Antonin Scalia

[RandyForRubio]

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?

 

[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?

Might wanna brush up on that reading comprehension.

 

[Deleted member 848]

These posts make you sound like a petulant little child. I know you're not one, and I know you're smarter than that.

The two posts are making very different points. You're just grouping them together with a smear attempt.

You think he's a piece of **** because you don't agree with his ideologies. I don't. That's pretty much the story.

Nope. Just pointing out that your post is meaningless. As displayed by the comparison to the highly intelligent Bin Laden.

 

[Stoked]

The two posts are making very different points. You're just grouping them together with a smear attempt.




Nope. Just pointing out that your post is meaningless. As displayed by the comparison to the highly intelligent Bin Laden.

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

 

[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.