Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

Jayhawker wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Pretty classy thread

I'm pretty sure you had this post written before you opened the thread, and came here to find exactly what you found.

I clicked on the thread and it was so edgy my finger started bleeding.

Paleocon wrote:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...

With that said, there are other, larger questions: Do Republicans hurt their cause by stonewalling the president for more than 11 months between now and the next administration? Does it give Democrats space to run against GOP obstruction and emphasize the stakes of a Republican president for reproductive rights, civil rights, and labor? And what happens if the next president is Sen. Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, along with a Democratic Senate? Do Republicans concede and allow the president to choose a replacement? Or is the GOP so ideological and so polarized that it refuses to budge for a Democratic president, even in the face of an election?

They will stonewall for sure because their base is deeply mistrustful of the Supreme Court, particularly after the gay marriage ruling. By stonewalling they can hedge their bets for a Republican President and show their base that they're, "fighting the good fight against the liberal agenda". Stonewalling will serve them well, sadly.

Yeah, as if there's any doubt re: stonewalling or not.

Why would they approve the nominee of a lame duck potus who stuck his thumb in their collective eye, especially when the legal challenge to that jab is still undecided?

Scalia's judicial legacy is odious. He consistently, aggressively fought against social change and basic human rights, and he worsened the lives of millions of Americans throughout his time served on the bench. But it's worth remembering that he was an originalist -- as in, he believed the Constitution should be applied only by the strict meaning its writers had originally intended when they wrote the document.

So when you view his decisions through that lens, it all starts to make sense. He wasn't a monster. He was just trying to apply a 1780's mindset to a 2016 world. Which, I think, most of us would find preposterous, but I also don't doubt that he sincerely believed he was doing the right thing.

I'm not sorry he's gone from the Court. But I try to remember that the same man who argued so vehemently against same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws was also apparently besties with Ruth Bader Ginsberg and hunting buddies with Elena Kagan. He was also apparently very, very funny, so funny that he was deemed the "funniest Justice" by a landslide. There must have been something redeeming about him. And, at the very least, he inspired a whole generation of lawyers, judges, and so on -- both liberal and conservative, and every flavor in between.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Why would they approve the nominee of a lame duck potus who stuck his thumb in their collective eye, especially when the legal challenge to that jab is still undecided?

We could get into a pretty long discussion about whose eye was poked first, and then repeatedly poked and then shat on and then p*ssed on and then...anyhow, it is the Presidents job to nominate a replacement, last term or not, he is still the President.

He's not lame duck yet. That happens after there's a President Elect.

A solid concrete box underground is where Scalia will find his best colleagues: surrounded by earth as old as his ideals.

And those are the kindest words you will find me post anywhere.

NSMike wrote:

He's not lame duck yet. That happens after there's a President Elect.

A Democrat President actually becomes a lame duck 35 seconds after re-election.

I can't wait to see who Trump nominates.

NSMike wrote:

He's not lame duck yet. That happens after there's a President Elect.

A solid concrete box underground is where Scalia will find his best colleagues: surrounded by earth as old as his ideals.

The Marshall Rule isn't even in effect for another 5 months.

KaterinLHC wrote:

There must have been something redeeming about him.

He did write the majority decision that affirmed video games as protected free speech akin to literature and film, as Kotaku reminded us of today.

California claims that video games present special problems because they are “interactive,” in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome. The latter feature is nothing new: Since at least the publication of The Adventures of You: Sugarcane Island in 1969, young readers of choose-your-own adventure stories have been able to make decisions that determine the plot by following instructions about which page to turn to. As for the argument that video games enable participation in the violent action, that seems to us more a matter of degree than of kind. As Judge Posner has observed, all literature is interactive. “[T]he better it is, the more interactive. Literature when it is successful draws the reader into the story, makes him identify with the characters, invites him to judge them and quarrel with them, to experience their joys and sufferings as the reader’s own.”

Which was probably the first and only time Choose-Your-Own-Adventure was ever cited in a Supreme Court case.

How Scalia's Death Will Change the Supreme Court, America, and the Planet

NY Mag wrote:

The immediate and easily foreseeable impact is staggering. Last week, the Supreme Court issued a stay delaying the implementation of Obama’s Clean Power Plan. The stay indicated that a majority of the justices foresee a reasonably high likelihood that they would ultimately strike down Obama’s plan, which could jeopardize the Paris climate agreement and leave greenhouse gasses unchecked. Without Scalia on the Court, the odds of this drop to virtually zero. The challenge is set to be decided by a D.C. Circuit panel composed of a majority of Democratic appointees, which will almost certainly uphold the regulations. If the plan is upheld, it would require a majority of the Court to strike it down. With the Court now tied 4-4, such a ruling now seems nearly impossible.

Really happy he's dead. Seriously, that's the first news headline I've seen in awhile that had me smiling. Now, if only Clarence Thomas could follow suit. Probably too much to ask that of Alito yet.

I was at the "media centers" department at our Ikea with my wife when the news started playing on the TVs positioned there. I saw random people's faces light up with smiles, and random people high-fiving each other.

KaterinLHC wrote:

Scalia's judicial legacy is odious. He consistently, aggressively fought against social change and basic human rights, and he worsened the lives of millions of Americans throughout his time served on the bench. But it's worth remembering that he was an originalist -- as in, he believed the Constitution should be applied only by the strict meaning its writers had originally intended when they wrote the document.

So when you view his decisions through that lens, it all starts to make sense. He wasn't a monster. He was just trying to apply a 1780's mindset to a 2016 world. Which, I think, most of us would find preposterous, but I also don't doubt that he sincerely believed he was doing the right thing.

I'm not sorry he's gone from the Court. But I try to remember that the same man who argued so vehemently against same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws was also apparently besties with Ruth Bader Ginsberg and hunting buddies with Elena Kagan. He was also apparently very, very funny, so funny that he was deemed the "funniest Justice" by a landslide. There must have been something redeeming about him. And, at the very least, he inspired a whole generation of lawyers, judges, and so on -- both liberal and conservative, and every flavor in between.

+ all the 1's

The thing is, he was a sitting justice. He was still doing, or trying to do, damage. People are happy because the SCOTUS just got quite a bit better today. Had he been retired, people would feel less inclination to celebrate.

https://medium.com/@SaraJBenincasa/o...

Too awkward to cut n paste an extract on my ipad, but it's a quick read. Tldr: good riddance to bad rubbish.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

https://medium.com/@SaraJBenincasa/o...

Too awkward to cut n paste an extract on my ipad, but it's a quick read. Tldr: good riddance to bad rubbish.

My favorite note:

If he wanted respect in death, the man should’ve shown it to more people in life.
KaterinLHC wrote:

Scalia's judicial legacy is odious. He consistently, aggressively fought against social change and basic human rights, and he worsened the lives of millions of Americans throughout his time served on the bench. But it's worth remembering that he was an originalist -- as in, he believed the Constitution should be applied only by the strict meaning its writers had originally intended when they wrote the document.

So when you view his decisions through that lens, it all starts to make sense. He wasn't a monster. He was just trying to apply a 1780's mindset to a 2016 world. Which, I think, most of us would find preposterous, but I also don't doubt that he sincerely believed he was doing the right thing.

I'm not sorry he's gone from the Court. But I try to remember that the same man who argued so vehemently against same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws was also apparently besties with Ruth Bader Ginsberg and hunting buddies with Elena Kagan. He was also apparently very, very funny, so funny that he was deemed the "funniest Justice" by a landslide. There must have been something redeeming about him. And, at the very least, he inspired a whole generation of lawyers, judges, and so on -- both liberal and conservative, and every flavor in between.

I think it was Gremlin who posted this a week ago or so. If not, sorry not -Gremlin!

Scalia's originalism is inconsistent at best.

He basically used the originalism argument to excuse his partisan agenda. Probably believed it himself too, which made him all the more dangerous.

Jayhawker wrote:

The thing is, he was a sitting justice. He was still doing, or trying to do, damage. People are happy because the SCOTUS just got quite a bit better today. Had he been retired, people would feel less inclination to celebrate.

Hell no. Had he been retired, I only would have been sad that it didn't happen while he was still on the bench. I would've still been celebrating aside from that, though.

I really wonder how Obama is going to get another justice in the SC with this congress.

karmajay wrote:

I really wonder how Obama is going to get another justice in the SC with this congress.

He's not. It will be up to Clinton 45

NSMike wrote:

Using this logic, we can safely judge that a good portion of folks on P&C are blowhards.

nel e nel wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Using this logic, we can safely judge that a good portion of folks on P&C are blowhards.

Using the "it doesn't matter what people think, or say, just what they do?" logic then wouldn't it be impossible to judge anyone here at all?

Unless you are watching us do things in real life. If you are then judge away!

There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.

Considering Justice Kennedy was appointed in Feb 1988, the Republicans have no ground not to fill the vacant spot this year.

Stele wrote:

Considering Justice Kennedy was appointed in Feb 1988, the Republicans have no ground not to fill the vacant spot this year.

It's okay. It was Reagan. The Reagan exception applies for things like running away from Lebanon after a suicide bomber kills hundreds of marines, giving advanced weapons to the Iranians, granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants, raising taxes, and passing gun control laws. It only follows that it should apply here too.

Paleocon wrote:
karmajay wrote:

I really wonder how Obama is going to get another justice in the SC with this congress.

He's not. It will be up to Clinton 45

I would love to see Obama choose Bill Clinton for his nominee and President Hilary Clinton chose Obama to fill the next vacancy

Might cause an "interesting " reaction on the right.

Paleocon wrote:
Stele wrote:

Considering Justice Kennedy was appointed in Feb 1988, the Republicans have no ground not to fill the vacant spot this year.

It's okay. It was Reagan. The Reagan exception applies for things like running away from Lebanon after a suicide bomber kills hundreds of marines, giving advanced weapons to the Iranians, granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants, raising taxes, and passing gun control laws. It only follows that it should apply here too.

to be fair, Reagan first nominated Robert Bork in July of 1987, which the Democratic Senate rejected. Kennedy was only nominated after that.