Law Scalia Died today

[second sight]

I'm going to pass over any bizarre suggestion that he was murdered and say that, yes, it would suck if something like that happened, but for Democrats to try to stop it with blanket obstructionism would be a cure that is worse than the disease. Elections do and should matter.

forget the murder aspect (you said that not me) I said natural causes...answer the question

 

[Jack V Savage]

forget the murder aspect (you said that not me) I said natural causes...answer the question

I answered it.

 

[Ruprecht]

Alex Jones is saying Scalia was murdered. No way a guy in his shape at his age could die of natural causes.

I must admit... the combination of extremism, polarisation and the US system, does seem to be tempting fate.
I mean, what happens if some mad man killed all the liberal Justices under a conservative administration with control of the caucus?
Open season on authoritarian legislation and amendments?

 

[second sight]

I answered it.

bullshit, "You would have to be a drooling idiot to believe that"

 

[ocean size]

I find it strange that the entire country admits your judges are not properly impartial and their decisions will be dictated by their political views. This goes against everything the common law system stands for. Of course some personal biases cannot be avoided, but they should not be this significant. As a lawyer I have always heard how fucked up the American legal system is (too much money, corruption, circus like trials, poor jurisprudence) but this is the icing on the cake.

I cannot think of another western country that would make such a big deal about the appointment of a judge? Also is it true this Scalia compared homosexuality to bestiality? How is that even possible? What an absolute shit show.

Basically you are admitting that your political parties can dictate the decisions of the court through bias appointments. So there is no separation of powers in the USA?

Well in Scalia's case, yes he was conservative but what allowed him to be a judge with rulings that lent themselves to conservative philosophy was his philosophy of law interpretation- originalism and textualism, which are consistent and sound principles whether or not you agree with them. This is why he could be such friends with the 'liberal' judge RBG, they could respect each others' views on law without agreeing. Theoretically one could be a liberal but feel strongly about originalism.

What countries in the world are there where judges are 100% apolitical and their appointments are never on political lines and their rulings never tend to the left or right?

 

[Quipling]

Well in Scalia's case, yes he was conservative but what allowed him to be a judge with rulings that lent themselves to conservative philosophy was his philosophy of law interpretation- originalism and textualism, which are consistent and sound principles whether or not you agree with them. This is why he could be such friends with the 'liberal' judge RBG, they could respect each others' views on law without agreeing. Theoretically one could be a liberal but feel strongly about originalism.

What countries in the world are there where judges are 100% apolitical and their appointments are never on political lines and their rulings never tend to the left or right?

There's actually a very reputable liberal impact litigation nonprofit that specializes in originalism arguments in front of SCOTUS.

 

[ocean size]

There's actually a very reputable liberal impact litigation nonprofit that specializes in originalism arguments in front of SCOTUS.

That makes me curious, are you aware of any cases where Scalia either made a very 'liberal' decision due to originalism, or a case where he avoided an originalist interpretation in order to avoid a 'liberal' decision?

 

[NelmarksGhost]

Alex Jones is saying Scalia was murdered. No way a guy in his shape at his age could die of natural causes.

It's about time Alex Jones showed up and did his job. I couldn't believe he wasn't on the ground in Oregon.

Did he mention if it was Mossad, or was it Obama's CIA handlers?

 

[ncordless]

That makes me curious, are you aware of any cases where Scalia either made a very 'liberal' decision due to originalism, or a case where he avoided an originalist interpretation in order to avoid a 'liberal' decision?

I think I can provide a few that would surprise people. It really a bit more nuanced than conservative/liberal, but there were several cases where he sided with liberal wing. Sometimes because of originalism, sometimes in spite of it.

For instance, his originalist interpretations of the search and seizure clause often led him to side with liberal judges.

On the other hand, he sometimes abandoned originalism, or at the very least showed its frailties, when he sided with liberals and said a medical mj garden with owner who consumed it all was interstate commerce (or a nationalbsecurity issue, or whatever ut was he was trying to say in that case).

 

[ocean size]

I think I can provide a few that would surprise people. It really a bit more nuanced than conservative/liberal, but there were several cases where he sided with liberal wing. Sometimes because of originalism, sometimes in spite of it.

For instance, his originalist interpretations of the search and seizure clause often led him to side with liberal judges.

On the other hand, he sometimes abandoned originalism, or at the very least showed its frailties, when he sided with liberals and said a medical mj garden with owner who consumed it all was interstate commerce (or a nationalbsecurity issue, or whatever ut was he was trying to say in that case).

Thanks. Anyone else know of interesting ones they can chip in?

 

[pinger]

Alex Jones is saying Scalia was murdered. No way a guy in his shape at his age could die of natural causes.

Oh god here comes the crazy.

 

[NelmarksGhost]

Oh god here comes the crazy.

What, you don't like crazy? Alex fuckin rocks.

 

[Quipling]

Thanks. Anyone else know of interesting ones they can chip in?

Not quite what you asked for, but here's one where he split with Thomas.

And here's an excellent attack on his consistency in a book review by a 7th Circuit judge, Richard Posner: https://newrepublic.com/article/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism

An excerpt:

In United States v. Eichman, for example, he voted to hold a federal statute forbidding the burning of the American flag unconstitutional, and it was certainly a vote against his ideological grain. But it is a curious example for a textual originalist to give. The relevant constitutional provision—“Congress shall make no law abridging ... the freedom of speech”—does not mention non-verbal forms of political protest, and Scalia and Garner insist that legal terms be given their original meaning lest the intent of the legislators or the constitution-makers be subverted by unforeseen linguistic changes. “In their full context,” they assert, “words mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written—with the understanding that general terms may embrace later technological innovations.” That approach is inconsistent with interpreting “freedom of speech” to include freedom to burn flags, since the eighteenth-century concept of freedom of speech was much narrower than the modern concept, and burning cloth is not a modern technological innovation. According to William Blackstone, whom Scalia and Garner treat as an authority on American law at the time of the Constitution, freedom of speech forbids censorship in the sense of prohibiting speech in advance, but does not prohibit punishment after the fact of speech determined by a jury to be blasphemous, obscene, or seditious. And so an understanding of free speech that embraces flag burning is exceedingly unoriginalist. It is the product of freewheeling Supreme Court decisions within the last century.

But I urge you to read the whole thing. Posner is an excellent writer and has an incredibly sharp legal mind. In terms of qualifications, he'd be well qualified for the supreme court.

 

[Greoric]

Huh?

Um

 

[Lead]

How Scalia Became The Most Influential Conservative Jurist Since The New Deal

Think of the Supreme Court as a small group of lawyers who meet up in Washington several times a year to discuss and debate a variety of important topics. When they finish debating, they get together with a small staff of recent law school graduates and write up their opinions. Then, if more of them say one thing rather than another, our entire legal system — whether it agrees or not — acts as if it were true.

 

[Arkain2K]

I I know that Ford, the Republican before him, appointed Justice Stevens who was quite progressive.

Let me guess, registered Democrat?

The word you're looking for is "Liberal". Stop this madness with all the bullshit self-proclaimed euphemism.

Justice Stevens is a Left-leaning Moderate-Liberal, what's that in your Leftist slangs? "Sorta progressive"?

Stevens happens to be a very good Justice with sound legal arguments who was exceptional at finding supports across the bench to join his moderately-liberal opinions, and thus was very successful in pulling the Court towards the Left in a time when SCOTUS were decidedly literal in their conservative interpretation of the law. Here's a good read on his stance compare to others in the Supreme Court from 2006, an age when you can actually read a dignified news article without dirty political euphemism weasels their way in every other paragraph.

With Longevity on Court, Stevens's Center-Left Influence Has Grown
By Charles Lane
Tuesday, February 21, 2006

President Bush meets with John Paul Stevens, second from left, and fellow Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts Jr. and Sandra Day O'Connor, who has retired. (By Ken Heinen -- Associated Press)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022001196.html

There you have it. The Left wing of the Court is Liberal, the Center is Moderate with the swing votes, while the Right wing is Conservative.

Scalia was very Conservative. Kennedy is a Moderate-Conservative (what's that in your Leftist slang, a "part-time anti-progress" or an "occasional progressive"?). Stevens was a Moderate-Liberal. Ginsberg is very Liberal.

You're a smart guy, try to use these accurate terminologies in debates from now on.

All SCOTUS Justices serve and protect the Republic to the best of their understandings of the Constitution. No one in the Supreme Court should be intentionally bending legislated Laws of the Land against the will of the People, whether in the name of "American progress" or "American traditions/values", or to benefit any political party, including the one that nominated them for the all-important responsibility of a Supreme Court Justice in the first place.

Yelling and finger-pointing over "progress" and "values" is something that Congressmen and Presidents like to do. Leave the court of law out of this.

 

[Thurisaz]

A life fully lived. Rest in peace, the last defender of Constitution.

 

[Supereem]

Well in Scalia's case, yes he was conservative but what allowed him to be a judge with rulings that lent themselves to conservative philosophy was his philosophy of law interpretation- originalism and textualism, which are consistent and sound principles whether or not you agree with them. This is why he could be such friends with the 'liberal' judge RBG, they could respect each others' views on law without agreeing. Theoretically one could be a liberal but feel strongly about originalism.

What countries in the world are there where judges are 100% apolitical and their appointments are never on political lines and their rulings never tend to the left or right?

In Australia, another common law country, appointing high court judges doesn't create a political shit storm. Of course there are different methods of interpreting constitutions. But as you said, being on the right or left shouldn't have such a huge influence on jurisprudence. The fact that it is even a concept is concerning. Obviously the intention is to put a judge in who will agree with the politicians beliefs. This goes against everything the common law and separation of powers stands for. But then again this is a system/country were in 2003 a judge could compare homosexuality to bestiality.

I am not criticizing just conservatives here. I have read that some of the judges Obama appointed were very mediocre lawyers/judges. In South Africa they have appointed really bad judges since the end of apartheid for racial reasons. Look at the judge who oversaw the first blade runner trial. She was absolutely atrocious.

 

[Arkain2K]

Let's not ruin this great thread by bringing in the conspiracy nuts, shall we?

If you wanna talk about assasination or UFO abduction, I suggest a new thread is in order.

 

[second sight]

Scalia criticized the Senate’s confirmation process for justices.

“I was confirmed, believe it or not, 98 to nothing,” he said. “What’s changed?”

Scalia said the standards for judging justices has taken a new turn in the past quarter century, producing a “horrible confirmation process.”

“Is this person a good lawyer, a modicum of judicial demeanor, an honest person: That’s all fine and good but that’s not the most important thing,” he said. “The most important thing is, ‘Is this person going to write the new Constitution that I like?’”