You think the campaign has been ugly so far? It’s about to get a lot worse

The following is a “worst case scenario” thought process. It should be read and taken into consideration as Judicial and Presidential politics collide in America. Remember, this is purely speculation but should be considered when thinking about the current president, the democrats and losing Conservative Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia.


As Written by JOSEPH MARGULIES, Verdict Justia:

Who benefits most from an energized electorate? That’s the immediate question raised by the death of Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Saturday morning. You think the campaign has been ugly so far? It’s about to get a lot worse, as judicial and presidential politics collapse into each other. I see it unfolding like this:

To begin with, President Obama will not fill the vacancy. Republicans control the Senate, Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and other prominent Republicans have already signaled their opposition to filling the seat prior to the election, and we’re in the thick of a hyper-partisan campaign. Unless he nominates either Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton—candidates the Senate Republicans would support precisely because of the effect their appointment would have on the election—November will come and go with eight justices on the Court.

But that doesn’t mean Obama plays no role. On the contrary, his role just became extraordinarily important. He will send the Senate a candidate to replace Justice Scalia, as he should. He is the president, after all. Why should he sit on his hands while the Court is at less than full capacity? Then, the failure to act becomes a charge against the Republicans.

But the potency of that charge is not simply to remind everyone that Republicans are the Party of No. Far more importantly, the nominee will become a referendum on the election itself. Because the nominee almost certainly cannot be confirmed, the nomination is primarily a political act. More precisely, it is an exercise in symbolic politics. And symbols matter in American political life precisely to the extent they can be used to advance competing visions of the future.

To see how this might play out, imagine the president nominates Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to fill Scalia’s seat. She is too …..





Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

Leave a Comment

Comment via Facebook

Comment via Disqus

  • Jeff Noncent

    Like I said earlier we will not see the election this year, this article confirm it,and furthermore America is going down hill ever since the 2008 election year

    • Carmen Burgess

      ❝my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.❞….few days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$p/h.Learn. More right Here;;148➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2:❦2::::;;148..

    • Patriot47

      I’m afraid you’re right. Couple more coincidences and the lawless ones have set up and triggered their coveted revolution.

      • Jeff Noncent

        I agree it’s about to get ugly as the day goes by, it’s already started, Trump is talking suing Ted Cruz

  • Kingdom Ambassador

    The bottom line reason it’s going to get uglier is because of the constitutional framers’ egregious dereliction in establishing the judicial branch:

    “…The Bible stipulates, among other things, that judicial appointees must be men of truth who fear Yahweh and hate covetousness. (See Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” for a list of additional Biblical qualifications.) The United States Constitution requires no Biblical qualifications whatsoever. Nowhere does the Constitution stipulate that judges must rule on behalf of Yahweh, rendering decisions based upon His commandments, statutes, and judgments as required in Exodus 18. That not even one constitutional framer contended for Yahweh,3 as did King Jehoshaphat, speaks volumes about the framers’ disregard for Him and His judicial system:

    ‘And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH,4 who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of YHWH, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.’ (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)….”

    For more, see

    Then, find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

    • Grundune

      Weiland forgets that Exodus pertains to God’s theocracy under Moses. It was not directed at every government coming and going. It was certainly not directed at the U.S. Constitution.

      A theocracy has the advantage of being ruled by God, Himself or His prophet who receives direct revelation from Him. We live in a constitutional republic and don’t have that advantage. However, we have done very well with our Constitution, just look back over the centuries and see how we have grown in liberty to be a superpower.

      Weiland’s agenda is to abolish the U.S. Constitution. Not the brightest idea.