Justice Antonin Scalia found dead

While I did not agree with many of his decisions and opinions, I have great respect for the man.

He was a great thinker, and no doubt influenced countless numbers of law clerks and constitutional scholars over the years.

I am quite sure he had a profound effect on President Obama over the years. Anyone who has studied constitutional law has read Scalia opinions.

I loved reading his opinions, especially his dissents. He was a great writer. I sincerely hope that is passed on with his legacy.

The most recent opinion was very colorful.

I look forward to celebrating his legacy over the next few weeks and months...even though I so wholeheartedly disagreed with him on many cases.

May his family celebrate a life well lived.

Cheers Antonin.
 
Well said, Glenn.

From today's New York Times obit:
 
In a C-Span interview in 2009, Justice Scalia reflected on his role and legacy, sketching out a modest conception of the role of a Supreme Court justice.

“We don’t sit here to make the law, to decide who ought to win,” Justice Scalia said. “We decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. And very often, if you’re a good judge, you don’t really like the result you’re reaching.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html

As I told my students on Thursday, as we discussed President Obama's inability to shift the conservative makeup of the court (as Kagan and Sotomayor replaced other liberals), Scalia's mantra was that the Court is not to sit as a super-legislature, but to decide whether the enactments of the legislature are consistent with, or contrary to, the US Constitution.

It would be incredibly easy for a partisan judge to rule the way they would vote if they were in the legislature and then craft a poorly-argued opinion to justify it; it would be much more difficult for a partisan judge to set aside their personal belief about their desired result in the case and instead rule the other way because the Constitution requires it. I have respect for liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices who do the latter and very little respect for the ones I suspect do more of the former.
 
delldude said:
 
Living document meaning 'we can change the stuff we don't like' instead of adhering to the rules set forth which have worked for quite a while.
 
A liberal euphemism for dealing with the rule of law as opposed to rule of men, which they prefer.
 
Where is abortion mentioned in the constitution?  That seems to be the litmus test that most justices are placed under.
 
FWAAA said:
Well said, Glenn.

From today's New York Times obit:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html

As I told my students on Thursday, as we discussed President Obama's inability to shift the conservative makeup of the court (as Kagan and Sotomeyor replaced other liberals), Scalia's mantra was that the Court is not to sit as a super-legislature, but to decide whether the enactments of the legislature are consistent with, or contrary to, the US Constitution.

It would be incredibly easy for a partisan judge to rule the way they would vote if they were in the legislature and then craft a poorly-argued opinion to justify it; it would be much more difficult for a partisan judge to set aside their personal belief about their desired result in the case and instead rule the other way because the Constitution requires it. I have respect for liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices who do the latter and very little respect for the ones I suspect do more of the former.
 
And yet this pure document that isn't "living" had decided that "all men" includes women, and black men - back when the constitution was written, slaves weren't "men".   And corporations didn't exist, but we know that had the existed, they would have been considered "men" as well. 
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #35
KCFlyer said:
 
And yet this pure document that isn't "living" had decided that "all men" includes women, and black men - back when the constitution was written, slaves weren't "men".   And corporations didn't exist, but we know that had the existed, they would have been considered "men" as well. 
 
Like most liberals you are clueless as to the purpose of the constitution.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #36
jimntx said:
Well, you have to understand.  Townpete has had his panties in a wad ever since he found out some Communists sneaked into the country and passed that socialist amendment that outlawed slavery.  Then they sneaked in again and passed that socialist amendment that allows women to vote.  Townpete knows for a fact that if the Founding Fathers had meant for women to vote or for slavery to be illegal that would have been in the first draft of the Constitution.
 
See post #35
 
townpete said:
 
Like most liberals you are clueless as to the purpose of the constitution.
 
From most of the things I read, the purpose of the constitution was to allow us to own guns.  We don't seem to give a rats ass about much else.  Tell me...while we are pondering the holiness of the constitution, let me cite something for you:
 


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
We didn't seem to care about how the USA Patriot act stomped all over every word of that.   But.....don't even THINK about doing anything to restrict guns.  So...what I gather - from YOU....is that the only real purpose of the constitution is to guarantee us the right to buy guns. 
 
Gee,
I'm NOW very curious as to (uncle) Clarence Thomas' health.
 
(could we be THAT lucky) ?
 
Further,
B O  should nominate a very squeekly clean  HISPANIC Male, and Dare the REPLUGS not to confirm him  !
 
(finding 6 GOP senators in very difficult re-election  races shouldn't be too hard to do.  Think Kelly Ayotte R-NH as an example.  INTERESTING times ahead for sure)
 
NewHampshire Black Bears said:
Gee,
I'm NOW very curious as to (uncle) Clarence Thomas' health.
 
(could we be THAT lucky) ?
 
Further,
B O  should nominate a very squeekly clean  HISPANIC Male, and Dare the REPLUGS not to confirm him  !
Gee, Bears, why not just call Justice Thomas the house ****** while you're at it?....

There's already a Hispanic justice, and three women. If you want a representative & diverse panel, why not suggest an Asian or Indian?

Regardless of who gets nominated, it's pretty much a given there won't be a hearing on any nominees until after the election.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/judiciary-panel-chair-wait-on-court-until-after-election

Having an even number of justices leaves open the potential for split decisions, in which case the lower court decisions are upheld.
 
NewHampshire Black Bears said:
Gee,
I'm NOW very curious as to (uncle) Clarence Thomas' health.
 
(could we be THAT lucky) ?
 
Further,
B O  should nominate a very squeekly clean  HISPANIC Male, and Dare the REPLUGS not to confirm him  !
 
(finding 6 GOP senators in very difficult re-election  races shouldn't be too hard to do.  Think Kelly Ayotte R-NH as an example.  INTERESTING times ahead for sure)
 
 
Dude, it's the year of Allah.
 
NewHampshire Black Bears said:
Gee,
I'm NOW very curious as to (uncle) Clarence Thomas' health.
 
(could we be THAT lucky) ?
 
Further,
B O  should nominate a very squeekly clean  HISPANIC Male, and Dare the REPLUGS not to confirm him  !
 
(finding 6 GOP senators in very difficult re-election  races shouldn't be too hard to do.  Think Kelly Ayotte R-NH as an example.  INTERESTING times ahead for sure)
 
 
I heard there was DNC koolaid served at the function and some are wondering.
 
Yep wait till next year when Obama is out of office and HRC or Bernie nominate Obama to the court, after all he is a Constitutional Lawyer who graduated law school at Harvard.
 
12705478_10153916113419486_7881185874803947523_n.jpg
 

Latest posts

Back
Top