RIP Scalia

America just became a little nicer place.

There’s literally nothing to wonder about. He was on his own personal time, not Court business.

I have no particular evidence that he was doing anything unethical. I’m not demanding an answer, but I think it’s a valid question to ask. And if any of the other justices, or any government official, was staying at a $400-a-night resort if would be valid to ask them as well.

You truly are a drooling moron.

Heh, after spending all of 2014 on Benghazi and all of 2015 on email servers, the right wingnuts are upset if anyone questions Scalia.

That ranch is in the middle of nowhere. There’s nothing there but the Mexican border. I think it’s obvious that he was smuggling dope.

ETA: and probably underage prostitutes.

You are truly a daft idiot. How can we know there’s nothing to wonder about if we don’t wonder about it?

He was mad that Cheney got to hunt people, and so he wanted to hunt people too.

What?

I thought that was manufactured outrage.

I thought it so hard, I even started a thread that said as much:

Well?

Just asking questions. I see.

Out of curiosity, what’s the dollar cutoff before a government official no longer has to worry about your just asking questions? Is Motel 6 okay?

Well what? Do you self-identify as a right wingnut?

Well, I rather doubt Scalia is worrying about much of anything, at this point.

The latest conspiracy theory I read was that Ted Cruz had Scalia killed because, as a strict constructionist, he would have stood in the way of Ted being President because of his birth in Canada.

Another one I read was that he was killed by Leonard Nimoy. No, really. Because Nimoy is not really dead, he’s in hiding because he’s the head of the Illuminati.

I just have to shake my head.

There is a ton you can say about Scalia, and all of it positive. He was a strict constitutionalist, which is what we need on SCOTUS.

We can only hope and pray that the Senate has the balls to block anyone that Obama nominates, because he’ll try to put some wild-eyed screaming liberal on SCOTUS and that would be disastrous.

Finally, the Voice of Reason.

You mean like Sri Shrinivashan, who was approved to the lower court by unanimous vote of the Senate?

Or Robert Reich?

:rolleyes:

Are you just posting to try and make D’Anconia’s posts look better?

It isn’t working.

Gigo, climate change is not going to kill millions.The world is not going to end. You need to put down the kool-aide Paul Ehrlich and the rest of the malthusian fuckheads have been selling you and give the climate change horseshit a rest.

Christ man, grow the fuck up.

Slee

Thanks for showing your willful ignorance and your lies to all, many times I made the point that indeed the world is not going to end, but we are headed to a bottleneck thanks to guys like Scalia and you.

And I 'm also on record of not respecting Paul Ehrlich and the malthulsians.

Learn to be a good Christian and not be a false witness.

The demonstration of the xenophobia shown by many nations recently does show me that when more bad effects do show up the reaction of many nations will cause many refugees to die instead of the world adapting and preparing properly to the changes.

Well, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the following:

The [Judicial Conference Regulations on Gifts](file:///C:/Users/eric/Downloads/vol02c-ch06.pdf) (warning: PDF) don’t specify a maximum monetary value, but are fairly strict on what a judge may accept and their obligation to disclose.

Exactly. The proper role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law as written, not to legislate from the bench and/or to invent wholly new rights that never existed before or things intended to create societal upheaval such as forced busing. It should be the rightful place of the legislature to draft the nation’s laws, not unelected Federal judges or even the Supreme Court. It’s worthy of note that most of the success the left has had in getting its way over the fifty years or so has been through judicial fiat rather than state and federal legislatures.

This also goes to whether Antonin Scalia was a good or ‘evil’ man. Again, the role of the judiciary is to apply the law as written, which is exactly what Scalia strove to do. The role of the Supreme Court is not to issue rulings based on what is most humane or because this or that individual or group may benefit from them, and a jurist who applies the law as written can not legitimately be claimed to be heartless or evil or desirous of seeing people suffer simply because he failed to twist the law into something it was never intended to be.