Same. I can't think of a single civil rights issue that Scalia didn't stand against. I hope we get a centrist Justice.
Antonin Scalia
- Thread starter RJF
- Start date
Same. I can't think of a single civil rights issue that Scalia didn't stand against. I hope we get a centrist Justice.
I agree. All it does it play into a ever shrinking base while alienating anyone that would expand that base.
It'll be interesting to see what Clarence Thomas's opinions are like now - - he has almost always been in lockstep with Scalia. He may actually have to think for himself a bit. He'll probably turn even more conservative, if that's even possible.
lauriandres
Well-Known Member
Can somebody provide a "translation" for foreigners, why (and how) that person influenced the everyday life of the average US citizen? I read about him from the Wikipedia, but it was hard to understand.
Which person could be similar to him in Europe?
Here are some examples from another forum - that's why i asked if somebody can provide some background information why somebody is either happy or not.
***
Because things weren't nutty enough in Congress.
I don't celebrate death because undoubtedly somebody will miss him. But I will celebrate the silence of this windbag.
***
Same here, It looks like the Supreme Court could not wait for the next election. I hope Obama gets right on it, this should be interesting. I cannot wait.
***
Last edited:
He was one of nine Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. and has the power to strike down legislation passed by the congress and senate. They are the final say when it comes to what the U.S. Constitution means. If you don't like how the Supreme Court rules on an issue you pretty much need to pass an amendment to the Constitution (extraordinarily difficult) to get around their ruling.
The Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President but must be confirmed by the Senate. It's a bit of a spectacle and in the current climate the Senate (majority Republican) might try to block the nomination, or at least delay it until after the election. If a Republican is elected they will cancel the nomination and appoint their own choice.
The Supreme court has a 5-4 majority of conservative justices. Scalia was one of those conservative justices. This means that if Obama can get his nomination through it would be 5-4 in favor of the liberal leaning justices.
Supreme Court Justices serve for life. The only method for their removal is impeachment.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Whether you agree with his opinions or not, he was a brilliant man.
lauriandres
Well-Known Member
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?
2. How many times or how long can the Senate block a new member proposed by the President?
3. Legislation=new law? I.e am i correct that the Supreme Court does not have to care about if somebody complains about too long prison sentence etc.
1. Yes.
2. The longest they've delayed was about 4 months. But there is no limit to how long they can delay, and they can stall until next president is sworn in.
2. Yes. The Supreme Court generally deals with constitutional questions. They take on cases to determine whether a law is/isn't constitutional.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
He spoke at my school about a decade ago. Some liberal professors refused to even show up to hear him speak. The thing you need to understand about Scalia, is he tried not to let his personal feelings influence his decisions, but instead went by what he considered to be the letter of the Constitution. Many other judges prefer to instead interpret the Constitution in a way to determine what our founding fathers would have meant if they had drafted the document in modern times (essentially the Constitution is a living document). These judges often infer that the founders would mean whatever a reasonable person today would mean, which often completely skews the true meaning of the Constitution, and usually matches the judges feelings as to what is reasonable.
Scalia felt that if the Constitution, as drafted, provided a protection, then he would stand up for it. If it was silent, he said so. 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.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Do you realize how many evil people this sentence could apply to?
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Yes. Your point? Are you trying to say that Scalia was evil, or are you just trying to prove some inane point that has nothing to do with the topic?