
When it happened to me I didn't think we had a choice, which is ironic because the movement calls itself pro-choice. Meaning, we weren't capable of fully understanding and examining both sides to make the best choice.
Mr. 1988LJ what if your sister gets raped ? Your gonna make her have it ?!?!? Pigs - Chickens and Cows aren't alive when we decide to put bolt guns to work ?
Brown bear 2 - What you say is true, some people will regret. But they should still have the choice. I do not regret my decision that I made after pregnancy from a rape. Not one bit. I'm glad I had the right to chose. Some people aren't capable of examining and making the right choice, others are. Just because you believe you made the wrong decision doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to make one at all.
If a woman is raped, she should not be allowed to have an abortion. That child is not any less of a person because they were created from rape. I'm sure that children of rape would be very offended by that.
So a family member raped me and you're telling me I was supposed to happily have that child? I'm not saying every victim of rape should have an abortion. I never once said children who are born as a product of rape are bad. I'm saying in my specific situation I'm glad I had a choice. Shame on you for trying to belittle me for that choice. I'm glad you have never had to deal with what I went through, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But I'm glad people like you weren't the ones deciding back then for me whether or not I had the right to the decision I made.
1988LJ, I'm guessing from your comment that you are male -- if not, please correct my assumption.
Since you (if you are male) are incapable of being forcibly and brutally impregnated against your will...you have no right to make a comment like that.
That is the sort of attitude that Nazis in the 1940s had when attempting to breed the Master Aryan race.
JerryG I apologize for reading incorrectly into it. It sounded as if you were saying that because of your experience, you are not pro-choice. Again, I apologize if I was reading between the lines there. I think all we can do in these situations is tell our own stories to others in the same sorts of situations and then let them decide (DECIDE being the key; not try to convince them of anything, but tell our stories; not urge them one way or the other, but put our our experiences out there, uninhibited, and let them CHOSE the path they believe to be right for them).
JerryG,
Actually, the Nazis were getting rid of "undesireables"- killing mentally and physically handicapped people in institutions because they were "broken" and a burden on society. In sure Hitler would be quite proud of the worlds love affair with abortion.
As would Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthhood. Anyone who's interested to do some research on her motives , she was a real winner, that one. And a racist.
Well places like South and Central America and India will soon have us living on Sardine Can Earth. How many can this Planet support before Nature starts taking us out ? I guess you want to have women in Alleys with Coat Hangers again . You should be Neutered Mr 1988LJ so your genes die in your empty ball sack.
I'm sorry for anyone's own bad personal experience either way, but that does not allow anyone to choose for all. For a man with regrets, you had many choices before conception. Wise choices about sex and partners deserve admiration. Strength to choose life deserves admiration. Strength to support a women in difficult circumstances is a reflection of character. All choices. Choose wisely.
I'm sure this judge stood for more than a single issue. Why focus on only that?
This forum disgusts me but I can't help myself. And then I wake up and realize that I do live in an open minded state, just not in Warren County.
What a way to hijack a post people!
This is not the place to be talking about abortions and Nazis and whatever else that pops up in your little brains.
Take your issues elsewhere and get back to what this story is about.
RU I agree RU, hard to believe they didn't see a heart attack coming with a Supreme Court justice. I'd assume they have the most advance health care available.
RAS So 1988LJ, if your daughter was raped by a family member and impregnated, you'd want her to a product of incestuous rape to birth?
Would you buy that child a banjo?
Maybe his doctors knew he had a heart issue. People don't live forever. Younger men than 79 die in their sleep. I would think suffocation would be a bit obvious. I would also hope they took blood. Blood work takes a while. He has family. They can request an autopsy.
I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, but it does seem odd that the sheets/blankets on the bed weren't disturbed, he was found with a pillow over his head, was declared dead of natural causes over the phone going off the description from law enforcement, and the family does not want an autopsy performed.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php
Rich ... unless the ranch owner meant "Above" his head, not "Over" his head. That would make more sense, considering he explained what Scalia's face looked like.
"They killed him"...
So, if I understand what you're insinuating... you believe he was assassinated by the Progressive New World Order and the good old boys down in Texas are helping to cover that up? And his family is in on it?
I think it's far more likely that his ticker conked out while he was enjoying certain professional services and now everyone is scrambling to preserve his conservative reputation. If that's how he went out at 79, god bless him... there are worse ways to go.
ianimal Not a conspiracy theorist either. However ... foul play came to mind when I heard of his passing.
ianimal, Something fishy about the whole ordeal. "professional services" cover up is highly unlikely. I 100% disagree on that theory.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
There’s Ample Precedent For Rejecting Lame Duck Supreme Court Nominees
How the European Union is reporting this story:
http://www.eutimes.net/2016/02/us-supreme-court-justice-scalia-had-secret-texas-meeting-with-obama-just-hours-before-his-death/
One-Eyed Poacher The European Union Times claims to be a news site. Its articles on Barack Obama have been linked from a few Libertarian Tea Party blogs, presumably pleased to find what is apparently a news site that supports some of their views. It even has lots of mainstream advertising served by ContextWeb! Eminently respectable to all appearances.
Upon closer inspection, however, it is little more than a compiler and regurgitator of various news stories and a particularly unpleasant far-right-leaning blog. The reporting is, without exception, shockingly unprofessional. Do not be fooled by the nice WordPress theme — this is utter neo-Nazi bollocks.
4catmom Autopsy reports in Texas are public record that can be obtained by anyone who fills out an OPRA request. Say that there was reason for the police on the scene to believe that the decedent may have ingested Viagra or Cialis that would show up on the toxicology report. Do you think the family of the deceased may have cause not to want that to become public knowledge?
A man just as powerful as the President and not having an autopsy when found dead alone, out of his normal surroundings. That alone leaves the door wide open and leaves the imaginations running wild.
Now if he went hunting with Dick Cheney, It would have been more plausible.
Old Gent Skippy - don't have a strong opinion either way on this, but just to be accurate, Obama's not a lame duck until someone else has been elected.
seeshark Both sides have been playing politics with SCOTUS for a few decades matching Constitutional acumen with past deeds of personal preference over issues. Heed to jurists everywhere ---- just don't be socially active in your personal life.
Obama will nominate
Republicans will block
Moderates will turn left
@ianimal - no, I don't think the family would want that to come out. However, and sadly for them, their relative was a Supreme Court justice which trumps their wishes. I do understand them being upset, but I believe it's reasonable for the public to expect an autopsy to be done on Supreme Court justices, Presidents etc. with the results released to the public.
strangerdanger - Great. That's what led to Judge Thomas, the Sgt Schultz "know nothing, see nothing" nomination. That looks promising...
brown bear2 - Does someone's job entitle us? How about police officers, truck drivers, or even stock brokers? Is it just because someone out there might be affected by the outcome? What about religions that object to autopsies?
GC "Moderates will turn left"
Not the "moderates" voting for Trump. I think you misunderestimate his "fan base"
well - my world is predominately moderates who wouldn't vote for Trump if the competition was - oh I don't know - maybe Manson or - hmm a dragon -- or............
That's the problem- you can't go by "your world" you have to go by "the country".
This was back in August, but his poll numbers haven't changed much......
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/6/donald-trump-polling-best-among-liberal-and-modera/?page=all
shocker - why would the sitting executive branch head not attend the funeral of the sitting judicial branch head - blatant disrespect and a political statement perhaps?
Nah, he just has more important things to do- like play golf or host another terrorist organization at the White House.
I have to admit, I'm interested to see what plans the president has Saturday that precludes his attendance at the funeral that is right in town. Family related, I'd hope. Or an out of town high stakes presidential meeting would make sense.
Where do you folks get your metrics for behavior?
Just saying.
Three out of seven of the last SCOTUS justice funerals were attended by Presidents. Four were not. One was attended by a Vice President as this one will be.
Obama will pay his respects to Scalia, in person with the First Lady, at Scalia's repose at the Supreme Court on Friday. I went to my Uncle's viewing, spent a long time there. I did not go to his funeral. Am I damned?
Saturday will be sunny and 63 in Washington DC......
"Am I damned?" No
Is it weird? Yes. But I'm Irish. If someone travels that far for a funeral, you'll be praised from here to kingdom come. If you travel that far to a funeral as don't attend the mass, you're the tsk tsk conversation over whiskey afterwards :)
omg - need a bottle of single malt after reading some of the comments..................vitriol parades through again...............
Here's an interesting (and much more recent) collection of polls. Most of them have Bernie Sanders beating Trump by a wide margin in a general election...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
And here's a bunch more... Cruz doing surprisingly well against Hillary. I still have a hard time believing a majority of the country could vote for Bernie's unicorn-rainbow-poop nonsense, but maybe that's what the intelligence level of the country has sunk to.
http://www.270towin.com/2016-polls/2016-general-election-matchups/
Here's an interesting article on Trump and why his often extreme positions are not necessarily poison for voters labeled as "moderates".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/12/16/donald-trump-is-a-textbook-example-of-an-ideological-moderate/
gadfly 
If, after that, you still have any doubt of where the country's intelligence level is, look at Trump's poll numbers. On one side, you have the Sanders rainbow-poop-warriors, on the other you have Trump's goose-stepping, make-'Murica-great-again brownshirts who are going to cleanse the country of Mexicans and Muslims. What a choice, lol... can you say President Bloomberg? (-;
Obama Tried to Filibuster Bush’s Supreme Court Pick
"In a 2006 appearance on ABC's This Week, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) criticized Democrats for being unable to effectively articulate the case against then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Obama then expressed support for then-Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) efforts to filibuster Alito.
"I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values," Obama said. "When you look at his decisions--in particular, during times of war--we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch."
http://www.dailywire.com/news/3387/flashback-obama-tried-filibuster-bushs-supreme-aaron-bandler
Schumer: Ignore My 2007 Speech on Judges
"We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts; or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito. Given the track record of this President and the experience of obfuscation at the hearings, with respect to the Supreme Court, at least: I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances (emphasis in original)."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431435/schumer-ignore-my-2007-speech-judges
ianimal - Well said. Seven years ago, I had trouble putting together the two words "President Obama". Let's hope the Supreme Court appointment will preoccupy Obama during the rest of his reign, lest he do more damage. IMO, Obama set the stage for both Trump and Sanders. On the country's intelligence, I have no clue any more. Thinking of changing my moniker to DannyCynical. Good luck to all of us sheep.
DannyC Do you think Bloomberg has any support outside of the NYC area?
He is a "do as I say" nanny state extremist, and the only reason other politicians "like" him is free $$$.
I doubt he resonates well with any real people.
Both sides have been wrongly messing with scotus nominations for decades now. Its nomination abomination.
Just jokes, Mark Mc... no, I don't think he will do well nationwide. But you would have to think that a Sanders-Trump (or Cruz, even) race would be the best case scenario for a third party to make some noise.
The first step to ending the two-party system is getting a third party to garner 5% of the vote and receive PEC Funding in the following election. From there, one would hope that the percentages in subsequent elections would continue to rise and so would their overall slice of election campaign funding. Too bad Ross Perot didn't run as a Libertarian instead of an Independent in 1992; we might already be free of the Republicrat duopoly paradigm... assuming the campaign finance laws were similar back then; I'm not sure, to be honest.
Mark Mc. - Bloomberg has no support anywhere, including NYC, a soda jerk who prevents his boss from selling soda. No positions on the issues of today. The current mayor, De Blasio, has replaced him as the leader of the left-leaning big city. If we need a NYC mayor as a presidential candidate, it should be Rudy Giuliani, who could beat the pants suit off of Hillary, ripping the unicorn horn from Bernie, while taking the high road against Trump, and enduring punches from him
"What a choice, lol... can you say President Bloomberg? "
Now HE would be an actual dictator. Or try very very hard to be.
"Too bad Ross Perot didn't run as a Libertarian instead of an Independent in 1992; we might already be free of the Republicrat duopoly paradigm... "
Nah, Perot wouldn't have accomplished that. Perot was, back then, what Trump HAs been- up until THIS election- just "playing around with the idea." IDK if Perot would have been a good or bad president, but he wasn't serious enough to make any real ripples in any event.
But, it was an important "first step", in modern history anyway, showing that a 3rd party could indeed be viable.
I'm not saying Perot would have won. But, in garnering 19% of the popular vote, Perot would have entitled his political party to a nice chunk of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in the 1996 election. A party needs to get 5% of the popular vote to qualify as a "minor party" and 25% to get full-fledged "major party" status.
That 19% Perot got could have made a made a big difference in $$$ for that party in the 1996 election and could have been enough to get the word out and grow at the grassroots level little by little to have gotten to the 25% level by now... six elections later... which would have resulted in a third "major" party to choose from. But he chose to run as an "independent", so his historic effort in that election had absolutely no benefit to a third party. In 1996, he ran under the flag of the Reform Party, but could only manage 8 percent of the popular vote in that election. The door closed just as quickly as it opened... and here we are 24 years later still talking about how crappy the two-party system is.
"Rudy, Rudy, Rudy." Does he have the credentials to replace Justice Scalia? He is certainly qualified to run for president, given the current pitiful field of candidates.
Njlawyer Ian,
Agree with all that. I was just saying that maybe the one thing Perot did accomplish was making the IDEA of a 3rd party run more "imaginable" than it had been up to that time. As did all the "Tea Party" candidates that have been elected to Congress in recent years. It seems to be a growing thing, and of course the 2 parties are trying to squash it as hard as they can...
Hoping for total gridlock in South Carolina, Nevada, super Tuesday, and Obama's Supreme Court nominee(s). Let it all stick in the mud for several months. Then draft Giuliani to lead, as a republican, without third party morons. Wishful thinking?
Cynic - OK, I won't change my moniker to DannyCynical, respecting your handle. I assume that you were referring to the ridiculous current political climate, especially the impending Scalia replacement nomination(s).
Still hate Rudy, sorry.
Perot was too intellectual to win. People *want* the emotional show, not real solutions, which is why Presidentisl politics is so ridiculous.
NJlawyer and justintime - Why do you "hate" Rudy Giuliani? Because he cleaned up Times Square, subways and crooked street vendors? Or how he handled 9/11?
The only people that hated Giuliani pre 9/11 were the flaming liberals in the City. He cleaned up the mess Dinkins left behind.
kb2755 From what I saw of Perot, he was also a bunch of smoke and mirrors, with a bunch of "homyisms" thrown in. For example, if we elected him President we weren't going to see him because he was going to be busy "under the hood" of the American economy, tinkering with it to get it to work right again. It sounds like the shadetree mechanic that says "yeah I can fix that - never mind what I'm gonna do or how I'm gonna do it, but have confidence in me that even though I'm not gonna tell you what I'm gonna do, it's gonna work...at sometime in the future that I won't specify".
He was a talented salesperson, but a micromanager at the top and apparently accused people of lack of loyalty or being a "plant" and talked conspiracy theories into the ground about how people were trying to force him out of the race because they were so worried about his candidacy. I'll run, but only if the people want me to, meaning the party he had formed, which of course "wanted" him to run.
Of course this quote made me laugh:
"Keep in mind our Constitution predates the Industrial Revolution. Our founders did not know about electricity, the train, telephones, radio, television, automobiles, airplanes, rockets, nuclear weapons, satellites, or space exploration. There's a lot they didn't know about. It would be interesting to see what kind of document they'd draft today. Just keeping it frozen in time won't hack it."
Of course our Founding Fathers were some of the shaper minds of their time and knew that there would be invetions and improvements in technology, thus they wrote an open-ended document that would use checks and balances from all three branches of the Government that would interpret it for the current time period, whenever that may be, but giving us certain basic rights that they thought we as a people should be entitled to! Was it not quite perfect and all-inclusive - surely. Did it need to be completely thrown out and rewritten - not at all, and as we as a nation progressed through time, it was amended (as they had planned for AND specified in what manner it would and could be changed), in order to fit our higher consciousness as a Nation and our growing enlightenment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
Phil D. Ross Perot is now 86 years old, and not likely to run again. Rudy Giuliani is 71, not a spring chicken, but vibrant enough for eight years as president, or even better as Justice Scalia's replacement for the rest of his life.
"Three out of seven of the last SCOTUS justice funerals were attended by Presidents. Four were not. One was attended by a Vice President as this one will be. "
from Fox:
Megyn Kelly stated Thursday evening on The Kelly File that she can find no instance in history where a sitting President of the United States has failed to attend the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice. It’s an unprecedented move on the part of Obama, who once again fails to uphold his duty as president, represent the country and set an example for the American people.
Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/02/18/obama-first-sitting-president-in-history-to-miss-funeral-of-supreme-court-justice/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link
JR. The story you posted is false. Or perhaps Meghan Kelly is just the worst researcher in the history of journalism. Bush attended Renquist's funeral. The last sitting Justice to die before Renquist was Robert H Jackson in 1954. Eisenhower did not attend the funeral.
Wow- I'm actually shocked Kelley made that mistake; she's a constitutional attorney, and very good at getting details right. How could she have missed that? And if she misreported on purpose, that would be unforgivable, and place her in the same disappointing lot with the rest of them (NBC, CNN, etc etc etc)
It's not Beck's fault- he just posted what Kelley said. Kelley was wrong. I'm shocked there's not blowback... there has to be more to it... she's not that stupid (no, really, she's not). To go on national television and get something so wrong- and recent (1954)- knowing that you're reporting a falsehood?
Megyn Kelly reads a teleprompter and has staff to do her research. It's not like she's personally vetting anything that comes out of her mouth and it's certainly not the first time that Fox News has gotten something completely wrong.
In addition to Jackson, there have been a number of retired SCOTUS justice who have died in recent years wo the President attending the funeral.
This type of reporting is intentionally misleading wo being exactly a lie. It's a hallmark of Faux news.
FOX usually leads the pack for false statements: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
I saw ""Three out of seven of the last SCOTUS justice funerals were attended by Presidents. Four were not. One was attended by a Vice President as this one will be." Thought is was CNN but can't retrace my search.
According to Media Matters: "Historically, Presidents Have Not Always Attended Funerals Of Supreme Court Justices, Regardless Of Whether The Death Occurred While Serving. According to a Media Matters analysis, sitting presidents attended four of the funerals of 10 Supreme Court justices who have died since June 1, 1980 -- including justices who died while serving and those who died after serving on the bench."
But Conservative news has made up some different stories including Megyn's. http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/19/conservatives-defy-history-with-derision-at-oba/208693
Kind of like Cruz stating that no sitting President in the last 80 years has filled a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year and that represents a "long tradition" and "historical precedent"... the simple truth is that there was not an opportunity for that to occur in the last 76 years. The six times it happened in the 40 years prior to that, the sitting president filled the vacancy EVERY TIME.
Exactly Ianimal. I was going to post the same thing but didn't have time to look up the numbers.
auntiel "This type of reporting is intentionally misleading wo being exactly a lie. It's a hallmark of Faux news."
And they learned from the best- CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC.
NO mainstream media news source is to be trusted.
"NO mainstream media news source is to be trusted."
While I certainly can believe that to some degree, you have to admit that the sentiment goes TRIPLE for "non-mainstream" news sources, right?
Talking about yourself again, Gadfly? ;)
As I've stated many times, I don't watch Fox anymore. I don't use any one source for news; none of them are trustworthy. And if one is "better" than the other, that only makes them the "lesser of the evils" in today's world. No thanks. But at least I have the wisdom to admit that ALL news sources are suspect...anyone who think a CNN or NBC is going to give them "the straight dope" is as blind as someone who thinks Bernie can pay for all that free stuff he wants to give everyone...
"While I certainly can believe that to some degree, you have to admit that the sentiment goes TRIPLE for "non-mainstream" news sources, right?"
Of course not- that is a blanket statement, and it's not true. Some NON-mainstream news sources are the only reason it has become harder for politicians to get away with what they have always gotten away with, in recent years. Thank God for social media- it's become quite the watchdog. Yes, it too must be scrutinized, absolutely. Lord knows there is a lot of misinformation on non-MSM new sources.... but there's a lot of misinformation on MSM news sources..... But I have learned many TRUE things from non-MSM sources, that MSM sources would never report. Which is precisely why it's become such a job to figure out what the truth is anymore; you can't believe any one source- and no, one is no better or worse than another; if one is wrong sometimes, they aren't reporting news, they're speculating or broadcasting propaganda. Therefore, no one source can be trusted.
Megyn Kelly is hot and I don't care whether or not she tells me the truth. Actually I'd rather she lie to me :)
"Talking about yourself again, Gadfly? ;)"
How clever.
No JR. Your problem is that believe that all news sources are equal. You seem to put as much stock in www.crazyconservativeconspiraciesfromyourcousinsfacebookpage.com as actual, respected, professional journalists.
As for Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC... yes, they are all equal. You're problem is you're in denial of that truth.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
MK Commenting is no longer available.