Justice Antonin Scalia

[mtangelsfan]

mt, you continue to hold me to a harsher standard than everyone else on this board. I don't care, it is kind of amusing in its own way, but my comments about Scalia were far from the worst. You just saw them that way because of your rageboner for me.

 

And yeah, you can't separate morality - I agree. There is quite a difference, though, between tax legislation and social programs on one hand, and legislating what can and cannot be done in a bedroom.

 

That is what your morals say.  

 

and I actually quoted glen's post, not yours on my original rant.  

[colt4405]

I think history clearly indicates everything Cals said. Scalia was a prick and America won't miss him.

[Tank]

I am curious why so many think Scalia was an asshole. He believed the constitution should be interpreted narrowly, generally giving states (i.e., voters) the right to make their own decisions. He didn't believe in a powerful federal government, and believed people, not 9 unelected judges, should govern themselves. Isn't this consistent with the libertarian viewpoint so many of you proudly claim to follow?

Why is the other point of view necessarily right, and Scalia was wrong/evil?

Well said, Phil. That's how I feel, too. Not sure why so many think the Supreme Court is there to solve every problem when some of these things are or should be state issues.

[Glen]

Many of the people I've seen clamoring for states'rights wouldn't mind taking their state back to the "separate but equal' days. That's why I'm not too big on it. Yes, individual cases apply.

[mtangelsfan]

I think history clearly indicates everything Cals said. Scalia was a prick and America won't miss him.

 

Nice you know more than Justice Ginsberg:

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/14/10990156/scalia-ginsburg-friends

[Glen]

So pricks have no friends?

[mtangelsfan]

So pricks have no friends?

 

friends who have worked with them for decades?  Friends who are opposite when it comes to politics?

 

Pricks have other pricks for friends.

Edited February 15, 2016 by mtangelsfan

[Crampknees]

PFF's are much better than BFF's. 

[wopphil]

Many of the people I've seen clamoring for states'rights wouldn't mind taking their state back to the "separate but equal' days. That's why I'm not too big on it. Yes, individual cases apply.

And herein lies the problem with Scalia's approach. Some of the best progress we have made as a nation has been through Supreme Court decisions.

But on the flip side, it is totally undemocratic to have nine unelected individuals make law.

I honestly don't know the right answer, but I respect that Scalia generally supported limiting the federal government's power.

[JAHV76]

This thread delivered some interesting bantering. What i take from it is a lot of people had the day off.

[BaseballMom]

The whole thing about state's rights vs federal rights:

 

I have a friend who is in a recognized same sex marriage here in California.  Before the Supreme Court recognized same sex marriage on a federal level, they could not travel to his home state (Georgia) and expect their relationship to be recognized.  If they got in an automobile accident, his spouse would not be able to have rights to visit him or make decisions on his behalf, etc. That is ****ing wrong, IMO. 

 

Some things need to be federally recognized.  Are we not the ****ing UNITED states of America??

[BaseballMom]

friends who have worked with them for decades?  Friends who are opposite when it comes to politics?

 

Pricks have other pricks for friends.

 

Dude, I am friends with Angels25fan...just sayin

[JAHV76]

Brian is an interesting guy that's for sure. I haven't seen him at too many games these last few years.

[colt4405]

Anyone else hear this "High end bird hunting" place is really a brothel? Scalia going out Odom style?

 

I choose to believe this conspiracy theory.

[Tank]

Many of the people I've seen clamoring for states'rights wouldn't mind taking their state back to the "separate but equal' days. That's why I'm not too big on it. Yes, individual cases apply.

The simple answer is that when state laws possibly violate the constitution, then the process should get that issue before the supremes. It seems to have worked pretty well so far.

[Glen]

And herein lies the problem with Scalia's approach. Some of the best progress we have made as a nation has been through Supreme Court decisions.

But on the flip side, it is totally undemocratic to have nine unelected individuals make law.

I honestly don't know the right answer, but I respect that Scalia generally supported limiting the federal government's power.

Fair enough.

[Rico]

Anyone else hear this "High end bird hunting" place is really a brothel? Scalia going out Odom style?

 

I choose to believe this conspiracy theory.

Watch it, you're going to ruffle someone's feathers.

[ten ocho recon scout]

I took Constitutional Law in law school, as Phil did, I'm sure. I read a lot of Supreme Court decisions. A LOT.

The one constant amongst Scalia's opinions was that he was just an asshole. He used strict constructionism as his excuse to be a prick. He had a political agenda like everyone else and acted high and mighty like his racist, sexist, 95% pro-conservative opinions were based on the Constitution and there wasn't anything he could do about it, that's what the Constitution said. He was full of shit and a douchebag about much of the time.

When Rubio said in this last debate "the Constitution is not a living, breathing document, it needs to be interpreted as it was written" I blew milk (beer) out of my nose.

Dude, if it wasn't a changeable document then black people would be worth 3/5 of a person. Your precious 2nd amendment (an amendment, literally, something added or changed) would not be included, and your small Latino dick issues wouldn't be something that gun ownership could put a band-aid on.

So, goodbye Scalia. If you didn't want people to see the positive things your death might bring, you could've done things differently in life. So, bye.

channeling my inner pentecostal church "amen" when i read that. Not concerning scalia, but in terms of how people interpret the constitution.

The constitution was writtwn by men who owned slaves (some), and were probably 2 generations from people who believed in witches...they themselves were smart enough to know they didnt know it all, and knew to make it a living document...hence the additional amendments (or the very fact you can ammend it).

The framers werent sent from the heavens...they were a group of people with ideas. In the original constitution lay the seeds that led to the civil war...if anything it wa sa compromise, a cease fire so to speak.

They had a lot good ideas. A lot of bad. Everything evolves. Anyone who disagrees should spend sometime with the people who kill for religion.

[Adam]

[mtangelsfan]

I think the problem with that is then there is no real law to base anything on.  The framers did put in the vehicle to change it.  it is called the amendment clause.  

 

If they thought the Constitution should be changed by 9 guys then they wouldn't have needed an amendment clause.

[the dude abides]

Tank, can you or one of the mods change the header?

 

Apparently it's Anthony Scalia who passed, not Antonin.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/269394-bachmann-mourns-anthony-scalia

[mtangelsfan]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee

 

Ha ha.  Obama says he regrets his filibuster on Alito's appointment.

 

Of course you do...........................

 

now.

[the dude abides]

Lol.

Dumbass.

.

[wopphil]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee

Ha ha. Obama says he regrets his filibuster on Alito's appointment.

Of course you do...........................

now.

And didn't Schumer say it would be "obstructionist" for the Republicans to block a vote on a replacement judge, while he advocated doing the exact same thing to Bush?

But the democrats are so much better and more ethical, aren't they.

[Tank]

Tank, can you or one of the mods change the header?

 

Apparently it's Anthony Scalia who passed, not Antonin.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/269394-bachmann-mourns-anthony-scalia

Nice. I appreciate all contributions from Mitchell Bachmann.