RIP Scalia

[John_Mace]

@lance_strongarm

No, not even me, at least when it comes to this issue.

I diubt it.

[lance_strongarm]

@John_Mace

I diubt it.

LOL, you have no idea.

[kaylasdad99]

@GIGObuster

The point was that the Republicans are not really dealing with the public nor their comments.

In any case the bulk of the complaints coming from the governors is not based on a comment period.

@Bricker

So what? Can’t the court, sua sponte, rest its decision on a fact that wasn’t part of the “bulk” of complaints?

Sure, but let’s look at Scalia’s statement that the Eighth Amendment doesn’t forbid investigative torture. By declining to note that the Fifth does, he practically invited the listener to conclude that investigative torture is A-OK. While he had no obligation to exhaustively consider every argument that had not been put forward, he gave the appearance of exploiting the sua sponte principle only when it was convenient to the outcome that he favored politically.

N.B. I do understand that the discussion of torture and the Eighth Amendment took place outside the context of a court decision. Nevertheless, I think my critique has merit.

[John_Mace]

@kaylasdad99

Sure, but let’s look at Scalia’s statement that the Eighth Amendment doesn’t forbid investigative torture. By declining to note that the Fifth does, he practically invited the listener to conclude that investigative torture is A-OK. While he had no obligation to exhaustively consider every argument that had not been put forward, he gave the appearance of exploiting the sua sponte principle only when it was convenient to the outcome that he favored politically.

I’ll say what I said in that original thread. Scalia does [did] not suffer fools gladly, and Stahl was being a 1st class fool in her interviewing technique. If he was inviting the listener to infer anything, it was that Stahl didn’t know what the hell she was talking about.

[lance_strongarm]

@John_Mace

I’ll say what I said in that original thread. Scalia does [did] not suffer fools gladly, and Stahl was being a 1st class fool in her interviewing technique. If he was inviting the listener to infer anything, it was that Stahl didn’t know what the hell she was talking about.

But she shouldn’t be expected to. She’s not a legal expert and doesn’t claim to be. He should take the responsibility to explain himself. He was in an interview to make the public (not Stahl) understand his views, not in a courtroom arguing a case against others who should understand.

[Bricker]

@lance_strongarm

But she shouldn’t be expected to. She’s not a legal expert and doesn’t claim to be. He should take the responsibility to explain himself. He was in an interview to make the public (not Stahl) understand his views, not in a courtroom arguing a case against others who should understand.

Isn’t the reporters job to research, interview experts, and then explain the complex story to the audience?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

There are plenty of people with whom I disagree politically, but I cannot imagine rejoicing at any death or offering up political jabs in the wake of a death.

In spite of the fact that this thread appears in the Pit, I hope that most of its contributors feel similarly.

My prayers are with Maureen and his family.

I remember thinking he was the most convincing jurist on the supreme court at the time. I don’t know if he got more political or if issues faced by SCOUTS became more political but at some point political slant started to creep into his opinions and his opinions started to become more results oriented rather than follow a conservative judicial philosophy to whereever it may lead.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Rhythmdvl

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.
I’m putting this in the Pit because I thought ill of him, and am not pleased with my opportunistic reaction. Plus, I believe political shots are not welcome in MPSIMS.
Does Obama have any chance of getting someone confirmed? Will this change the course of the 2016 election? Could this herald a return to a less politically motivated court? Is there anything nice I could possibly say about Scalia?

His best friend on the court was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

He did not think that a person’s political beliefs made them a good or bad person.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@CGav8r

Except for his tissue paper-thin skin,

See comment about 2006 Stephen Colbert WCD.

and argumentative nature, sure.

A lawyer being argumentative? say it isn’t so.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Damuri_Ajashi

He did not think that a person’s political beliefs made them a good or bad person.

True. But you would think otherwise if all you knew of him was his opinions. He was consistently the least collegial justice in his writing.

[Larry_Borgia]

He seemed to have a deep visceral dislike of gay people, that wnet beyond his opinions of the correct ruling in Romer v. Evans.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@CGav8r

Cite for death benefits?

Survivors

I don’t see why it is controversial that we pay survivor benefits to a survivor. Or do we just try to strip benefits from the widows of people we didn’t like?

The fact that he gets money from royalties from books that probably wouldn’t sell very well if he were a plumber from Hoboken doesn’t really seem unfair to me.

This Supreme Court justice made the most money on the side last year

The fact of the matter is that there are very few Supreme Court justices from modest backgrounds. RBG is a multi-millionaire largely from money her husband earned as one of the best tax lawyers in the country. Should she be denied her pension because she is so fucking rich already?

Scalia was middle of the pack in terms of wealth.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/06/14/12827/majority-supreme-court-members-millionaires

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Morgenstern

Too fucking bad the widows of veterans killed in the desert don’t get a blessing like that.

The pension is not a gift. It was part of the pay package. Are you under the impression that a supreme court justice is maximizing his lifetime earnings by earning ~$200,000/year working on the Supreme Court?

[Trinopus]

@Bricker

Not true. The Court specifically said, in Casey, that the unborn are not legal persons, but the state nonetheless has a legitimate interest in protecting a fetus “that may become a child.” . . .

Yes, that’s what they’ve learned to say in their rulings, but they’re essentially lying. The moral underpinning is “it is a child” – and you can learn this by listening to the speeches they give at Catholic churches and universities.

It’s like “cdesign proponentsists,” where they give away what they really believe, when they think people aren’t paying attention.

I agreed with you: the language isn’t in their rulings. It is in their reasoning.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Fiveyearlurker

Of course they are, but they aren’t supposed to be. The GOP has to try to politically block Obama’s appointment without appearing to be be politically blocking Obama’s appointment. Appointing an undeniably qualified relatively moderate candidate makes it much more difficult to maintain the appearance that it isn’t political.

Of course they are supposed to be, they are the third branch of government and they are selected by the other two. The fact that they are not subject to direct election and the fact that they are appointed for life makes them a bit more immune to political pressures but their appointment is absolutely political.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@BrainGlutton

He was a public figure, a powerful and high-ranking official. It is perhaps nobody’s business if he was there with his mistress, but it is everybody’s business if he was there with lobbyists or movers-and-shakers.

Its pretty silly to imply that Scalia was corrupt or influenced by others. if anything he did the influencing.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@D_Anconia

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

Apparently judges are supposed to live in a bubble and heaven forbid if a conservative judge associated with other conservatives. I can guarantee you that noone was giving Scalia pointers on how to write his next opinion.

[Subterraneanus]

@lance_strongarm

LOL, you have no idea.

I don’t know if you know more about this topic than you do about informal fallacies, but I’m pretty confident 'Luci knows more about this topic than you do about informal fallacies.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

Ok.

So if an examination of the Constitution reveals that, in fact, it prohibits cruel treatment of a properly convicted criminal but is silent on the matter of treatment of others, isn’t the right answer to amend the Constitution?

I mean if, literally, the Eighth Amendment said, “This prohibition against torture applies only to those convicted of a crime, and no one else,” then should courts say, “No matter: hand me that pen; there’s some room over here by the right margin?”

I say the correct answer is twofold: Congress can always forbid the undesirable conduct by statute and if the desire is that the prohibition be of constitutional dimension, we amend that document.

Look, we faced this issue with slavery: the Constitution permitted slavery. That’s unabashedly evil, right? Slavery! And to address this serious lack, we adopted the Thirteenth Amendment.

Women were not permitted the right to vote. I don’t think that’s slavery, exactly, but it’s certainly wrong – agreed? We fixed it with the Nineteenth Amendment. And we fixed the vote for 18-year-olds the same way.

Why is this preferable to letting wise judges do the job?

Because sovereign power rests with “We, The People.” Congress can be replaced every two years; the President every four. In that latter period, two-thirds of the Senate must also be re-elected. State legislatures face similar constraints. We exercise our collective will through elected officials. That’s the gravamen of representative democracy.

Federal judges enjoy lifetime appointments. They are immune from election pressures, by design. But this also places them outside the reach of electoral correction.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If our notion of representative democracy means anything, it is that unelected, lifetime appointed judges should not be the ones that write it.

I think this is a really good argument, but I’m not convinced that is okay to vote in a way that allows some of the worst things humans can do to reach other if there is any possible way of justifying a vote the other way.

So I think I agree with you in almost all, but not quite all circumstances.

[lance_strongarm]

@Subterraneanus

I don’t know if you know more about this topic than you do about informal fallacies, but I’m pretty confident 'Luci knows more about this topic than you do about informal fallacies.

I think that’s a formal fallacy you just used.

But I’m not sure - could you ask 'Luci for me?