Antonin Scalia

[Deleted member 848]

The Dems are generally accepted as the party that politicized the SCOTUS in the first place. The Dems won't be doing the confirming because they don't control the Senate so I'm not sure what you are talking about. When you say Dems do you mean Obama? If you are forced to do something(Obama appoint a more centrist Justice)that isn't taking the high road.

I figure Obama will be swayed largely by what his party desires.

Congress is a very *** for tat kinda institution. The Dems will surely return the favor for any future GOP president(it may be a while).

I don't really care how "left" a judge is-- as long as they are as objective as possible, open-minded, and relentlessly use the best data and case law possible to steer their decisions instead of being swayed heavily by personal bias.

Choosing to elect "centralist" judges isn't always going to work, because what is perceived as "center" is constantly in flux-- particularly in an election year where half of the Democratic caucus is ready to elect a Democratic Socialist. The American center is moving towards the rest of the developed world, and unfortunately (for many) the Supreme Court needs to reflect this. America is very much on track to move towards single payer health care, criminal justice reform, and more expanded funding for post-secondary education. Just think of how much Hillary Clinton has changed from 2008 to 2016. Night and day. And the only way a GOP candidate will win is if he/she starts moving towards the left as well.

 

[Deleted member 848]

So it's not his ideological differences that lead you to think he is a piece of crap. So what is it?

where did I say that Justice Scalia is a piece of crap?

 

[Deleted member 848]

So Dala, just to confirm, you think Scalia was a piece of ****, were you also implying that he was evil? Just curious.

What makes you think he was a piece of **** btw? I'm interested in why you think that. Because of his stance on the 2nd amendment? Gay rights? Abortion?

His former stance on homosexual sex being grounds for crime is ****ing preposterous, for one. His stances on torture were equally baffling, for another.

 

[Siro]

I figure Obama will be swayed largely by what his party desires.



I don't really care how "left" a judge is-- as long as they are as objective as possible, open-minded, and relentlessly use the best data and case law possible to steer their decisions instead of being swayed heavily by personal bias.

Choosing to elect "centralist" judges isn't always going to work, because what is perceived as "center" is constantly in flux-- particularly in an election year where half of the Democratic caucus is ready to elect a Democratic Socialist. The American center is moving towards the rest of the developed world, and unfortunately (for many) the Supreme Court needs to reflect this. America is very much on track to move towards single payer health care, criminal justice reform, and more expanded funding for post-secondary education. Just think of how much Hillary Clinton has changed from 2008 to 2016. Night and day. And the only way a GOP candidate will win is if he/she starts moving towards the left as well.

This applies regardless of where a judge stands. Any change in the ideological make-up of the country would move a judge relative to where they were. Additionally, I don't know if you're right about America being behind the rest of the developed world. Socially, the US is quite progressive in many areas. For example, less than half of the EU recognizes gay marriage. Economically, the rest of the developed world has actually been inching toward the American model. So I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to, other than certain cultural elements that exist in America, like gun rights.

 

[Deleted member 848]

This applies regardless of where a judge stands. Any change in the ideological make-up of the country would move a judge relative to where they were. Additionally, I don't know if you're right about America being behind the rest of the developed world. Socially, the US is quite progressive in many areas. For example, less than half of the EU recognizes gay marriage. Economically, the rest of the developed world has actually been inching toward the American model. So I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to, other than certain cultural elements that exist in America, like gun rights.

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I was referring to economics. Obviously most of the world has been pursuing America for most of her history-- but since the era of Thatcherism and Reaganomics America is definitely starting to move back towards a more mixed economy. Also, criminal justice reform will likely result in the current system being capitulated, mimicking other developed countries. Same with health care, same with education.

Also, I'm not sure how much a judge will move relative to the rest of a country.

 

[Siro]

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I was referring to economics. Obviously most of the world has been pursuing America for most of her history-- but since the era of Thatcherism and Reaganomics America is definitely starting to move back towards a more mixed economy. Also, criminal justice reform will likely result in the current system being capitulated, mimicking other developed countries. Same with health care, same with education.

What you call Reaganomics was an outlier in the history of the US, much like the hyper-socialism of mid-20th century Europe. And just like in Europe, the trend couldn't persist forever, and now there is a push in the opposite direction. It is not some Progressive Destiny that everyone is moving towards. If the liberals took over and pushed the US in a more socialist direction, then all of society's problems will be blamed on their policies (and rest assured that there will still be plenty of problems. It is part of the human condition), and another push back to a more libertarians/whatever direction will commence. There is no Utopian end-point that everyone must inevitably move towards.

Also, I'm not sure how much a judge will move relative to the rest of a country.

You said the center isn't always the center. That's true, but it also applies to any other ideological leanings. The left might shift, leaving today's leftists either farther away or closer to the center. Same with the right. What's more relevant is the fact that the center implies a more flexible evaluation of current conditions, as opposed to packaged ideology.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Might wanna brush up on that reading comprehension.

"Who gives a **** if he was "brilliant" if a dude is a piece of ****."

By using the personal pronoun "he", when we were already discussing Scalia, you very much implied you were discussing him. If you wanted to make it a general statement, you wouldn't have used a personal pronoun. Now I know you're smart, so either you just made a mistake grammatically, or you were implying that he's a piece of ****.

 

[RandyForRubio]

His former stance on homosexual sex being grounds for crime is ****ing preposterous, for one. His stances on torture were equally baffling, for another.

I would also disagree with him on homosexuality being a crime. Torture is hard, morally I find it wrong, but sometimes you need results too. I think there's a lot of grey in that topic, it's not so simple.

Anyways, I find calling somebody a piece of **** bc you disagree with his ideologies to be a bit perplexing. I disagree with you on many subjects (most actually), I don't find you a piece of ****. I would hope you don't find me a piece of ****. It would show a shocking lack of tolerance to think that way actually.

 

[♪alt13]

I figure Obama will be swayed largely by what his party desires.



I don't really care how "left" a judge is-- as long as they are as objective as possible, open-minded, and relentlessly use the best data and case law possible to steer their decisions instead of being swayed heavily by personal bias.

Choosing to elect "centralist" judges isn't always going to work, because what is perceived as "center" is constantly in flux-- particularly in an election year where half of the Democratic caucus is ready to elect a Democratic Socialist. The American center is moving towards the rest of the developed world, and unfortunately (for many) the Supreme Court needs to reflect this. America is very much on track to move towards single payer health care, criminal justice reform, and more expanded funding for post-secondary education. Just think of how much Hillary Clinton has changed from 2008 to 2016. Night and day. And the only way a GOP candidate will win is if he/she starts moving towards the left as well.

Obama will also be swayed by what he believes he can accomplish. If he nominates his ideal candidate and that candidate is not confirmed he will be forced to choose another. He has to consider whether a candidate justice is likely to be confirmed.

The court is more often than not split. While I don't think that Justices often inject their personal biases into their opinions they clearly inject their ideological biases. I really don't like our divided court. I don't think that 5-4 decisions are healthy for the country. The SCOTUS is perhaps the single most important institution as far as keeping this country from ripping itself apart. I think a split court undermines that function.

I agree that the center is always in flux, but so is the court. When the center moves those that are within the new center would make great candidates for appointment. I believe the status quo has already undermined the courts decisions with the public and as we have seen recently even with Governors and even select federal judges. I don't think this is good for us.

 

[Gameface]

I would also disagree with him on homosexuality being a crime. Torture is hard, morally I find it wrong, but sometimes you need results too. I think there's a lot of grey in that topic, it's not so simple.

Anyways, I find calling somebody a piece of **** bc you disagree with his ideologies to be a bit perplexing. I disagree with you on many subjects (most actually), I don't find you a piece of ****. I would hope you don't find me a piece of ****. It would show a shocking lack of tolerance to think that way actually.

I think the issue of torture is pretty damn simple.

We're better than that, or at least we should be. And if we really aren't, we should strive to be.

Torture is for barbarians.

 

[JAZZGASM]

His former stance on homosexual sex being grounds for crime is ****ing preposterous, for one. His stances on torture were equally baffling, for another.

It was not his stance. It was his interpretation of the Constitution as not limiting Texas from having that law. Again, not the Supreme Court's job to decide what our founder would have meant in today's world. Their job is to interpret the black letter law. We should amend the Constitution if rights that we think should be protected are being infringed upon. We shouldn't just reinterpret the Constitution to say something that it doesn't.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I think the issue of torture is pretty damn simple.

We're better than that, or at least we should be. And if we really aren't, we should strive to be.

Torture is for barbarians.

I agree. In an ideal world we should never have to use torture. But sometimes you need information, and sometimes people aren't going to give it if you just ask them. Some people consider giving truth serum without consent is torture, some people rightfully consider water boarding torture. That's what I mean when I say there's grey area.

And tbh, I really don't think we're better than that. We're capable of some awful things.

 

[Keefe]

I agree. In an ideal world we should never have to use torture. But sometimes you need information, and sometimes people aren't going to give it if you just ask them. Some people consider giving truth serum without consent is torture, some people rightfully consider water boarding torture. That's what I mean when I say there's grey area.

And tbh, I really don't think we're better than that. We're capable of some awful things.

I think he's saying ideally we should strive to be better than that.

 

[Gameface]

I agree. In an ideal world we should never have to use torture. But sometimes you need information, and sometimes people aren't going to give it if you just ask them. Some people consider giving truth serum without consent is torture, some people rightfully consider water boarding torture. That's what I mean when I say there's grey area.

And tbh, I really don't think we're better than that. We're capable of some awful things.

I think when we use torture we put our military members and our citizens at greater risk of being tortured.

We don't need any information enough to betray ourselves like that.

Not only that, but when we use torture that means we have to train and put to use torturers. We legitimize that as a profession. I don't know about you but I don't want to live next door to a professional torturer.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I think he's saying ideally we should strive to be better than that.

I would agree with that.

I think when we use torture we put our military members and our citizens at greater risk of being tortured.

We don't need any information enough to betray ourselves like that.

Not only that, but when we use torture that means we have to train and put to use torturers. We legitimize that as a profession. I don't know about you but I don't want to live next door to a professional torturer.

I don't disagree with you. I don't like or approve of torture. I was just saying I could understand why somebody would struggle with the issue.

 

[Deleted member 848]

"Who gives a **** if he was "brilliant" if a dude is a piece of ****."

By using the personal pronoun "he", when we were already discussing Scalia, you very much implied you were discussing him. If you wanted to make it a general statement, you wouldn't have used a personal pronoun. Now I know you're smart, so either you just made a mistake grammatically, or you were implying that he's a piece of ****.

yes, but then I used "a dude"-- which therefore indicates that I'm speaking generally, not about Scalia specifically.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I agree. In an ideal world we should never have to use torture. But sometimes you need information, and sometimes people aren't going to give it if you just ask them. Some people consider giving truth serum without consent is torture, some people rightfully consider water boarding torture. That's what I mean when I say there's grey area.

And tbh, I really don't think we're better than that. We're capable of some awful things.

what has the quality of information obtained through torture been like? What is the efficacy of the technique used in the post 9/11 era?

 

[Deleted member 848]

I think when we use torture we put our military members and our citizens at greater risk of being tortured.

We don't need any information enough to betray ourselves like that.

Not only that, but when we use torture that means we have to train and put to use torturers. We legitimize that as a profession. I don't know about you but I don't want to live next door to a professional torturer.

the guy's served for America, so it'd make sense to take his word for it.

 

[Deleted member 848]

It was not his stance. It was his interpretation of the Constitution as not limiting Texas from having that law. Again, not the Supreme Court's job to decide what our founder would have meant in today's world. Their job is to interpret the black letter law. We should amend the Constitution if rights that we think should be protected are being infringed upon. We shouldn't just reinterpret the Constitution to say something that it doesn't.

You're kidding yourself if you think that justices making interpretations off of legal documents (whether constitutional, or case law) is something that isn't commonplace, and a foundation of the legal profession in general.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Legalize marijuana

Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk