Justice Scalia has passed

[88m3]

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren
3 hrs ·
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

The Death of Justice Scalia: Reactions and Analysis

 

[RickyGQ]

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren
3 hrs ·
The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.

Bernie/Warren 2016

 

[Mook]

Bernie/Warren 2016

Nah shes a shill.

 

[superunknown23]

Except those dissents are not his major accomplishments and NOT what he will be known for. I listed some of his major accomplishments on the first page of this thread.

http://www.thecoli.com/posts/17756194/

The fact that you only know him through his dissents doesn't mean that those dissents are his major accomplishments.

The fact that you treat Citizens United v. FEC as an accomplishment of Scalia's is very telling, considering Antonin Scalia didn't write the majority opinion in that case. Anthony Kennedy did.

you think that a justice's accomplishment is only when he writes the opinion?

 

[714562]

you think that a justice's accomplishment is only when he writes the opinion?

Writing is not the only part of the job. But yes, written majority opinions are generally the most enduring part of a justice's legacy. In 30 years, nobody will care who concurred and who dissented in NFIB v. Sebelius. But everyone will remember that John Roberts wrote for the majority to uphold the individual healthcare mandate.

 

[Edub]

"Facts?" Literally nothing you said is a fact. When did Scalia "write law" to "increase corporate bottom lines?" Show me when. Do you actually know that a judge does?

It sounds like you're just taking generic talking points about Ronald Reagan and applying them to Antonin Scalia. It's laughable that you think Scalia, the biggest moralizer on the court, sought to "lower moral standards."

Textualism lowers the standards of proper interpretation of law...but he was a driving supporter of it and it being the standard for law interpretation .... additionally he opposed affirmative action further pointing to his moral decay...when you claim he was a "moralizer" whose morasl are you talking about...a white America where laws can be manipulated or read ignorantly for the good of special interests...because that is the moral code he operated under. gtfoh

 

[Edub]

Why do people hate him so much?.. I need to know so when I tell people that I don't like him I have proof.

He said African Americans possibly didn't belong at "big" universities because of the difficulties of the curriculum. He was a racist

 

[714562]

Textualism lowers the standards of proper interpretation of law...but he was a driving supporter of it and it being the standard for law interpretation .... additionally he opposed affirmative action further pointing to his moral decay...when you claim he was a "moralizer" whose morasl are you talking about...a white America where laws can be manipulated or read ignorantly for the good of special interests...because that is the moral code he operated under. gtfoh

Textualism raised the standards for interpreting the law, from an era where such standards had eroded. Even liberal justices who disagree with Scalia are analyizing statutory text on a higher level.

I could see how opposition to affirmative action is arguably the wrong policy choice or the wrong legal choice . . . but to say that opposing affirmative action is a sign of "moral decay?" You're literally just saying angry things about him at this point.

 

[superunknown23]

Writing is not the only part of the job. But yes, written majority opinions are generally the most enduring part of a justice's legacy. In 30 years, nobody will care who concurred and who dissented in NFIB v. Sebelius. But everyone will remember that John Roberts wrote for the majority to uphold the individual healthcare mandate.

They take turns in writing opinions, depending on how passionate they feel about certain cases. People remember the Roberts opinion because he surprised/defied republicans with his vote.
Justices always try to influence their colleagues in oral arguments and conferences. Scalia's many failures to do so was his biggest weakness (constantly insulting and belittling their intellect in ridiculous dissents didn't help either).
The blatant bigotry he exhibited in his dissents on Romer, Lawrence and Obergefell decisions will live in infamy. That probably will be his lasting legacy 20 years from now.

 

[714562]

They take turns in writing opinions, depending on how passionate they feel about certain cases. People remember the Roberts opinion because he surprised/defied republicans with his vote.

They also remember because he wrote the damn thing. A justice's most enduring legacy is the controlling opinions that he or she writes. Nobody remembers how many or how few times someone was in the majority. By that logic, the most agreeable justices of all time would also be the most influential. That's simply not true.

Despite Scalia's polemic writing style, all of his colleagues liked and respected him. So as far as his writing style, I don't think that really matters. That's just who he was.

I'm not sure where you think Scalia's opinions demonstrate "blatant bigotry." Would you care to show me? Have you read the Lawrence/Romer/Windsor/Obergefell dissents in their entirety?

Would a blatant bigot have written on favor of a young Muslim girl who wasn't hired by Abercrombie due to her wearing a headscarf?

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[88m3]

What Antonin Scalia Thought About Politicizing The Supreme Court Nomination Process

BY EMILY ATKIN FEB 14, 2016 1:17 PM

CREDIT: AP PHOTO/LUIS M. ALVAREZ

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addresses the ACC America, Association of Corporate Counsel Washington Metropolitan (WMACCA) Chapter, Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012, in McLean, Va.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly from natural causes on Saturday, opening up an unexpected vacancy on the bench of the highest court in the country.

Instead of a substantive debate about who the next justice should be, however, Scalia’s death set off a strictly political debate about whether president Obama — who has 11 months left in office — should be allowed to begin the process of filling the open seat. Republican presidential candidates said no, and Republican Senate leadership immediately pledged to block any Obama-led effort to replace Scalia, no matter who the nominee. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) went even further in the politicization of Scalia’s death, suggesting on Sunday that the 2016 presidential election serve as “a referendum on the Supreme Court.”

With all this politicization, it’s hard not to wonder: What would Justice Scalia think about the state of conversation over his vacant seat, if he were alive to see it?

Given his previous statements the subject, it seems likely he would expect it — but also frown upon it. Indeed, Scalia himself lamented how the appointment process for Supreme Court justices had become so political during his lifetime, saying he “wouldn’t want to go through it” again in present day.

Scalia was not shy about his disdain for the political nature of the nomination process. Scalia himself was confirmed without a single vote against him in 1986.

“One shudders to think what sort of political turmoil will greet the next nomination to the Supreme Court,” Scalia said in a 2004 speech to the Federalist Society. “The lesson is, in a truly democratic society – or at least the one in America – one way or another the people will have their say on significant social policy.”

However, Scalia also warned that the appointment process would inevitably become more politicized if Justices began making decision of more consequence to American society — particularly if those decision were about “moral questions,” like say, whether marriage should be an equal institution for people of all sexes.

“If judges are routinely providing the society’s definitive answers to moral questions on which there is ample room for debate … then judges will be made politically accountable,” Scalia said.

That was more than 10 years ago, but Scalia maintained his distaste for the injection of politics into the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation processes.

“I am not happy about the intrusion of politics into the judicial appointment process,” Scalia said in2010. But, he said, considering the Supreme Court’s propensity for “deciding the nation’s morals,” Americans better get used to it, he said.

“As long as [the constitution] is subject to revision,” he said, “you should get used to controversial and absurd political theater when a person is nominated.”

What Antonin Scalia Thought About Politicizing The Supreme Court Nomination Process

ether

 

[superunknown23]

I'm not sure where you think Scalia's opinions demonstrate "blatant bigotry." Would you care to show me? Have you read the Lawrence/Romer/Windsor/Obergefell dissents in their entirety?

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.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Bernie/Warren 2016

Would be the GOAT ticket in American history

 

[714562]

Actually, yes I have... And even his most ardent supporters can't defend the shyt he wrote in those opinions.

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

 

[Edub]

Textualism raised the standards for interpreting the law, from an era where such standards had eroded. Even liberal justices who disagree with Scalia are analyizing statutory text on a higher level.

I could see how opposition to affirmative action is arguably the wrong policy choice or the wrong legal choice . . . but to say that opposing affirmative action is a sign of "moral decay?" You're literally just saying angry things about him at this point.

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. 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. And yea Scalia was a racist...not angry about it, just calling spades spades



But hey whatever ...he's gone now