What's new
By:
Filters

Antonin Scalia

Howard said:
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.
Click to expand...

as seen above, i don't think Scalia is a piece of ****-- however, the fact that he's "brilliant" or "intelligent" does not make him any less ****tier in my eyes, as it shouldn't. You used it as a point to garner respect for him, and I disagreed with that. That's basically the dialogue I've been trying to have. Intelligence without morality should impress no one. The morality of Antonin's actions are debated, and will continue to be debated. Based off of that axiom, people will gauge how "****ty" of a person he is. I for one am impartial to the news of his death-- I'm not celebrating, but i'm not in any way saddened either.
 
dalamon said:
as seen above, i don't think Scalia is a piece of ****-- however, the fact that he's "brilliant" or "intelligent" does not make him any less ****tier in my eyes, as it shouldn't. You used it as a point to garner respect for him, and I disagreed with that. That's basically the dialogue I've been trying to have. Intelligence without morality should impress no one. The morality of Antonin's actions are debated, and will continue to be debated. Based off of that axiom, people will gauge how "****ty" of a person he is. I for one am impartial to the news of his death-- I'm not celebrating, but i'm not in any way saddened either.
Click to expand...

You sure are posting a lot about somebody you're impartial too.
 
dalamon said:
yes, but then I used "a dude"-- which therefore indicates that I'm speaking generally, not about Scalia specifically.
Click to expand...

No, it shows that your sentence was awful grammatically. But hey, blame it on my reading comprehension. ;)

Damn Canadian education obviously. ;)

dalamon said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't think any of us actually have access to this information, so I don't think we could accurately answer that.
 
dalamon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know it is commonplace, but those interpretations are supposed to be made off of the plain language of the law. There is much more room for error and inconsistency if we treat the Constitution as a living document that is open to the modern interpretation of every judge. Scalia knew this and fought to keep the plain language based on what it should be. Not what we think it should be based on modern times. A living Constitution is a great way to erode the beliefs this country was founded upon.
 
JAZZGASM said:
I know it is commonplace, but those interpretations are supposed to be made off of the plain language of the law. There is much more room for error and inconsistency if we treat the Constitution as a living document that is open to the modern interpretation of every judge. Scalia knew this and fought to keep the plain language based on what it should be. Not what we think it should be based on modern times. A living Constitution is a great way to erode the beliefs this country was founded upon.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. I don't think there is anything in the Constitution that enforces textualism.
 
JAZZGASM said:
Originalism and textualism are completely different animals.
Click to expand...

Regardless, you're presenting your opinion of how the Constitution should be interpreted as if it's an established fact. I for one, think that treating it like a religious document handed down by God, all while ignoring its historical context and ours, is patently absurd (and practically impossible). But that's just my opinion, and I don't present it as anything more.
 
Gameface said:
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.
Click to expand...
Define torture.

There is a gray area.
 
Howard said:
Oh. Lol.

Shows what I know. Would you mind helping remove my feet from my *** and mouth now?
Click to expand...

That's all right. I don't like bringing it up because it feels like admitting that morality is irrelevant if ignoring it yields results. But the report shows what many of us suspected all along; force someone to tell you something they're not willing to, and they'll tell you what you want to hear and send you on a goose chase. There is a reason why there were so many "admitted" witches back in the day. And it's not the effectiveness of torture.
 
dalamon said:
what has the quality of information obtained through torture been like?
Click to expand...

Maybe very high quality. Maybe low quality.

I doubt any of us jazzfanzers work for the CIA.
 
dalamon said:
the guy's served for America, so it'd make sense to take his word for it.
Click to expand...
Please. I love gf and value his opinion. But not because he was in the armed forces.

Plenty of douchebags have been in the military and I guarantee there is plenty of disagreement from one soldier to the next on every topic there is. Including torture
 
Has Bern ever had a real job in his life, outside of politics? Because I can't find any info telling me he has.
 
I'm against torturing people period. That said it is not the courts place to impose that unless supported by law. I believe it is under the Geneva convention, UN treaties and US Law. I don't accept the whole "non-state-actors aren't protected by the Geneva convention" argument. IIRC the interpretation comes down to whether you think that a person must be explicitly listed in order to be protected or if people are protected unless explicitly exempted from protection. I tend to believe that the state must be granted powers by law and not presume to have them especially when it comes to issues of human and civil rights.
 
Sorry, anyone in ISIS doesn't deserve any shred of humanity. Torture the **** out of them.
 
Siro said:
Regardless, you're presenting your opinion of how the Constitution should be interpreted as if it's an established fact. I for one, think that treating it like a religious document handed down by God, all while ignoring its historical context and ours, is patently absurd (and practically impossible). But that's just my opinion, and I don't present it as anything more.
Click to expand...

he point is, the Constitution has to be interpreted, the question is how can we do it in a way that is consistent and meaningful. I subscribe to the viewpoint that to keep the integrity of the foundation upon which our Nation was created, we should interpret that document to mean what our founders meant. Not what we think it should mean. It is too easy to make the determination that what we think should be is the same thing our founding fathers would have thought, because, hey, there are reasonable just like me, right? If instead, we look at historical context, we can get closer to a consistent and correct interpretation.

If we determine that the founding fathers missed the boat, we should amend the Constitution. Not just reinterpret it to mean what we think it should. If that is how we approach the review of a legal document, then every legal document becomes suspect. Such interpretation leads to judicial political bias, or judicial activism which should not occur IMO. It is the job of the legislature to change the law, and yes, the Constitution breaks out the 3 branches and their duties.

There is no such thing as a perfect interpretation, but the originalist's view keeps the bedrock that our Nation was based on. I just don't understand the bashing on Scalia for upholding the law as written as close as he could interpret it. If we need to change the law, let's change it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top