Antonin Scalia

[Deleted member 848]

Some hilarious responses to the CIA report:

Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Jim Risch (R-ID) stated that the report was a "partisan effort" by Democrats that "could endanger the lives of Americans overseas" and was not "serious or constructive."[49]

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), himself a victim of torture while a prisoner of war in Vietnam,[63] said in a speech following Feinstein's presentation on the Senate floor that he supported the release of the report, and that those responsible for the interrogation policy had "stained our national honor, did much harm and little practical good.”[8]

 

[RandyForRubio]

Nope, it's grammatically sound.

Fine. You're right Dala. Using the personal pronoun "he" in reference to a person and then going to an impersonal pronoun in the same sentence makes sense. You win, you're right. And this is a waste of time.

 

[babe]

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.

I absolute and forever agree with this as stated, without any revision.

Once we tolerate a State arrogating to itself the power to define acceptable and unacceptable "persons", creating classes with special rights or no rights, we have no rational basis for calling ourselves human beings with any rights at all.

I might be pretty conservative, but I vehemently disagree with the Supreme Court having the power to define the Constitution except on interpretation of Legislative Acts or the Constitution itself. All governments must be limited to delegated powers, with those powers coming from the people governed, and not some special set of elites or financially powerful or intellectually or politically powerful persons.

We as individuals have the innate right of life and therefore of defense of our lives and property. If we are attacked individually we have the right to effective defense. If we as a nation are attacked, or declared as subject to war or overthrow of our government, we have the right to effective defense nationally, including any terrorist organization. Acts of such warfare are our right, and those who declare themselves against our existence or our rights, whether they are Marxists or Islamicists or a horde of aliens coming against our borders we should defend ourselves and our territory.

If we are unclear on these points, we endanger ourselves, our communities, and our nation. Of course we should first seek humane resolution of every situation, and not just gun down starving or otherwise desperate humans seeking but to save their own lives. And anyone we detain, or capture, should have all the human rights we claim for ourselves, and torture is an abomination and an affront to all civilization. Once anyone raises their hands in surrender, they should be accorded every human right we cherish for ourselves.

No damn torture, and no more of these concrete prisons where the food is detestable, and some concessionaire who has bribed the officials to get the contract can hike the prices above competitive prices in our markets.

 

[Nate505]

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.

For such a strict constitutionalist, he managed to vote in favor of Reich vs. Gonzalez which affirmed that prohibiting weed falls under interstate commerce. Now I'm no legal scholar and just a common idiot, but if you can tell me how growing a weed plant in one state and not selling it is interstate commerce I'd be curious to know how, considering there is no interstate or commerce involved in that instance at all. This is the clause that allows the federal prohibition of weed to be allowed, since Congress has the authority to regulate interstae commerce. Otherwise, the 10th Amendment would apply and it would be up for the states to choose.

 

[babe]

The problem with this is assuming there was a single "originalist's view" shared by the Founding Fathers. There were constitutional interpretation disagreements among the founders before the constitution was even adopted by the states.

There were some points of general agreement, and others were agreed to on the principle of compromise. Some states held their noses and approved the Constitution as it was then, supporting the claimed rights of other States to allow slavery and human trafficking, but they did secure an agreement that importation of slaves would cease in 1820, pointing to a view that slavery eventually would need to end.

But for European-immigrant-Americans to hold views that their rights were somehow relevant while excluding American Indians or Blacks was always a glaring inconsistency of principle. At the time, it seemed necessary to focus on the rights of "subjects of the Crown" to affirm their innate right to be independent and to become sovereign citizens on their own humanity, but we owe thanks to many blacks who fought with us for "our" freedom, and some of the Indians, though most sided with their trading partners the British.

 

[Gameface]

Define torture.

There is a gray area.

I think if you want to make a person who is your captive uncomfortable in a way that takes special effort you are torturing them.

I don't think there is a gray area.

I think if you take a prisoner you do what is necessary to contain them. If you go beyond that in an effort to gain information you are torturing them.

I'm pretty simple on this one. I get that some might want wiggle room. I don't grant it. Our enemies are not "bad guys" they are humans. They are 99.9% the same as you or me. If we must we kill them. Not because they are evil, but because they stand in our way. We have a mission. I die for our mission or they die for our mission. I choose me. I kill them.

I die before I torture. I let my family die before I torture. I let your family die before I torture. I let America be conquered before I torture.

It's not gray. Not for me.

I die before I support torture.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think if you want to make a person who is your captive uncomfortable in a way that takes special effort you are torturing them.

I don't think there is a gray area.

I think if you take a prisoner you do what is necessary to contain them. If you go beyond that in an effort to gain information you are torturing them.

I'm pretty simple on this one. I get that some might want wiggle room. I don't grant it. Our enemies are not "bad guys" they are humans. They are 99.9% the same as you or me. If we must we kill them. Not because they are evil, but because they stand in our way. We have a mission. I die for our mission or they die for our mission. I choose me. I kill them.

I die before I torture. I let my family die before I torture. I let your family die before I torture. I let America be conquered before I torture.

It's not gray. Not for me.

I die before I support torture.

Is putting someone in the hole torture? (You would probably say no since prisons currently use that method all the time. But what if you dump them in the hole and leave them there for 10 years? I would consider that torture. So there is a gray area of length of time in the hole for what constitutes torture.)
Is electrocution torture? (You would probably say yes it is.... So what about tazing someone? That's electrocution, just with lower voltage. So there is a gray area of how much voltage can you use before it's torture)
Is using mace on someone torture?
Is starving someone torture? (I would think that starving someone for a day isn't torture, maybe two days is? There is a length of time that is gray)
Waterboarding is torture right? What about spraying someone with a powerful hose though? I have seen cops do that to disperse crowds.
Is punching someone torture?
How about keeping lights on at all hours and there being noise at all times?


I mean if all this is considered torture and you won't do any of it then if I were a prisoner of yours and I know you wouldn't go very far to punish me when I mis-behave then I would try to hurt my guards any chance I got knowing that the repercussions would be mild.

You can be disciplining an inmate and everything is going fine, no torture happening, and then there might reach an amount of time that the discipline goes on for where you believe it goes from discipline to torture. Or an amount of force/pain indicted occurs where is goes from discipline to torture.
Those lengths of time and amount of force might be different for different people. Gray area.

One man's discipline/punishment is another man's torture.
One man's torture is another man's discipline/punishment

 

[colton]

2. The longest they've delayed was about 4 months.

Fwiw it took almost 8 months for Kennedy to get sworn in following Lewis Powell stepping down, due to the failed nomination of Bork. Not quite the same situation, but worth noting.

 

[JAZZGASM]

The problem with this is assuming there was a single "originalist's view" shared by the Founding Fathers. There were constitutional interpretation disagreements among the founders before the constitution was even adopted by the states.

Scalia would even agree with you. However, his view is that you can come to a closer certainty to original intent than you can interpret what our founding fathers would have meant today. The first is based on historical records, and there are enough to generally come up with a strong consensus. The other is based on conjecture.

 

[JAZZGASM]

For such a strict constitutionalist, he managed to vote in favor of Reich vs. Gonzalez which affirmed that prohibiting weed falls under interstate commerce. Now I'm no legal scholar and just a common idiot, but if you can tell me how growing a weed plant in one state and not selling it is interstate commerce I'd be curious to know how, considering there is no interstate or commerce involved in that instance at all. This is the clause that allows the federal prohibition of weed to be allowed, since Congress has the authority to regulate interstae commerce. Otherwise, the 10th Amendment would apply and it would be up for the states to choose.

Scalia went off of past precedent in that case. There was a case in the 30s or 40s (Filbur, Wilbur, Filbert, I can't remember the name) that gave Congress power under Interstate Commerce to regulate one persons wheat field that was only used for himself. My grandparents had the Government come and kill some of their cattle meant for personal use under the same principles back in the 30s. Don't blame Scalia for following the law that was already there. He actually limited Interstate Commerce in many cases, but due to the similarity to the past case law, I believe he felt he had to rule that way.

Edit: I looked up the older case, Wickard v. Filburn.

 

[moevillini]

Thank you for the information, Gameface.
1. Am i correct that those nine members are 100% independent after they are elected to Supreme Court? I.e if before election they were a la anti-gun and anti-gay, then after being elected they can change their mood/view to whatever they like...

1. Yes....

One issue that comes up with judicial nominations is that a judge may not have ever made a ruling on a particular topic so it can be difficult to ascertain how they might vote when presented with a specific case. Their writings on past decisions are studied for insight into how they might rule on various issues, but it still can be a bit of a crapshoot.

...If something that is not protected by the founding fathers becomes so important that it needs protection, then we should amend the Constitution to provide those protections, not just interpret the document to mean something it never did. Scalia's view was that if we don't hold to the document's meaning, then we have no bedrock for our Country to stand on.

If you disagree with his opinions, blame the Constitution, and Congress for not making the needed changes to the Constitution to bring it in line with modern times. Do not blame the Judge who's duty was to interpret the meaning of the law.

We can't blame Congress because Congress does not have the power to amend the Constitution. It can (with 2/3 majority vote) propose amendments to the Constitution, but those must be ratified by 3/4 of the states before they take effect. It's a pretty damn difficult thing to do.

Here's a fact for you: Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified. The success rate of a proposal to become a ratified amendment is less than 1%.


https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/proposed-amendments/

 

[JAZZGASM]

One issue that comes up with judicial nominations is that a judge may not have ever made a ruling on a particular topic so it can be difficult to ascertain how they might vote when presented with a specific case. Their writings on past decisions are studied for insight into how they might rule on various issues, but it still can be a bit of a crapshoot.




We can't blame Congress because Congress does not have the power to amend the Constitution. It can (with 2/3 majority vote) propose amendments to the Constitution, but those must be ratified by 3/4 of the states before they take effect. It's a pretty damn difficult thing to do.

Here's a fact for you: Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified. The success rate of a proposal to become a ratified amendment is less than 1%.


https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/proposed-amendments/

Yes, I knew this. What you may not know is the majority of these unsuccessful proposals never make it out of Congress, so yes I do blame them more than the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be easy to change the Constitution. It was designed this way for a reason. And Judicial activism erodes the protections that were put in place to protect the Constitution.