Obama will not attend Scalia funeral – Open Thread

The bench chair of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday, is draped in black. | Getty

The bench chair of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday, is draped in black. | Getty

From Politico:

President Barack Obama will not attend Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral on Saturday, the White House said, adding that Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Jill Biden will be at the services.

Obama and first lady Michelle Obama instead will go to the Supreme Court on Friday “to pay their respects to Justice Scalia” while the justice lies in repose in the Great Hall, press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday.

The most recent member of the Supreme Court to die was Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2005. In that instance, President George W. Bush not only attended the funeral, he also eulogized Rehnquist, who had been nominated to the court by Richard Nixon.

I find this appalling but frankly, there’s little Obama could do in my book that I’d find to be decent and good… except perhaps resign.

Your thoughts?

The Pope, Donald Trump and Immigration
Seven Deadly Errors
  • Retired military

    I tend to think that the family probably let it be known that they didnt want Obama there. I have nothing to back this up just my own opinion.

  • Just another dereliction of duty.

  • Charles Harkins

    That’s twice in one week that I find myself in agreement with Rick and the Wall Street Journal/NBC have Cruz beating Trump. When will they start playing “The World Turned Upside Down”?

    • LiberalNightmare

      The same people that have been wailing and crying about Trump will now start to wail and cry about Cruz.

      • Charles Harkins

        Well, I voted for Rubio today in SC, but I would have no problem with Cruz as the nominee. Trump reminds me of Benito Mussolini or Juan Peron both in substance and in style. If he is the nominee, I’ll be voting “Present”.

        • Commander_Chico

          Yet Rubio will be the one attacking other countries. He’s a nice boy, so he’s not Mussolini like that rude man Trump.

          • Charles Harkins

            Oh yeah, you’re right. Trump will only threaten to sue them!

          • Commander_Chico

            No American blood shed in a lawsuit over Syria, no real American interest in who rules Syria. No nuclear war over Rubio’s “no-fly zone” against the Russians.

            Let Putin and the Syrians kill ISIS. You must be a neocon, voting for Rubio.

          • Jwb10001

            You’ve yet to articulate how exactly Trump is going to “take Iraq’s oil” other than suggesting he would get Russia to do it some how or another. Trump himself has suggested it would take ground troops. Of course what he doesn’t say is how basically stealing Iraq oil results in peace in the region maybe you can explain it but I doubt it.

            Edit: when you call me a name please try out something new OK?

          • Commander_Chico

            You’re picking one thing he said vs. scores of anti-war things he’s said:
            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbed4VtXEAACzoa.png

            WE KNOW Rubio is all in with the neocon bomb-Iran crowd.

          • Jwb10001

            And we still can’t articulate how Trump is going to take Iraq’s oil or what the aftermath would look like. I would have thought his 2016 Iraq proclamations would be more important than his changing views on Iraq WMDs from 15 years ago. Maybe it’s just me but going all 9/11 troofer isn’t even all that interesting, the loony left has pretty much beaten that dead horse to a complete pulp.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Trump’s many claims that he was against the Iraq war before it started are pure BS. He is an opportunistic demagogue, in the style of Mussolini. Publications of various political persuasions have called BS on Trump’s claims.

            From the Atlantic – http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/donald-trump-says-he-was-against-the-iraq-war-thats-not-how-i-remember-it/462804/

            to the Dailybeast – http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/07/trump-was-against-iraq-war-not-really.html

            the Wall Street Journal – http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-didnt-oppose-the-iraq-war-1455752017

            to Politifact – http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/13/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-his-early-opposition-iraq-war-wa/

          • Jwb10001

            Oh my god you’re going to cause a messenger mass shooting.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yeah – they’re all neocon publications run by the Jewish Oligarchy.

          • Commander_Chico

            First line of the Atlantic article:

            I respect and admire Donald Trump (yes, I wrote those words to begin a sentence) for flat-out arguing to GOP crowds that the Iraq war was a catastrophic mistake.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            No, Chico – Don’t move the goal posts. Mr. Braggadocio claims he opposed the war BEFORE it commenced. Right now he has the same credibility as Hillary in his “opposition” to the war.

          • Commander_Chico

            So what? Point is he knows it was a mistake now. Others want to try it again with bigger Iran.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            So what if he’s a lying sack of crap?

          • Commander_Chico

            Lying? Where’s the proof he was for it?

            I don’t care just no neocons like Rubio.

            Who are you for BTW?

          • Jwb10001

            same place your proof Bush lied is

          • Walter_Cronanty

            In order – Of those remaining who are serious – Cruz, Rubio, Kasich [my governor – not bad, but a little too “compassionate conservative” for my tastes].

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Don’t need proof that he was for it. He claims that his opposition was “loud and clear” before the invasion. He’s a snake oil salesman.

          • Commander_Chico

            Very odd that the long-derided MSM opinion outlets are now accepted as truth.

            Yah I know elite media hates Trump.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Any time you want to cite one of the 25 stories Trump says are out there backing up his claim that he was against the war before it was commenced, please feel free to do so:

            “But Trump’s remark in September that there were “25 different stories” backing up his Iraq War opposition, and Saturday night’s contention that his criticism was “loud and clear” before the invasion, are unfounded.

            BuzzFeed, The Washington Post’s “Fact-checker” and Politifact have all been unable to find evidence to back up Trump’s claim. “http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-opposed-iraq-war-evidence_us_56c08fbae4b0c3c55051bc87

          • Commander_Chico

            He was against the war very early, from 2003 and 2004.

          • Show proof.

          • Commander_Chico
          • Both ex-post facto statements by Trump.

            FAIL

          • Commander_Chico
          • Jwb10001

            He didn’t say it was a mistake, he said Bush lied. That’s not saying it’s a mistake it’s saying that there is a conspiracy at the highest levels of several governments to cover up invading Iraq for WMDs they knew weren’t there. Please explain why Bush (or for you Cheney the evil genius) would lie about WMD then launch and invasion that would prove they were lying? Trumps entitled to his opinion but everyone else is entitled to point out that he’s a raving lunatic. And before you call me a neo con I didn’t support the Iraq invasion but I also know that there was no broad conspiracy.

          • Commander_Chico

            He said it was a mistake see the Esquire story linked below.

            Pretty strong evidence of a conspiracy. Cheney Rumsfeld Wolfowitz Feith etc.

          • Jwb10001

            Are you that stupid? He said last Sat that Bush lied. Please don’t insult me.

          • Commander_Chico

            Bush’s minions lied more accurate. Still, the buck stops . .so fair.

          • Jwb10001

            Hum I watched the debate I don’t remember anything like that I’m pretty sure he said BUSH lied. Of course when challenged on that he backed off to say well he didn’t really know if Bush lied. I guess Jeb should send a cease and desist letter that’ll show him.

          • Commander_Chico
          • Jwb10001

            Wow that’s convincing.

          • Carrying on with the damn lie

          • Jwb10001

            Hey you missed the Chico “who are you for” question you better answer that or he’ll call you a faggot.

          • Commander_Chico

            Walter is a gentleman who does not so personal insults so I do not insult him.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Thank you, Chico.

          • Jwb10001

            Oh so I’m worthy of being called a faggot because I won’t pick a candidate on your terms? You’ve got some standards there. Any chance you can square the circle on the Trump stealing Iraq oil anytime soon or are we still going to argue about 15 year old history?

          • Commander_Chico

            No it was because you used vituperative epithets like “idiot.”

            Chico gives back what he gets.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I’ve been called worse – nevertheless, my list is set forth above.

        • Wild_Willie

          Very harsh comparison no matter who you support. It borders on calling him Hitler. Democrats, in their juvenile behavior do that but the GOP has more respect for people generally. ww

    • Commander_Chico

      Lol at believing a WSJ poll. Neocon WSJ all in against Trump.

      All other polls have Trump 10-20 points ahead.

      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-4151.html

      • olhardhead

        I hate to say it…..I really really really do but…Commander _Chico’s right

        http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/02/18/quinnipiac-national-poll-juggernaut-trump-39-gaining-rubio-19-slipping-cruz-18/

        Damn…I never thought I’d say that!!!!

      • Jwb10001

        You’re killing messengers at an alarming rate. There’s an interesting story at the neo con, war mongering National Review about how badly Trump has managed his business through multiple bankruptcies. On more than one occasion he’s over borrowed (junk bonds) paying way too much interest resulting in failures. but of course it’s from National Review so it must be a bunch of lies. I look forward to you shooting another messenger in support of your savior.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431420/donald-trumps-2016-debate-lies-he-went-bankrupt

        • Commander_Chico

          The National Review reminds me of Radio Tirana back in the Hoxha days. Rabid propaganda.

          Here’s an article where a philosophy professor derides the white working class which supports Trump for not retraining themselves and being addicts.
          http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431383/donald-trump-conservatves-shouldnt-blame-themselves

          Classic sneer at lower classes. The comments rip her and NR to shreads.

          • Jwb10001

            So you got nothin’ not even an attempt to discuss what’s in the story, that’s telling. Not only did you shoot the messenger you changed the subject to something so off topic I’m wondering if you got whip lash with that sudden change of direction.

          • Whiplash only happens to creatures equipped with a spine.

          • Commander_Chico

            The source is as credible as Radio Tirana was. Given NR’s rabid attacks, it would not be credible.

          • Jwb10001

            Oh sure that why you were so easily able to dispute it…….oh wait

          • Commander_Chico

            I have no way of refuting whatever made up bullshit there is in that article, I don’t have online access to Trump’s business records.

          • Jwb10001

            So not only can’t you refute it you didn’t read it. No wonder you’ve been called an idiot.

          • A damn liar talks about credibility…

  • LiberalNightmare

    Its possible that 0bama realized that his presence would politicize the funeral and draw unwanted media attention during the families time of mourning …

    Just kidding, 0 is a jerk. Probably has to go to a drug dealers wedding.

  • Scalia

    Rick, the instant I saw your post, I wanted to jump in and condemn the president for not attending Scalia’s funeral. I paused, however, to search my heart. Do I condemn him because Justice Scalia is one of my heroes? Would I feel the same way if he would miss, say, Justice Ginsburg’s funeral?

    After thinking about it, I agree that the president should be present if he has not committed himself to be elsewhere. I believe the position of a Supreme Court justice warrants the presence of the president if he is able to attend. The president, apparently, doesn’t have anything else on his docket:

    President Barack Obama will not attend Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral Saturday, the White House confirmed.

    Instead, the president will pay his respects on Friday, when Scalia’s body lies in repose in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court building. Vice President Joe Biden will attend Scalia’s funeral at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the White House said Wednesday during a press briefing.

    When pressed for clarification on Obama missing the funeral, White House press secretary Josh Earnest repeated that “the president will pay his respects at the Supreme Court on Friday and he’ll be joined with the first lady when he does that.”

    This is most regrettable, to say the least. Perhaps the president is aware that several speakers will praise Scalia’s judicial philosophy and would rather not subject his ears to matters pointedly critical of his own philosophy. I hope that’s not the case, but if true, it only illustrates (again) how small-minded he is.

    Justice Scalia has served longer than any living Supreme Court justice (29 years). The president should attend.

    • Well put… I find this to be outrageous and think it’s being done purposely as a dig… small-minded indeed.

    • jim_m

      I agree. But I can’t see how attending the funeral of someone you almost certainly disliked would be of any benefit to anyone. Plus, with 0bama’s security entourage it would only disrupt the funeral. Frankly, it may be more respectful doing what he is doing.

      For once he isn’t leaping to thrust his face in front of the camera and making the moment about himself. I would expect the WH to release a statement on Scalia’s passing accompanied by a photo of 0bama and not of Justice Scalia.

  • Paul Hooson

    I hardly know his schedule, but I agree that the president should attend this important funeral if at all possible.

  • sophiepeaches

    Obama is a pathetic, petty, sad little man.

  • yetanotherjohn

    To be fair, I don’t plan to attend Obama’s funeral.

    • Paul Hooson

      In all fairness, given my age, Obama will outlive me, so the issue is a mute point for me…

      • Commander_Chico

        Moot point. Mute point a common error, like mixing up discrete and discreet.

        • fustian24

          I think he made his point irregardless.

          (grin)

        • Vagabond661

          I thought it was a moo point.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LiCa8hS7TLc

        • Paul Hooson

          My fault for writing in haste with too many distractions…

    • LiberalNightmare

      I’ll be there.

  • Hank_M

    Obama would be there if Scalia was a democrat, especially a black democrat.
    He’s a petty little man without any semblance of class.

  • JWH

    President Obama should go unless he has something else scheduled.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    I’m surprised he isn’t giving a “eulogy” noting Scalia’s “erroneous” decisions defending a fatally flawed Constitution.

    • Commander_Chico

      “Fatally flawed?” Didn’t some commenters here, notably Sturmbannführer Rodney, recently advocate throwing the Constition away and having a convention?

      Chico is fine with Constitution as it is.

      • Jwb10001
        • Commander_Chico

          Yeah, we know it can be changed.

          A convention would be a Pandora’s Box. Goodbye Bill of Rights.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            As I noted [I believe on the post you reference above], I agree that a Constitutional Convention would be a complete fiasco – less individual rights, more free shit.

          • Jwb10001

            My comment was to point out again that Chico is goofy and just says crap. I agree we’re not headed for a constitutional convention and that if we were it would result in a complete mess.

  • Heh… P. J. O’Rourke joins the fray:

    Dig this: A dude who’s more of a capitalist pig than Nelson Rockefeller, exploiting the proletariat with a TV show dumber than Lawrence Welk’s, who’s got all the peace and love vibes of Richard Nixon and is a bigger racist pig than George Wallace.

  • Vagabond661

    Apparently he only attends funeral of people with a “D”.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/heres-six-funerals-the-obamas-did-attend/

  • JWH

    I did swing by SCOTUS yesterday after work. I would have liked to pay my respects to the justice and his legacy, but the line was four blocks long and growing. Did not have time to stay in the line.

    But think about it … that many people held Justice Scalia in that high regard. Also (amusingly), several people had left memorial tokens: Flowers, fortune cookies, and applesauce.

  • JWH

    Also, love this toon. Sums up Scalia, and what people will miss about him.

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/cartoons/2016/02/beeler0216.html

    • Scalia

      Lol! That’s hilarious!

      His passing has hit me very hard. My colleagues who have stridently disagreed with him also seem genuinely saddened by his death.

      • JWH

        I’ve noticed a certain bifurcation. Among many liberals I know, there’s a certain amount of sadness, but a lot of those liberals just don’t like Scalia because he went against them a lot and because he could be abrasive and arrogant. On the other hand, I know a goodly number of liberal lawyers … and among them, there’s quite a bit of sadness. Even if these liberal lawyers disagreed with the direction Scalia took on his decisions, they recognized his intelligence, and they often respected his reasoning. (I happen to share this attitude). And for some, it’s the same sadness you feel when your respected rival passes on.

        I really am going to miss skipping to the Scalia dissent in future SCOTUS decisions. Of the current crop, only Justice Kagan has the same flair for writing that he had.

        • jim_m

          It’s the respect that you give someone when they give you solid reasoning behind their opinion. As opposed to someone like Sotomayor, or Kagen, who give you an opinion straight from ideology and lack the intellectual rigor that Scalia had.