|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 16, 2016 13:07:28 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. Zeus and Amon-Ra had lots of fans once, too. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Feb 16, 2016 14:21:03 GMT -5
I would recommend that since this is a political thread, we might be better off concentrating on the political aspects than delving into the guy's religious views, however nonsensical you may believe them to be. I think one potentially rage-inducing hot-button issue is probably enough for one thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 16, 2016 16:45:41 GMT -5
I would recommend that since this is a political thread, we might be better off concentrating on the political aspects than delving into the guy's religious views, however nonsensical you may believe them to be. I think one potentially rage-inducing hot-button issue is probably enough for one thread. I don't think it's entirely irrelevant that a Supreme Court justice heralded for his cold logical processes ridiculed people who don't agree with him about the existence of the devil. And then justified his belief by saying that lots of people believe in the devil. So logical. So dispassionate. Such intellectual rigor. How could anyone argue with that? But if you think that pointing out things like that will upset anybody, I'll try to be more politically correct in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Feb 16, 2016 16:46:33 GMT -5
I would recommend that since this is a political thread, we might be better off concentrating on the political aspects than delving into the guy's religious views, however nonsensical you may believe them to be. I think one potentially rage-inducing hot-button issue is probably enough for one thread. Yes indeed. And to tie it back to the original intent of this thread, Hillary Clinton was involved with the death of Justice Scalia , knowing he would ultimately rule against her on any upcoming scandals she was involved with including email activity. Vince Foster was just a practice run  |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Feb 16, 2016 17:06:14 GMT -5
I would recommend that since this is a political thread, we might be better off concentrating on the political aspects than delving into the guy's religious views, however nonsensical you may believe them to be. I think one potentially rage-inducing hot-button issue is probably enough for one thread. I don't think it's entirely irrelevant that a Supreme Court justice heralded for his cold logical processes ridiculed people who don't agree with him about the existence of the devil. And then justified his belief by saying that lots of people believe in the devil. So logical. So dispassionate. Such intellectual rigor. How could anyone argue with that? But if you think that pointing out things like that will upset anybody, I'll try to be more politically correct in the future. You were well within the rules, so feel free. My only concern was that threads that have one polarizing component (politics) can get fiery enough without introducing another (religion). But that was just me.
As far as Scalia goes, I think any government official needs to stay well away from trying to impose his religious agenda on his day job. Separation of Church and State came about for a very good reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 16, 2016 17:39:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 16, 2016 21:54:36 GMT -5
I would recommend that since this is a political thread, we might be better off concentrating on the political aspects than delving into the guy's religious views, however nonsensical you may believe them to be. I think one potentially rage-inducing hot-button issue is probably enough for one thread. I don't think it's entirely irrelevant that a Supreme Court justice heralded for his cold logical processes ridiculed people who don't agree with him about the existence of the devil. And then justified his belief by saying that lots of people believe in the devil. So logical. So dispassionate. Such intellectual rigor. How could anyone argue with that? But if you think that pointing out things like that will upset anybody, I'll try to be more politically correct in the future. It's very easy to argue against(I can think of at least five counterpoints to his own) and from my interactions with him and my readings of him he wouldn't have shied away from it either. I can tell you what would be hard though... Arguing with out belittling and demonizing your opponents simply because they hold views that are contrary to your own. More than anything else I think that's the single greatest ill in politics and in society as a whole. This current level of polarization creates loggerheads out of issues that should be complete non-issues, and makes any progress excruciatingly slow, and it's not just a sin of the right wing as it's equally prevalent among the left as well. And this issue continues to plague us because instead of seeing that as a problem and rejecting it by raising our own levels of discourse we instead buy into it and support those who seem to know no other way than to do the same. Aside from that though it's not as if Scalia is really the big bad conservative boogie man: in 2005's United States v. Jones Scalia forbade warrant-less GPS tracking of the vehicles of suspected criminals as he believed it contradicted the 4th amendment. In Texas v. Johnson he signaled that flag burning was protected as free speech(despite vocally saying that he personally found it abhorrent). And those are just some big ones, if you look at the statistics of his career he was hardly ever the most conservative Justice on the bench, and despite his many failings when it comes to gay and civil-rights issues he ruled with the majority 75% of the time so unless you think the majority of the rulings of the last 30 years were garbage than I don't think painting him as a villain and a monster is a fair portrait of the man's opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Feb 16, 2016 23:42:39 GMT -5
I would recommend that since this is a political thread, we might be better off concentrating on the political aspects than delving into the guy's religious views, however nonsensical you may believe them to be. I think one potentially rage-inducing hot-button issue is probably enough for one thread. If only Republican politicians would keep their religious views out of their politics... |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 17, 2016 11:36:03 GMT -5
I don't think it's entirely irrelevant that a Supreme Court justice heralded for his cold logical processes ridiculed people who don't agree with him about the existence of the devil. And then justified his belief by saying that lots of people believe in the devil. So logical. So dispassionate. Such intellectual rigor. How could anyone argue with that? But if you think that pointing out things like that will upset anybody, I'll try to be more politically correct in the future. It's very easy to argue against(I can think of at least five counterpoints to his own) and from my interactions with him and my readings of him he wouldn't have shied away from it either. I can tell you what would be hard though... Arguing with out belittling and demonizing your opponents simply because they hold views that are contrary to your own. More than anything else I think that's the single greatest ill in politics and in society as a whole. This current level of polarization creates loggerheads out of issues that should be complete non-issues, and makes any progress excruciatingly slow, and it's not just a sin of the right wing as it's equally prevalent among the left as well. And this issue continues to plague us because instead of seeing that as a problem and rejecting it by raising our own levels of discourse we instead buy into it and support those who seem to know no other way than to do the same. Aside from that though it's not as if Scalia is really the big bad conservative boogie man: in 2005's United States v. Jones Scalia forbade warrant-less GPS tracking of the vehicles of suspected criminals as he believed it contradicted the 4th amendment. In Texas v. Johnson he signaled that flag burning was protected as free speech(despite vocally saying that he personally found it abhorrent). And those are just some big ones, if you look at the statistics of his career he was hardly ever the most conservative Justice on the bench, and despite his many failings when it comes to gay and civil-rights issues he ruled with the majority 75% of the time so unless you think the majority of the rulings of the last 30 years were garbage than I don't think painting him as a villain and a monster is a fair portrait of the man's opinions. He was a good guy, if you ignore the way he abused his power as a homophobe and a racist. He also liked opera, so he was a good guy. So I'll stop linking to things he thought and said, because that might make him look like a bad person, a racist and a homophobe. And it's apparently not politically correct to question the validity of the many statements about his intellectual rigor, especially by quoting him. So I'll stop doing that as it appears to be very controversial. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Feb 17, 2016 13:20:57 GMT -5
It's very easy to argue against(I can think of at least five counterpoints to his own) and from my interactions with him and my readings of him he wouldn't have shied away from it either. I can tell you what would be hard though... Arguing with out belittling and demonizing your opponents simply because they hold views that are contrary to your own. More than anything else I think that's the single greatest ill in politics and in society as a whole. This current level of polarization creates loggerheads out of issues that should be complete non-issues, and makes any progress excruciatingly slow, and it's not just a sin of the right wing as it's equally prevalent among the left as well. And this issue continues to plague us because instead of seeing that as a problem and rejecting it by raising our own levels of discourse we instead buy into it and support those who seem to know no other way than to do the same. Aside from that though it's not as if Scalia is really the big bad conservative boogie man: in 2005's United States v. Jones Scalia forbade warrant-less GPS tracking of the vehicles of suspected criminals as he believed it contradicted the 4th amendment. In Texas v. Johnson he signaled that flag burning was protected as free speech(despite vocally saying that he personally found it abhorrent). And those are just some big ones, if you look at the statistics of his career he was hardly ever the most conservative Justice on the bench, and despite his many failings when it comes to gay and civil-rights issues he ruled with the majority 75% of the time so unless you think the majority of the rulings of the last 30 years were garbage than I don't think painting him as a villain and a monster is a fair portrait of the man's opinions. He was a good guy, if you ignore the way he abused his power as a homophobe and a racist. He also liked opera, so he was a good guy. So I'll stop linking to things he thought and said, because that might make him look like a bad person, a racist and a homophobe. And it's apparently not politically correct to question the validity of the many statements about his intellectual rigor, especially by quoting him. So I'll stop doing that as it appears to be very controversial. People are complicated and often contradictory; it's very possible for a person to do well in certain spheres while at the same time be deeply flawed in others. All I'm saying is that the picture you are painting is woefully incomplete and doesn't come anywhere close to painting an accurate picture of his career. As I said his rulings are all in the public record and there have been many people who have gone over them and broken them down and as it is 75% of his rulings sided with the majority, so I ask again if he's such a monster and he abused his power to such an extent that it blackens out all his other rulings how do you feel the court did over the last 30 years? If you believe the Supreme Court was monstrous the majority of the time over the last 30 years than I suppose your estimation of Scalia's career makes sense but if your estimation of the Court's decisions during his tenure is not monstrous then I think you have to seriously look at the logical consistency of your view. And again I bring up the illness of our society that is the polarization of political thinking; because I believe differently than you yourself do your response to my argument isn't to respectfully engage me in conversation like an equal but rather to sarcastically threaten to take your ball away and leave the game. The first would elevate the discourse and allow us to learn about eachothers points of view and work towards a common understanding while the latter produces no real discussion and no positive results. Faced with those two options, to me any way,the proper way to conduct oneself is abundantly clear but based on the way that people seem to enjoy carrying themselves perhaps I'm the one with the disconnect. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 17, 2016 13:35:26 GMT -5
If you believe the Supreme Court was monstrous the majority of the time over the last 30 years ... Where have I ever said or implied such a thing? I have given some very specific examples, backed up with quotes, about why I didn't like Scalia. I admit I called him "scum" because of his refusal to even consider looking at death penalty cases. He said actual innocence didn't matter if the suspect had gotten a trial that Scalia considered fair. I've also questioned the idea that Scalia deserves the label of "logical jurist" and again I have provided quotes and linked to commentary. I am not seeing any logical progression from "I disagreed with Scalia on the death penalty (and think he's scum for his stance) and I don't think he was particularly logical or intellectual on a lot of issues" to "the Supreme court was monstrous the majority of the time Scalia was on the court." Please respond to what I actually say. I would very much appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 17, 2016 14:02:28 GMT -5
And again I bring up the illness of our society that is the polarization of political thinking; because I believe differently than you yourself do your response to my argument isn't to respectfully engage me in conversation like an equal but rather to sarcastically threaten to take your ball away and leave the game. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the issues. But only if you are. And you are ignoring the specific discussions of Scalia's stance on the death penalty and what I feel is the myth of his "intellectual rigor" or his "judicial integrity" in order to create a discussion about how awful it is to call him a monster (which I didn't do) and also to create a pretty transparent straw man that I am somehow calling the Supreme Court monstrous most of the time because Scalia voted with the majority 75% of the time. And I'm not threatening to take my ball and go home merely because we disagree. It's the essentially dishonest nature of your argumentation. If you want to discuss issues, then feel free to discuss issues. If you want to continue tone trolling and concluding that I think the Supreme Court is monstrous because I think Scalia's stance on the death penalty makes him scum or because I am questioning the myth of his "intellectual rigor," then you can feel free to do that too. I'm interested in the issues. But this argument about how I allegedly think the Supreme Court is monstrous is not interesting to me and I doubt that it's interesting to anybody else on the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Feb 17, 2016 14:10:48 GMT -5
Here's Ted Cruz, weighing in on whether or not the Constitution applies to Obama when it comes to Supreme Court nominees:
Like Scalia, Ted Cruz is someone whose brilliance you're supposed to respect even if you disagree with him. You're not supposed to use your own eyes and ears to make any judgments, it seems.
I keep hearing both sides are the same. What's the liberal equivalent to a statement like that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 17, 2016 14:19:01 GMT -5
Here's Ted Cruz, weighing in on whether or not the Constitution applies to Obama when it comes to Supreme Court nominees: Like Scalia, Ted Cruz is someone whose brilliance you're supposed to respect even if you disagree with him. You're not supposed to use your own eyes and ears to make any judgments, it seems. I keep hearing both sides are the same. What's the liberal equivalent to a statement like that? As unspeakably horrible as a Trump presidency could be, a Cruz presidency might well be worse. Though it provides me little solace just now, Trump's pragmatism might be the one trait that would prevent him from taking a runaway wagon over the cliff even if his supporters were cheering him on. Cruz, though, strikes me as an even greater egoist and narcissist than Trump. (I realize we are talking about monomania the way Marvel Comics used to refer to "Hulk-level strength" in both case.) But I'm not yet convinced that Cruz, while a pragmatist, isn't also a fanatic. He'd drive the wagon over the cliff even if he were the only one who wanted to. Even if a Democratic Senate were elected, either of these two could do do irreparable damage to the nation. I cling to the hope that Trump, like the movie Hulk, could be talked to. (Don't know who the heck would be the Natasha Romanov in this tortuous analogy...) |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Feb 17, 2016 14:21:56 GMT -5
Here's Ted Cruz, weighing in on whether or not the Constitution applies to Obama when it comes to Supreme Court nominees: Like Scalia, Ted Cruz is someone whose brilliance you're supposed to respect even if you disagree with him. You're not supposed to use your own eyes and ears to make any judgments, it seems. I keep hearing both sides are the same. What's the liberal equivalent to a statement like that? Where are the people, liberal or otherwise, who want any of these things? It seems like his main skill is in making up things that don't exist so he can say he's against them. And, speaking as a veteran, I don't appreciate him dragging veterans into his weird imaginary world. |
|
