Justice Scalia has passed

[714562]

No I'm not...u just put on your judicial "troll" white wig lol...anyone against affirmative action without a viable replacement for it knowing the current and past racial climates in this country reeks of moral decay.

But it wasn't Scalia's place to propose viable policy replacement for affirmative action. He's not a legislator. His only job is to determine whether it was constitutional. And he did not think it was.

And Textualism allows legal professionals to simple look at past writs two dimensionally if needed...not necessarily for the obvious reasons for why the law was written...but simply by what is written...as though a writing could fit the standards of society throughout decades and centuries...it allows for deceitful ignorance.

But that was Scalia's whole point! The constitution wasn't meant to "fit the standards of society throughout decades." That's what elected officials are for. It's not "deceitful" to say that the Constitution simply never contemplated certain rights, and therefore is not the basis for those rights. Arguably, it's much more "deceitful" to suggest otherwise.

 

[superunknown23]

Just as I thought. You've read snippets of his opinions posted by political news websites.

reading is fundamental, moron.
Opinions - Supreme Court of the United States

 

[Edub]

But it wasn't Scalia's place to propose viable policy replacement for affirmative action. He's not a legislator. His only job is to determine whether it was constitutional. And he did not think it was.



But that was Scalia's whole point! The constitution wasn't meant to "fit the standards of society throughout decades." That's what elected officials are for. It's not "deceitful" to say that the Constitution simply never contemplated certain rights, and therefore is not the basis for those rights. Arguably, it's much more "deceitful" to suggest otherwise.

The constitution was created out of a climate that called for its need at the time. A Climate. Its whole being is to serve as the answer to the unjust climate it was meant to replace. Note the word climate. How can a judge judge and not take into consideration social climate. ...meaning he should be able to take note of the unjust climate of society and in his opinion against, provide what could work for the reason of affirmative action being unconstitutional...but he doesn't , he just decides to ignore an obviously racial and UNCONSTITUTIONALLY unbalanced american landscape and claim affirmative action unfair. That is purposed negligence akin to falling asleep at the wheel before 9/11. Hiding behind laws doesn't make it any less wrong and wrong he was.

And it's wrong to interpret laws without considering the context and reason for which they where written. The plan was to allow laws to be interpreted for which ever way was advantageous at the time for which ever party needed the help. The guy was a dirtbag

 

[714562]

How can a judge judge and not take into consideration social climate.

But that's the whole point of a judge. -- to be impartial to the changing whims of the people. In fact, that's why federal judges have life tenure -- so that they are not beholden to the political or social climate and can focus solely on legal arguments. Saying that the constitution was made in response to a "climate of unfairness" is meaningless. The "climate of unfairness" in which the Constitution was made had nothing to do with things like, say, abortion or gay marriage. To say that the Constitution means whatever the social climate says it means is to render the Constitution almost meaningless.

You think judges choosing execute black men in the Jim Crow south weren't taking the "social climate" into account? I'd say their social climate played a big role in their decisions.

And it's wrong to interpret laws without considering the context and reason for which they where written. The plan was to allow laws to be interpreted for which ever way was advantageous at the time for which ever party needed the help. The guy was a dirtbag

There's a very real disconnect between disagreeing with someone's judicial philosophy, and calling him an immoral dirtbag.

 

[ThiefyPoo]

Actually, yes I have... And even his most ardent supporters can't defend the shyt he wrote in those opinions.
Opinions - Supreme Court of the United States
12 “memorable” quotes from Antonin Scalia
8 Horrible Things Antonin Scalia Said About Gay People
Antonin Scalia routinely ruled against gay rights. Those opinions explain his philosophy.

8. Blacks: better off in slower schools? Duringoral arguments in the still pending Affirmative Action case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, Scalia said, out loud,

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.


9. Mexicans: Tequila-drinkers. When an attorney argued that his client didn’t have to be deported because he was already on parole, Scalia responded,

No one thinks your client is abstaining from tequila for fear of being deported. This is an ingenious exercise of the conceivable.

 

[superunknown23]

The worst thing about him is how untouchable he felt. Dude could say whatever crossed his bigoted mind and get away with it, since it's almost impossible to impeach a justice nowadays.
Considering how overtly political he was, dying during a democratic presidency was probably one of his worst fears
This fellow italian must be happy...

 

[Edub]

But that's the whole point of a judge. -- to be impartial to the changing whims of the people. In fact, that's why federal judges have life tenure -- so that they are not beholden to the political or social climate and can focus solely on legal arguments. Saying that the constitution was made in response to a "climate of unfairness" is meaningless. The "climate of unfairness" in which the Constitution was made had nothing to do with things like, say, abortion or gay marriage. To say that the Constitution means whatever the social climate says it means is to render the Constitution almost meaningless.

You think judges choosing execute black men in the Jim Crow south weren't taking the "social climate" into account? I'd say their social climate played a big role in their decisions.

There's a very real disconnect between disagreeing with someone's judicial philosophy, and calling him an immoral dirtbag.

No matter the social norm at any given time certain principles if crossed always will be considered unjust...discriminating based on skin color is crossing one of those principles. The very constitution he swore to interpret and uphold CLEARLY calls for him to observe this principle. And I'm not saying the constitution calls to be interpreted by the social norms at the time...what I am saying is that an unfair social climate served to ignite events ultimately culminating into the constitution...what I am saying is government at all levels is senseless if it doesn't take into consideration social norms, PARTICULARLY UNJUST ONES like rampant racism...and he knew how one sided his view was because he served to keep society unjust.

Your point about Jim Crow judges considering social norms is exactly my point...when it served to normalize racism social norms of the 50s and 60s were utilized...but when clearly racism has played a role in the stagnation of a sect of people observing social climate for affirmative action is inadequate and every man being treated as the constitution indicated is assumed as societal status quo...yea right. Straight bullshyt...these types of social norms (racism) should always be considered when they in fact do exist and clearly violate the constitution. He chose to ignore the landscape when it served his racist ideology to do so.

 

[Mission249]

The problem is that black college students have very low rates of graduation. Scalia's point was that if black students were admitted to colleges that were more in line with their academic qualifications then their graduation rates would be much higher. That is not racism it is common sense.

There are many studies and books that make the exact same case. Google the "Mismatch Theory".

Does Affirmative Action Create Mismatches Between Students and Universities?

Perhaps. But what disturbs me the most is not what Scalia hypothesized but people's interpretation of it. There's a huge disconnect where what is said is "they don't well in these schools" and what is heard is "black people are inherently stupid". That's a big leap to make considering all the mitigating circumstances. And it looks like the only people making that leap are hypersensitive blacks and racist whites. Meanwhile, there's possibly a real issue that should be addressed instead of leveraged by the media to outrage, excite and distract the people.

 

[714562]

No matter the social norm at any given time certain principles if crossed always will be considered unjust...discriminating based on skin color is crossing one of those principles. The very constitution he swore to interpret and uphold CLEARLY calls for him to observe this principle.

And in his mind, that's exactly what he did. He disagreed with what he perceived as discrimination on the basis of skin color in the form of affirmative action at state universities, because he believed that's what the language of the Constitution called for. Scalia's position was that the Constitution doesn't say people shall not be denied the equal protection of their laws except when we seek to remedy past injustices. You just can't discriminate on the basis of race, without exception.

Whether or not there were better public policy choices was irrelevant to him.

he knew how one sided his view was because he served to keep society unjust

I don't think he did.

 

[Edub]

And in his mind, that's exactly what he did. He disagreed with what he perceived as discrimination on the basis of skin color in the form of affirmative action at state universities, because he believed that's what the language of the Constitution called for. Scalia's position was that the Constitution doesn't say people shall not be denied the equal protection of their laws except when we seek to remedy past injustices. You just can't discriminate on the basis of race, without exception.

Whether or not there were better public policy choices was irrelevant to him.



I don't think he did.

I love a free thinking society

 

[Edub]

And in his mind, that's exactly what he did. He disagreed with what he perceived as discrimination on the basis of skin color in the form of affirmative action at state universities, because he believed that's what the language of the Constitution called for. Scalia's position was that the Constitution doesn't say people shall not be denied the equal protection of their laws except when we seek to remedy past injustices. You just can't discriminate on the basis of race, without exception.

Whether or not there were better public policy choices was irrelevant to him.



I don't think he did.

Racism is racism even if it's ignored or denied...ignoring the truth doesn't replace the truth ....Scalia told his truth in his statements about African Americans at large scale institutions...only a racist could make those statements. He probably did what many racists do and equate their views with living "real life" in the "real world"...and simply calling it like it is..."blacks simply make bad economic choices"...or "black parents just don't push their kids educationally" and completely knowingly ignore the systematic adjustments made over history to handcuff a people...and then pretend everything is even scale and "insist each man be seen as the constitution intended and if so what need be for affirmative action"...calculated bigots...our government is full of them and he was one. He basically came out and said as much

 

[Wild self]

Obama won't be able to get anyone on the bench in time.

11 months is more than enough time. Obama is gonna be aggressive with it.

 

[3rdLetter]

The worst thing about him is how untouchable he felt. Dude could whatever crossed his bigoted mind and get away with it, since it's almost impossible to impeach a justice nowadays.
Considering how overtly political he was, dying during a democratic presidency was probably one of his worst fears
This fellow italian must be happy...

 

[EndDomination]

I came into say I hope Sri Srinivasan can get in. Someone at least a little liberal would do, but I don't want any of the Right-bench's former Clerks up there

 

[superunknown23]

I came into say I hope Sri Srinivasan can get in. Someone at least a little liberal would do, but I don't want any of the Right-bench's former Clerks up there

The Senate confirmed him 97-0 three years ago... It would be funny to see how they justify opposing him now.
But Obama also has to pick based on the general election. Since his pick will be opposed no matter what, he needs to select someone who can galvanize democratic turnout (a black female would be ideal).