|
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 06:20 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 05:17 Leporello wrote:
Anyone who follows the line of "Money is speech, Corporations are people" isn't so much an "ardently literal Constitutionalist" as he is a simple sell-out. Scalia was a raging douche-nozzle, but... not nearly as douchey as the vast sum of people who want to throw away our Supreme Court for a year for the sake of being partisan.
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? Obama (the President) doesn't pick Supreme Court Judges. 51 Senators and Obama(the President) pick Supreme court Justices. The Senate could send Obama a list and say 'nominate one of these people' and Obama couldn't force them to approve someone off the list. Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio)
correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it about rejecting everyone no matter what so that the senate doesn't even get a vote on it in the first place because <person in question> got rejected before that could happen?
|
On February 15 2016 10:27 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 03:49 Cowboy64 wrote: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. No. The media told you to hate the people you disagree with so you do. There isn't anything else to it.
Cowboy, I'm a big boy and made up my mind on my own. Everyone who doesn't feel the same way you do isn't being a sheep being told what to do by the media. You aren't smarter than everyone who disagrees with you.
|
On February 15 2016 10:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 10:27 Cowboy64 wrote:On February 15 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 03:49 Cowboy64 wrote: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. No. The media told you to hate the people you disagree with so you do. There isn't anything else to it. You think you think that but you're just regurgitating Fox news because you're incapable of doing anything but blaming the media for opinions you disagree with. If you were capable of independent thought you wouldn't think what you do.
funny how both sides like to pull this out so much yet it invariably means absolutely nothing
i mean i have my opinion on who's more right here but what's it even matter
everyone feels like they think for themselves except on matters they consider unimportant
i like p6's input tho, "you aren't smarter than everyone who disagrees with you"
|
United States43460 Posts
On February 15 2016 11:33 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 10:50 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2016 10:27 Cowboy64 wrote:On February 15 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2016 03:49 Cowboy64 wrote: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. No. The media told you to hate the people you disagree with so you do. There isn't anything else to it. You think you think that but you're just regurgitating Fox news because you're incapable of doing anything but blaming the media for opinions you disagree with. If you were capable of independent thought you wouldn't think what you do. funny how both sides like to pull this out so much yet it invariably means absolutely nothing i mean i have my opinion on who's more right here but what's it even matter everyone feels like they think for themselves except on matters they consider unimportant i like p6's input tho, "you aren't smarter than everyone who disagrees with you"
In case you missed it I was simply illustrating how absurd his post was by inverting it.
|
yea i missed it; i have lapses in tone judgement in text even though i generally pride myself on being good at contextualizing o well
interacting with people like cowboy64 just makes me depressed; i cant remember ever having a good time from doing it or feeling accomplishment in any way. there are intelligent, well-reasoned contrary commentators on political matters that give at least some bit of stimulation in the head, and then there are... the rest of them...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 15 2016 08:29 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 08:18 oneofthem wrote:On February 14 2016 07:38 oneofthem wrote:
gg scalia
expect a lot of people confusing ideology with consistency in the coming days Is ideology inherently inconsistent or something?
ideology is just stronger and entails more. if you have the additional information of the varieties of cases before a judge, then it is possible for a variety of inconsistencies to arise. inconsistency over time/cases as the judge's ideology is selectively applied to achieve desirable outcomes. inconsistency within one case that produces an internally incoherent opinion, such as in the way other cases are cited and given weight. inconsistency between different areas of law, such as when individual rights is emphasized in the area of property rights but de-emphasized when it comes to certain liberties etc.
given a judge who makes certain judgements based on cases, in a variety of areas, the observer is tasked with figuring out what the judge is going to do.
suppose you are given the observable that every opinion of this judge is along the same theory or ideology, and his rulings mostly support a conservative position. it can be described as the judge following a consistent approach, but it could also be that, given the cases presented, a consistent judge would not produce the outcomes, and the theory in the opinion is a facade for trying to unite some underlying and contradictory set of values.
|
On February 15 2016 09:05 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 08:57 Introvert wrote:
idk but everything I've read (even from liberal students or colleagues) said he was a genuinely nice person, fwiw. What does that matter. He was just a supreme court judge who wasn't very good at his job. Yeah, he protected or squashed people's constitutional right; he did both. But that he seemed like a nice person, some of the most horrible persons ever seemed like nice persons. You really want to compare him with some of those? All he was was a bad judge, not some serial killer. If a person is charming, all alarm bells should go off. Especially if they have power.
It was literally his job to interpret what was constitutional and what was not. Him disagreeing with your position doesn't make him bad at his job; that's absolutely ludicrous position.
|
Robert Reich also said that he has heard from a source that he is the favorite:
|
wow an indian american? Interesting
|
United States43460 Posts
On February 15 2016 12:21 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 09:05 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On February 15 2016 08:57 Introvert wrote:
idk but everything I've read (even from liberal students or colleagues) said he was a genuinely nice person, fwiw. What does that matter. He was just a supreme court judge who wasn't very good at his job. Yeah, he protected or squashed people's constitutional right; he did both. But that he seemed like a nice person, some of the most horrible persons ever seemed like nice persons. You really want to compare him with some of those? All he was was a bad judge, not some serial killer. If a person is charming, all alarm bells should go off. Especially if they have power. It was literally his job to interpret what was constitutional and what was not. Him disagreeing with your position doesn't make him bad at his job; that's absolutely ludicrous position.
If that's too subjective for you he also regularly disagreed with the majority decision of his peers.
|
On February 15 2016 06:20 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 05:17 Leporello wrote:
Anyone who follows the line of "Money is speech, Corporations are people" isn't so much an "ardently literal Constitutionalist" as he is a simple sell-out. Scalia was a raging douche-nozzle, but... not nearly as douchey as the vast sum of people who want to throw away our Supreme Court for a year for the sake of being partisan.
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? Obama (the President) doesn't pick Supreme Court Judges. 51 Senators and Obama(the President) pick Supreme court Justices. The Senate could send Obama a list and say 'nominate one of these people' and Obama couldn't force them to approve someone off the list. Basically, if Obama was going to "do his job" he would nominate someone even more conservative than Scalia to ensure that 51 Senators will approve. (Perhaps he could nominate Cruz or Rubio)
I'm not sure why you think that nominating two of the most ideologically conservative individuals in the Senate somehow represents its will more than nominating someone 14 Republicans + 46 Democrats can agree on (after all, Obama absolutely needs 60 votes to get anyone through).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
originalism is just a bad legal philosophy. have a serious hard time respecting anyone who takes it that seriously. it is pretty much medieval scholastics tier reasoning.
a version of this stuff confuses semantic interpretation of language with legal decisionmaking. akin to relying on dictionary authority as legal authority. only limited areas of law would be ok with this stuff, the contract and transaction stuff, with their own umpire sections to boot.
there is the obvious problem of not recognizing one's own interpretative act even when direct or original meaning appears transparent or veridical to reader.
politically law or court authority as extension of original lawmaker or Law just is archaic leviticus level shit. 'restraint' is in another light an abdication of judicial responsibility with the added illusion of saying there is no choice but to obey the law. again cant take this shit seriously and i find the respect lvl given to it entirely reflection of lack of actual thinking in law
|
On February 15 2016 11:45 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 08:29 IgnE wrote:On February 15 2016 08:18 oneofthem wrote:On February 14 2016 07:38 oneofthem wrote:
gg scalia
expect a lot of people confusing ideology with consistency in the coming days Is ideology inherently inconsistent or something? ideology is just stronger and entails more. if you have the additional information of the varieties of cases before a judge, then it is possible for a variety of inconsistencies to arise. inconsistency over time/cases as the judge's ideology is selectively applied to achieve desirable outcomes. inconsistency within one case that produces an internally incoherent opinion, such as in the way other cases are cited and given weight. inconsistency between different areas of law, such as when individual rights is emphasized in the area of property rights but de-emphasized when it comes to certain liberties etc. given a judge who makes certain judgements based on cases, in a variety of areas, the observer is tasked with figuring out what the judge is going to do. suppose you are given the observable that every opinion of this judge is along the same theory or ideology, and his rulings mostly support a conservative position. it can be described as the judge following a consistent approach, but it could also be that, given the cases presented, a consistent judge would not produce the outcomes, and the theory in the opinion is a facade for trying to unite some underlying and contradictory set of values.
the basis for the consistency is absent in this logic though. to be consistent you have to have a set of principles to be consistent about
|
On February 15 2016 12:21 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 09:05 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On February 15 2016 08:57 Introvert wrote:
idk but everything I've read (even from liberal students or colleagues) said he was a genuinely nice person, fwiw. What does that matter. He was just a supreme court judge who wasn't very good at his job. Yeah, he protected or squashed people's constitutional right; he did both. But that he seemed like a nice person, some of the most horrible persons ever seemed like nice persons. You really want to compare him with some of those? All he was was a bad judge, not some serial killer. If a person is charming, all alarm bells should go off. Especially if they have power. It was literally his job to interpret what was constitutional and what was not. Him disagreeing with your position doesn't make him bad at his job; that's absolutely ludicrous position.
He did rule on citizens united, which is slowly turning US politics into a reality show. The last Republican debate was two steps away from a pro-wrestling match. I am sure the unlimited supply of money being pored into TV networks is a huge boon to the American people, where the 24/7 news networks try to keep the reality show going at all costs for views and ad revenue.
With that decision alone, I can say he was pretty bad at his job and failed to see the damage unregulated money would do to elections. And he hated gay people too.
|
On February 15 2016 12:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 12:21 Bigtony wrote:On February 15 2016 09:05 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On February 15 2016 08:57 Introvert wrote:
idk but everything I've read (even from liberal students or colleagues) said he was a genuinely nice person, fwiw. What does that matter. He was just a supreme court judge who wasn't very good at his job. Yeah, he protected or squashed people's constitutional right; he did both. But that he seemed like a nice person, some of the most horrible persons ever seemed like nice persons. You really want to compare him with some of those? All he was was a bad judge, not some serial killer. If a person is charming, all alarm bells should go off. Especially if they have power. It was literally his job to interpret what was constitutional and what was not. Him disagreeing with your position doesn't make him bad at his job; that's absolutely ludicrous position. If that's too subjective for you he also regularly disagreed with the majority decision of his peers.
I would have some serious concerns about the nature of the court if every supreme court was a unanimous or 8-1 decision.
|
On February 15 2016 14:11 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 12:59 KwarK wrote:On February 15 2016 12:21 Bigtony wrote:On February 15 2016 09:05 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On February 15 2016 08:57 Introvert wrote:
idk but everything I've read (even from liberal students or colleagues) said he was a genuinely nice person, fwiw. What does that matter. He was just a supreme court judge who wasn't very good at his job. Yeah, he protected or squashed people's constitutional right; he did both. But that he seemed like a nice person, some of the most horrible persons ever seemed like nice persons. You really want to compare him with some of those? All he was was a bad judge, not some serial killer. If a person is charming, all alarm bells should go off. Especially if they have power. It was literally his job to interpret what was constitutional and what was not. Him disagreeing with your position doesn't make him bad at his job; that's absolutely ludicrous position. If that's too subjective for you he also regularly disagreed with the majority decision of his peers. I would have some serious concerns about the nature of the court if every supreme court was a unanimous or 8-1 decision.
So if even one of them thought he did a bad job, would the position be ludicrous? That is how opinions work. There are plenty of people I disagree with how they do their job.
|
I haven't seen this much grave dancing since OBL.
|
On February 15 2016 14:59 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I haven't seen this much grave dancing since OBL.
well it just comes with the territory. he was one of the few top dogs of his profession - and a highly polarizing figure.
though I agree, some comments are... borderline impious.
|
|
|
Dude's making a bad comparison with Osama Bin Laden
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
