02-14-2016, 02:28 PM
|
#41
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary - Centre West
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler
Pretty pathetic to have people here essentially celebrating a man's death. I disagree with virtually all of his social views, but I can still respect him - right winger or socialist you still have to be a supremely accomplished jurist to get a seat on that bench.
|
The world's smallest violin is playing for this post.
Why do you think we should respond to this any differently than we currently are? We don't respect him, that's the point. You're more welcome to, but don't tell me I have to pretend I give a crap that a bigoted demagogue has croaked.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
|
|
|
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-15-2016, 03:01 AM
|
#42
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
|
Obama called Scalia one of the best jurists of our time, who will be deeply missed. Obama, clearly on the opposite side of political views to Scalia's, didn't have to or need to praise him, he could have said, simply, my condolences, and consider it sufficient. He didn't. People may not care much about the death of an influential Supreme Court Judge, but to cheer his death is really disgusting.
On a more general note, with Scalia's passing, the political balance of the US Supreme Court is temporarily even. A Republican appointment will shift it back to the right, a Democratic one - to the left. It seriously bothers me that the highest legal authoriy of the country is so pronouncely politicized and affected by judges' political beliefs. Shouldn't it by the very definition of jurisprudence be apolitical? Or is it a pipe dream considering modern realities? Does it bother anyone else?
__________________
"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 3 Users Say Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-15-2016, 03:05 AM
|
#43
|
Has lived the dream!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where I lay my head is home...
|
Well, I think it's been more modern times that have not only divided the left and right so dramatically, but also made them so combative towards each other. Politicians (and political judges) seemed more willing to work together in the past. In my observation anyway. I could be wrong.
Then the radical right came along and decided they didn't want to play anymore unless they won.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-15-2016, 08:03 AM
|
#44
|
A Fiddler Crab
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
On a more general note, with Scalia's passing, the political balance of the US Supreme Court is temporarily even. A Republican appointment will shift it back to the right, a Democratic one - to the left. It seriously bothers me that the highest legal authoriy of the country is so pronouncely politicized and affected by judges' political beliefs. Shouldn't it by the very definition of jurisprudence be apolitical? Or is it a pipe dream considering modern realities? Does it bother anyone else?
|
It seems that way because that's the way the news reports it, but the Supreme Court isn't actually as 'divided' as it seems. Since 2008, here are the number of cases ruled on by the court and the number which were decided by a 5-4 decision.
2008: 83 cases, 15 splits
2009: 92 cases, 13
2010: 85 cases, 13
2011: 78 cases, 14
2012: 79 cases, 19
2013: 75 cases, 9
2014: 74 cases, 17
2015: 18 cases, 0 splits (2015 term runs until October 2, 2016)
As you can see, the vast majority of supreme court cases are not 5-4 partisan split decisions. A lot of the 'big' ones are, sure, but most cases aren't decided on party-line votes.
By comparison, here's the number of unanimous decisions reached during Obama's presidency.
2008: 30
2009: 36
2010: 39
2011: 34
2012: 38
2013: 46
2014: 28
2015: 10
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-15-2016, 08:34 AM
|
#45
|
Has lived the dream!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where I lay my head is home...
|
Yeah, I guess I'm thinking more congress and such. And of course, the big cases that hit the news.
|
|
|
02-15-2016, 08:54 AM
|
#46
|
Franchise Player
|
Sad but true...
Again, this system is horribly broken.
__________________
"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
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-15-2016, 11:37 AM
|
#48
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Hmmmmmmm
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
It seriously bothers me that the highest legal authoriy of the country is so pronouncely politicized and affected by judges' political beliefs. Shouldn't it by the very definition of jurisprudence be apolitical? Or is it a pipe dream considering modern realities? Does it bother anyone else?
|
Political beliefs? I think it's way more scary that it's being effected by religious beliefs.
|
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to calgaryblood For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-15-2016, 12:04 PM
|
#49
|
Franchise Player
|
I don't pretend to follow what happens at the supreme court, much less the personalities on the bench.
What has this guy done that has made him so vilified on this site?
|
|
|
02-15-2016, 12:22 PM
|
#50
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CroFlames
I don't pretend to follow what happens at the supreme court, much less the personalities on the bench.
What has this guy done that has made him so vilified on this site?
|
http://www.ontheissues.org/Antonin_Scalia.htm
__________________
"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
|
|
|
02-15-2016, 01:50 PM
|
#51
|
Not Taylor
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Calgary SW
|
A funny House of Cards-style fantasy post I read elsewhere would be that Obama gets both sides to agree that the next president should be the one who nominates the supreme court judge. Obama then resigns. Biden takes his place and nominates Obama for the position. Then Biden announces he's running for re-election.
__________________
"We are no longer living. We are empty of substance, and our head devours us. Our ancestors were more alive. Nothing separated them from themselves."
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Swift For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-15-2016, 02:21 PM
|
#52
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
|
wow
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
02-15-2016, 03:44 PM
|
#53
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
|
An interesting point is Scalia decent on the case for benefits going to gay couples is used by state courts to legalize gay marriage.
He says something to the effect of if you agree with the reasoning presented in this case you basically have to legalize gay marriage.
And because of that desent years of court battles were deferred or delayed.
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.
|
|
|
02-15-2016, 05:12 PM
|
#54
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
|
|
|
|
02-15-2016, 05:22 PM
|
#55
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
Eric Holder is my choice, the repugs would freak
|
No chance he would even get considered. The Justice Department had too many issues under him.
|
|
|
02-15-2016, 05:26 PM
|
#56
|
Had an idea!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood
Good riddance. He was a true scumbag and his death is a positive for Americans.
|
Really? I don't agree with him on most stuff, but your head is stuck in the sand if you believe that.
Quote:
in 2011’s Brown v. EMA, a double victory for First Amendment advocates that protected both depictions of violence and minors’ rights. And he dissented in Maryland v. King, arguing that the Fourth Amendment forbids law enforcement from collecting DNA from arrestees. (His fierce dissent sounds like it could have sprung from the pen of Edward Snowden.)
|
Quote:
Despite his King vote, Scalia was widely viewed by many Americans as a harshly law-and-order justice. Again, that label is simply inaccurate. In many contexts, Scalia was extraordinarily protective of Americans’ right to privacy—though he himself would never use that term. He wrote the majority opinion in Kyllo v. United States, a 5-4 ruling that barred police from peeping into a home with a thermal-imaging device. He also wrote the majority opinion in Florida v. Jardines (another 5-4 decision), barring police from entering private property with a drug-sniffing dog without a warrant. Time and time again, he cast votes to protect drivers from intrusive car searches by law enforcement. Just last term, he sided against the police in a landmark ruling that restored constitutional rights to motorists illegally detained by cops.
|
Quote:
When I was younger and angrier, I expected to cheer Scalia’s retirement, elated by his absence from the court. Today, I only feel overwhelming sadness. In my time covering the court, I’ve grown to admire the gruff, cantankerous man who lobs bombs and quips at nervous lawyers and bemused justices alike. Scalia was the justice you either loved or hated, relentlessly opinionated, representative of everything that was right or wrong with the Supreme Court. He was witty, unpredictable, caustic, indignant, and brilliant. He was an American original. And after the partisan howling over his legacy fades, that is how his country will remember him.
|
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...t_justice.html
Sounds like a real scumbag.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-15-2016, 05:53 PM
|
#57
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Surprised at how much hatred for Scalia here. I was fortunate to visit the Supreme Court and listen to a morning of oral arguments in December 2009. In any event as luck would have it we got to listen to Conrad Black's appeal. Listening to Scalia and Breyer was a real treat, I have no legal training or experience but listening to the clarity with which those two men questioned both sides made feel like I actually knew what was going on.
|
|
|
02-15-2016, 06:18 PM
|
#58
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Hmmmmmmm
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
|
This is a man who said if we protect gays we must protect child molestors as well and that if we allow gay people to have sex we should also allow incest.
I stand by what I said. He was a true scum bag and the world and especially America is better off with him 6 feet under and I hope he enjoys hell.
The only thing better than him dying would have been if he wasn't even born.
I don't need to feel sympathy for someone like him. He doesn't deserve it.
|
|
|
02-15-2016, 06:46 PM
|
#59
|
Has lived the dream!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where I lay my head is home...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood
Political beliefs? I think it's way more scary that it's being effected by religious beliefs.
|
Often one in the same down there. And for as learned and educated Scalia was, I'd say he fit that mold.
|
|
|
02-15-2016, 06:53 PM
|
#60
|
Has lived the dream!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where I lay my head is home...
|
Thanks for the counter point Azure.
As I mentioned in my first point, I'm not going to prentend I'm not happy he's off the bench. But it sucks the way it happened.
Though I disagree with 80-90 percent of his positions, I do admire him for a few things. No matter how you slice it, he worked hard for America. It may not be the America we want to see, but he worked for it, a important public servant.
And yes, he did have some good rulings and good arguments.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:11 AM.
|
|