|
|
Post by the4thpip on Feb 14, 2016 3:13:16 GMT -5
I think the GOP can only lose with this. It's the perfect issue to show that they care more about ideology than making the government work.
And if the reminder that several Judges are actually older than Scalia isn't enough to create a higher turnout (which traditionally favors the Democrats), Obama could nominate a "first ever" SCOTUS candidate (Chinese American, Indian American, Amish American) to really galvanize that voting block against the GOP.
And both Trump and Cruz could also mean the Senate flips back to blue, so the next president could nominate someone far more liberal - maybe even put a certain Barack Hussein Obama on the Supreme court (though I bet he'd prefer some downtime first and replace another of the judges later).
Also, even with the seat blocked the vote count has tipped to the left already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 14, 2016 12:44:27 GMT -5
swiping this comment I saw online: "I was always taught to only speak good of the dead. He's dead. Good." I get that Scalia was the "charming" type of nemesis, but lest we forget, and I haven't heard one commentator refer to these, he made absolutely degrading comments about both blacks and gays. To me, it was always shocking that he was so open about his "personal beliefs," unlike any Justice I can recall. He just could never let his legal opinions speak for themselves. Not to mention his buddy-buddy friendship with Cheney, his "Just deal with it" comment about Bush v. US, and his failure to recuse himself over his conflicts of interest in matters concerning the Bush administration. (Check out the employment records of two of his sons in the aftermath of the Avignon Presidency, as the estimable Charles Pierce referred to it.) |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Feb 14, 2016 13:38:14 GMT -5
swiping this comment I saw online: "I was always taught to only speak good of the dead. He's dead. Good." I get that Scalia was the "charming" type of nemesis, but lest we forget, and I haven't heard one commentator refer to these, he made absolutely degrading comments about both blacks and gays. To me, it was always shocking that he was so open about his "personal beliefs," unlike any Justice I can recall. He just could never let his legal opinions speak for themselves. Not to mention his buddy-buddy friendship with Cheney, his "Just deal with it" comment about Bush v. US, and his failure to recuse himself over his conflicts of interest in matters concerning the Bush administration. (Check out the employment records of two of his sons in the aftermath of the Avignon Presidency, as the estimable Charles Pierce referred to it.) I think Scalia gets both too little and too much credit. He made decisions that showed logically consistency rather than twisting himself into a partisan pretzel. For instance, he voted that flag-burning was Constitutionally protected in Texas v. Johnson (with Stevens actually voting the other way) and voted to limit police search and seizure powers in several cases. But I think he let his personal biases affect him more over time. And even when he had a consistent intellectually framework, I think a lot it was stupid. It's amazing to me that many conservatives essentially take the view that the Founding Fathers was short-sighted idiots. CNN replayed a 2012 interview of Scalia by Piers Morgan last night. Scalia took the view that Originalism allows "cruel and unusual punishment" to evolve, but only to a point. Punishments that didn't exist at the time of the Bill of Rights (would that be 1789 or 1791 ratification) could be judged by modern standards. However, he thought anything permitted at the time, would have to be permitted under the 8th Amendment. The Founders were Enlightenment thinkers. I think it's obvious that they would want Courts to consider evolving moral, penal, psychological, and medical views understanding to interpret such general language. If we have new knowledge about impact of the stock, corporal punishment, hanging, etc., it's ridiculous to think the Founders believed that we would need a Constitutional Amendment individually enumerating each punishment considered cruel over time. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 14, 2016 14:06:57 GMT -5
swiping this comment I saw online: "I was always taught to only speak good of the dead. He's dead. Good." I get that Scalia was the "charming" type of nemesis, but lest we forget, and I haven't heard one commentator refer to these, he made absolutely degrading comments about both blacks and gays. To me, it was always shocking that he was so open about his "personal beliefs," unlike any Justice I can recall. He just could never let his legal opinions speak for themselves. Not to mention his buddy-buddy friendship with Cheney, his "Just deal with it" comment about Bush v. US, and his failure to recuse himself over his conflicts of interest in matters concerning the Bush administration. (Check out the employment records of two of his sons in the aftermath of the Avignon Presidency, as the estimable Charles Pierce referred to it.) He had some pretty abhorrent views and we seldom saw eye to eye on issues but by the same token I met him twice; even got to question him twice and neither time did he make me feel like an idiot for disagreeing with him. It was always," This is my view, this is why I feel it's right and this is why I feel you're wrong." rather than, "You're wrong, now sit down and shut up!" which can't be said for many other conservative thinkers. Now, I didn't agree with his views, or buy his logic but there was always some kind of rational thought behind his views which earns him a degree of respect from me. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 14, 2016 14:22:06 GMT -5
I get that Scalia was the "charming" type of nemesis, but lest we forget, and I haven't heard one commentator refer to these, he made absolutely degrading comments about both blacks and gays. To me, it was always shocking that he was so open about his "personal beliefs," unlike any Justice I can recall. He just could never let his legal opinions speak for themselves. Not to mention his buddy-buddy friendship with Cheney, his "Just deal with it" comment about Bush v. US, and his failure to recuse himself over his conflicts of interest in matters concerning the Bush administration. (Check out the employment records of two of his sons in the aftermath of the Avignon Presidency, as the estimable Charles Pierce referred to it.) I think Scalia gets both too little and too much credit. He made decisions that showed logically consistency rather than twisting himself into a partisan pretzel. For instance, he voted that flag-burning was Constitutionally protected in Texas v. Johnson (with Stevens actually voting the other way) and voted to limit police search and seizure powers in several cases. But I think he let his personal biases affect him more over time. And even when he had a consistent intellectually framework, I think a lot it was stupid. It's amazing to me that many conservatives essentially take the view that the Founding Fathers was short-sighted idiots. CNN replayed a 2012 interview of Scalia by Piers Morgan last night. Scalia took the view that Originalism allows "cruel and unusual punishment" to evolve, but only to a point. Punishments that didn't exist at the time of the Bill of Rights (would that be 1789 or 1791 ratification) could be judged by modern standards. However, he thought anything permitted at the time, would have to be permitted under the 8th Amendment. The Founders were Enlightenment thinkers. I think it's obvious that they would want Courts to consider evolving moral, penal, psychological, and medical views understanding to interpret such general language. If we have new knowledge about impact of the stock, corporal punishment, hanging, etc., it's ridiculous to think the Founders believed that we would need a Constitutional Amendment individually enumerating each punishment considered cruel over time. Same thing with his decision regarding the rights of an American citizen not to be denied his rights, even though he was an enemy combatant. So true re the Founding Fathers, too. This notion of the originalists that the Constitution is not meant to be a flexible document... then why the process to amend it? It seems to suggest thst the Founders would have thought that human thought and progress had reached their endpoints, which as you say, is a direct contradiction to the tenor of their times and to the Enlightenment principles that contributed so much to the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 14, 2016 14:23:47 GMT -5
I get that Scalia was the "charming" type of nemesis, but lest we forget, and I haven't heard one commentator refer to these, he made absolutely degrading comments about both blacks and gays. To me, it was always shocking that he was so open about his "personal beliefs," unlike any Justice I can recall. He just could never let his legal opinions speak for themselves. Not to mention his buddy-buddy friendship with Cheney, his "Just deal with it" comment about Bush v. US, and his failure to recuse himself over his conflicts of interest in matters concerning the Bush administration. (Check out the employment records of two of his sons in the aftermath of the Avignon Presidency, as the estimable Charles Pierce referred to it.) He had some pretty abhorrent views and we seldom saw eye to eye on issues but by the same token I met him twice; even got to question him twice and neither time did he make me feel like an idiot for disagreeing with him. It was always," This is my view, this is why I feel it's right and this is why I feel you're wrong." rather than, "You're wrong, now sit down and shut up!" which can't be said for many other conservative thinkers. Now, I didn't agree with his views, or buy his logic but there was always some kind of rational thought behind his views which earns him a degree of respect from me. This squares with what I have read and heard. Why/how did you have occasion to speak with him? |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 14, 2016 14:27:24 GMT -5
I can't get past Scalia's statements about death penalty cases, where he basically said that innocence didn't really matter if the person condemned to death had gone through a legal trial process.
Scum. Absolute scum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 14, 2016 14:30:46 GMT -5
I can't get past Scalia's statements about death penalty cases, where he basically said that innocence didn't really matter if the person condemned to death had gone through a legal trial process. Scum. Absolute scum. Chilling. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 14, 2016 14:45:19 GMT -5
He had some pretty abhorrent views and we seldom saw eye to eye on issues but by the same token I met him twice; even got to question him twice and neither time did he make me feel like an idiot for disagreeing with him. It was always," This is my view, this is why I feel it's right and this is why I feel you're wrong." rather than, "You're wrong, now sit down and shut up!" which can't be said for many other conservative thinkers. Now, I didn't agree with his views, or buy his logic but there was always some kind of rational thought behind his views which earns him a degree of respect from me. This squares with what I have read and heard. Why/how did you have occasion to speak with him? Once at a lecture at Harvard(I got in with my friend who went there) and the second time at my own school as my Ethics Professor had been friends with him since attending Xavier High School together. The second meeting was much more intimate as there were only twenty other students, but both were interesting lectures. I'm the last to say the man was a saint, but I do think he was a rational person which counts for a lot. As for the position on ruling on death penalty cases, yes it's cold and it makes me shudder as a person but at the same time when such cases get to the Supreme Court he's absolutely right; the question isn't is the defendant innocent or guilty but rather did the state conduct his trial justly. That's simply all the Supreme Court looks at when appeals reach them, not innocence or guilt, that's for the lower courts to decide, but rather how justice was carried out; was the defendant provided a lawyer, were his rights respected while being arrested and held before trial, were the instructions to the jury clear ect. It's cold yes, but that's the job. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 14, 2016 14:55:28 GMT -5
This squares with what I have read and heard. Why/how did you have occasion to speak with him? Once at a lecture at Harvard(I got in with my friend who went there) and the second time at my own school as my Ethics Professor had been friends with him since attending Xavier High School together. The second meeting was much more intimate as there were only twenty other students, but both were interesting lectures. I'm the last to say the man was a saint, but I do think he was a rational person which counts for a lot. As for the position on ruling on death penalty cases, yes it's cold and it makes me shudder as a person but at the same time when such cases get to the Supreme Court he's absolutely right; the question isn't is the defendant innocent or guilty but rather did the state conduct his trial justly. That's simply all the Supreme Court looks at when appeals reach them, not innocence or guilt, that's for the lower courts to decide, but rather how justice was carried out; was the defendant provided a lawyer, were his rights respected while being arrested and held before trial, were the instructions to the jury clear ect. It's cold yes, but that's the job. I think if you looked at some of the specifics of some of the cases you might find that Scalia ignored a lot of questionable conduct from prosecutors (he also didn't think new evidence made a bit of difference) and always sided with keeping the death sentence in place. Not just cold. Not just doing the job. A frightening authoritarian extremist. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 14, 2016 15:28:26 GMT -5
Once at a lecture at Harvard(I got in with my friend who went there) and the second time at my own school as my Ethics Professor had been friends with him since attending Xavier High School together. The second meeting was much more intimate as there were only twenty other students, but both were interesting lectures. I'm the last to say the man was a saint, but I do think he was a rational person which counts for a lot. As for the position on ruling on death penalty cases, yes it's cold and it makes me shudder as a person but at the same time when such cases get to the Supreme Court he's absolutely right; the question isn't is the defendant innocent or guilty but rather did the state conduct his trial justly. That's simply all the Supreme Court looks at when appeals reach them, not innocence or guilt, that's for the lower courts to decide, but rather how justice was carried out; was the defendant provided a lawyer, were his rights respected while being arrested and held before trial, were the instructions to the jury clear ect. It's cold yes, but that's the job. I think if you looked at some of the specifics of some of the cases you might find that Scalia ignored a lot of questionable conduct from prosecutors (he also didn't think new evidence made a bit of difference) and always sided with keeping the death sentence in place. Not just cold. Not just doing the job. A frightening authoritarian extremist. With out reading his opinions on those specific cases I can't really comment on them or say whether those mistakes( whether they exist or not) are a fair representation of his decisions as a whole, but purely as a judicial philosophy what he stated about how to rule on those types of cases is sound. It's cold and dispassionate and jarring to our own senses of right and wrong which are often emotionally based but that's the way it has to be at that level. Again, he may or may not have always effectively carried out his duties perfectly objectively in every case, I know I haven't read anything close to them all to pass judgment on that, but as a philosophy I think he's a 100% correct there in this situation...which makes this a very rare case where I'm in agreeance with him. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 16, 2016 11:15:02 GMT -5
Antonin Scalia. So thoughtful and serious. Always logical and sensible and unemotional. You have to admit that, even if you disagreed with him.
This excerpt is from his dissenting opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard:
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 16, 2016 11:21:01 GMT -5
I got that quote from "Pharyngula." The whole entry is here. The writer (PZ Meyers) says this: And I whole-heartedly agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 16, 2016 13:01:55 GMT -5
Here's another example of logical, sensible, thoughtful Antonin Scalia and his objective, logic-based approach:
That was not from a Supreme Court decision. That was from an interview.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 16, 2016 13:07:01 GMT -5
|
|
