US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died (theguardian.com) 1105
clovis writes: US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died in his sleep while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas. Justice Scalia was a Constitutional originalist and textualist. He did not believe the Constitution was a living document to be interpreted with the evolving standards of modern times.
I, for one, am very interested to see what happens next.
I, for one, am very interested to see what happens next.
Hoax (Score:5, Funny)
Netcraft does not confirm it.
Re: Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
Well McConnell has said Obama can pound sand on getting that replacement
http://thehill.com/homenews/se... [thehill.com]
I'll lay odds that the usual suspects demonstrate they neither know or care about the constitution by throwing tantrums and shouting "They can't do that"
The answer is of course "YES WE CAN"
From Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution:
He [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Re: Hoax (Score:4, Informative)
Except for recess appointments... something this President has abused to the point of having a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling against some of his more egregious interpretations of the constitution with regards to the subject... though that ruling did not tie his hands enough I fear.
Re: Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
The position has to be filled eventually. Hopefully it's not 9 years in the future. This current congress is more intransigent than any congress we've had and they appear poised to get worse as they continue kicking out moderates (also known as people willing to govern rather than be controlled by ideology).
Re: Hoax (Score:4, Informative)
Oh? I don't believe that the Judiciary Act of 1869 cites a specific penalty with not having 9 butts in the ordained 9 seats of the supreme court, so it is quite possible that current and future administrations could opt to reduce the court to a smaller size through attrition and simply refuse to nominate replacements.
Re: Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... are you seeing polls and demographics the rest of the country doesn't have access to? Curious how you came up with the notion that "Republicans... know they have a pretty good chance of getting a Republican President..." Is Faux News showing "unskewed *wink wink* polls" again?
I ask because if the SAME proportion of demographics show up to vote as in 2012, the election goes to the Dems. The population change among demographics has shifted further in favor of Dems in 4 years as well.
Here, you can play with the sliders yourself and see what t'd take for Reps to win. It's not going to be easy for them:
http://projects.fivethirtyeigh... [fivethirtyeight.com]
Now, I get that there's this myth of the swing voter out there, but polls and statistics show there are very few of them as the nation is largely polarized. It's just a matter of voter turnout for each demographic. There is a slight possibility that the younger demographic and the African American demographic may not have as large a turnout as with Obama's second term, but it's unlikely.
Re: Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the United States has two socialist parties that need to go.
But only socialism-for-the-rich: public bears the losses, profits are private. Wars for oil. Lavish government spending for defense contractors.
Corporate welfare is estimated at in the vicinity of $125 billion a year. This rough figure is supported both by the Cato Institute (formerly the Koch Institute) and Bernie Sanders, so this seems to be a matter of general agreement.
Re: Hoax (Score:4, Insightful)
Those would be the evil rich people who pay almost all of the country's income taxes? Yeah, Socialism - where success is indeed punished, and the stuff that's taken is given to other people.
There's two extreme positions here which pretty much sums up a lot of opinion coming out of the US right now. Either "fuck the rich" which would result in a meltdown of your economy, or "fuck the poor" which also ends up in meltdown since you need poor people to do the work and pay taxes.
Somewhere in the middle is what you are after. A rich sector to create new industry and innovation, a healthy middle class to do the work and pay the taxes, and a small group of lower class who have fallen through the system and need a little help.
This prefect world needs subsidies for big companies, and it also needs welfare for those less fortunate. Is it really that hard to accept that welfare, when applied appropriately, can provide a net benefit for society as a whole?
Re: Hoax (Score:5, Informative)
Whoa whoa whoa.
Firstly, if you have 80% of the money, it's reasonable to expect you to pay 80% of the taxes.
If you have 40% of the income, it's reasonable to expect you to pay 40% of the income tax (and when you consider even minimal standard deductions to pay over 40%).
BUT stop for a cotten picken minute saying the poor pay no taxes.
The average poor person pays the going rate for sales tax, pays 7.5% for social security (15% if self employed), and with gas tax, cigarette tax, car license tax the typical state portion of a poor person's income is roughly 11%.
The average wealthy person pays roughly .3% of their income in social security and state taxes. It's a little more fair in some states like South Carolina. And that's only for wealthy people who have a salary/wages. Those who live off investment income pay as little as 13% while the poor person next door is losing close to 30% of their income to state,city, and local taxes.
PLUS- when you break the poor down- you get two groups.
1) Anyone without children- pays taxes. Even making only $12,000 a year they pay $600 in federal income taxes.
2) It's the poor people with children that skew the system. They pay no tax and even receive tax credits of up to a couple grand. And who's going to remove the standard exemption for children?
Heck- just recently (2014) 7,000 people who made a million dollars paid NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. That's equivalent to 350,000 poor people.
So stop harping on how the poor pay no federal income tax unless you are going to mention that the wealthy basically pay no state and local taxes. (under 1% of their income).
Wealthy is top 1.67% in the context of this article. Poor is the bottom 20% in the context of this article.
Everyone gets a standard deduction of roughly $6,200 and 1 exemption of $3,950. If a person makes under $10,150 then that means they pay no federal income tax. The standard deduction only reduces the tax burden of the poor by 10% (lowest marginal tax rate) $600). The SAME standard deduction lowers federal taxes of everyone in the top tax bracket by roughly $2400 (39.6%).
Re: Hoax (Score:4, Insightful)
It feels more like for a number of Congressmen it is distasteful for any President to appoint a lifetime nominee to such an important position if they don't agree with his/her politics. Sadly that's been the state for some years. The fact is President Obama is the President and will remain so for a year so it's not like he's making an selection in the last few days of his Presidency.
It really doesn't matter who is the President. Congress should respect his/her choice and approve the nomination unless they can find strong grounds to reject a candidate.
Re: Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several months left and anything can happen. Hillary in jail, Trump going in as independent and the Democrats have to either back Sanders or throw in someone new.
Looking at the Republican field there's a whole lot of crazy going on there.
Re: Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary is not going to jail - that's not even a remote possibility. She may not win the nomination - and yes, batshit like this may be part of why. But Hillary's not under indictment - or even suspicion - of a crime. The FBI is looking into whether any secrets were compromised - not whether stuff that later became classified was sent to HRC via email. The private email server wasn't even against regulations when she was in office. There was a recommendation to only use the government email - but it wasn't codified into a regulation until Kerry got in. And yes, for the zillionth time Powell and Rice both used personal email addresses - and both received emails that were later classified. And neither leaked any classified info to anyone who wasn't supposed to have it. Neither did Hillary. General Patraeus - yep, gave stuff to his journalist girlfriend. That's a crime - not a double standard.
Re: Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
Hilary will win.
Trump doesn't really want it (he's only there for his ego), the rest of the Republican candidates are loons and the establishment won't allow Sanders (even though he'd be the best thing for America in more than half a century).
On the miracle Sanders does somehow make it through to nomination, he'll be lucky to survive to election day.
(Disclaimer: I am not an American. Purely watching from the outside in.)
Re: Hoax (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately American elections affect far more than just the American people due to it still being the de facto leader of the West. So, foreign people are going to get involved and try to push their issues. Deal with it.
Re: Hoax (Score:5, Interesting)
The most prosperous period of time in human history was the few decades after WW2 in America before the neoliberals took over.
It was a time of tight regulations, high progressive taxes, extensive publicly funded services and huge investment in public infrastructure.
It's fairly clear that's where Bernie wants to go.
Re: Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
Republican freedom: Personal liberty for all and no government running your life! Except for abortion, federal funding for abstinence campaigns, strict regulation of broadcast profanity and indecency, criminalisation of pornography and prostitution, a strict war on recreational drugs, frequent government proclamations to make it clear that real americans worship Jesus and heretics are lesser citizens, and taxation to fund continued military buildup and corporate subsidies.
Democratic freedom: We'll still tax the hell out of you to pay for ill-managed social programs and micro-manage your life to meet our ideology, but at least we'll be honest about it.
What should happen but won't (Score:4, Interesting)
Obama should word with rankng Senate members of both parties and nominate a politically-centrist judge whose judicial qualifications are impeccable.
The Democratic Party base will hate him for blowing an opportunity to name a liberal, and the Republican Party base will hate their party leaders for allowing Obama to fill the slot at all.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In all honesty they need to start by filling it with extreme left wings loonies to counter balance the extreme right wing loonies in the supreme court!
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:4, Interesting)
In all honesty they need to start by filling it with extreme left wings loonies to counter balance the extreme right wing loonies in the supreme court!
As a near-loony left-winger myself, I'd love it if that happened. Unfortunately Obama's got to get his pick through the Senate.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, it's important that all sides are represented in a democracy, even if that means your side cannot always be solely in power.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think his picks were moderates you must consider Bernie Sanders a far right fascist!
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:4, Insightful)
To a liberal, all other political viewpoints are right-wing. They generally believe they are moderate. They also tend to believe outright Fascism is right-wing, hence the confusion.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:4, Insightful)
And to a conservative, all other political viewpoints are left-wing. That's just how it works.
This is why when the rhetoric gets heated liberals often compare conservatives to Hitler, and conservatives often compare liberals to... still Hitler.
Re: What should happen but won't (Score:5, Insightful)
If judges had to appeal to the public we would still have Jim Crow laws and laws against miscegenation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:5, Informative)
Every justice should be apolitical
The one that just died was famous for digging through the historical records to try to determine what the authors of the Constitution might have thought instead of going by whichever way today's wind is blowing. What exactly do you have in mind when you want 'apolitical'?
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:5, Insightful)
The one that just died was famous for digging through the historical records to try to determine what the authors of the Constitution might have thought instead of going by whichever way today's wind is blowing. What exactly do you have in mind when you want 'apolitical'?
When it suited his beliefs, yes. Scalia used historical records like a drunk uses a lamppost -- for support, rather than illumination.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:4, Insightful)
The Framers' intentions are important, but should not override every consideration. They were not gods, and a constitution that rigidly locks itself tight is doomed.
There is a process for altering the constitution. If you don't like the constitution, use the process. If you don't like the process, well, you're still going to have to use the process to change it if you want to promise to love the law. Re-interpreting the constitution or its amendments when the authors left copious writings to explain what they meant and why they meant it (which will have been reflected in the actual arguments used to get it passed) is scandalous bullshit and nobody should be giving it a pass, let alone encouraging it. Strict constitutionalism is the job of the Supreme Court. It's Congress' job to change the Constitution, not the Supremes.
We are not rigidly locked to the constitution we have today. We have an amendment process, and if you want to change the constitution, you should use that process. If your changes to the constitution do not merit a constitutional amendment, then you should not be making them.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to stop pretending centrists are somehow morally superior, when they are mostly morally equal (or in some cases simply liberals or conservatives who haven't the guts to stand up for what they really believe in). It is also dismissive of the validity of the policy differences represented. Liberals and conservatives have real differences that matter, and sometimes only one side is correct. Saying "just pick the middle for the middle's sake" is wrongheaded. Pick the middle when the middle is correct.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way to fix this mess is term limits...and those ought to apply to supreme court judges as well who should be voted into office by the public. There are way too many religious extremists in the SCOTUS for decades ruining the US. Congress is toothless, the real decisions are made in the Supreme Court and people are not even allowed to vote. What kind of democracy is this?
The only idea worse than lifetime appointed judges is judges who are up for election. A good portion of states have electable judges which turns application of the law into political points.
This is why there are so many ads with, "as a judge I gave maximum sentence to thousands of drug offenders to keep them from molesting your kids. Vote for me to keep you free!" and "I only give maximum sentences and when possible go above and beyond maximum sentences because I am tough on crime."
The whole reason for lifetime appointments is so that shit like that can't happen in the supreme court of the land. It also means that they are more-or-less untouchable by politicians who want to have them replaced by someone more sympathetic to their views. For better or worse, they are free to practice the law instead of petty politics.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:5, Funny)
He can't do that until July when the Senate will be on a long enough recess. There will be a confirmation by then, otherwise Obama will simply put a liberal on the Court.
Perhaps the biggest "fuck you" Obama could give to the GOP (if McConnell lets this go until the July recess) is to put himself on the bench via recess appointment and resign the Presidency in the same executive order.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:5, Interesting)
Resigning and having newly sworn in President Biden's first official act is the recess appointment of Obama a far more likely order of events... doubly so when Joe is going to need some good PR when he puts his foot back into the presidential race after Hillary is indicted/loses in order to try to save the party and country from Sanders.
Re: What should happen but won't (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question i see nobody addressing is this. Why are all liberals so insistent on appointing a new justice before obama is gone?
Obama has almost a full year until the end of his term. If he were to agree to the argument in delaying his appointment, he'd be agreeing in deferring all major decisions until next year and would set himself up as an early "lame duck" president for a full year.
The argument might make sense if the vacancy had opened up after the election, but to agree to the Republican's demand now he'd be agreeing that he's lost the authority to make major presidential appointments and decisions for the whole year.
Re: What should happen but won't (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question i see nobody addressing is this. Why are all liberals so insistent on appointing a new justice before obama is gone?
Obama has almost a full year until the end of his term. If he were to agree to the argument in delaying his appointment, he'd be agreeing in deferring all major decisions until next year and would set himself up as an early "lame duck" president for a full year.
The argument might make sense if the vacancy had opened up after the election, but to agree to the Republican's demand now he'd be agreeing that he's lost the authority to make major presidential appointments and decisions for the whole year.
I'm pretty sure that's the political reason. Judicially, though, it's unheard of for the Supreme Court to go so long understaffed. It'd be setting all the wrong historical precedents. Fully two thirds of the US government would be weakened.
Re: What should happen but won't (Score:5, Informative)
The longest previous delay in replacing a justice was about a third as long as the time until the next president takes office. It's an insanely horrible precedent to propose keeping the seat vacant for a year and would have permanent negative ramifications.
Citations (Score:4, Informative)
Justice John Rutledge (September 26, 1789 – March 4, 1791) was succeeded by Justice Thomas Johnson (August 5, 1792 – January 16, 1793). That's a 17-month gap. IIRC there are other, longer gaps.
Re: What should happen but won't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: What should happen but won't (Score:4, Insightful)
> No, it's because there's literally no reason to wait for nearly a year to appoint a replacement. Literally none.
I can think of several. Embarrassing President Obama is one of them. Getting hung Supreme Court decisions helps preserve existing law until the case can be resolved, which helps protect existing conservative law, especially if it has more money for long court cases. Such cases are typically better funded on the conservative side, so the result is a de facto finding for the side with more lawyers, even if the lack of a finding does not set precedent. Refusing to accept a candidate who is even slightly less than radically conservative helps protect the power of the conservative members of the Supreme Court to rule conservatively.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, as much as I disliked Bush, Roberts is the type of pick a president should make. I'm liberal so I disagree with Roberts a lot, but I respect his work and believe he thinks through each case carefully instead of having an immediate partisan reflex and working backwards starting from a conclusion, unlike a Thomas or a Scalia.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah those laughable arguments also included making sure that video games are a viable medium, and granted them 1st amendment protections under the law. You know, when Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, and company were all railing against them as "the evils causing kids to do bad things..." along with music.
Re: What should happen but won't (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah yes, political hacks so upset because someone doesn't make decisions exactly the way that they want.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure (s)he's now totally changed their opinion on the nature of the political right after reading your well thought out and well argued post.
Anyway, can we stop with all of the anger for a minute and remember that a human being just died here? Show some respect. Regardless of whether or not we agree with his positions, there are people out there who loved and cared about this man. My condolences go out to the Koch brothers for their loss.
Re:What should happen but won't (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, can we stop with all of the anger for a minute and remember that a human being just died here? Show some respect.
He barely qualified as a human being in my book.
Sorry, but I won't show respect to a man who did his best to frustrate the application of rights and liberties to so many. He was a reprehensible person who literally believed in crazy magical stuff (demons, Satan, the End Times, etc etc etc). He compared gays to murderers. He opposed gay marriage and had said he would have opposed interracial marriage if he'd had the chance.
He was well-known as a racist and bigot who based many of his decisions on his nutty, bible-based beliefs. He said that people have no right to privacy in their bedrooms. He said "Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms?" He said that sex discrimination is constitutionally okay.
I will not shed a tear for this horrid man, nor will I pretend to respect him just because his heart stopped beating.
What happens next... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What happens next... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What happens next... (Score:5, Informative)
That's not even remotely close to what I said and you know it. It doesn't matter who he nominates - they're going to block it. THAT is not doing their job; that is obstructionism.
I agree with you, and find it reprehensible.
That said, I'm old enough to have watched this evolve - and it was the Democratic torpedoing of Robert Bork's nomination by President Reagan that started this new era of the opposition party actively attempting to derail the supreme court nominations of the sitting president. I imagine you can go back to the "old days" and find rancorous fights as well; but during my lifetime (1960s onward) pre-Bork nominees were occasionally asked tough questions, but typically were more or less rubber-stamped by Congress because it was seen as a prerogative of the president to pick justices matching his political bent - regardless of who controlled the House and Senate.
Re:What happens next... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What happens next... (Score:5, Interesting)
None of them were "rubber stamped". There was debate over the nominees. The real sort of debate where you talk back and forth rather than holding your breath until the other side gives in. Many past nominee decisions weren't even made across party lines.
Re:What happens next... (Score:5, Funny)
What, a long haired socialist like Jesus on the court? Nonsense, they'd want a proper Christian not some middle eastern immigrant who's soft on crime.
Of course they're not the party of Lincoln anymore. They were invaded by the racist southern Democrats who were opposed to desegregation. Lincoln's party was the party of the damn yankees interfering in their god given right to keep slaves and beat them regularly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What happens next... (Score:5, Insightful)
Deadlocking a supreme court for an entire year just to make a point seems a bit silly though.
Silly seems to be pro forma for this Congress. How many times did they engage in their quixotic attempts to repeal Obamacare?
In case you're wondering, it was over 60. [cnn.com]
Re:What happens next... (Score:4, Insightful)
Deadlocking a supreme court for an entire year just to make a point seems a bit silly though.
This is approximately the same congress that derailed the US's credit rating and shut down the government. You really think they wouldn't deadlock the Supreme Court?
Really?
Re:What happens next... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"You seem to think that doing whatever the President says is part of a Senator's job. "
No more so than doing whatever a Senator says is part of the Presidents job. Furthermore, President Obama has not said that Senator McConnell should do any particular thing while Senator McConnell is already on record as stating that President Obama should not nominate any replacement despite the fact that nominating replacements is in fact part of the President's job.
Re:What happens next... (Score:4, Insightful)
The senate is expected to confirm offices in a reasonable time. Voting "no" to everything and filibustering everything (as they decided to do in 2009) is not doing their job.
Imagine if the democrats turn around and filibuster and block republican nominees for the next eight years.
Negotiating is their main job. Deciding in advance to vote "no" to everything is avoiding doing their job.
It 's why i went from voting for Reagan and Bush Sr., and for 50% of republicans in 2008 to voting for no republicans period in 2010. Right now, I won't vote for a republican for dog catcher. I don't even want them to get their career started in the first place if they are going to refuse to negotiate.
Re:What happens next... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, let's see... election year... senate controlled by the opposition party... Ah Ha! Here's an example that's actually from February as well:
Anthony Kennedy.
On February 3, 1988 the US senate, controlled 55-45 by the democratic party, voted on Ronald Reagan's nomination of Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court; confirming him to the position with a 97-0 vote... because Kennedy was qualified for the position and that's the senate's god-damned JOB.
So no, the democratic party would not behave like this. They've already demonstrated that in a situation identical to the current one.
Re:What happens next... (Score:5, Interesting)
If congress doesn't recess, Obama cannot appoint any interim justices. This was already hashed out by the supreme court and I seriously doubt they would all the sudden ignore their own ruling and allow an intersession appointment if congress doesn't actually recess.
The supreme court has functioned with only 8 members before without problems. It can in the future too. In fact, congress may decide that it only needs 8 members and reduce the size or attempt to before the administration is out.
Re: (Score:3)
There are no interim appointments to the Supreme Court.
Scalia, RIP. Leaves a large family and legacy. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry he died. It does look like he lead a long life doing what he loved. He was a lucky man in that regard.
I disagree with his policies strongly and hope we are able to replace him with a reasonable justice.
On a sort of unrelated note-- he was only 79! So keep that in mind for your retirement plans. Despite having some of the best health care in the world, most of us are dead by 82. And 98.4% are dead by age 90.
Try to retire early and take up a second career doing something you love doing. I love doing therapeutic massage for people in pain. I didn't hate being a project manager too much but it was unpleasant with long hours and holiday work and always just a way to make money.
I thought I'd be drawing and painting more than I have. But reading Splat the Cat says "Sorry" to my grandsons is priceless.
Scalia leaves behind a wife and nine children (unless some have died). Who knows how many grand children.
He looks overweight in recent photos. That might be a side effect of medication (ala Jerry Lewis) or it may have been something that contributed to his early death. Keep in mind that puff pastry or extra gravy might cost you a few years with your grand kids. Not to mention change the course of the country.
I mean wow. ~Ten more months and it might have been a conservative jurist who replaced him. Even with filibustering and so on, I think Obama will seat this one. If the conservatives actually filibuster for 10 months, I think the democrats should filibuster any conservative justice nominee until the end of the term.
Fun Supreme Court Factoids.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/fa... [supremecourt.gov]
Quote:
Has anyone ever served as both President and Chief Justice?
William Howard Taft is the only person to have served as both President of the United States (1909-1913) and Chief Justice of the United States (1921-1930).
Re:Scalia, RIP. Leaves a large family and legacy. (Score:5, Interesting)
On a sort of unrelated note -- he was only 79! So keep that in mind for your retirement plans. Despite having some of the best health care in the world, most of us are dead by 82. And 98.4% are dead by age 90.
If you're lucky. My wife Sue died at 61 in Jan 2006 (I was 42 then). Other than the brain tumor [wikipedia.org] that killed her just 7 weeks after diagnosis, she was in perfect health. She worked out with a trainer (cardio and weights) twice a week and walked several time a week. She was an English and Gifted Education teacher and was thinking of retiring in a few years.
I'm very, very grateful for the 20 years we had together. Remember Sue... [tumblr.com]
Re:Scalia, RIP. Leaves a large family and legacy. (Score:4, Insightful)
The best memory I have of Scalia is that when Stephen Colbert gave his infamous White House Correspondents Dinner address, Scalia was laughing his ass off when he was lampooned. I might not agree with the man, but he had a great life lived on his own terms.
Could be a cover up. (Score:5, Funny)
We will never really know that he was not accidentally shot by Dick Cheney
Not Really a Textualist (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end, he was a Republican justice. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed and his "Torture" isn't "cruel and unusual punishment because it isn't punishment" was a doosy of wishful thinking.
He really didn't interpret the Constitution so much as listen to Rush Limberg on the radio that morning and spout whatever random thing had been said. They usually had nothing to do with the law.
Todays news is a good thing for America.
Re:Not Really a Textualist (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. He claimed to be an original intent guy but frequently ruled by current conservative desires in conflict with the text.
In reality, Scalia's interpretation of the constitution seemed to be "whatever Scalia wants-- Scalia gets."
Re:Not Really a Textualist (Score:5, Interesting)
Things to keep in mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Things to keep in mind (Score:4, Insightful)
Proof, again, that intelligence is overrated. Scalia was not a "decent" person. He used his power in ways that caused suffering and sometimes death And was not at all civil in his public pronouncements nor toward people outside his own social class.
The courts' personal friendships may be a lesson that there is not really a very wide gap between the current justices on most things. They are all part of the same ruling elite and attended either Harvard or Yale law school and they all often agree even when lower court judges did not.
I see this a lot with the right wing (Score:5, Insightful)
The mark of a truly good man is that he cares for folks outside his class. Churchill seemed to be. Obama is definitely. Scalia was just another in a long line of borderline psychopaths who seem nice when they're around their own kind...
Re:Things to keep in mind (Score:4, Interesting)
Name a decision where Scalia made peoples' lives worse, and wasn't following the Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Things to keep in mind (Score:4, Insightful)
Scalia basically said, the cops had a warrant to search the residence. So the mere fact that they didn't wait quite long enough after the knock and announce to actually enter the home does not achieve grounds for excluding the evidence found, which evidence would have still been found had they waited two or three seconds longer.
That doesn't exactly meet the criteria of making peoples lives worse and not following the Constitution. The police had a warrant, and would have found the evidence had they waited the couple seconds longer. Thus not a serious enough violation to exclude the evidence. Sounds like a solid ruling to me, especially since as footnote 5 on your linked article states, a set time to delay has never been set. So it's not as if the officer violated a hard and fast rule of (for hypothetical example) waiting 7 seconds after announcing before entering. The officer in question did knock and did announce and then entered after a 3-5 second delay.
Re:Things to keep in mind (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider what the effect of the ruling actually is. It makes it so that police can turn any regular warrant into a no-knock warrant - I mean, they might as well 0.1 seconds for all anyone cares. And even if it's too short, so what? The evidence is all admissible, and otherwise Scalia says that officers will receive such reprimands as issued by the police department... which, you guessed it, is none.
http://object.cato.org/sites/c... [cato.org]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
And if you don't see a problem with no-knock warrants in general, I would suggest reading about some SWAT horror stories that result from that. And - since you're a Scalia supporter, and hence a purported "originalist" - look up when no-knock warrants first appeared.
Re:Things to keep in mind (Score:4, Insightful)
Scalia was very controversial and much of the left will be likely happy about this. But he was a human being, and by most accounts he was a decent one and a smart one. His best friend on the Court was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is one of the most liberal justices. We should all take a lesson from them on being civil and friendly even with those we disagree with.
I hated his politics and thought he caused tremendous harm through them, at the same time he very well may have been a kind, generous, and generally delightful person to know.
I'm sad that he died though happy that he's left the court.
The existing docket (Score:5, Informative)
There are several very important cases coming up for the supreme court, including immigration [scotusblog.com], abortion [scotusblog.com], and unions [scotusblog.com]. Any of these Supreme Court decisions that end up tied at 4-4 means that the lower court's decision will stand.
Re:The existing docket (Score:5, Informative)
The lower court decision will be affirmed with a 4-4 tie, however it applies only within the jurisdiction of the appeals court that heard the case and not to the country as a whole. Also such an affirmation will not set a precedent.
If the justices feel strongly on an issue they can set the case for re-argument when there is a full court.
Re: Nice (Score:5, Informative)
He was asking, from the bench, for the plaintiff's response to an amicus brief. The doesn't mean that he supported what the brief said.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, so freakin what if he did. The black community is largely populated in dense urban environments ripe with gangs and notoriously bad schools (One teacher told me it was almost like holding school in a war zone at times and since he was a combat vet from Vietnam, I'll take his word for it).
Anyways, the situation is that many minorities do seem to come from tough environments and a slower pace could actually bring the talent out or nurture that talent that would let them shine above everyone els
Re:Nice (Score:5, Informative)
All he said was accepting people to tougher schools than their academic records justify, to fulfill an affirmative action quota, may be harder on them and less rewarding, in the end.
It's politically incorrect to say so, and he could have phrased it more carefully, but not at all racist. Everybody jumped at it to make their own political points with their base, knowing full well they were spouting crap. Of course, he still might have been a racist, but that doesn't prove it.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that it is not necessarily a racist comment, although it does have significant dog-whistle value.
The experience in New Zealand around affirmative action type quotas is that the students who get in on these quotas are equally capable with respect to completing their degree course. i.e. the grade average requirement is simply a way of filtering students, and is set so high that you can actually have lower grades and still pass the degree programme.
Scalia was a typical right-winger - strong on beg-the-question thought experiments, but a lightweight when it comes to actually doing the research *before* forming an opinion.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
and is set so high that you can actually have lower grades and still pass the degree programme
Ahh the value of the modern education. The "attaboy" degree.
When I graduated as an engineer I did so with the knowledge that one of the kids in my class repeated several core subjects 3 times, didn't know basic engineering concepts much less those related to his discipline, and couldn't solve basic equations or even derive equations from problems. Makes me sad to see employment requirements that say "must hold a relevant degree" as the concept itself has no value.
University education was once the hallmark of the academic elite. Now it's just another 4 years of school to get a piece of paper that every company puts on their requirements whether they need it or not.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Interesting)
All he said was accepting people to tougher schools than their academic records justify, to fulfill an affirmative action quota, may be harder on them and less rewarding, in the end.
He said that as he glanced to his left.
Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
You're either ignorant of the topic, and falling for the inflammatory press coverage, or you're intentionally distorting the subject, yourself.
Scalia was merely making reference to a specific brief that had been submitted. The brief in question makes "mention of academic records" and discusses the favorability of various outcomes (for African American students, specifically) in-detail.
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
If he had said, "What's the name of that book, you were reading, about that black guy who killed somebody?" would you be calling him a racist, who apparently thinks all African Americans are murderers? It's absurd and utterly disingenuous.
Re:Way to go (Score:5, Funny)
It was long in coming, but in the end, I see the quail got their revenge.
Do they suspect fowl play?
Re:Way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
It was long in coming, but in the end, I see the quail got their revenge.
These quail were raised in coops, with plenty of human contact, and then released right before the "hunt". They have little fear of humans, and killing them is hardly "sport". He should have just gone to the local animal shelter, adopted some kittens, and then taken them home and drowned them.
Re:I'll bet you... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah.. The majority leader could just refuse to bring the confirmation up on this calendar and then do the same on the next. It is what Harry Reid did with legislation the house passed that he didn't want to bother with.
Re:Good Riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you know he didn't care about climate change?
Doing something that is illegal or unconstitutional does in no way all the sudden become good or correct just because you like the desired outcome. What he did was proper regardless of his views on climate change, Obama, or some treaty that isn't a treaty because the senate has to confirm all treaties for it to become a treaty.
As for Citizens United, I do not see any flaws in the ruling. Can you point them out? And no, businesses or corporations having political speech or money equals speech is not a flaw in the ruling. What constitutional basics is incorrect or flawed in it?
Re:Good Riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
Natural born people have rights.
Corporations are entities which are created by human laws, and given privileges and responsibilities for the purpose of aiding society and economics. There is an economic segregation and legal liability segregation created artificially.
Therefore, it is proper that legislatures may regulate a corporation's expenditure of money owned by the corporation on political issues as it regulates its expenditure of money for all sorts of other purposes and regulates its tax liability.
I'll make an exception and rejoice in Scalia's end (Score:4, Insightful)
You are wasting time playing with an obvious and flaming troll, but if you want to do that over Scalia, then you should start with Bush v Gore, a decision that was SO bad that even at the time they wrote it, they said that it should NOT be regarded as a legal precedent. As if setting precedent wasn't the main job of the so-called Supreme Court.
There are two aspects of Scalia that I find most interesting. One is how he became his own enemy. At least he claimed that "judicial activism" was a bad thing, only to become one of the most activist judges in the history of the court. His creative work on the Second Amendment was especially amazing in abusing and even destroying the intentions of the Founders he claimed to admire.
The other aspect was his voting power. As far as I know, there has never been a justice who had a shadow second vote like that of Clarence Thomas. Actually, this would be an easy topic to research, though the last part of it will have to wait until Thomas dies. (Gee, now there's a reason to hope Thomas lasts for at least a short while longer?) The votes of all of the Supreme Court justices could be correlated to see which justices vote the same way most often. It's probably already been done, now that we have these computer things, eh? I'm pretty sure that the correlation between Scalia and Thomas will be one of the highest ever recorded.
However, I can go farther and make a new prediction for Thomas without Scalia to tell him how to vote. I think Thomas will attach himself to some other justice, probably Alito if he is the most conservative replacement available, and now correlate extremely highly with that justice's votes. Whatever voting pattern signifies judicial leadership, I'm confident that Scalia's votes showed that pattern (even if he was leading in the wrong direction) and the votes of Thomas will never show such a pattern.
Re:Good Riddance! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since corporations do not have any independent cognitive power or will, but act only that of the human managers, the true underlying question is not about free speech in reality, but whether managers may use corporate finances for overtly political purposes at their discretion.
I see no reason to suppose this use of finances should not be regulated by legislation the way other uses of finance is regulated.
Regulation of corporations should be left to legislatures, as they are for all sorts of things which do not apply to human citizens. Why can a legislature compel a corporation to produce certain accounting activities and products to others but doesn't make a person give a balance sheet to others? Is there anything wrong with this? No.
Here is a quote from the decision: "The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin ’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
This is wrong. What was attempted to be banned is the corporate form paying money from corporate accounts at the direction of corporate management to engage in political speech. It would indeed be wrong if the ban were "spokespeople for public C corporations cannot donate (their own) money or speak at political events", but it is not.
That corporate form is similarly banned from paying money from corporate accounts at the direction of corporate management to individual's people's pocketbooks when such is against the normal business operations (i.e. embezzlement) expected and interests of shareholders. Nobody has a problem with this restriction on financial freedom.
It is a linguistic shortcut (saying that 'corporations speak') as if they were aware. It is necessary to be precise about the actual activity: "financial expenditures {including labor rendered with compensation} of a corporate account at the direction of management". Managers of corporations have different responsibilities with money than natural citizens with their own money.
I would accept single-person S corporations to be functionally equivalent to natural people.
Re:Good Riddance! (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you know he didn't care about climate change?
[On Global Warming, in response to Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General James Milkey's correction of Scalia's reference to the stratosphere]
Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.
Massachusetts vs. EPA, 05-1120 (30 November 2006).
More info here [sfgate.com]
Corporations as people (Score:5, Interesting)
It is robustly clear that corporations are not people and do not possess Constitutional rights intrinsically, but only such rights and responsibilities granted by legislature.
Re:Next judge will be an SJW (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I won't attend the laying in state, but I appro (Score:5, Insightful)
He did not believe the Constitution was a living document to be interpreted with the evolving standards of modern times. And he was wrong.
To the extent that he actually believed what you think he believed, he was right. If you can't muster support for a constitutional amendment, you have no business change the constitution in the name of reinterpretation.
Re:I won't attend the laying in state, but I appro (Score:5, Insightful)
So then the 4th amendment doesn't apply to a telephone conversation because that doesn't fall under the category of "papers" or "effects"?
Give me a fucking break.
Re:I won't attend the laying in state, but I appro (Score:4, Insightful)
The Constitution evolves by amendments. It does not evolve because you want it to mean something entirely different.
Re:fallacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Modern civilization overall is dumber, and more diseased than it has ever been.
Can we get a source?