BREAKING: Antonin Scalia Found Dead

[Porpoise101]

Justice Scalia of the US Supreme Court has officially passed away after being found dead in his room at Texas resort. He was one of the more conservative justices and was an opponent of Obama on many issues. Now that he is dead, the Supreme Court could be turned to left-dominated branch of government depending on who is appointed by the president and Congress. Rest in peace.
What do you guys think about his death and the future if the court
Story here:http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

[Judean Zealot]

Republicans must be fuming. The guy couldn't hang on one more year?

[Porpoise101]

Republicans must be fuming. The guy couldn't hang on one more year?
I bet many are calling foul play because of his 'timely' passing

[Judean Zealot]

I bet many are calling foul play because of his 'timely' passing

Nah, he was really old.

Edit: Porpoise101

Are you sure he passed away after being found dead in his room? :P

[StoppingTom]

While I don't agree with his viewpoints, I don't speak ill of the recently deceased.

This will be a hot topic for the Democrat nominees in future debates and campaigns, who they would nominate to fill his seat if elected president.

[phuckphace]

burn in hell, bigot

now we just gotta find a gay trans HIV+ Islamic communist POC to fill the vacancy :D

[Thunderstorm]

RIP. As Clarence Darrow of the infamous Scopes Trial said "I would never wish a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure".

That quote applies well here. Republicans liked Scalia, and even Democrats would admit he was brilliant. Despite this, he was oddly backwards in his views of social and economic justice.

That being said, Twitter is going nuts over this. Ted Cruz and Senate Majority Leader Mitchell McConnell called for the appointment of a judge to wait until the next president. However, it is Obama's job to appoint a justice since this happened during his term, and it can not wait until the next president.

[West Coast Sheriff]

May he rest in peace. His death should not be about politics.

RIP.

Mitchell McConnell called for the appointment of a judge to wait until the next president. However, it is Obama's job to appoint a justice since this happened during his term, and it can not wait until the next president.

Yeah, I have to agree here.

[Uniquemind]

But because of checks-n-balances, the Senate can stall Obama's shortlist of picks out until well...we have a new election.

So like procrastination is something Congress can do, that isn't against the U.S. Constitution.

Republicans don't want to lose their conservative majority on the SCOTUS bench, so expect uncouth behavior from them.


Scalia was brilliant, but also a demagogue judge, and a intellectual "troll" except he was in the business of interpreting law.

[Judean Zealot]

But because of checks-n-balances, the Senate can stall Obama's shortlist of picks out until well...we have a new election.

So like procrastination is something Congress can do, that isn't against the U.S. Constitution.

Republicans don't want to lose their conservative majority on the SCOTUS bench, so expect uncouth behavior from them.

I don't see that as 'uncouth', it's the way the Federal government is supposed to work. There are lots of important cases this year.

I do find it rather concerning that both parties are saying that they won't nominate somebody who hasn't decided ley cases in advance.


Scalia was brilliant, but also a demagogue judge, and a intellectual "troll" except he was in the business of interpreting law.

I don't think so. Whether you agree or disagree, he was a fairly consistent 'original intentist'.

[Uniquemind]

I don't see that as 'uncouth', it's the way the Federal government is supposed to work. There are lots of important cases this year.

I do find it rather concerning that both parties are saying that they won't nominate somebody who hasn't decided ley cases in advance.




I don't think so. Whether you agree or disagree, he was a fairly consistent 'original intentist'.

I'm never going to forget Ted Cruz's and the Republican Party using the 2/3rd majority vote as the NORMAL threshold for something to become law. In 2013 around October and November, we had a government shutdown, and we hit a sequester, and that made our debt worse when we lost a AAA credit rating.

And for stalling out Eric Holder's retirement as attorney general, or their attempt to stall out power and appointment for the ATF, which also was being claimed by the NRA as a branch of the federal government who was responsible to answer to the questions posed by Sandy Hook.

No this is not how government was supposed to work as intended by the founders, the Repubs, in America are hijacked by right-wing media, who brainwashes constituents, and prevents representatives from doing the wise-ruling thing as a trustee of public service. You might as well have direct democracy then, because this is a form of mob rule under semantics.

[Judean Zealot]

I'm never going to forget Ted Cruz's and the Republican Party using the 2/3rd majority vote as the NORMAL threshold for something to become law. In 2013 around October and November, we had a government shutdown, and we hit a sequester, and that made our debt worse when we lost a AAA credit rating.

And for stalling out Eric Holder's retirement as attorney general, or their attempt to stall out power and appointment for the ATF, which also was being claimed by the NRA as a branch of the federal government who was responsible to answer to the questions posed by Sandy Hook.

No this is not how government was supposed to work as intended by the founders.

It's been said that the federal government was designed to get little done. I tend to agree.

You've got a mobocracy regardless.

[Uniquemind]

It's been said that the federal government was designed to get little done. I tend to agree.

You've got a mobocracy regardless.

Maybe, but in this day an age time had proven we do not want a government that gets little done, if the citizenry understood this, they'd stop whining, and President Hoover, wouldn't have had a political backlash around the depression era.

In fact Americans would've taken pride in dying poor and suffering as a badge of honor then, but they didn't. So from that point onward, that's the new standard, and it should have the stamp of the founder's approval given that the constitution was a skeleton one, and that they deliberately allow for future generations to shape what is the normal expectations and speed of government.

[Judean Zealot]

Maybe, but in this day an age time had proven we do not want a government that gets little done, if the citizenry understood this, they'd stop whining, and President Hoover, wouldn't have had a political backlash around the depression era.

In fact Americans would've taken pride in dying poor and suffering as a badge of honor then, but they didn't. So from that point onward, that's the new standard, and it should have the stamp of the founder's approval given that the constitution was a skeleton one, and that they deliberately allow for future generations to shape what is the normal expectations and speed of government.

Perhaps, but this shift in how the federal government is viewed is hardly universal - and the Republicans are more or less in favour of keeping federal power as limited as possible. As far as I'm concerned, I fully understand and sympathise with both sides' positions.

[Porpoise101]

I saw this funny tweet by Anil Dash. He says if POTUS nominates Sri Srinivasan to SCOTUS, then we will have the courts and Microsoft. After that, we will take NASCAR.

[Uniquemind]

Perhaps, but this shift in how the federal government is viewed is hardly universal - and the Republicans are more or less in favour of keeping federal power as limited as possible. As far as I'm concerned, I fully understand and sympathise with both sides' positions.

I'd respect their positions more if statistics also were consistent and showed that republican bible-belt southern states, weren't the ones causing a drain on GDP, and that a good majority of those are reliant on Medicare and social security, programs that only exist with a large government.

[Judean Zealot]

I'd respect their positions more if statistics also were consistent and showed that republican bible-belt southern states, weren't the ones causing a drain on GDP, and that a good majority of those are reliant on Medicare and social security, programs that only exist with a large government.

You'll find no argument from me over here.

[Uniquemind]

You'll find no argument from me over here.

And so, you now understand why I throw out right-wing philosophy since I find it has little merit with regards to a "have your cake and eat it too" scenario. The ones who have credibility, are in existence but they are few and far between.

Therefore I am more liberal than most here, yet not a bleeding heart liberal vote on emotional or idealism of a perfect world liberal.

My counter argument to you, is that republican and democrats LIKE big government, except when a specific detail or consequence ripple effects negatively into that particular community or individual. Suddenly they don't like it.

I argue it is a universally held belief, liberals have come to terms with it, and conservatives remain hypocritical, undercutting their rebuttal on the issue.

When you talk to conservatives, you feel like you're talking to a TelePrompTer of talking points regurgitated out of a cult's book of tenants.

There was one girl who freaked out in my drama class at school when I did a skit laden with political puns and religious jabs.

[Judean Zealot]

And so, you now understand why I throw out right-wing philosophy since I find it has little merit with regards to a "have your cake and eat it too" scenario. The ones who have credibility, are in existence but they are few and far between.

Therefore I am more liberal than most here, yet not a bleeding heart liberal vote on emotional or idealism of a perfect world liberal.

My counter argument to you, is that republican and democrats LIKE big government, except when a specific detail or consequence ripple effects negatively into that particular community or individual. Suddenly they don't like it.

I argue it is a universally held belief, liberals have come to terms with it, and conservatives remain hypocritical, undercutting their rebuttal on the issue.

When you talk to conservatives, you feel like you're talking to a TelePrompTer of talking points regurgitated out of a cult's book of tenants.

There was one girl who freaked out in my drama class at school when I did a skit laden with political puns and religious jabs.

The fact that many are hypocritical over some idea or another is in no way indicative of whether that idea is true or not.

[Uniquemind]

The fact that many are hypocritical over some idea or another is in no way indicative of whether that idea is true or not.

True, but when it comes to politics, especially when the positions taken inherently, if they come to pass, hurt your family, I have a different standard I hold others too, which I hold to myself in the context of law and politics as well.

If you don't have a ethos, logos, AND pathos to an argument I'm done hearing them out, once they start standing on "but it's the principles of it all"

In law and politics I expect my fellow millenials to speed up wise and thoughtful change, we move and expect a faster pace of society given that we were raised on the internet, faster transportation, faster communication, etc.

Ex: 2013's sequester hit and government shutdown; Has no merit it was a giant professional IM WHINING like a little bitch, I'll slow down the economy, prevent elders visiting the war memorial easily and legally (they visited but they had to break in), and have the country lose it's AAA credit rating.

Did we end up raising the debt ceiling? Yup. So what was the point of all the pain? Meritless; and not thought out.


The voters that support these candidates are no better too, they're most likely voting on emotion, not deep-analytical thought, with no understanding of macro/economics, or the ability to detect false equivocation fallacies when hearing a metaphors between household budget management and the debt ceiling and it's role in government management.
Judean Zealot , I'll continue with you in ROTW, I just realized that's not where we're posting at the moment.

[Judean Zealot]

True, but when it comes to politics, especially when the positions taken inherently, if they come to pass, hurt your family, I have a different standard I hold others too, which I hold to myself in the context of law and politics as well.

Yes, but the question here is to what extent being an original intentist makes one more prone to having bad politics. This is all I'm trying to say. I happily acknowledge that the GOP has miserable politics, but it is important that people understand the distinction between a perfectly valid legal school of thought and lousy politics. I mean, as far as I'm concerned liberals would work just as hard to obstruct a conservative justice in this situation.

If you don't have a ethos, logos, AND pathos to an argument I'm done hearing them out, once they start standing on "but it's the principles of it all"

You reminded me of Athos, Porthos, and Aramis here. :P

Again, I'm not saying that 'the principle of it all' justifies Republican obstruction. I'm saying that Republican obstructionism says nothing about the legal validity or morality of Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence. You're making the mistake of associating an idea with the miserable people who claim to believe in it, which is as fallacious as saying "the atheists I know are obnoxious, therefore atheism must be false".

The voters that support these candidates are no better too, they're most likely voting on emotion, not deep-analytical thought, with no understanding of macro/economics, or the ability to detect false equivocation fallacies when hearing a metaphors between household budget management and the debt ceiling and it's role in government management.

You know how much I agree with this - I'm actually the only one on this forum who vocally supports taking the vote away from those people (who are the majority of both parties).

I'm just saying not to impugn Scalia’s reputation because the people who agree with him are lousy politicians. To agree or disagree should be on the principle itself, not association.

[Porpoise101]

prevent elders visiting the war memorial easily and legally (they visited but they had to break in)
I know the story you are referring to, but that is somewhat inaccurate. The NPS officials didn't care and more or less said "you aren't legally allowed to be here, but we are going to pretend you aren't here." Then a bunch of Tea Partiers like Bachmann came and complained about how Obama was mistreating veterans.

[Uniquemind]

I know the story you are referring to, but that is somewhat inaccurate. The NPS officials didn't care and more or less said "you aren't legally allowed to be here, but we are going to pretend you aren't here." Then a bunch of Tea Partiers like Bachmann came and complained about how Obama was mistreating veterans.

It wasn't Obama who did a mock-filibuster speech (apparently what Ted Cruz did wasn't a proper filibuster either, it was just a really damn long speech where he hogged the floor).

Bachmann was/is an idiot and in many speeches or ideas she proposed, she understood the wrong premise or cited the wrong source or misquoted someone to back up her own selfish points. So glad she's retired, she made women everywhere look stupid in the political arena, Palin was worse.

I'm not inaccurate btw, TECHNICALLY law ENFORCEMENT looked the other way, and law enforcement aren't supposed to turn the other cheek, in theory enforcement, is a robotic arm (without thought) of what the paper laws say to do. There is not supposed to be enforcement interpretation of the laws, that's the court's job, so technically the veteran's groups did "break and enter".

[Porpoise101]

I'm not inaccurate btw, TECHNICALLY law ENFORCEMENT looked the other way, and law enforcement aren't supposed to turn the other cheek, in theory enforcement, is a robotic arm (without thought) of what the paper laws say to do. There is not supposed to be enforcement interpretation of the laws, that's the court's job, so technically the veteran's groups did "break and enter".
No I agree with that. You said they were prevented from entering and that to me seems incorrect since they were more or less let on the park property. Everything else you wrote I have agreed with. Especially that quip about Bachmann [emoji38] .

[Uniquemind]

No I agree with that. You said they were prevented from entering and that to me seems incorrect since they were more or less let on the park property. Everything else you wrote I have agreed with. Especially that quip about Bachmann [emoji38] .

Prevented in the sense that BY LAW (important paper basically) they were "prevented" from being there.

Pragmatically in reality, they were there, and so the premise of law's importance was broken at that point. (laws are documents we place importance on, but as soon as you break them their nothing but paper and collective agreements either behind adhered to or not).

But that's what I meant.