February 19, 2016 --

"Candidates Race to Draw Battle Lines Over a Surprise Vacancy,"  said The New York Times in a front-page headline, February 16.  

This "Surprise Vacancy" -- caused by  the sudden death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia on  February 13  --occurred two days  after the paper's lead editorial, February 11, indicated  dismay that the Supreme Court had "temporarily blocked[ed] the Obama administration's effort to combat global warming by regulating emissions from power plants...."  

The editorial, "The Court Enters the Climate Wars," asserted that the Court's action "raised serious questions about America's ability to deliver on Mr. Obama's pledge in Paris in December to sharply reduce carbon emissions, and, inevitably, about its willingness to take a leadership role  on the issue."  

The editorial then accused the Court of wallowing in "partisan politics," noting "all the Republican-appointed justices lin[ed] up in a 5-4 vote to halt the regulation before a federal appeals court could rule on it...."    

(The New York Times, of course, could not be expected to  point to "partisan politics"  in explaining  the line-up of the four Democrat-appointed justices in dissent.)

The death of Justice Scalia prompts Lonely Pamphleteer Review to ask Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.,  if, at long last, he  will  "take a leadership role on the issue of"  maintaining  our constitutional republic.  

Or will the Roberts Court permit the United States   to be transformed  into   an imperial state, where the President rules by executive decrees,  appoints the judges to approve his enactments, and tolerates a Congress consisting of zealous leftists and passive Republicans.  

Will the Roberts Court accept the following  instruction of James Madison  in Federalist No. 47?   "The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."   Or not?

Will the four Democrat-appointed justices on the Roberts Court accept the following  observation by Justice Hugo Black in Youngstown Sheet& Tube Co. v. Sawyer -- The Steel Seizure Case?  "The Founders of this Nation entrusted the law making power to the Congress in both good times and bad times?"  Or will the four Democrat-appointed justices accept the rule proposed by President Obama with the strong backing of the Obama-media,  led by The New York Times,  that the President has authority  act when he gets tired of waiting for Congress.  

The New York Times, in its lead editorial, February 15, "The Supreme Court After Justice Scalia," called on the Senate to vote on a successor named by President Obama. LPR understands the editorial to call on the Senate to confirm a nominee who will give the Court's approval to the leftist program to place all governmental power in the hands of an imperial president   (provided that a Democrat is president).

The media expects a fierce political battle over the Scalia succession. 

LPR  expects that President Obama will name a successor to Justice Scalia who will join the other Democrat-appointed justices in  supporting the encroachment by President Obama of presidential power into the legislative sphere.  LPR further expects that the United States Senate will confirm the appointment.   Consequently, the "sleeping giant" -- a/k/a the "silent majority" --  will be stirred as never before and elect a conservative president and a conservative congress that will retire Sen. McConnell and Speaker Ryan from their leadership positions.   Indeed, as Senator B. Sanders has been predicting, the Nation WILL experience a political revolution in 2016 -- a revolution that will turn out the Washington establishment and, reviving the founding spirit of liberty as set forth by Madison in Federalist No. 57, do honor to the memory of James Madison and, yes, Antonin Scalia.