R.I.P. Justice Scalea

Might not have liked his politics but he was a pretty good judge.

But holy hell in a hand basket is the shit going to hit the fan.

"Toon [sic] into the debate tonight. It's going to be fun"

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Might not have liked his politics but he was a pretty good judge.

What possible criteria could you be using to call him a "pretty good judge"?

Was it how he argued laws against homosexuality were just as acceptable as laws against murder? Or how he argued that equal protection under the Constitution was never intended to extend to forbidding gender discrimination, let alone discrimination against sexual orientation (sorry half the country that's female)? Or perhaps any of his other many many stunningly obtuse and bigoted opinions or dissents?

gcomeau wrote:

Annachie wrote:Might not have liked his politics but he was a pretty good judge.

What possible criteria could you be using to call him a "pretty good judge"?

Was it how he argued laws against homosexuality were just as acceptable as laws against murder? Or how he argued that equal protection under the Constitution was never intended to extend to forbidding gender discrimination, let alone discrimination against sexual orientation (sorry half the country that's female)? Or perhaps any of his other many many stunningly obtuse and bigoted opinions or dissents?

Well, he wrote good decisions. Not that I agreed with them.

He doesn't appear to have sold out to anybody, following his own version of the law consistently, not that I think his version was correct.

His mantra of "What did the founding fathers say" is actually a good one, but it's a pity that he tended to only look at the ones that he agreed with.

He was fairly, well just about totally, predictable. Which isn't a bad thing in the highest court.

He doesn't appear to have been corrupt at all, (which is different to selling out. Mostly in scale) which beats some of the shits we've had down here in Oz.

gcomeau wrote:

Annachie wrote:What possible criteria could you be using to call him a "pretty good judge"?

Was it how he argued laws against homosexuality were just as acceptable as laws against murder? Or how he argued that equal protection under the Constitution was never intended to extend to forbidding gender discrimination, let alone discrimination against sexual orientation (sorry half the country that's female)? Or perhaps any of his other many many stunningly obtuse and bigoted opinions or dissents?

Well, he wrote good decisions. Not that I agreed with them.

Then what exactly made them good? Proper grammar? Because that's a pretty damn low bar to set for a Supreme Court Justice.

He doesn't appear to have sold out to anybody, following his own version of the law consistently, not that I think his version was correct.

You have to be joking. Scalia was miles from consistent. He would contradict his own previous legal reasoning whenever he had to to make a ruling he preferred to make.

FFS he contradicted himself on the fundamental role the Supreme Court plays in Constitutional oversight of Congress in the span of TWO DAYS.

When the Court gutted the voting rights act that opinion was all on board with the Court having as it's proper role telling Congress whether it's laws were Constitutional or not.

Then he turned right around and declared that the majority opinion declaring the DOMA unconstitutional was wrong because, and I'll quote:

"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role."


Oh yes, can't tell the people's Representatives in Congress and the Executive what they are and are not allowed to legislate.... if you're telling them they can't pass laws discriminating against gays that is. Outrageous! Scalia likes those laws!

But if you're telling them they can't protect the voting right of minorities? Well that's totally different.

His mantra of "What did the founding fathers say" is actually a good one, but it's a pity that he tended to only look at the ones that he agreed with.

He was fairly, well just about totally, predictable. Which isn't a bad thing in the highest court.

It is when you're predictably horrible.

He doesn't appear to have been corrupt at all, (which is different to selling out. Mostly in scale) which beats some of the shits we've had down here in Oz.

FFS... you are talking about the man who wrote the opinion effectively legalizing political graft and corruption in America in US vs Sun Diamond. Overturning all other courts findings that yes you can prevent people from paying off politicians with expensive gifts because OF FUCKING COURSE that's influence buying and corruption Scalia wrote that that was totally fine unless you could absolutely prove that said politicians were passing legislation favorable to those paying them off because of the payoff.


And "they got a payoff then passed favorable legislation" did not constitute such proof. Could just be a coincidence!

Voila, legalized bribery. Because proving that causal connection is damn near impossible for any prosecutor. And that's not even taking into account Citizens United.

And of course *none* of that has anything to do with him being buddy buddy with people like the Kochs...

I must confess that I knew little about him before this, but I've read up since.
Seems a strange combination of a personally nice person who saw nothing wrong in using his position in ways that hurt many people and held his country back.
The stories of where he stopped laws benefiting minorities because he said it was discriminatory, yet then turned around and supported other laws that were negatively discriminatory seem too extreme to be true.

Daryl wrote:I must confess that I knew little about him before this, but I've read up since.
Seems a strange combination of a personally nice person who saw nothing wrong in using his position in ways that hurt many people and held his country back.
The stories of where he stopped laws benefiting minorities because he said it was discriminatory, yet then turned around and supported other laws that were negatively discriminatory seem too extreme to be true.

Yeah, that's Scalia.

As is the case so often, the Onion says it best.

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/justice-scalia-dead-following-30-year-battle-socia-52356

Then there is what Scalea wrote of the contrversial Ga Marriage decision:

I write sepa­rately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense per­sonal importance to me. The law can recognize as mar­riage whatever sexual attachments and living arrange­ments it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about mar­riage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Consti­tution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit­tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extrav­agant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im­portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

http://qpolitical.com/days-died-scalia-warning-americans/

The politicization of the court began with FDR in the 1930s when some of the New Deal programs were declared unconstitutional, he packed the court. The Predident can submit candidates to the Senate for confirmation, the Senate can confirm or not. This has become a highly politicized process as each side has third rail issues. Given a Liberal President and a conservative Senate I'm sure it will be politicized this time.

Poker

pokermind wrote:Then there is what Scalea wrote of the contrversial Ga Marriage decisio

Yes, that was pretty despicable too. Re-writing a simple upholding of equal protection as some kind of offense against God just because it was equal protection for gay people. On *that* Scalia was predictable, any ruling in favor of a group he didn't like he'd find some twisted reasoning to declare his opposition to it, even to the point of dragging his personal religious beliefs into an official court opinion.

The politicization of the court began with FDR in the 1930s when some of the New Deal programs were declared unconstitutional, he packed the court. The President can submit candidates to the Senate for confirmation,

Actually, the President is Constitutionally required to do so. Not "can", shall. That's the wording.

the Senate can confirm or not.

Of course they're supposed to have substantive reasons for denial of confirmation that go beyond "President more liberal than me is appointing person more liberal than me, so No!"

But we all know that's what's actually going to happen.

This has become a highly politicized process as each side has third rail issues. Given a Liberal President and a conservative Senate I'm sure it will be politicized this time.

Considering that without even hearing a nominee identity the GOP has effectively declared already it will refuse to carry out its Constitutional duties and simply deny confirmation of any candidate Obama nominates... yeah, that's probably a pretty safe bet. Because for all their talk about how much they love the Constitution the only thing those guys actually give a crap about is their own political fortunes and none of them want to be the person who voted in favor of ANY Obama nominee. So screw the Constitution as far as they're concerned.


(And no, both sides are not equally guilty on that score, so save it anyone thinking of pulling that tired bullshit out)

That's the main problem with liberals they don't understand what's good for the goose is good for the gander. "WE can break the rules but you can't." Quit acting like two year olds and grow up, its a political process and politics will intrude. This if you are not cheating you're not playing the game attitude disgusts me. If the Senate does not like a nominee vote them down, says I.

Poker

pokermind wrote:That's the main problem with liberals they don't understand what's good for the goose is good for the gander. "WE can break the rules but you can't."

WTF are you talking about? What rules do you see liberals breaking in this? Or is that just some kind of stock automatic response?

Quit acting like two year olds and grow up, its a political process and politics will intrude. This if you are not cheating you're not playing the game attitude disgusts me. If the Senate does not like a nominee vote them down, says I.

And you're just going to ignore that they've skipped the "if they don't like the nominee" part, seeing as there isn't one yet, and ALREADY declared that no matter who it is they're going to vote them down? That is NOT politics as usual, that is an unprecedented bald faced refusal to obey the Constitution. That is not saying "we're going to exercise our advice and consent" role. That is saying "we hereby declare this president doesn't get to nominate Supreme Court justices anymore."


Face reality. Both parties are NOT equally guilty when it comes to shit like this. Yes, both parties play politics, but the GOP is on it's own level entirely when it comes to this obstructionist bullshit.