This is a ceremony. The President should attend and it should have nothing to do with politics.

If it IS about politics, however, the president should absolutely attend. He's the president. No one should spook him out of attending any event anywhere in the country that he has been elected to lead. A member of the highest court has died. Friend or rival, the leader of all the people should be there to mark his passing.

scotus funerals. Not mandatory or traditional at all.

The point I think needs illustrating is that the President is above politics and is performing his consitutional duties by appointing the best qualified successor. If the Republicans whine about him doing his job, let it be exposed as them blatantly NOT doing theirs by obstructing the workings of the nations. If they lose decorum at the man's funeral... well let that be exposed too.

Scalia was a horrible justice who made horrible decisions.

What person in their right mind could possibly draw that conclusion?

When a high ranking officer of the government dies, we say goodbye to the man. But my point, as stated above, is that it would give the Republicans more of a chance to expose themselves as incorrigible brats. I doubt they'd disappoint.

But, of course, Obama's taking the more low-key track, doing his job quietly, avoiding the drama, and only focusing on the final outcome.

Of the last 4 Supreme Court Justices to have funerals in DC, the President attended three.

See how easy it is to spin these things? If you're going to give remarks decrying partisanship, then it makes sense to go the extra mile and not pitch a softball to those who would say the President says one thing but does another.

although you cite no source.

To me that is the most important fact in any sort of dust up about whether the President should or should not attend this funeral.

so where was Scalia these past 20 years? Where were Alito and Thomas since Obama was President.
Obama is paying the respect needed by taking his wife to the Court for that ceremony

In 2007 only four Justices attended (conservatives minus Scalia).

Scalia did not attend Bush SOTU either. The SOTU for about 30 years now has been a political rally for the President. I am surprised any opposition attends.

Just because Scalia did it, doesn't mean it's right.

Obama should be the bigger person and show some respect to the Supreme Court by attending Scalia's funeral. His decision is very disappointing.

I applaud President Obama's restrained showing of respect. It's far more than Scalia is entitled to.

He's a no-drama guy. That's his trademark. Attending the viewing at the Rotunda is paying respects. The reason I think he should go is really about marking his territory, and because it will trigger more childish antics from the nutjobs who dominate the opposition.

This president?

I find that very difficult to believe. This President has shown a willingness to sit with the enemey time and time again throughout his presidency.

I think it is much more likely Scalias partisan wife did not wan't him there. Or that he had other engagements already scheduled.

The idea he would not attend out of spite just defies any sense of his behavior throughout his whole presidency.

Not surprising people here buy into it though.

Considering Justice Scalia wasn't able to clear his schedule to attend several of President Obama's State of the Union addresses (required by that quaint old document, the Constitution), I think the president can give Scalia's funeral a miss.

He hasn't been to the SOU in 20 years

Much less anyone being required to attend it.

"{The President} shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient . . ."

True, nobody's required to attend the State of the Union address, but the President is supposed to give one "from time to time." That requirement has come down in our day and age as the annual State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress.

The in-person state of the union address as we know it today came about with (IIRC) Wilson. Previous presidents just sent in reports.

is for the President to provide information to Congress on the state of the union. There is no Constitutional requirement for it to be in person, as an address.

So no, Article II Section 3 of the Constitution would most definitely not disagree.

it is that simple, Not about Scalia, but respect for the office.

I know this is too complex for partisans to understand, but this is just going to deepen the divisions in DC, and it is childish by the way.

Now if they were asked by the family to stay away, make that public.

That would be up to the family to do no?

which is their right, but would also tell the public this was a family request.

It's not about respect for Scalia as a person, it's about respect for his position as a justice of the SCOTUS.

this state of affairs is pretty damn not healthy

I agree with you.

If he goes, they'll complain he didn't give the eulogy.
If he gives a eulogy, they'll complain he wasn't respectful.
If he's respectful, they'll complain he didn't seem sad.
If he's sad, they'll complain he's a wuss & attack him for showing up.

Why waste the time? I'm sure he's got other things to do, with grownups.

to show respect for the position Scalia held, if not the persona. It would also show respect for the family, while exuding presidential dignity.

He was a racist asshole.

If the President doesn't attend, that's up to him to make that decision. It has nothing to do with "respect for the position".

Once again: Obama is out of fucks to give, at this stage of his presidency. I think he handled the Scalia issue just right.

only fitting that biden attend
and only fitting due to security that either biden or obama attend not both