|
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 14:09 Plansix 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. 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.
To be fair, damage probably wasn't the reason he ruled the way he did. While I disagree with his ruling, it is perfectly consistent to find something that is damaging to the country as a whole "constitutional". His job isn't to look out for the best interests of the country; it's to interpret a 200 year old document, and how that document affects modern laws. There is a difference.
|
Oh, I should have been able to figure out that one...
|
On February 15 2016 22:29 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2016 14:09 Plansix 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. 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. To be fair, damage probably wasn't the reason he ruled the way he did. While I disagree with his ruling, it is perfectly consistent to find something that is damaging to the country as a whole "constitutional". His job isn't to look out for the best interests of the country; it's to interpret a 200 year old document, and how that document affects modern laws. There is a difference.
Then again, there is a perpetually ongoing debate as to what degree said interpretive process ought to take into account contemporary social and political norms. Though Scalia would have certainly argued (and did, I should add) that judicial interpretation ought not take concepts as nebulous as the best interests of the country into account, there are other justices, particularly the liberal ones, that would very competently argue to the contrary. Though he's retired, Justice Stevens was especially good at writing judicial opinions that cogently laid out a framework through which law-making necessarily must take changes in social and political circumstance into account.
|
United States43731 Posts
Scalia argued that anything not explicitly stated in the constitution wasn't a right (except when it was) and it should be left up to the states. He included civil rights within that umbrella and said that there was no constitutional reason why states couldn't give some rights to some citizens and deny the same rights to others. I feel like there was a pretty strong ruling on this issue in the case of Lincoln vs The Confederacy and many subsequent rulings made by the Supreme Court regarding segregationist laws. I can only assume that if Brown vs the Board of Education had happened under his watch he'd have said it was a state issue.
|
My impression, if you call it that, is Scalia started as a originalist which led to a lot of conservative decisions/ opinions but then began to veer erratically into using shitty originialism/ jurisprudence as an argument for a conservative ideology. His rulings got progressively (pun unintended) worse. You have some pretty solid stuff from the first part of his career, then you find him writing stuff that uses lines of reasoning blatantly contradictory to what he ruled in the past.
|
What are some examples of blatantly contradictory lines of reasoning?
|
It's been interesting to observe the difference of what people who knew Scalia personally say about him, vs what average joe leftist says about him.
Even the champions of the left in the court loved him. He was best friends with Ginsberg, who says he was a brilliant legal mind, just disagreed with his interpretation of issues.
I guess I need to come to terms that there is just a deep rooted emotionally charged hatred here that supersedes everything.
|
United States43731 Posts
On February 16 2016 01:48 LuckyFool wrote:
It's been interesting to observe the difference of what people who knew Scalia personally say about him, vs what average joe leftist says about him.
Even the champions of the left in the court loved him. He was best friends with Ginsberg, who says he was a brilliant legal mind, just disagreed with his interpretation of issues.
I guess I need to come to terms that there is just a deep rooted emotionally charged hatred here that supersedes everything.
It's entirely possible that a homophobe who abuses his power to discriminate against millions of citizens is capable of being an okay person to those he comes into direct contact with. I have no idea why you think the two are mutually exclusive but they're not.
He can be a good friend, an intelligent judge and a good family man while still being a bigot who made life worse for millions of people by supporting systems of oppression. I don't hate the man, I never met the man, but I do hate oppression. He was a force for evil in the world and his death is a good thing because it ends his evil career.
The idea of an emotionally charged hatred is absurd, it's a rational opposition to systematic government oppression.
|
Don't get it either. For every historical maniac there is probably some guy out there who has only nice things to say about them. If you push hazardous political positions that marginalize minorities I don't actually care how good of a dinner companion that person is. It's nuts to give him bonus points as a judge because he was apparently a friendly person in private
|
On February 16 2016 01:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2016 01:48 LuckyFool wrote:
It's been interesting to observe the difference of what people who knew Scalia personally say about him, vs what average joe leftist says about him.
Even the champions of the left in the court loved him. He was best friends with Ginsberg, who says he was a brilliant legal mind, just disagreed with his interpretation of issues.
I guess I need to come to terms that there is just a deep rooted emotionally charged hatred here that supersedes everything. It's entirely possible that a homophobe who abuses his power to discriminate against millions of citizens is capable of being an okay person to those he comes into direct contact with. I have no idea why you think the two are mutually exclusive but they're not. He can be a good friend, an intelligent judge and a good family man while still being a bigot who made life worse for millions of people by supporting systems of oppression. I don't hate the man, I never met the man, but I do hate oppression. He was a force for evil in the world and his death is a good thing because it ends his evil career. The idea of an emotionally charged hatred is absurd, it's a rational opposition to systematic government oppression.
I don't think it is. If we're not dealing with "emotionally charged hatred," then we are clearly dealing with either willful ignorance or outright dishonesty. The general comments in this thread about Scalia have been a shit show of the highest order. Most people clearly have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, but are nonetheless happy to regurgitate left-wing, anti-Scalia swill.
Not that any of this is surprising. As has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread over the years, judicial form and principle mean little to the strictly outcome-oriented.
|
United States43731 Posts
On February 16 2016 02:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2016 01:54 KwarK wrote:On February 16 2016 01:48 LuckyFool wrote:
It's been interesting to observe the difference of what people who knew Scalia personally say about him, vs what average joe leftist says about him.
Even the champions of the left in the court loved him. He was best friends with Ginsberg, who says he was a brilliant legal mind, just disagreed with his interpretation of issues.
I guess I need to come to terms that there is just a deep rooted emotionally charged hatred here that supersedes everything. It's entirely possible that a homophobe who abuses his power to discriminate against millions of citizens is capable of being an okay person to those he comes into direct contact with. I have no idea why you think the two are mutually exclusive but they're not. He can be a good friend, an intelligent judge and a good family man while still being a bigot who made life worse for millions of people by supporting systems of oppression. I don't hate the man, I never met the man, but I do hate oppression. He was a force for evil in the world and his death is a good thing because it ends his evil career. The idea of an emotionally charged hatred is absurd, it's a rational opposition to systematic government oppression. I don't think it is. If we're not dealing with "emotionally charged hatred," then we are clearly dealing with either willful ignorance or outright dishonesty. The general comments in this thread about Scalia have been a shit show of the highest order. Most people clearly have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, but are nonetheless happy to regurgitate left-wing, anti-Scalia swill. Not that any of this is surprising. As has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread over the years, judicial form and principle mean little to the strictly outcome-oriented.
I disagree.
|
On February 16 2016 02:13 xDaunt wrote:
As has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread over the years, judicial form and principle mean little to the strictly outcome-oriented.
I think there is a whole lot of space between 'the means justify the ends' and 'I'll treat the constitution like I've found it in the Ark of the Covenant'. Not everybody who thinks that the latter is a little silly is a filthy utilitarian.
|
People are complex. Scalia could have been perfectly charming and nice to his fellow justices and clerks, but terrible to other people. I am sure he was a nice person to deal with. But he also gave speeches how America owed his prosperity to God and wrote legal opinions about how gay sex should be illegal. He was all for freedom of speech, but that didn’t carry over to the bedroom.
And I get that some people liked his rulings, but using his death as ammo to take shots at people is just as bad as people cheering that he passed away. The work is separate from his family and personal life. No one here is advocating protesting his funeral.
Edit: I am with XDaunt about people’s reactions to legal rulings are normally based on what they wanted to happen, rather than the reasoning behind the ruling itself. I remember having to explain to a couple of my progressive friends about MA Supreme court rulings on laws that they were thrown out because they were badly written, not because the judges disagreed with the principle of the law.
But that is a problem with news coverage of the courts and their rulings. Court reporting in general is based on the outcomes, rather than the causes behind those outcomes. They report that people are found “innocent” rather than reporting that there was insufficient evidence due to a botched investigation. They report “Court confirms that Plaintiff’s case has merit” when a motion to dismiss is denied, which is the lowest threshold any legal proceeding needs to pass before the court.
But even after all that, a lot of people have plenty of reasons to not be happy with Scalia's rulings.
|
i want more people dancing on graves and fewer people being whiny and reactive. "oh over on r/politics everyone is a liberal and you get downvoted to hell" "i bet the people on r/conservative take perverse joy in every life they ruin"
we need more black panthers kicking ThePowersThatBe ass and fewer mens right activists whining about shit.
|
On February 16 2016 00:13 KwarK wrote:
Scalia argued that anything not explicitly stated in the constitution wasn't a right (except when it was) and it should be left up to the states. He included civil rights within that umbrella and said that there was no constitutional reason why states couldn't give some rights to some citizens and deny the same rights to others. I feel like there was a pretty strong ruling on this issue in the case of Lincoln vs The Confederacy and many subsequent rulings made by the Supreme Court regarding segregationist laws. I can only assume that if Brown vs the Board of Education had happened under his watch he'd have said it was a state issue.
THIS...
Literally this, everytime he didnt have a solid concrete counter narrative, he would retreat to "Well the consitution doesnt say u cant." Whether it was gender discrimination, LGBT rights what have you...
If as he felt, your constitution cannot be a flexible living document, then there is no difference between that and organized religion. Doesnt sit well with me regardless of what the media might say.
|
An interesting article on the costs of Sanders' plans:
Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s Plans
Mr. Sanders, on “Fox News Sunday,” reiterated his oft-stated claim that progressive critics dispute: “A family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 more in taxes and get a reduction in their health costs of $5,000.”
But by the reckoning of the left-of-center economists, none of whom are working for Mrs. Clinton, the new spending would add $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year on average to federal spending; by comparison, total federal spending is projected to be above $4 trillion in the next president’s first year.
“The numbers don’t remotely add up,” said Austan Goolsbee, formerly chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, now at the University of Chicago.
Alluding to one progressive analyst’s early criticism of the Sanders agenda as “puppies and rainbows,” Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, “They’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.”
Source
|
United States43731 Posts
On February 16 2016 03:30 kwizach wrote:An interesting article on the costs of Sanders' plans: Show nested quote +Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s Plans
Mr. Sanders, on “Fox News Sunday,” reiterated his oft-stated claim that progressive critics dispute: “A family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 more in taxes and get a reduction in their health costs of $5,000.”
But by the reckoning of the left-of-center economists, none of whom are working for Mrs. Clinton, the new spending would add $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year on average to federal spending; by comparison, total federal spending is projected to be above $4 trillion in the next president’s first year.
“The numbers don’t remotely add up,” said Austan Goolsbee, formerly chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, now at the University of Chicago.
Alluding to one progressive analyst’s early criticism of the Sanders agenda as “puppies and rainbows,” Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, “They’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.” Source
Are they accounting for the positive externalities of Sander's plans. Single payer healthcare wouldn't exist in parallel with health insurance for the average consumer (although I see no reason why those who can afford it might not have both)? The elimination of health insurance from jobs and the replacement with a tax to pay for the new public health service could result in a net increase in the post-tax paycheck of an individual while providing a comparable level of healthcare. Obviously if you're double counting costs then things get expensive fast but I see no reason why you would do that.
|
It all depends upon how the care is rationed. Just because people are "covered" doesn't mean that they are "covered well."
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On February 16 2016 03:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2016 03:30 kwizach wrote:An interesting article on the costs of Sanders' plans: Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s Plans
Mr. Sanders, on “Fox News Sunday,” reiterated his oft-stated claim that progressive critics dispute: “A family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 more in taxes and get a reduction in their health costs of $5,000.”
But by the reckoning of the left-of-center economists, none of whom are working for Mrs. Clinton, the new spending would add $2 trillion to $3 trillion a year on average to federal spending; by comparison, total federal spending is projected to be above $4 trillion in the next president’s first year.
“The numbers don’t remotely add up,” said Austan Goolsbee, formerly chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, now at the University of Chicago.
Alluding to one progressive analyst’s early criticism of the Sanders agenda as “puppies and rainbows,” Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, “They’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.” Source Are they accounting for the positive externalities of Sander's plans. Single payer healthcare wouldn't exist in parallel with health insurance for the average consumer (although I see no reason why those who can afford it might not have both)? The elimination of health insurance from jobs and the replacement with a tax to pay for the new public health service could result in a net increase in the post-tax paycheck of an individual while providing a comparable level of healthcare. Obviously if you're double counting costs then things get expensive fast but I see no reason why you would do that.
I wonder if they considered the fact that Sanders would end the price gouging from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industry as well.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
still find this scalia will be remembered as a great jurist hilarious. his positions are simply not that good and will be wiped from history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
