I’ll just say that a lot of these posts come across as “I’m glad a guy I disagreed with died.”
For me, I’d add “I’m glad a guy I disagreed with, who by virtue of his position had power over me and whose legal opinions had a negative effect on me, died.”
Really? So there was a Supreme Court ruling where Scalia had the only vote and it personally affected you? What case was that?
I don’t think anyone has time to explain the structure of the federal court system to you.
The sanctimonious nature of these posts is somewhat undermined when one of the areas that people disagreed with him was the idea that it’s fine and dandy to execute a factually innocent person. And the ‘think of his family’ comments ring hollow when he tried hard to keep gay people from being able to see family members on their deathbed.
Saw this thread title today, and realized that even if I had felt any sadness about the individual’s death (which I really didn’t), I am absolutely the opposite of sad over the possible implications of his death.
I’ve long thought that the nomination of justices may be the most important factor in presidential elections. I’m thrilled that a Democrat has a chance to name a potential replacement for Scalia - whom I disagreed with strongly. This issue has made me interested in this interminable and embarrassing pre-election. I’m ecstatic at the prospect of Democrats deriving some political advantage from the Republicans’ handling of this.
Thanks Tony, for bringing so much joy into my life by the simple act of dying.
What’s this about Scalia having had the only vote? I neither said nor thought that. Being one of the five, or the nine, he still bears a significant amount of responsibility. I feel exactly the same about other prominent figures who have been viciously anti-gay.
Further, even when he was one of the ≤four dissenting judges, he had a powerful, influential voice, and he chose to use it to reflect some very ugly sentiments.
My animus isn’t against him as an individal human, it is against him as a Supreme Court Judge, which is the only capacity in which I know him. I don’t see why my dislike of a dead public figure is a problem.
Dislike of a public figure isn’t a problem. Tasteless, unseemly behavior is a problem. Consider your joy at Scalia’s death to be similar to masturbation. Yes, lots of people do it. No, it isn’t morally wrong. Even so, in polite society we don’t make a public display of indulging in it.
Are there no limits? To go all Godwin, would it have been tasteless or unseemly to express gladness when Hitler died? Or Bin Laden? Not equating them, but some people might IMO rationally think Scalia used his considerable authority in quite undesirable ways, harming many people as a result.
Being happy that an elderly public person died a peaceful natural death is a far cry from wishing someone were killed.
I take your point, but that’s the same polite society that told gays to take shame in their preferences and disguise their identities if they wanted to participate, and the same polite society that frowned upon minorities when they questioned their place; you’ll excuse me for disregarding it now and again when it tries to keep me from speaking uncomfortable truths.
What “uncomfortable truth” are you speaking now? That Scalia was guilty of those things? The time to address that would have been while he was alive and capable of change. Dancing about on his grave and singing hallelujah now hasn’t the slightest impact on him and reflects poorly on those who do it.
Being happy at his death is neither here nor there. You feel what you feel. I am addressing what I consider undignified public displays of that happiness. If that shoe doesn’t fit you, then don’t wear it.
I don’t accept the whole concept of ‘never speak ill of the dead’ - it’s generally used to try to shut down legitimate criticism of the dead person, like telling victims of an abuser that they should talk nicely about him and stop spreading those mean stories. Scalia didn’t either, he was an enthusiastic supporter of the death penalty and spoke joyfully about executing people (even people who were later shown to be factually innocent), and he made a high profile public display of indulging in it.
…and, clearly, you didn’t like it when he did it.
Good for you. To properly indoctrinate people into hate you have to start when they are young.
Well, as long as you hate the liberal Justices, and Bill Clinton, equally, then the hate is all good.
It isn’t hatred. And yes, I do have quite a bit of animus against Bill Clinton for signing DOMA, though in all of these cases (liberal and conservative) I’m also aware of the political and cultural contexts their actions are embedded in. I may be many things, but I try to avoid being a partisan hypocrite.
Look, I’m not celebrating the man’s death. Not only would that be unseemly, but it’s also disproportionate: Scalia was a prominent voice against minorities of all sorts, but neither the worst nor the only. I am glad about it, but part of that is the fact that he died in his sleep of old age. I would not be as glad at an untimely death. I am also willing to express my gladness in public. I wouldn’t shove it in the face of his grieving friends and family, but I don’t see any shame in saying that I’m glad his life is over.
So you are thrilled that he is no longer on the Supreme Court? That’s fine and you are entitled to your opinion. But the way many are posting on this board, they are delighted he’s dead - that’s a whole different take on the situation.
And that would be fine if you were actually correct.
Cite?
Yep.
"Before he died, Carrisalez also identified Herrera as the person who shot him from a single photograph shown to him in the hospital (not a photo array). The license plate of the vehicle from which the gunman emerged was traced back to Herrera’s live-in girlfriend, a car which Herrera was known to drive by local law enforcement authorities. Carrisalez’ partner testified that only one person was in the car when Carrisalez was shot.
Other evidence showed that Herrera’s Social Security card had been found alongside Rucker’s patrol car on the night he was killed. Splatters of blood on the car identified by Carrisalez’ partner as the vehicle involved in the shootings were found to be type A blood, the same as Rucker’s. Blood on Herrera’s pants and wallet was likewise discovered to be type A. Last, a handwritten letter was found on Herrera when he was arrested which “strongly implied” that he had killed Rucker.
Trial[edit]
In January 1982, Herrera was tried for the murder of Carrisalez. At the trial, Carrisalez’ partner identified Herrera as the person who shot Carrisalez. The jury found Herrera guilty of the capital murder of Carrisalez, for which he was sentenced to death. Later that year, Herrera pleaded guilty to the murder of Rucker…Herrera filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court, claiming that new evidence demonstrated he was actually innocent of the murder of Carrisalez. Herrera included two affidavits with his petition from Hector Villarreal, an attorney who had represented Herrera’s brother, Raul Herrera, Sr., and Juan Franco Palacious, Raul Herrera’s former cellmate. Both affidavits claimed that Raul Herrera, who was murdered in 1984, had told them that he had killed Rucker and Carrisalez. Leonel Herrera claimed that the new evidence showed that he was actually innocent, and that executing an innocent person would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment."
In others words- 'a dead man did it, ignore my guilty plea and all the evidence" .
The point is- Herrera was never found to be factually innocent. What his lawyers wanted is the ability to delay the execution * in Federal Courts* by claiming he was and there was new evidence. Rehnquist wrote the opinion, O’Connor & Scalia wrote concurring opinions. Herrara’s "new evidence’ was considered at the State level and rejected.