|
Fittingly enough, Scalia's final opinion for the court upheld a death sentence, albeit in an 8-1 decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-449_9o7d.pdf
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:30 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 05:50 |
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Fittingly enough, Scalia's final opinion for the court upheld a death sentence, albeit in an 8-1 decision: quote:“When we correct a state court’s federal errors, we return power to the State, and to its people.” I want this to be chiseled into that motherfucker's headstone. I don't have any issue with the SCOTUS having the responsibility of correcting erroneous state interpretations of the constitution, albeit I think Kansas was right in blocking the killing of those prisoners, but saying you're empowering states by dropping a big sack of nopesauce on them is some toontown bullshit.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 08:56 |
|
Periodiko posted:I'm kind of sorry for opening this can of worms because I can't imagine it ending well, but I think it's a legit case of "liberal racism" that people constantly accuse Thomas of being some kind of incompetent toady for Scalia. Gee I hope he doesn't lose any sleep over it.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 09:52 |
|
FAUXTON posted:I want this to be chiseled into that motherfucker's headstone. I don't have any issue with the SCOTUS having the responsibility of correcting erroneous state interpretations of the constitution, albeit I think Kansas was right in blocking the killing of those prisoners, but saying you're empowering states by dropping a big sack of nopesauce on them is
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:06 |
|
Periodiko posted:I'm kind of sorry for opening this can of worms because I can't imagine it ending well, but I think it's a legit case of "liberal racism" that people constantly accuse Thomas of being some kind of incompetent toady for Scalia. Like a weird attempt to defuse the difficulty of his being a black conservative by just saying he's a token idiot and a mere unthinking servant of a white man. Justice Thomas posted:“I know that people are going to go all off the rails when they find out my opinion on the Loving decision. It’s important to stress that I am not in favor of any sort of anti-miscegenation law. All I am saying is that if I had been on the court in ‘67 I would probably have decided that those laws are best left to the discretion of the states. At the time of that decision there were only 16 states that still had anti-miscegenation laws. If the court had found in favor of the Commonwealth of Virginia those laws would eventually all been repealed on a state by state basis. The reality is that all 16 of those states have abolished those laws, the last one was in Alabama in 2000. If the court had allowed the Virginia law to stand it would have only taken 33 years before inter-racial marriage would have been legal in all 50 states.” He might not be a toady for Scalia personally, but the dudes a moraless shill for the GOP and white conservatives. He's the ultimate "my black friend".
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:23 |
|
Can ghost Scalia now respond on a petitioners behalf? Tia guys
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 10:42 |
|
SCOTUS Thread 2015: Ghost Justice Scalia attempted to respond on Satan's behalf
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 11:40 |
|
Schizotek posted:If the court had allowed the Virginia law to stand it would have only taken 33 years before inter-racial marriage would have been legal in all 50 states.” lmao "only 33 years"
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 14:10 |
|
How can you say with a straight face that since it took 33 years for Alabama to repeal a moot law they totally would have gotten around to it if the law wasn't ruled unconstitutional? Like, I could see you bullshitting that the South totally wouldn't be shitheads on something, bit to use Alabama as you example?
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 14:40 |
|
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 14:47 |
|
Gyges posted:How can you say with a straight face that since it took 33 years for Alabama to repeal a moot law they totally would have gotten around to it if the law wasn't ruled unconstitutional? Like, I could see you bullshitting that the South totally wouldn't be shitheads on something, bit to use Alabama as you example? 33 years nothing, the 13th didn't get ratified by Kentucky until 1976 and Mississippi waited until 1995, I'm sure he knew he exactly what he was saying.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 14:56 |
|
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 15:38 |
|
Gyges posted:How can you say with a straight face that since it took 33 years for Alabama to repeal a moot law they totally would have gotten around to it if the law wasn't ruled unconstitutional? Like, I could see you bullshitting that the South totally wouldn't be shitheads on something, bit to use Alabama as you example? Thomas isn't in favor using the court as a social policy cudgel, even if it would personally give him some sort of benefit. He is a man who grew up in Georgia during Jim Crow as the son of poor farmers and managed to get himself into an Ivy League law school. He prefers the change to come via non-judicial means and is fairly principled in that regard.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 16:46 |
|
Periodiko posted:I'm kind of sorry for opening this can of worms because I can't imagine it ending well, but I think it's a legit case of "liberal racism" that people constantly accuse Thomas of being some kind of incompetent toady for Scalia. Like a weird attempt to defuse the difficulty of his being a black conservative by just saying he's a token idiot and a mere unthinking servant of a white man. He's worse than an unthinking servant. He's a smart guy who just knowingly does irreparable harm to millions.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:03 |
|
I wonder what poor RBG is thinking (besides the fact that her friend is dead ). I always thought the popular belief was that she'd retire under Obama. If she retires now, maybe it will make the republicans look even more insane blocking TWO appointees for a whole year and leaving the court seriously understaffed, on the other hand meanwhile the court is left with a 4-3 conservative slant. If she retires at the end of this session, that obviates the latter issue but might mean the Senate doesn't have to block her successor quite as long before the election. All the while she is getting old and probably wants to retire
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:06 |
|
There really isn't any evidence that she wants to retire.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:07 |
|
If she wanted to retire, she would have done so last year. It's pretty rare for Justices to retire at the last year of someone's term for just these kinds of reasons.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:09 |
|
alnilam posted:I wonder what poor RBG is thinking (besides the fact that her friend is dead ). I always thought the popular belief was that she'd retire under Obama. If she retires now, maybe it will make the republicans look even more insane blocking TWO appointees for a whole year and leaving the court seriously understaffed, on the other hand meanwhile the court is left with a 4-3 conservative slant. If she retires at the end of this session, that obviates the latter issue but might mean the Senate doesn't have to block her successor quite as long before the election. If she wanted to retire under Obama she would have already. She's not interested in retiring until she feels she can't do the job.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:11 |
|
Last I heard she didn't want to retire because she didn't think anyone as liberal as her would be appointed. She might decide to retire because her dear colleague died (she and Scalia got along very well), but it won't be before the election.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:12 |
|
Oh okay
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:12 |
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Thomas isn't in favor using the court as a social policy cudgel, even if it would personally give him some sort of benefit. Boy how noble of him!
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:12 |
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Boy how noble of him! It's more a word of caution of "don't pigeonhole Thomas" because it will only lead to madness.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:22 |
|
SCOTUS Thread 2016: The Devil's Advocate
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:33 |
|
Most modern justices (Souter and O'Connor being the major exceptions) retire only a few steps away from death.ayn rand hand job posted:It's more a word of caution of "don't pigeonhole Thomas" because it will only lead to madness.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:35 |
|
Quote not edit.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:37 |
|
FAUXTON posted:I want this to be chiseled into that motherfucker's headstone. I don't have any issue with the SCOTUS having the responsibility of correcting erroneous state interpretations of the constitution, albeit I think Kansas was right in blocking the killing of those prisoners, but saying you're empowering states by dropping a big sack of nopesauce on them is some toontown bullshit. This quote might be better: Antonin loving Scalia posted:Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:41 |
|
Gyges posted:I agree, there's only one Obama fit for the challenge first dog Barack Obama Obama
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:43 |
|
TinTower posted:This quote might be better: I don't think it's an unfair summary of his jurisprudence, but he didn't actually say that.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:43 |
|
Scalia liked to dress up lovely decisions in originalism to give his opinions some veneer of merit - even if actual originalism wouldn't agree with him. I forgot which decision it was, but the end result was that it legalized companies putting clauses into their EULAs that blocked class-action suits. Scalia ruled in favor with the basic premise of "because companies want it". Thomas on the other hand is consistent in viewing the United States through the eyes of barely-high school educated landed gentry who considered him to be lifestock.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 17:45 |
|
eviltastic posted:I don't think it's an unfair summary of his jurisprudence, but he didn't actually say that. True. He did say this, in an effort which ultimately showed that Blackmun was right and he was wrong: In 1994, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote an opinion questioning the constitutionality of the death penalty. Scalia responded by picking out what he perceived to be the worst of worst in death penalty cases. He picked Henry Lee McCollum, writing that McCollum’s case was a great example of why the death penalty was still necessary. He wrote: “For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat. How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!” McCollum walked off of death row in 2015 after DNA evidence proved his innocence.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 18:02 |
|
TinTower posted:This quote might be better: He never quite said that though; there's a long detailed dissection of it here: http://news.lawreader.com/2008/08/30/barry-miller-widely-published-scalia-quote-re-innocense-is-inaccurate-we-have-to-agree/ quote:LawReader user Barry Miller has brought to our attention a widely published misquote of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia. We have no idea how this quote arose, but upon review we conclude it is nothing more than an edited version and not the actual words of Scalia.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 18:03 |
|
Broken Machine posted:He never quite said that though; there's a long detailed dissection of it here: That is no less horrible.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 18:12 |
|
mcmagic posted:That is no less horrible. I think it's important to understand the context of his statement, and that the statement attributed to him actually be what he said. I don't know enough about the law to comment on the merits of it. As a layperson it seems odious, and I'm not a fan of Scalia. Maybe a lawyer can speak to the merits of his argument in context.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 18:21 |
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Thomas isn't in favor using the court as a social policy cudgel, even if it would personally give him some sort of benefit. I totally get that, and I'm OK with his bullshitting that States would have totally gotten around to fixing things that they fought tooth and nail against fixing all the way to the Supreme Court. What's idiotic is saying that since Alabama took 33 years to repeal a dead law that totally means they would have repealed the law if it hadn't been struck down by the Supreme Court.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 18:21 |
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:This. There are lots of reasons to despise Thomas as an rear end in a top hat (I believe Anita Hill!) but he comes to his terrible conclusions using his own reasoning; he wasn't blindly voting with Scalia. I kind of think he's right on the slaughterhouse cases.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 18:24 |
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Thomas isn't in favor using the court as a social policy cudgel, even if it would personally give him some sort of benefit. Except he's not consistent with that Theory and embraces judicial activism when it suits his political goals.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 18:34 |
Are there any good examples of Scalia, Alito, or Thomas siding against something that followed their ideals but went against what they wanted to happen politically? I'm interested since it feels like it's happened at least one.
|
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 18:38 |
I'm pretty sure Scalia has released opinions on the same day that interpret the same principles oppositely depending on his opinion on the case
|
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 18:48 |
|
Thomas: Raich Scalia was a total dick tho
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 18:48 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 05:50 |