Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 67

Thread: Ding dong the witch is dead.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,570

    Default Ding dong the witch is dead.

    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.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  2. #2
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,850
    That's disgusting, should never cheer in someone's death.

    Can't see the Republican-controlled senate allowing Obama to get a liberal through to replace Scalia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  3. #3
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,297
    Can we cheer him vacating his position at the US Supreme Court?
    The walls are coming down.
    All we need is one to fail, one to break, one to take it all away.
    What if we crumble, what if we fall? Where's the flame that torch the soul?
    Truth, when spoken, dies down to nothing.

  4. #4
    . Being's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    3,274
    I think the thread should be re-titled to reflect the serious issue of does Obama get one?? Just sayin'
    .

  5. #5
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,662
    Man are Republican senators messed up
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  6. #6
    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."

  7. #7
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    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.
    Actually, reports I've seen have consistently indicated he was quite a likable and jocular person. It's his jurisprudence and policy-positions which were unlikeable.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,299
    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,570
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    That's disgusting, should never cheer in someone's death.

    Can't see the Republican-controlled senate allowing Obama to get a liberal through to replace Scalia.
    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.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    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.
    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.

  12. #12
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,850
    Scalia hasn't killed anyone unlike Gaddafi who had a reign of terror.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,570
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Scalia hasn't killed anyone unlike Gaddafi who had a reign of terror.
    Oh my, al of a sudden qualifications are allowed. So, why should I give a damn about which dead guy in your finely tuned system is worthy of my respect and which one not?
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  14. #14
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Oh my, al of a sudden qualifications are allowed. So, why should I give a damn about which dead guy in your finely tuned system is worthy of my respect and which one not?
    As Enoch said, why should Lewk? But we all condemn him for it. And you plainly give a damn about him because you went to the effort to cheer his death. Just like Lewk. So I will do the same for you.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  15. #15
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    13,850
    Well said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,570
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    As Enoch said, why should Lewk? But we all condemn him for it. And you plainly give a damn about him because you went to the effort to cheer his death. Just like Lewk. So I will do the same for you.
    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)
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  17. #17
    . Being's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Scalia hasn't killed anyone ...
    ...with his bare hands much like Gaddafi...

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/polit...or-rulings.ece

    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.”
    How many died for Bush (and hence Scalia et al) in Iraq?
    .

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,299
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    As Enoch said, why should Lewk? But we all condemn him for it. And you plainly give a damn about him because you went to the effort to cheer his death. Just like Lewk. So I will do the same for you.
    I'd also like to point out Scalia wasn't a criminal... though I do wonder why Hazir who isn't an American even cares that much about a Supreme Court justice.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I'd also like to point out Scalia wasn't a criminal... though I do wonder why Hazir who isn't an American even cares that much about a Supreme Court justice.
    I guess I must be obsessed with him.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  20. #20
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    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)
    Oh, I already understood you're a bitter and pathetic wretch. I just took the opportunity you provided to say so out loud.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  21. #21
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    ...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?
    Are you arguing that a judge should be held responsible for all future conduct of the individuals they are presiding over? Or perhaps your logic only applies to Supreme Court justices you don't like.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,570
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Oh, I already understood you're a bitter and pathetic wretch. I just took the opportunity you provided to say so out loud.
    Happy to see the old bastards death was good for you too then.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  23. #23
    . Being's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Are you arguing that a judge should be held responsible for all future conduct of the individuals they are presiding over? Or perhaps your logic only applies to Supreme Court justices you don't like.
    I was okay with Scalia; he was consistent. But yes, his hands are covered in blood because he put into power one of the most dangerous presidential administrations in the history of this country.
    .

  24. #24
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    I was okay with Scalia; he was consistent. But yes, his hands are covered in blood because he put into power one of the most dangerous presidential administrations in the history of this country.
    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?

  25. #25
    . Being's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    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?
    No.
    No.
    They aren't. That single decision was not meant to be handled by 9 people.
    .

  26. #26
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    No.
    No.
    They aren't. That single decision was not meant to be handled by 9 people.
    I'm sorry, I am not following.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I'm sorry, I am not following.
    What's there not to follow? The opinion voiced is that they should not have usurped the right to appoint the President of the United States of America. It may not be your opinion but it's hardly unheard of.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  28. #28
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    No.
    No.
    They aren't. That single decision was not meant to be handled by 9 people.
    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!

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    9,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    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 they are the ones who should rule on this.
    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.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  30. #30
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,746
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    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.
    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!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •