Do you have even the slightest evidence as to who these evil right-wing masters of lifetime appointed Supreme Court justices are, or how they manage to wield their scurrilous influence?
Interpreting and applying the law frequently means filling in gaps. Scalia wanted to fill in those gaps by channeling the founding fathers while Ginsburg wants to fill in those gaps by taking a progressive approach to rights in the modern world.
If Scalia was so evil why were he and Ginsburg BFFs? He had a different judicial philosophy and indeed a different philosophy than Ginsburg but they sat down to meals all the time. He was not a political ideologue. He didn’t overturn every regulation that came his way, indeed he tended to go the other way and try to uphold regulations. He showed almost no preference on issues of taxation. If he allowed anything to creep into his judicial philosophy that might not have belonged there, it was a morality that was informed by his religious views. He defended those views pretty well on several occasions and many people didn’t like his conclusions but their arguments seem to begin and end with “he hates people like me”
Yes, because controversial opinions you disagree with are based on hate ignorance and vitriol while controversial opinions you agree with are based on pure logic and rationality.:dubious:
Yeah. I thought that was weird during law school. I can torture your accomplices to get evidence against you but I cannot torture YOU to get evidence against you.
So… you know we still have slavery right? Slavery is a permissible punishment for crime
13th Amendment.
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
In the issue of climate science** it is**. Because it is not just my opinion, delaying the changes needed is not only irrational, but as noted already going not only against the evidence but also against what the majority of the people of the states the **republican **Governors are coming with the complaint do want to. Most of the citizens of those states do want to have new rules to control our emissions.
The republican governors and the judges that humor them are indeed willfully ignoring what the people and the experts are telling them in their already recorded comments.
The point was that that is still a guess about what decision that was based on, and I also pointed out that it makes it look worse for the ones that requested and ordered that based on very recent rulings and comments.
We live in a democracy. If we really want to have these laws you are talking about, we don’t need to do it by bureaucratic fiat, we can elect congress-critters to pass those laws. But we don’t do that. Maybe we don’t have the sort of groundswell we need to pass the laws you want.
Scalia voted to forbid the police searching a home by using infrared technology. The right-wing political answer would be to weaken the Fourth Amendment and empower the police. And since the observation could be made by not entering the home, and merely observing what the house was freely radiating into the public, existing Fourth amendment law suggested that police use of thermal imaging was permissible.
But in a 5-4 ruling, the court held that it was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Scalia wrote the opinion, joined by the “liberal” side, with Rhenquist et al in dissent.
If you were aware of what I posted before you should know by now that I also make the point that most of the people are not aware of the kind of ignorants they are electing, and a lot has to do with the economical power of the powerful fossil fuel interest groups that it is also perverting our democracy.
Of notice one should look at the case of conservative Republican Bob Inglis to realize that you are also an ignorant of what is happening with the current crop of Republicans.
In some cases, their hands are tied. They don’t get to exercise their personal policy preferences the way congress or the President can.
If congress passes a horrible yet constitutional law, and the President signs it, then they have to let the law stand. Their check on the other branches is pretty much their ability to stop things that are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
Scalia also dissented in Campbell v. State Farm, where he correctly observed there is nothing in the Constitution that protects corporations from “excessive” punitive damage awards. No way Roberts or Alito would have done that.
The interpretations coming from people like Scalia demonstrate that that is not a problem for the judges. In the end it is the interpretation coming from people selected by people that had specific biases and ideologies, it is their right then to not give any reason why they could make a law stay. (Although the past evidence and comments show where they are coming from) And that is why I do expect that when more moderate or liberal judges are in the majority for them to have that right too.