|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 15 2016 03:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I find the attacks on Scalia around here to be hilariously uninformed. Knock his judicial views and philosophy all you want, but he was consistent, which is really all that you can ask for out of a judge. And he certainly was not one of the judges who was prone to crapping out unworkable majority opinions (like O'Connor). I think the consensus is that the guy was consistent and probably had some integrity. Thing is that you can be consistent, have integrity AND be a piece of shit. Which is Kwark's point (correct me if I am wrong). His position against gay sex (I didn't know that) is just plain horrible.
Not to mention the whole black white university segregation thing that he talked about a few months back. Consistency isn't worth a dime if you're being a consistent ass
|
|
|
United States43219 Posts
On February 15 2016 03:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I find the attacks on Scalia around here to be hilariously uninformed. Knock his judicial views and philosophy all you want, but he was consistent, which is really all that you can ask for out of a judge. And he certainly was not one of the judges who was prone to crapping out unworkable majority opinions (like O'Connor). I think the consensus is that the guy was consistent and probably had some integrity. Thing is that you can be consistent, have integrity AND be a piece of shit. Which is Kwark's point (correct me if I am wrong). His position against gay sex (I didn't know that) is just plain horrible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_dissent
what
a
cunt
|
On February 15 2016 03:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 03:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2016 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I find the attacks on Scalia around here to be hilariously uninformed. Knock his judicial views and philosophy all you want, but he was consistent, which is really all that you can ask for out of a judge. And he certainly was not one of the judges who was prone to crapping out unworkable majority opinions (like O'Connor). I think the consensus is that the guy was consistent and probably had some integrity. Thing is that you can be consistent, have integrity AND be a piece of shit. Which is Kwark's point (correct me if I am wrong). His position against gay sex (I didn't know that) is just plain horrible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_dissentwhat a cunt
Horrible.
That being said it is AMAZING that the USA had laws prohibiting gay sex in 13 (!!!!!!) states in 2003. That's twelves years ago. Talk of medieval bullshit in the land of the free (then again, for some people, "free" is to have the right for a 13 years old to owe a kalachnikov but not for a gay man to shag his boyfriend at home. Amazing.)
|
On February 15 2016 03:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 03:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2016 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I find the attacks on Scalia around here to be hilariously uninformed. Knock his judicial views and philosophy all you want, but he was consistent, which is really all that you can ask for out of a judge. And he certainly was not one of the judges who was prone to crapping out unworkable majority opinions (like O'Connor). I think the consensus is that the guy was consistent and probably had some integrity. Thing is that you can be consistent, have integrity AND be a piece of shit. Which is Kwark's point (correct me if I am wrong). His position against gay sex (I didn't know that) is just plain horrible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_dissentwhat a cunt
Is he even in the ground yet?
|
He is dead, I'm sure this doesn't bother him. Not really a secret that he was hated by progressives, the gloating shouldn't be that much of a surprise given his views and what he said over the years.
|
I'm always amazed by progressives ability to condemn someone so harshly for his political views, yet they are very forgiving of actual criminals, like murderers, rapists or even genocides who share their agenda.
|
On February 15 2016 04:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
I'm always amazed by progressives ability to condemn someone so harshly for his political views, yet they are very forgiving of actual criminals, like murderers, rapists or even genocides who share their agenda.
Some of us are not so forgiving. But it's more politically effective to condemn and punish your own offenders in private.
|
On February 15 2016 04:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
I'm always amazed by progressives ability to condemn someone so harshly for his political views, yet they are very forgiving of actual criminals, like murderers, rapists or even genocides who share their agenda.
The fact that a Supreme Court Justice is known best for his personal views (applied to the official law) is the problem right from the start.
|
On February 15 2016 04:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
I'm always amazed by progressives ability to condemn someone so harshly for his political views, yet they are very forgiving of actual criminals, like murderers, rapists or even genocides who share their agenda.
Yes, progressives just love genocides. Bernie Sanders first policy in office will be to try to reanimate the corpse of Pol Pot
|
Funny thing about strawmen is you can impose on them whatever qualities you like.
Id venture to say that you would be hard pressed to find any progressives in this thread who like genocides, murderers, and rapists. Keep living in this 'lol liberals' meme world you have built though.
|
United States43219 Posts
On February 15 2016 04:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
I'm always amazed by progressives ability to condemn someone so harshly for his political views, yet they are very forgiving of actual criminals, like murderers, rapists or even genocides who share their agenda.
Firstly, political views that you use to make policy that impacts the lives of millions of people is not just "well that's just your opinion, bro", it's serious. Secondly, there is no central progressive agenda to support rapists or murderers. You may find individual idiots who support them but they're found equally on both sides of the spectrum.
Basically your post was really stupid. Being opposed to a bigot who used his position of power to oppress people is not unreasonable and I'm not pro-murder.
|
On February 15 2016 03:49 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 03:33 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2016 03:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 15 2016 03:14 xDaunt wrote:
I find the attacks on Scalia around here to be hilariously uninformed. Knock his judicial views and philosophy all you want, but he was consistent, which is really all that you can ask for out of a judge. And he certainly was not one of the judges who was prone to crapping out unworkable majority opinions (like O'Connor). I think the consensus is that the guy was consistent and probably had some integrity. Thing is that you can be consistent, have integrity AND be a piece of shit. Which is Kwark's point (correct me if I am wrong). His position against gay sex (I didn't know that) is just plain horrible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Scalia.27s_dissentwhat a cunt Is he even in the ground yet?
I don't think him being dead had any effect on Kwark's opinion. I am sure he was a wonderful father and family member, but he saw homosexuals as less than human, not worthy of human rights. Scalia thought terrible things about gays, live, dead or otherwise.
On February 15 2016 04:08 GoTuNk! wrote:
I'm always amazed by progressives ability to condemn someone so harshly for his political views, yet they are very forgiving of actual criminals, like murderers, rapists or even genocides who share their agenda.
It always impresses me that you seem to think this is limited to progressives, when the conservatives have pandered to homophobes, racists and other terrible people just to get votes, money and political favor. Maybe come down from the ivory tower you built yourself there.
|
Scalia just didn't believe in putting words into the framers of the Constitution mouths unlike the 5 Obergerfell justices.
|
On February 15 2016 04:35 Ravianna26 wrote:
Scalia just didn't believe in putting words into the framers of the Constitution mouths unlike the 5 Obergerfell justices.
It's literally the entire job of the Supreme Court to put words into the "framers of the Constitution mouths".
|
Yeah. He only felt that some people didn't deserve the same rights as others. Gays were less than human and the states should be free to discriminate against them; and blacks being allowed to vote would be an entitlement instead of a right afforded by the Constitution and the principles of this country. But sure, other than things like that I guess he was ok.
|
On February 15 2016 04:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 04:35 Ravianna26 wrote:
Scalia just didn't believe in putting words into the framers of the Constitution mouths unlike the 5 Obergerfell justices. It's literally the entire job of the Supreme Court to put words into the "framers of the Constitution mouths".
And Scalia also totally did do that, he would very selectively pick the most strict views of the "framers", even though their own views changed and they interpreted the constitution in different ways. Scalia wasn't' some magically connection to the minds of the framers at the time they signed the bill of rights, no matter what people say.
|
On February 15 2016 04:35 Ravianna26 wrote:
Scalia just didn't believe in putting words into the framers of the Constitution mouths unlike the 5 Obergerfell justices.
That's literally all a judge does when he interprets a given piece of legislative text. He is not a medium who can channel the ghosts of the founding fathers. He just preferred to stay with the purely textual interpretation because it reaffirmed his beliefs.
|
The true character of an individual is evident in how they respond to the death of someone they disagree with.
|
On February 15 2016 04:41 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 04:35 Ravianna26 wrote:
Scalia just didn't believe in putting words into the framers of the Constitution mouths unlike the 5 Obergerfell justices. That's literally all a judge does when he interprets a given piece of legislature. He is not a medium who can channel the ghosts of the founding fathers. He just preferred to stay with the purely textual interpretation because it reaffirmed his beliefs.
Somewhere in this post, there is an idea of an ABC court drama about a conservative district court judge that can speak to the ghosts of shockingly liberal and open minded Madison and Jefferson. He talks to them for advice on how to rule and they also...solve crimes.
I need to workshop this more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
