The Assassination of Antonin Scalia by the Coward Barack Obama

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Assassination of Antonin Scalia by the Coward Barack Obama

«‹›27 »

evilmiera: Dec 14, 2009; Status: Ravenously Rambunctious

TheAngryDrunk posted:

He was a smoker, too? drat, he's lucky he survived that long.

I just tried to look up what kind of smokes he used to take part in, and I found another reason not to like him much.

http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-undoes-scalias-pro-tobacco-order-071435887.html

# ? Feb 17, 2016 22:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 18:34

Luna Was Here: Mar 21, 2013; Lipstick Apathy

this might be preaching to the choir but advocating for judges to be elected is like really dumb because all you do is create a system where judges are going to change how they would decide cases to appear more electable rather than actually going with what they believe to be the right sentence

# ? Feb 17, 2016 23:01

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

PleasingFungus posted:

Isn't this also an argument against e.g. elected county governments?

To some degree, yes - elections for dogcatcher are not helping anyone. But I think for the important town positions word gets out, because it's a small enough community that you'll notice the campaigning.

# ? Feb 17, 2016 23:06

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Luna Was Here posted:

this might be preaching to the choir but advocating for judges to be elected is like really dumb because all you do is create a system where judges are going to change how they would decide cases to appear more electable rather than actually going with what they believe to be the right sentence

There's one judge who ran on his rape conviction rate. Not like he ran for judge based on his rape conviction rate as a prosecutor seeking a judicial appointment, but a judge who ran on the conviction rate in his courtroom.

Historically the only way for a judge to get booted out was ruling in favor of an unpopular criminal defendant, regardless of how justified the ruling was.

# ? Feb 17, 2016 23:08

corn in the bible: Jun 5, 2004; Oh no oh god it's all true!

It also makes decisions against businesses almost impossible since somebody gave money to the judge and it's probably not you

# ? Feb 17, 2016 23:38

MickeyFinn: May 8, 2007; Biggie Smalls and Junior Mafia some mark ass bitches

corn in the bible posted:

It also makes decisions against businesses almost impossible since somebody gave money to the judge and it's probably not you

This is an emerging problem in arbitration, so I can't imagine it being any different if a regular judge is involved.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 01:22

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

FAUXTON posted:

So what was his Autobahn?

Hamdi v Rumsfeld iirc

# ? Feb 18, 2016 01:34

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

OAquinas posted:

Yeah. that actually came up for me during a facebook discussion around the marriage equality ruling.
"He has terrible opinions, but at least he's fun to read. Reading a Thomas opinion is like watching paint peel. If we should have adversaries, at least they should be entertaining."

If you think Thomas opinions are boring you are a wrong and bad person.

Scalia's are more accessible to the random person on the street, admittedly. What with all the applesauce.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 01:44

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

All of the justices have top notch staffs of like the best lawyers in the country and they themselves are good lawyers . The authority of their branch of government rests on persuasion and the appearance of expertise. You are going to get well written opinions.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 01:48

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

euphronius posted:

Hamdi v Rumsfeld iirc

Okay I'll grant you that.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 02:00

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

euphronius posted:

All of the justices have top notch staffs of like the best lawyers in the country and they themselves are good lawyers . The authority of their branch of government rests on persuasion and the appearance of expertise. You are going to get well written opinions.

You've clearly never read a Souter opinion.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 02:35

Thesaurasaurus: Feb 15, 2010; "Send in Boxbot!"

I imagine that lawyers who loathed Scalia's jurisprudence still mourning him is like how Hunter S. Thompson felt when Nixon died - all of a sudden, this great adversary who gave your career, nay, your life meaning, your own personal white whale, is gone, and no matter how much you may have hated them, you still feel a little lost without them. At least they gave you something to focus on.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 03:27

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Thesaurasaurus posted:

I imagine that lawyers who loathed Scalia's jurisprudence still mourning him is like how Hunter S. Thompson felt when Nixon died - all of a sudden, this great adversary who gave your career, nay, your life meaning, your own personal white whale, is gone, and no matter how much you may have hated them, you still feel a little lost without them. At least they gave you something to focus on.

Nah he isn't it wasn't the perfect robot conservative .

# ? Feb 18, 2016 03:40

Ceiling fan: Dec 26, 2003; I really like ceilings.; Dead Man’s Band

evilmiera posted:

I just tried to look up what kind of smokes he used to take part in, and I found another reason not to like him much.

http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-undoes-scalias-pro-tobacco-order-071435887.html

I didn't feel the need before to post the obvious, but here goes.

The world is a better place now that this rear end in a top hat is dead, and I am so happy that it finally happened.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 03:43

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

MickeyFinn posted:

This is ~~an emerging problem in~~ the entire point of arbitration, so I can't imagine it being any different if a regular judge is involved.

FTFY

# ? Feb 18, 2016 04:00

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Ceiling fan posted:

I didn't feel the need before to post the obvious, but here goes.

The world is a better place now that this rear end in a top hat is dead, and I am so happy that it finally happened.

Reading that article, yeah, gently caress him with a rake. Not only a nakedly lovely move on his part, he took the effort to twist the loving knife by "noted national concern over the abuse of class-action lawsuits in state courts" because it's the people harmed by decades of interference who are the villains here, not the fuckers who actively curtailed public disclosure of medical science for 40 years resulting in millions of preventable deaths.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 05:14

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

evilmiera posted:

I just tried to look up what kind of smokes he used to take part in, and I found another reason not to like him much.

http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-undoes-scalias-pro-tobacco-order-071435887.html

I assume the cross mentioned in the article is the Mt. Soledad cross. With Scalia gone, is it finally going to be removed from government lands like it should have been 27 years ago?

# ? Feb 18, 2016 05:23

Harik: Sep 9, 2001; From the hard streets of Moscow
First dog to touch the stars; Plaster Town Cop

Nevvy Z posted:

FTFY

I believe he used emerging in the "people are starting to realize this is happening" sense. Has John Oliver done a segment on arbitration clauses yet?

# ? Feb 18, 2016 07:45

Henker: May 5, 2009

Gyges posted:

I assume the cross mentioned in the article is the Mt. Soledad cross. With Scalia gone, is it finally going to be removed from government lands like it should have been 27 years ago?

I don't even care that it's a giant cross on public land, I want it gone because it's ugly as hell. Looks like someone stacked a bunch of cinder blocks on top of each other.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 08:50

Luna Was Here: Mar 21, 2013; Lipstick Apathy

Harik posted:

I believe he used emerging in the "people are starting to realize this is happening" sense. Has John Oliver done a segment on arbitration clauses yet?

i think the closest thing we have is his segment on elected judges

# ? Feb 18, 2016 09:13

Xequecal: Jun 14, 2005

Evil Fluffy posted:

And yet when push came to shove the Dems still voted to confirm Bush's lovely choices. Except Harriet Miers who had bi-partisan opposition because everyone was horrified at how bad a pick she was.

Even creepy Clarance was confirmed. The GOP debate made the GOP's argument really clear. If Obama appoints someone it won't be an arch conservative monster like Scalia and as such it puts the War on Women, Gays, and Minorities in jeopardy.

E: If the GOP was smart they'd welcome that because once the courts can't be used as a tool for those actions it lets them start pandering to groups they currently neglect yet will need if they want to stay in power as demographics keep changing.

I'm a bit late to this argument but this is very misleading. The Dems only agreed to vote for Bush's nominees after the Reps threatened to invoke the nuclear option, meaning change the rules of the Senate to circumvent the filibuster entirely and confirm the justices anyway with a simple majority. The Dems had already lost, they only agreed as a face saving measure to avoid making themselves look impotent.

Before you get too mad at the Reps for this, remember that the Dems also circumvented a Rep filibuster on the ACA by resorting to budget reconciliation.

Filibuster just doesn't mean anything if the majority party is committed enough to their position. The situation in the Senate is very much. "You need 60 votes to pass anything, except when you don't" and its one of my biggest pet peeves about our legislative process.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 09:22

foobardog: Apr 19, 2007; There, now I can tell when you're posting.

-- A friend

Luna Was Here posted:

The only people I've ran into in my town that cared about voting for county officials were people over the age of 60 and I don't even think they knew with 100% certainty who they were electing and why

Of course, this is part of the reason that the Republicans were able to gerrymander in the first place because state elections are not much better attended by the young and liberals than county elections. This also applies to referendums and initiatives. The county level is often partly responsible for transit issues, so in the few places where public transit exists, you should probably pay more attention.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 11:15

Gyges: Aug 4, 2004; NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

Henker posted:

I don't even care that it's a giant cross on public land, I want it gone because it's ugly as hell. Looks like someone stacked a bunch of cinder blocks on top of each other.

Look, you can't get a court order for legally indefensible artistic failure. So you've got to point out that it's very existence is unconstitutional on other grounds. Let Madison do the heavy lifting for reasonable aesthetic taste.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 12:34

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

quote:

Antonin Scalia was the most Orwellian jurist in American history. He was one of the most important members of the Supreme Court in American history, but not for any reason he identified. Scalia claimed to champion judicial restraint, originalism and the separation of law and politics. In fact, he was a judicial activist who struck down laws based on a contemporary constitutional vision that he campaigned for aggressively in both legal and political settings.

Scalia's professed adherence to judicial restraint masked a remarkably broad judicial activism. As Thomas Keck documents in THE MOST ACTIVISTSUPREME COURT IN HISTORY (see also Eric Segall�s fine piece in the Wake Forest Law Review), Scalia was among the least restrained justices who ever sat on the federal bench. He voted to declare unconstitutional land-use regulations, environmental regulations, campaign finance regulations, restrictions on speech outside abortion clinics, hate speech regulations, laws limiting state funding to religious organizations, affirmative action policies, majority-minority districts, crucial provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, crucial provisions of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 and many other federal and state enactments. Scalia insisted that the federal government could rarely permit citizens to sue states in federal or state courts or require state officials to implement federal laws. Bush v. Gore probably belongs in a class of its own as an instance of judicial activism. Scalia�s last major opinion on the Supreme Court urged the justices to declare unconstitutional local bans on semi-automatic weapons.

Scalia insisted that he was guided by the original meaning of the Constitution, but his activist opinions often made no reference to practice in 1789 or 1868 or did so in ways that would cheer the heart of a living constitutionalist. He posed as Raoul Berger, but was far closer in spirit to Jack Balkin. Scalia�s denunciations of affirmative action never engaged with the substantial scholarly literature maintaining that the Republicans who framed the post-Civil War Amendments frequently enacted race-conscious programs. His aggressive attacks on regulatory takings never engaged with the scholarly debate over whether the conception of regulatory takings even existed in 1789. His support for corporate contributions in political campaigns refused to tackle antebellum legal decisions holding that states were free to restrict corporate charters in any way the people thought best for the public interest. He never sought to refute Saul Cornell's influential claim that the right to bear arms in 1791 was the right to be part of a state militia. As did most justices, Scalia appealed to broad general principles (free speech, formal equality) when they supported his pet causes, and appealed to particular historical practices when general principles standing alone might lead in a disfavored direction.

Scalia demanded from others a separation of law and politics that was missing in his practice. As Mark Tushnet observes, Scalia often wrote for the evening news or the blogs rather than for legal analysts. His opinions consistently included insults that mobilized conservative activists without advancing by an iota any legal argument. Scalia spent most of his time off the court campaigning for his constitutional vision in any forum that would offer him a podium.

Scalia was hardly unique in his activism and devotion to the political movements of his time. Think William Douglas and William Brennan during the late twentieth century or David Brewer at the turn of the twentieth century. Each was a judicial activist who identified with a political movement of that time and articulated that political movement�s constitutional vision. What set Scalia apart was his Orwellian insistence that he was the anti-Brennan/Douglas/Brewer, a justice who respected legislatures and whose jurisprudence was connected only to the political movements of the late eighteenth century that produced the Constitution of the United States. If he fooled some of the people some of the time early in his career, by the end he demonstrated the adage that you can�t fool all of the people all of the time. Just as the historical reputation of David Brewer and William Brennan are tied to the political movements whose constitutional vision they articulated, so will the historical reputation of Antonin Scalia depend on the fate of the Tea Party in American constitutional politics.

By all accounts, Scalia was an honorable public servant who was gracious in private life and committed to advancing the common good as he saw it in public life. He had an exceptional capacity for friendship across ideological divides and there was never a hint of scandal in his behavior. A great many public officials might emulate those behaviors. Nevertheless, Scalia did more to cheapen than enrich public discourse. His judicial rants, even if they were of little concern to his colleagues, further polarized a too polarized polity. His false professions of judicial modesty converted appropriate debates over how the court should be activist into an historically silly debate over whether the court should be activist. His false professions of neutrality converted appropriate debates over which contemporary constitutional vision ought to be the official law of the land into an absurd debate over whether any contemporary constitutional vision ought to be the official law of the land. His false professions about the separation of law and politics obscured the myriad ways in which constitutional law does and should bleed into constitutional politics.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:07

Dazzling Addar: Mar 27, 2010; He may have a funny face, but he's THE BEST KONG

he may have been a huge bloated corpse of a man but really, who can deny that we are poorer for having lost a figure so skilled at blatant hypocrisy

# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:22

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

That article sloppily confuses constitutional originalism and textualism with judicial review.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:34

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Nevvy Z posted:

FTFY

Arbitration as a thing is much larger then the lovely clause in your cell phone contact.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:44

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

euphronius posted:

That article sloppily confuses constitutional originalism and textualism with judicial review.

so does Scalia

# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:46

gohmak: Feb 12, 2004; cookies need love

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

so does Scalia

# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:49

World War Mammories: Aug 25, 2006

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

so does Scalia

so did Scalia

# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:50

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Suitaru posted:

so did Scalia

nice

also nice:

quote:

If any Republican senator is thinking about defecting from the GOP�s tough line on blocking a Supreme Court nomination until next year, then let them be warned. Outside conservative groups are preparing to go to war over who should get to pick a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly over the weekend, and they don�t want to see even a hearing considering the nominee President Obama has vowed to put forward.

�The strategy that makes the most sense is to say that there should not be any consideration of this nominee,� Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. "It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it�s the situation: the fact that it�s an election year, the fact that his policies are before the court, the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.�

The pressure he and other groups are putting on lawmakers comes after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement almost immediately after Scalia�s death, signaling that Republicans would delay the confirmation process, regardless of the nominee, until after a new president has been inaugurated.

�It�s not about any one particular nominee,� Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the conservative legal organization Judicial Crisis Network, told TPM. �We know exactly the kind of person [Obama] is going to appoint. Getting into those details is just a silly distraction.�

For both sides of the political divide, the stakes could not be higher.

�We�ve known this was coming for while. We set aside resources for this fight because everyone knows the next president is likely to have maybe three nominations to make,� Severino said. She wouldn�t go into details about her group�s next moves when it comes to halting the Obama nominee, but said �we�re totally prepared for it,� including financing the effort.

One key choice for Republican lawmakers is whether to go through the motions of considering a nominee -- though hearings and other vetting -- before blocking them in a vote, or whether GOP leaders should refuse to even begin the process in the first place. McConnell�s statement, which was quickly followed by statements made by other Republican leaders echoing his logic, suggested they were planning for a full stonewall -- no hearings, no nothing

Outside conservative groups with influence on Capitol Hill -- and particularly those that inhabit its far-right flank -- were quick to cement the line McConnell drew.

�Senator McConnell is right, under no circumstance should the Republican Senate majority confirm a Supreme Court nominee as Americans are in the midst of picking the next president,� Michael Needham -- the head of Heritage Action, the lobby arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation -- said in a statement posted Monday.

The Family Research Council is also advocating that Senate refuse to take up any nominee Obama submits.

�The Senate is under no obligation to consider them,� Travis Weber, the director of the FRC�s Center for Religious Liberty, said in an interview with TPM. �President Obama can nominate people until his heart�s content and they have no obligation to look at them one way or another, given the gravity of the moment.�

Some reports have suggested that some Republicans are already wavering on McConnell�s tough line, pointing to comments made by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), but legal activists dismissed that analysis as overstated.

�The headlines about the fracturing are more wishful thinking than anything else,� Severino said. �If you really look at the full statements, I think it�s remarkable how the Republican senators are speaking with one voice on this issue.�

According Levey, FreedomWorks is preparing to target senators who look like they�ll back down from the fight, while bolstering those who hold to McConnell�s tough initial line.

He said his group sent out an alert to its activists across the country Monday evening that resulted in 14,000 emails to McConnell�s office, and that, aside from email pressure, they are planning events in senators� home states.

Levey also threatened to primary senators who don't toe the line.

�In some cases where there are potential primary opponents, we might consider supporting a primary opponent if the senator did not do the right thing,� Levey said.

As Rory Cooper, a GOP strategist, wrote on Medium, part of the strategy of denying the Obama administration even a hearing is to prevent the media from focusing on the person instead of the process, and in effect, starving the story of oxygen.

But the outside groups pushing the tactic also argued it�s a more principled approach to blocking a nominee that Republicans will inevitably block in a vote anyway.

�It�s the most honest,� Levey said. �The very fact that people on our side feel very strongly that there shouldn�t be a hearing before we know the nominee is because it�s not really about the nominee. ... Frankly, the real objection here is to Obama.�

# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:57

Al!: Apr 2, 2010

Dazzling Addar posted:

he may have been a huge bloated corpse of a man but really, who can deny that we are poorer for having lost a figure so skilled at blatant hypocrisy

Well every law school professor says he was a brilliant jurist; a million idiot adjuncts can't be wrong.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:59

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

quote:

the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.

So here's a question: are the remaining 8 justices polarized* enough that we would just see a string of 4-4 decisions that will forever and ever make the lower court's ruling stand?

_{* I would have said politicized, but of course it's politicized.}

# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:01

Nelson Mandingo: Mar 27, 2005

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

nice

also nice:

This could honestly be what sinks the republicans this election. If they obstruct a decent telegenic and personable* moderate candidate for too long it'll make them look utter like idiots.

Nelson Mandingo fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Feb 18, 2016

# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:03

Al!: Apr 2, 2010

Nelson Mandingo posted:

This could honestly be what sinks the republicans this election. If they obstruct a decent moderate candidate for too long it'll make them look utter like idiots.

I really want the dems to start calling the republicans out for what they are: the modern incarnation of anarchism.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:05

Pillow Hat: Sep 11, 2001; What has been seen cannot be unseen.

I have it on good authority that it wasn't the coward Barack Obama who had Scalia assassinated. God had him killed so that Ted Cruz could rise to presidency.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/glenn-beck-god-killed-scalia-so-cruz-could-win/

# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:08

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

I sincerely hope that the posters advocating for the direct election of judges (let alone Supreme Court judges) are in high school or college, because that idea is incredibly, severely naive and ignorant to even suggest.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:08

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

"Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. "It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it�s the situation: the fact that it�s an election year, the fact that his policies are before the court, the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.�
"

These are terrible "facts". If this is the best the right can come up with they aren't going to win.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:11

Teriyaki Koinku: Nov 25, 2008; Bread! Bread! Bread!

Bread! BREAD! BREAD!

What's great about Scalia dying is that the need to nominate a replacement Supreme Court justice is putting Republican obstructionism in such naked, plain view that even Truth Is In The Middle journalism can't disguise it and how only now it's dawning on a few Republicans that "hey wait a second, maybe our immediate reflex to block Obama on doing literally anything is kind of a bad look for us...".

It's okay when it's business as usual where nobody in the general public is paying attention to the day-to-day business of government while you feed news of obstructionist victories to the Base, but not so much when attention is at an all-time high even more so than during a government shut-down.

Tea Party rancor from the base and conservative groups will force Republican senators between a rock and a hard place of whether to confirm nomination or not. Support an Obama nominee and get primaried out as a RINO traitor or obstruct his nomination for the next ten months to make it blindingly obvious in an election year that Republicans are the ones wrecking the government and provoking a constitutional crisis in refusing to perform the duties of government.

The schadenfreude is delicious. :getin:

Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Feb 18, 2016

# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 18:34

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

The decision is to hold hearings or not. Obama will nominate someone soon after the funeral imho.

# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Assassination of Antonin Scalia by the Coward Barack Obama

«‹›27 »