After all the harm he has done, Antonin Scalia kicks the bucket just in time for Obama to appoint a replacent who's hopefully not another version of nastiness incarnate. Two thumbs up.
After all the harm he has done, Antonin Scalia kicks the bucket just in time for Obama to appoint a replacent who's hopefully not another version of nastiness incarnate. Two thumbs up.
Congratulations America
Can we cheer him vacating his position at the US Supreme Court?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I think the thread should be re-titled to reflect the serious issue of does Obama get one?? Just sayin'
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Man are Republican senators messed up
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm surprised it took them hours instead of minutes to start launching their deny obama attacks. Great way to top off how fucking horrible they have been during this presidency.
Scalia was an easily unlikable fellow. the Onion's announcement I think sums it up best: Justice Scalia Dead Following 30-Year Battle With Social Progress.
Although Scalia did give us some of the best quotes concerning violent video games:
Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And “the basic principles of freedom of speech . . . do not vary” with a new and different communication medium
California’s argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence, but there is none.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-...on-the-record/
"These are people that don't understand what my interpretive philosophy is. I'm not saying no progress. I'm saying we should progress democratically," Scalia says.
Back at the Oxford Union, Scalia told the students, "You think there ought to be a right to abortion? No problem. The Constitution says nothing about it. Create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society. Pass a law. And that law, unlike a Constitutional right to abortion created by a court can compromise. It can...I was going to say it can split the baby! I should not use... A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change."
Pretty much this. Liberals want to use any means they have to push their agenda. Instead of going through the democratic process they want justices to legislate from the bench. The essential function of the bill of rights was to prevent the erosion of our rights by making it MORE difficult to pass laws that violate basic rights. When we get to the attitude that the courts should be able to 'interpret' the 'changing meaning of the constitution' over time we get to the point where that piece of paper doesn't protect us at all. I didn't agree with every ruling the guy made but his method of viewing cases was in fact the proper one. He will be absolutely missed.
As a side note. All the folks classified as 'Christian Conservatives' who didn't vote for Romney because !Mormons! have just reaped what they sowed. Some of 5-4 decisions will likely head the other way in short order.
Like him or loathe him, Scalia was consistent in his jurisprudence. That you agree with him here doesn't make him better than the fact you disagree with him elsewhere.
Aimless why are Republican senators messed up? I said immediately there isn't a chance that they'd confirm a liberal before the election. They are under no duty to confirm anyone swiftly and its an election year.
Incidentally this is the first time a vacancy has appeared with a Democratic President and a GOP Senate since the nineteenth century.
Should we look up what your comments were when Khadaffi died in a ditch in Misrata?
I'm sure the Republicans both, in the Senate and trying to win the nomination, are going to make the most of the upcoming nomination with their efforts to come accross as totally unpalatable to the moderate voter. A double blessing so to say.
Congratulations America
You believe Scalia is even remotely comparable to Gaddafi? That's quite the imagination you have.
Just to be clear, when Lewk celebrated the death of a criminal he is a disgusting monster - but it's somehow defensible to celebrate the death of a Supreme Court justice that you didn't agree with?
There are some interesting double standards on these boards.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Now, let me get this straight; you understood I gave a damn about his unexpected demise from the title of this thread? You must feel like a real genius now, and a bit more after Harpo sprinkled some 'well said' on it.
Next thing we'll know you'll be explaining us all about gravitational waves eh?.
tldr : D'oh. (2x)
Congratulations America
...with his bare hands much like Gaddafi...
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/polit...or-rulings.ece
How many died for Bush (and hence Scalia et al) in Iraq?On Dec. 12, 2000, Scalia sided with the 5-4 majority in Bush v. Gore, a decision prompted by drawn-out troubles with Florida’s Election Day ballot count. The ruling declared constitutional problems with further recounts in the state and effectively gave George W. Bush the presidency over Al Gore. Scalia questioned whether voters themselves were responsible for mistakes in filling out their ballots.
Days earlier, in a 5-4 ruling to stay a statewide recount, Scalia also sided with the majority. He wrote: “The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.”
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
So in your mind a judge who acquits a defendant of a crime because there is insufficient evidence is then culpable for any behavior that person goes on to commit? If the Supreme Court had sided with Gore in Bush v. Gore and a pedestrian was hit by the presidential motorcade would there be blood on Ginsburg's hands? Just how clairvoyant do you think judges are?
Considering the basics of elections are in laws and constitution, the only appropriate body to rule on matters like these is the Supreme Court. You might not agree with their conclusions (which I can definitely understand, especially considering in the end he probably should have lost) - but that is besides the point that they are the ones who should rule on cases like this.
Or who do you think should have ruled on it? Legislature? State or federal? Or maybe the sitting president? Or the governor of the state in question? Seems to me like these are all far, far less objective than SCOTUS. And before you say they should have just recounted until they had a result, that's not a very viable option. At some point you need a court of some kind to rule on what the legal resolution of the problem, and this obviously means it ultimately ends up at the supreme court.
You can criticize their ruling all you want, but I don't see who else should have resolved this.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Does not change the fact that they usurped the right to appoint the President of the United States. A right that legitimately belongs to the voters and their representatives in the electoral college, not to the 9 men and women appointed to the Supreme Court.
Meaning that right up till today we don't know if George W Bush actually won the presidential elections in 2000 or that he merely had most votes in the last count of the votes in Florida.
Congratulations America
I think they technically ruled on who would represent Florida in the Electoral College which still voted for president (or actually, on the legality of recounting, which in turn decided who represented the state of Florida in the electoral college). If the results hadn't depended on Florida, legally things would be no different at all, but then they wouldn't be deciding on the president, but on the winner in a single state (except the loser probably would have conceded, making the lawsuit moot).
Also your last point I do agree with, but I think that's more the result of their decision than of the fact that they got to decide on it (nitpicking, I suppose, but the fact that I don't agree with their ruling doesn't mean I don't think they should be the one ruling on it).
You say the right to choose the president lies with the voters and their representatives, but the issue was with votes cast, and therefore which representatives got to vote in the electoral college. It would be odd (not to mention very problematic) to have them decide on their own composition, no? How do you think it should have been resolved? Keep in mind that as far as I remember, by the Florida election law, Bush would have won earlier, if it had not been for other judges extending the time for recounts. So if your position is that judges should not have influenced anything, you still wouldn't know whether he actually won. Or is your position that Florida judges could rule on it but not the Supreme Court?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!