Such as?
I just want to know which rulings (which, of course, required consent from at least 4 other supreme court justices) led to the harm of “a lot of people.”
Just so we can also note for posterity the four other justices whom we should heap the suffering of humanity upon as well.
You know what I think is callous and shows a lack of empathy? “This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.” When you’re talking about a guy who had absolutely no problem executing provably innocent people, I find all of the hand-wringing about ‘oh, what about his family’ a bit overwrought - what about the families of the people he helped execute or attempted to execute?
And speaking of families, what about the gay people he denied then tried to deny equal protection to, the ones who ended up not being able to see their husband or wife on his or her deathbed because they weren’t legally married? Are they allowed to be happy that the person who fought hard to deny them access to their partner is no longer going to be able to hurt them?
Google “Scalia inconsistent” or any number of other similar phrases and you’ll turn up any number of articles, including reviews of his co-authoed books and law review articles. You may not find those criticisms persuasive, but they aren’t simply the delusions of a few raving kooks.
I doubt it, but if so, they are annoying idiots. I assumed it was just a bad joke.
I don’t celebrate his death, and I was made uncomfortable by the loud celebration of a friend. But I am happy his seat on the supreme court is open. And I find it hard to get too worked up about the death of a 79 year old man in his sleep, seeing as I never met the guy. I’m sure guy’s family and friends are sad. That’s because they are human, and by all accounts, he was personally a very likeable person. But I am not his friend or family.
Again. This man was not ever, ever going to retire. He was going to die in that office. Him being in that office is a bad thing. If the only way for him to no longer be there is his death, then his death is a good thing. No amount of sanctimony changes that math.
Meh. Not praiseworthy, perhaps, just honest.
If Scalia’s wife, of child, or brother, or whatever were sitting by my at a bus stop, and said, “He was a great jurist and a powerful constitutional scholar,” I would say, “No, he was not: he was very bad at legal reasoning, and was swayed by partisan ideological concerns.”
I’ve studied, in the most depth, his part in the Louisiana Creationism case, and his reasoning there was weak, spurious, ad hoc, and outcome-oriented. He was determined to put religion into public institutions.
I wouldn’t say, “God, he was a shit” to the man’s widow. But if she said, “He was a saint,” I would say, “No, he was not. His capacity for reason was severely limited by his dogma.”
If his widow said to me, “I’ll miss him terribly; he was always so good to me,” I would say, “I’m very sorry for your loss.”
I’m not going to lie about evil and ignorance when someone is foolish enough to praise it before me. But if they only want the general forms of social etiquette, that’s something I’m very willing to grant.
These two sentences seem to be in conflict to me. By having sympathy and empathy for his loved ones who are left to cope, aren’t you demonstrating feelings (or a “rat’s ass”, iow) about Scalia himself dying?
I’d like to point you to the obituaries for Poughkeepsie, NY. I notice a complete lack of sympathy on your part for Norman Jodoin, Linda Hunt, and Ann Light. Would you be similarly unsympathetic to their families in their faces today? You would not.
That’s because you recognize that one behaves differently depending on one’s audience. If I were talking to survivors of Scalia, folks that loved him, I wouldn’t express satisfaction at this awful man’s demise. And if I were talking with Linda Hunt’s survivors, you bet I wouldn’t so callously use her death to score a cheap point on the internet.
But I’m not. My words are unlikely to cause any emotional anguish to anyone. So I’m not going to fuss about hypothetical situations in which they might cause a fuss, just as I don’t expect you to worry about the lack of sympathy you’ve shown to the Hunt family.
I was out yesterday afternoon when my boyfriend texted me that Scalia died. I texted back. I said “Excellent timing.”
Today over breakfast I briefly explained to my rabid leftist MSNBC fanboy of a 12 year old what power the SCOTUS has. My son thought Scalia should have held on for a “President Sanders” nominee. 
We also found this quote. )
Does anyone have context for that quote?
It was about his oldest child (of I believe nine), who I knew slightly in high school. At the time, and I think afterward, she was doing some pretty significant acting out …a common phrase back then to cover a multitude of things. I imagine he was not at all happy about it.
Well, of course it’s a joke, though I’d label it hilarious.
I don’t know if I would go that far but I must admit to almost snorting some coffee out my nose when I read it. 
“I have never wished anyone dead, but I have read some obituaries with a great deal of satisfaction.” - Clarence Darrow (attrib.)
I am not celebrating his death, but I am celebrating his abrupt departure from the Supreme Court, and can only wish it had happened sooner. I’m sorry that it took his death to rid the Court of him, and the nation of his influence.
But it’s hard not to elide the two events - his death and his departure from the Court - given that they were simultaneous, and that it took the first to make the second happen.
ETA: As a general rule, I don’t wish death on public figures I have low regard for. Unless they’re guilty of major crimes, all I wish for them is that they give their wealth to the poor, and retire to Zen monasteries for the remainder of their days.
I will say this: I’m going to miss his creatively archaic insults, his “pure applesauce” and “legalistic argle-bargle”
I am not a liberal, nor a conservative for that matter, but it’s something I’ve seen a fair amount of in recent times, a celebration, or reveling in the death of another human being. Maybe that person is a political rival, or even someone that one believes to be evil, but I think it’s a much more complicated issue than that. Instead, I see these sorts of responses as hypocritical and, in some cases, utterly inhuman. Personally, even the way that people responded to the death of Osama Bin Laden, as evil of a man as I and almost everyone I know believed him to be, I still found it revolting that people I love and generally respect celebrated his death.
By all means, let us reflect on the actions of an individual when he dies, understanding and analyzing his or her legacy and how it affects us now and future generations is something I think we should do. If people feel that his actions were a net negative, let’s talk about those things and look at actions to correct them, but what does it accomplish to piss on a man’s grave? If one is capable of disrespecting and devaluing the life of one man or a few, what keeps that from growing and getting worse? That is, if one devalues him for particular views, would you feel the same for others, likely millions, who hold the same views? Could you similarly feel joy and celebrate in the death of those millions of people?
And, more, even if it does result in some sort of gain when someone like that dies, what comes of it? The ideology that led to the decisions he made isn’t magically gone because he died, there’s still millions who share them. Instead, they’ll likely be galvanized if/when someone they disagree with gets appointed and makes decisions they disagree with. And when those that they find as despicable as you find him die and they celebrate, how will you feel?
For a somewhat tenuous analogy, I compare it to sports rivals. I want to see rivals of the teams I root for lose, especially when it helps my team win. I still don’t ever want to see another player get injured. When I see people cheering and celebrating injuries, it really irks me. Sure, if a rival team is ravaged by injury and they lose, that loss furthers my cause, but I’m not going to celebrate the injury. Worse, when two teams play and one is ravaged by injury and loses, it doesn’t cement that the winner is the better team, rather, it just makes the debate worse that, if not for injuries, the other team might have won. That is, rather than settling the issue, it makes it worse.
So, to those like the OP, or on the other side of the isle when a prominent liberal dies, for whatever respect from strangers on the internet is worth, you have mine for seeing past your political views and respecting his life and those grieving his loss.
I’m not happy he’s dead. I’m happy he’s out of office, though. Towering intellect, but also a jerk.
His made-from-whole-cloth claim that constitutional amendments have preferatory clauses in Heller, for one. It was inconvenient to the result he was working towards so he handwaved it away.
He was a great man, with the courage of his convictions. I am not sorry to see his spot on the Court vacated, since i disagreed with him a lot, but I also cannot celebrate his death.