|
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 |
|
|
# ? May 29, 2024 18:11 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
FAUXTON posted:So what was his Autobahn? Hamdi v Rumsfeld iirc
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 01:34 |
|
OAquinas posted:Yeah. that actually came up for me during a facebook discussion around the marriage equality ruling. 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 |
|
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 |
|
euphronius posted:Hamdi v Rumsfeld iirc Okay I'll grant you that.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 02:00 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
MickeyFinn posted:This is FTFY
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 04:00 |
|
Ceiling fan posted:I didn't feel the need before to post the obvious, but here goes. 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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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?
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 08:50 |
|
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 |
|
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. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:07 |
|
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 |
|
That article sloppily confuses constitutional originalism and textualism with judicial review.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:34 |
|
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 |
|
euphronius posted:That article sloppily confuses constitutional originalism and textualism with judicial review. so does Scalia
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:46 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:so does Scalia
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:49 |
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:so does Scalia so did Scalia
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:50 |
|
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.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 14:57 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
"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 |
|
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. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Feb 18, 2016 |
# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:33 |
|
|
# ? May 29, 2024 18:11 |
|
The decision is to hold hearings or not. Obama will nominate someone soon after the funeral imho.
|
# ? Feb 18, 2016 15:37 |