Part of the work he did was for a good cause. Part of it wasn't. The man worked for the highest court in the land. I think he deserves more than a scumbag that should enjoy his special spot in hell car.
Seems like some people here need to rise above the same scumbag attitude they think Scalia had.
The blog has some pretty interesting articles on it. There was another one written by Martin and Quinn looking back at Scalia's work and the impact of his death:
Part of the work he did was for a good cause. Part of it wasn't. The man worked for the highest court in the land. I think he deserves more than a scumbag that should enjoy his special spot in hell car.
Seems like some people here need to rise above the same scumbag attitude they think Scalia had.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of the hatred is misplaced and stems from an ignorance and lack of awareness of the different approaches that exist when interpreting the constitution. Moreover an ignorance of the role of judges. A lot of people will simply look at a judge's opinion and conclude that it was either "good" or "bad" based on their personal moral perspective. That is, whether they personally agreed with the result or not. They mistakenly assess judges as they would politicians.
However, judges are not there to decide what ought to be the outcome but are attempting to determine what the law says in regards to a case. The outcome may differ depending on the legal approach taken by a judge.
Scalia applied originalist interpretation--the perspective that judges must strive to remain faithful to what the original framers of the constitution had intended. As Scalia put it, "garbage in, garbage out." Even if the people's representatives created a foolish law, judges are obligated to uphold a foolish law regardless of their own personal morals. It's not their job to create law but the legislature's. He didn't see the constitution as one that evolves, as the perspectives of people evolve, but one that is ultimately static.
For a lot of liberals, this approach used by Scalia, resulted in a lot of opinions that they disagreed with. Without understanding this approach, many people were quick to vilify him claiming that he was imposing his personal morals on others.
However, he'd be one of the first to say that he's produced many opinions that conflicted with his own personal views in order to remain faithful to what the law says. For example, in a case involving a flag burning, he indicated that the constitution allows for this activity even if he personally would have thrown the guy in jail if he could.
__________________
FiftyBelow
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to FiftyBelow For This Useful Post:
The fact that you can reasonably accurately determine how a case will turn out before it's even heard is yet another illustration of the abject failure of this system.
There are some cases where the result isn't in doubt but the highest Court nonetheless needs to rule in order to create a national precedent. But being able to accurately predict 5-4 decisions is farcical.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Political beliefs? I think it's way more scary that it's being effected by religious beliefs.
Beliefs and principles held by the hardcore followers of organized religions are not that different from beliefs and principles held by hardcore followers of political parties. You can't forget, ignore or dismiss the roots and history of country's democracy. Current political divide in US is 50-50, meaning that certain extreme political beliefs on both side of the centre are shared by the equally divided electorate. So much more reason for the apolitical court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
...
The interesting thing with Scalia is that his general preference was status quo. I would say a belief to force the executive and legislative branches to enact progress rather than the judiciary. So if the U.S. House and Congress functioned I think Scalia my have ended up being viewed more favourably.
Good point. Most politicians are cowards, they don't want to campaign on, debate and pass new controversial laws, so they download this thankless job onto the Supreme Court judges. But Supreme Court can only interpret laws in the evolving society while upholding the Constitution. Something that Scalia was very passionate about. It is not and it should not be Supreme Court's job to write new laws.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
Unfortunately, I think a lot of the hatred is misplaced and stems from an ignorance and lack of awareness of the different approaches that exist when interpreting the constitution.
If one approach to constitutional interpretation results in bad outcomes, and another results in good outcomes, and both methods are sufficiently valid legally for their practitioners to be Supreme Court judges, then those who enact the process that creates bad outcomes are failing morally.
An originalist would consider that black people are 3/5th of a person.
Stuff like that should be disregarded entirely, but you can see how that is applied in his voting record as he voted pretty much always against black/minority rights.
Abominable opinions for a society that is attempting to become more inclusive.
His departure from the court should move the country forward even if a slightly left version of Kennedy.
__________________ Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
An originalist would consider that black people are 3/5th of a person.
Stuff like that should be disregarded entirely, but you can see how that is applied in his voting record as he voted pretty much always against black/minority rights.
Abominable opinions for a society that is attempting to become more inclusive.
His departure from the court should move the country forward even if a slightly left version of Kennedy.
Qoutes in the video right from the horses mouth.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 02-15-2016 at 11:30 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to combustiblefuel For This Useful Post:
Beliefs and principles held by the hardcore followers of organized religions are not that different from beliefs and principles held by hardcore followers of political parties. You can't forget, ignore or dismiss the roots and history of country's democracy. Current political divide in US is 50-50, meaning that certain extreme political beliefs on both side of the centre are shared by the equally divided electorate. So much more reason for the apolitical court.
Good point. Most politicians are cowards, they don't want to campaign on, debate and pass new controversial laws, so they download this thankless job onto the Supreme Court judges. But Supreme Court can only interpret laws in the evolving society while upholding the Constitution. Something that Scalia was very passionate about. It is not and it should not be Supreme Court's job to write new laws.
The difference being argung your political beliefs can be intelligently argued based on actual history that can be proven like rasisim and discrimination of certain groups.
Arguing your political beliefs based on what a sky god says can not . the bible was written centuries ago after the deathbof christ with no tangible evidence other then other humans "saying so". The bible was written by authors in a vey similair way that joseph smith and Lafayette Ronald Hubbard. Wrote similiar science fiction papers. There is no evideince to support what is written in any of these documents . I have never seen a polaroid og god with anyone or how about a audio recordi g backing up theses claims . Is it that crazy to think these bible storys are just myths and shouldnt play a role in politics? After all we have had other gods proven as myths. Like Norse,the Greeks, the Egyptians ,the Native Americains, the Aztec and the Pegan Gods.
Also the biggest hypocrisy was the U.S.A says right in the constitution yhey are a nation that has no set religion.
In thinking about how to respond to the vacancy on the Supreme Court, the administration has two priorities. First, fill the Scalia seat by getting a nominee confirmed. The stakes could not be higher: the appointment could flip the Supreme Court’s ideological balance for decades. Second, gain as much political benefit as possible and exact as heavy a political toll as possible on Republicans, particularly in the presidential election.
...
Not surprisingly, Republican priorities are the exact opposite. Fundamental conservative legal victories over the past two decades hang directly in the balance ... In addition, blocking President Obama’s nominee is good politics for important subsets of Republicans. Most directly, the Supreme Court is a signal issue for the conservative Republican base in a way that it is not for core Democratic constituencies.
...
The administration feels a constitutional responsibility to press for the confirmation of a nominee and every political advantage in doing so. Republicans cannot accede to that effort because their base will not permit it.
...
All that said, I do think that an Obama administration nominee may in fact receive a vote. ... If the nominee presents a potential substantive ground for objection that the public could take seriously as genuine – even if it seems wrongheaded – I think that Senate Republicans will permit a vote, and reject the nominee. The nomination would be slow-walked, including with numerous requests for information. Eventually either a filibuster would be withdrawn or overcome, with Senate Republicans voting essentially as a block. Any other course than a decisive vote against the nominee invites a certain primary challenge from conservatives in the next election.
He then goes on to list a number of candidates for the position and their relative political merits for the Democrats as an almost-certain-to-be-rejected nominee, ultimately concluding:
Quote:
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who is fifty-six, is a very serious possibility. She is known and admired within the administration. ... Lynch’s age would give the administration some hesitancy. They would prefer to have a nominee who is closer to fifty. But because the nomination would principally serve a political purpose anyway, I don’t think that would be a serious obstacle. The fact that Lynch was vetted so recently for attorney general also makes it practical for the president to nominate her in relatively short order.
...
at this point I think that Attorney General Lynch is the most likely candidate. I think the administration is likely to nominate her, that the Senate will initially refuse to proceed with the nomination but ultimately accede after delaying the process significantly, and then vote her down on party lines. At that point, Republicans will slow-walk a follow-up nominee and claim that it is too close to the election to act on the candidate.
In the meantime, cases which end up tied 4-4 will, most likely, play into Democratic hands, as most of the Circuit Courts lean Democrat and tied Supreme Court decisions leave lower-court decisions in place without creating legal precedent.
There is no provision to bring a case back to the Supreme Court after a tied decision, the lower-court ruling becomes the law for whichever part of the country is under the jurisdiction of that court and the rest of the country needs to wait until another case makes its way through the court system up to the SCOTUS before National legal precedent is set.
There are currently Democrat majorities on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th, 11th, DC, and Federal Appeals courts with Republican majorities only on the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th. The Republican courts cover essentially the Midwest, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi while the rest of the country is within areas under Democratic Appellate jurisdiction. Population-wise, 65% of the country is in Democratic jurisdictions while 35% are within Republican jurisdictions.
(map)
Spoiler!
If it plays out as Tom Goldstein predicts, which I think is likely, it could end up being looked at as the effective end of Conservative jurisprudence in America. Imagine a year of largely Liberal decisions being upheld without creating precedent, followed by a Democratic Presidential win (they wouldn't even need to take the Senate, after a year of insisting that 'the next President gets to pick the Justice' Republicans would be handcuffed to whoever Sanders or Clinton picked).
Then, the new President would be free to select a young, dyed-in-the-wool Liberal, they wouldn't even need to pay lip-service to bipartisanship. Following that, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Stephens are all 78 or older and have the potential to retire during the next President's term (Ginsburg and Breyer, being Liberal more likely than Kennedy), and suddenly the Supreme Court has 5 or 6 liberal Justices, the oldest of whom would be - assuming this all takes place by 2019 - 65 year-old Sonia Sotomayor.
The Republicans would also face the prospect of losing the Circuit courts in which they currently hold majorities. In the 5th Circuit, there are already 2 vacancies and 10 of the 20 Judges are 70 or older. In the 6th, there is 1 vacancy and 12 of 25 Judges are 70+; 7th: 2 vacancies and 7 of 12 are 70+; 8th 1 vacancy and 8 of 17 are 70+.
A continued inability to win Presidential elections by the Republican party could easily have the long-term effect of essentially ceding the Judicial branch of government to Liberals for a generation or more.
Last edited by driveway; 02-15-2016 at 11:32 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
He then goes on to list a number of candidates for the position and their relative political merits for the Democrats as an almost-certain-to-be-rejected nominee, ultimately concluding:
In the meantime, cases which end up tied 4-4 will, most likely, play into Democratic hands, as most of the Circuit Courts lean Democrat and tied Supreme Court decisions leave lower-court decisions in place without creating legal precedent.
There is no provision to bring a case back to the Supreme Court after a tied decision, the lower-court ruling becomes the law for whichever part of the country is under the jurisdiction of that court and the rest of the country needs to wait until another case makes its way through the court system up to the SCOTUS before National legal precedent is set.
There are currently Democrat majorities on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th, 11th, DC, and Federal Appeals courts with Republican majorities only on the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th. The Republican courts cover essentially the Midwest, Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi while the rest of the country is within areas under Democratic Appellate jurisdiction. Population-wise, 65% of the country is in Democratic jurisdictions while 35% are within Republican jurisdictions.
(map)
Spoiler!
If it plays out as Tom Goldstein predicts, which I think is likely, it could end up being looked at as the effective end of Conservative jurisprudence in America. Imagine a year of largely Liberal decisions being upheld without creating precedent, followed by a Democratic Presidential win (they wouldn't even need to take the Senate, after a year of insisting that 'the next President gets to pick the Justice' Republicans would be handcuffed to whoever Sanders or Clinton picked).
Then, the new President would be free to select a young, dyed-in-the-wool Liberal, they wouldn't even need to pay lip-service to bipartisanship. Following that, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Stephens are all 78 or older and have the potential to retire during the next President's term (Ginsburg and Breyer, being Liberal more likely than Kennedy), and suddenly the Supreme Court has 5 or 6 liberal Justices, the oldest of whom would be - assuming this all takes place by 2019 - 65 year-old Sonia Sotomayor.
The Republicans would also face the prospect of losing the Circuit courts in which they currently hold majorities. In the 5th Circuit, there are already 2 vacancies and 10 of the 20 Judges are 70 or older. In the 6th, there is 1 vacancy and 12 of 25 Judges are 70+; 7th: 2 vacancies and 7 of 12 are 70+; 8th 1 vacancy and 8 of 17 are 70+.
A continued inability to win Presidential elections by the Republican party could easily have the long-term effect of essentially ceding the Judicial branch of government to Liberals for a generation or more.
Spoiler!
For this reason, I may almost hope for a republican win, despite that I align with the democrats in terms of belief.
Too many presidential terms of the same party is bad, despite the outspoken crazies of the right, the republicans bring balance to the democrats. Constant landslide victories by one party is terrible for democracy. It gets significantly worse when you think about the judicial appointments being so much in the majority of one way of thinking.
[/SPOILER]
For this reason, I may almost hope for a republican win, despite that I align with the democrats in terms of belief.
Too many presidential terms of the same party is bad, despite the outspoken crazies of the right, the republicans bring balance to the democrats. Constant landslide victories by one party is terrible for democracy. It gets significantly worse when you think about the judicial appointments being so much in the majority of one way of thinking.
No it's not.
That just means the majority got who they wanted in .That actually means democracy is working.
That just means the majority got who they wanted in .That actually means democracy is working.
I strongly disagree with you here.
If the majority are only voting for one party because the other party is bat-Sh@t crazy, it doesn't hold the party who keeps winning accountable. This gives way to allow the constant victorious party to do more and more incorrect things until they have lowered themselves to the level of the losing party.
It is much better for the Americans to have a strong & reasonable republican party with opposing view points.
I hated that he gave other lunatics a sense of security. Papa Scalia said this about the constitution so even though we love those gays we just can't possibly have them get married.
Too bad his talents were wasted in attempting to advance a very flawed theory of constitutional interpretation.
The cynical part of me thinks he well knew the flaws of orginialism but it afforded him a smokescreen to advance unpopular opinions, and he also enjoyed stirring the pot and fostering debate.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Who are you to say it was a very flawed theory of Constitutional theory? Sat down and did the work, did you?
Yeah, because originalism is really difficult to understand.
I had the opportunity to hear Scalia speak in Calgary last year. Truly one of the smartest, most articulate men I have ever heard speak in person.
I disagree with his originalist approach to the American Constitution (partly because we have been raised on the British "living document" approach among other reasons) but he certainly knew his stuff and came by his choices honestly.
