EPTPeople being honest when people pass on says no more about their character than anything else one does. His family isn't going to frequent these forums, no one he had a personal relationship with is likely to see this. This is a political discussion thread, and in that context he was rather disliked.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2925
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
People being honest when people pass on says no more about their character than anything else one does. His family isn't going to frequent these forums, no one he had a personal relationship with is likely to see this. This is a political discussion thread, and in that context he was rather disliked. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 15 2016 04:43 LuckyFool wrote: The true character of an individual is evident in how they respond to the death of someone they disagree with. What about people who use the death of someone to climb up on the moral high horse and look down on people they disagree with? I personally think those people are just as shitty. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
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). You mean consistently self-serving? He was also anti-science and a creationist. He truly was the pinnacle of our intellectual elite. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 15 2016 04:48 Nyxisto wrote: Conservative dead judges: when the real talk crowd discovers political correctness First its like; "People are to sensitive and easily offended, especially college students. Who gets mad about racist Halloween costumes?" But then they switch over too: "I am so offended you would negatively discuss the legal opinions of a dead supreme court justice I agree with! My god, it says a lot about progressives when they have so little respect." Progressive have no monopoly on whining about being offended. On February 15 2016 04:54 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: You mean consistently self-serving? From a legal standpoint, Scalia's opinions were well thought out and he paid special attention to how they would be applied and legal. Consistency is something all attorneys love in judges because it is their job to predict how the judge will rule. A judge that rules like Scalia is an attorney's promised land to argue before. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
On February 15 2016 04:55 Plansix wrote: From a legal standpoint, Scalia's opinions were well thought out and he paid special attention to how they would be applied and legal. Consistency is something all attorneys love in judges because it is their job to predict how the judge will rule. A judge that rules like Scalia is an attorney's promised land to argue before. Isn't that the absolute minimum you can expect from a supreme court judge? That whatever self-serving position he had to put fourth, he was at least able to write up something that was well thought out and paid special attention to certain legal nuances? I can also skillfully defend any position in a debate. Doesn't mean I am always right. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 15 2016 05:02 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: Isn't that the absolute minimum you can expect from a supreme court judge? That whatever self-serving position he had to put fourth, he was at least able to write up something that was well thought out and paid special attention to certain legal nuances? I can also skillfully defend any position in a debate. Doesn't mean I am always right. No, plenty of judges in the highest court issue garbage decisions that are unclear and leave side issues unaddressed. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
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). Scalia's writings are some of the best I've read. I love his wit, his clarity, and his wonderfully barbed rhetoric. Also he was a Catholic, not a creationist. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
On February 15 2016 05:09 Plansix wrote: No, plenty of judges in the highest court issue garbage decisions that are unclear and leave side issues unaddressed. Because you don't agree with them. At least I can see Scalia was producing quality opinions, just hypocritical and opportunist ones. That I agree with him or not, that only comes third. He was well-read, on law. Ask him a question about something else, and he was just as stupid as the next guy in a bar somewhere. Roman catholic dogma may have accepted evolution and rejected creationism, this guy had his own opinion. Maybe he had no reason to be a servant the catholic church? | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
There is a whole year before another President takes office. Sorry, Republicans, but in case you missed it, Mitt Romney lost that election. Barack Obama is your president, as your country decided he should be. That means he gets to pick the next SCJ. That's the way it works. I can believe that the GOP will try to delay the President's duties for a year. I shouldn't be able to believe that. But I can. It's like when those Republican Senators wrote a letter to Iran's government while Obama was trying to negotiate the peace deal. You'd think, "Who the fuck who would do that?" They would. Nothing, apparently, is more important to the modern GOP than hating Obama. Oh they love the Constitution, they love the Republic, they love peace. Sure -- unless Obama is involved. If Obama is involved, the GOP basically devolves into treason. We don't get to make peace with our enemies, our elected representatives don't get to fulfill their duties of appointing judges. None of that is as important as our ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). Yes, Obama will pick a pro-choice Judge. Too fucking bad. Elections have consequences. Grow the fuck up. Maybe take this one opportunity to prove to people that our Republic, and the choices that the electorate make, are actually more important to you than your partisanship. Too much to hope for? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On February 15 2016 05:14 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: Because you don't agree with them. At least I can see Scalia was producing quality opinions, just hypocritical and opportunist ones. That I agree with him or not, that only comes third. He was well-read, on law. Ask him a question about something else, and he was just as stupid as the next guy in a bar somewhere. Roman catholic dogma may have accepted evolution and rejected creationism, this guy had his own opinion. Maybe he had no reason to be a servant the catholic church? You sound like you don't know very much theology. Scalia was a devout papal soldier. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
That is a good minimum standard, I wish it applied to congress too. While I may disagree with many of scalia's rulings, they were generally quite well-written. I presume there's a general agreement that there's not enough accord for a deal wherein one of the old liberal justices also retires and a conservative and liberal are both added? | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
On February 15 2016 05:22 IgnE wrote: You sound like you don't know very much theology. Scalia was a devout papal soldier. Maybe the catholic church isn't ready to pay people to persuade Christians to their side or the creationism-evolution debate? Anyway, the founding fathers didn't intend for the constitution to dictate up a Papal vassal state. Quite the contrary. Serving to apply such an anti-catholic document while yourself being a catholic, that's the contradiction that, to me that exemplifies Scalia as the supreme judge was. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
Should be fun  | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7999 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. His "political views" have had a horrendous impact on the life of million of people. And his "political views" are basically the core of what he was doing. How is that trivial?? I am a progressive and I can't really think of a murderer, rapist or genocide that I would be forgiving for my agenda. In the other hand, it looks perfectly fine for Republicans to let children die in their schools to fulfill their macho fantasy about guns and "self defense", to have supported for decades far right dictators in South America, to have invaded Iraq for some private interests based on lies and hysteria, to support death penalty despite a horrendously unfair justice system, to support unconditionally rogue states such as Israel with a sublime disdain for the rights of palestinians, to fucking ruin the climate by lying day after day after day after day about scientific facts because there is business to be done by destroying the only planet we have, etc etc etc.. If you think that as an american conservative you can take the moral high ground, you need to seriously consider leaving your parallel dimension and come back in that part of the multiverse. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
 | ||
|
Introvert
United States4921 Posts
Also, last night i was surprised to see Ben Carson on make the point that in the 18th century a lifetime appointment wasn't so bad. And again, there are actually quite a few decisions he wrote that people here should agree with. Even the garbage heap that is slate had an interesting article about it: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/antonin_scalia_was_a_truly_great_supreme_court_justice.html | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On February 15 2016 05:30 zlefin wrote: I presume there's a general agreement that there's not enough accord for a deal wherein one of the old liberal justices also retires and a conservative and liberal are both added? I believe there's a general agreement that the Supreme Court doesn't fucking work like that. Or at least, people would actually like to pretend as much. If you can split judges, especially supreme court justices, along imaginary ideological lines, then they are terrible at their job. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 15 2016 05:14 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: Because you don't agree with them. At least I can see Scalia was producing quality opinions, just hypocritical and opportunist ones. That I agree with him or not, that only comes third. He was well-read, on law. Ask him a question about something else, and he was just as stupid as the next guy in a bar somewhere. Roman catholic dogma may have accepted evolution and rejected creationism, this guy had his own opinion. Maybe he had no reason to be a servant the catholic church? No, I mean practically. There are decisions that are silent to important issue. Or rulings that apply to thousands of people, but it is unclear if it is retroactive. So people don't know if the law applied to their previous dealing. This is super not helpful in real estate law. My state supreme court has made several of these, all that I have had to deal with. I agreed with a lot of them in principle. but in practice they were kinda shit. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
| ||
| ||
