Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2017 8:31 PM
354 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, Meddle, Percy (Admin) (6 members, 348 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,116 Year: 25,722/21,208 Month: 1,349/2,338 Week: 106/364 Day: 57/49 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Author Topic:   Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dead. The maneuvering begins!
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 61 of 122 (778199)
02-18-2016 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Big_Al35
02-17-2016 10:05 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
Big_Al35 writes:

Ahhh gatekeeping at its finest. From what I understand, Scalia was pro-guns and pro-original intent.

A few weeks ago you were insisting on discussing the Globalists in the Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. thread. Now here in your Message 53 you were polling NoNukes on his opinions of the second amendment:

Big_Al35 in Message 53 writes:

Well since you are open to interpreting the constitution, I would be interested to know what your thoughts on the second amendment would be.

Because of your recent history of going off-topic I addressed this right away. If you instead would like to discuss Scalia's opinion on the second amendment and on original intent or textualism then that seems fair game.

If I see any more exchanges like this in Message 60 I will take administrative action, with severity matching each member's history:

Big_Al35 in Message 60 writes:

Theodoric writes:

Wouldn't it be easier if your brought your comment to the appropriate thread instead of being a whiny titty baby.


You are an officer and a gentleman ("of the system") and I couldn't expect a more fitting response ("pure aggression").

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Big_Al35, posted 02-17-2016 10:05 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2016 9:24 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.3


Message 62 of 122 (778208)
02-18-2016 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Admin
02-18-2016 6:58 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
My apologies to Admin and all the members of the Forum. My response was born out of frustration, but I know better and should have restrained myself. I will try better to self moderate in the future.

Thank you Admin for the warning instead of a suspension.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Admin, posted 02-18-2016 6:58 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 63 of 122 (778213)
02-18-2016 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Big_Al35
02-17-2016 10:05 AM


Re: Topic Reminder
Ahhh gatekeeping at its finest. From what I understand, Scalia was pro-guns and pro-original intent.

Yes, Big_Al. Have you read Scalia's opinion in DC v Heller? Do you understand why some people say that Scalia's pro-gun politics got in the way of his "Original intent" judicial philosophy? Percy and I have gone back and forth over this several times in this very thread. My position on Scalia with regard to DC v Heller is certainly clear by now.

On the other hand, defending my own personal opinion on the second amendment is off topic here.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Big_Al35, posted 02-17-2016 10:05 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19100
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 64 of 122 (778216)
02-18-2016 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
02-13-2016 7:35 PM


President until January 2017 inaugeration ...
... As of today, there are 269 days until election day. ...

Obama is president until a new one is inaugurated, not just elected.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 02-13-2016 7:35 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by subbie, posted 02-18-2016 3:27 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 65 of 122 (778217)
02-18-2016 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Big_Al35
02-16-2016 1:06 PM


So was Scalia pro-guns or anti-guns? Did he believe in the constitution? I guess promoting attacks on 'original meaning' would include those who are anti-constitutional.

Scalia seemed to advocate the notion of Judicial Restraint versus Judicial Activism wherein he didn't believe that much discretionary latitude was to be granted to judges. No, those advocating "original meaning" is in reference to the Constitution. It's not anti-constitutional, it's simply the different interpretation of what the Constitution means... Think: Spirit of the Law vs Letter of the Law. He was more a Letter of the Law kind of guy.

Some of the Justices see the Constitution and their role in defending it is fluid, dynamic, and should be viewed in light of contemporary issues. That would be more in line with Judicial Activism. Scalia, being of the Original Meaning/Judicial Restraint camp would say that the Constitution is rigid, inflexible and uncompromising in its protections in the sense that you never go beyond what it is saying by taking contemporary beliefs in to account.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Big_Al35, posted 02-16-2016 1:06 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 02-18-2016 11:25 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 66 of 122 (778218)
02-18-2016 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
02-18-2016 11:17 AM


Scalia seemed to advocate the notion of Judicial Restraint versus Judicial Activism

That's only if you buy the myth that less conservative outcomes are activism. Scalia was just as likely as any Justice on the panel to oppose legislative action and executive branch regulation and to strike down statutes and regulation as passed by those branches. But it seems popular to consider such things activism only when Ginsburg is on the side that does it. Scalia was no respecter of the separation of Church and State regardless of how firmly that doctrine was part of the original intent of the constitution and his disrespect of the First Amendment both in his opinions and his out of court actions are well documented.

Let's get this man in the ground and get on with picking his successor. Surely we can do better.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-18-2016 11:17 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16040
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 67 of 122 (778219)
02-18-2016 11:36 AM


NYT Columnist Lays Into Scalia
In today's New York Times columnist Linda Greenhouse draws a distinctly critical portrait of Scalia: Resetting the Post-Scalia Supreme Court. Some excerpts:

quote:
I’ve become increasingly concerned, as my recent columns have suggested, that the conservative majority is permitting the court to become an agent of partisan warfare to an extent that threatens real damage to the institution. Justice Scalia’s outsize role on and off the bench contributed to that dangerous development to an outsize degree.
...
His frequent parroting of right-wing talking points in recent years may have reflected the contraction of his intellectual universe. In an interview with the writer Jennifer Senior (now a New York Times book critic) in New York magazine in 2013, Justice Scalia said he got most of his news from the car radio and from skimming The Wall Street Journal and the conservative Washington Times. He said he stopped reading The Washington Post because it had become so “shrilly, shrilly liberal” that he “couldn’t handle it anymore.”
...
These insights might help explain why someone as smart as Antonin Scalia seemed so un-self-conscious about his inflammatory rhetoric. He was simply giving voice to those he spent his time with. His world was one that reinforced and never challenged him.
...
What mattered was his ability to invoke originalism as a mobilizing tool outside the court, in speeches and in dissenting opinions. The message was that courts have no business recognizing “new” rights. (Except, evidently, new rights of which Justice Scalia approved, such as an unconstrained right for corporations to spend money in politics.) The audience for his dissents, he told Ms. Senior in the New York magazine interview, was law students. The mission he set for himself was cultivating the next generation.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by NoNukes, posted 02-18-2016 2:27 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19100
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 68 of 122 (778221)
02-18-2016 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by NoNukes
02-16-2016 2:31 PM


Justice appointments in all Federal Court positions
One of Obama's greatest failures, in my opinion is represented by all of the open federal judge positions that he did not get filled. Not all his fault, but he gets some of the blame as do those of us who could not be bothered to vote in Senate races.

Indeed. Personally I think the death of Scalia will -- if nothing else -- make people aware of the importance of picking a president that will be appointing judges, and that the senate races are important for getting those appointments approved.

My personal favorite for an Obama nomination would be Loretta Lynch -- she was vetted and approved by this very senate on April 23, 2015.

quote:
Lynch would be the first black woman ever nominated to the nation's highest court — and the GOP would have a political problem during an election year if the Republicans refused to even consider her nomination, Goldstein wrote.

"I think the administration would relish the prospect of Republicans either refusing to give Lynch a vote or seeming to treat her unfairly in the confirmation process," Goldstein wrote. "Either eventuality would motivate both black and women voters."


Obama could have made a recess appointment, but he specifically ruled that out. My impression is that he wants to hold the GOP delay tactics up in front of the nation to show their obstructionism and their willingness to skewer the constitution when it suits their regressive politics.

And it appears that they are living in a bubble again if they think one of their clown candidates can win the general, especially against Bernie.

As it stands it looks like the public is sick and tired of business as usual and massive campaign donations corrupting - or having the appearance of corrupting - the politicians to bend them to the will of big money.

Two candidates are not accepting big money donations: Bernie and Trump. Couple this with what sector of the economy is still left out of the recovery after losing savings, homes, jobs and you have a set of voters looking for real change. Which one people pick depends on their base political views.

And I think they will each win their nominations as a result. The establishment politicians and media don't see this - it is not on their radar because they were not badly affected by the recession: they may have lost some investment value at the time, but it has mostly recovered. The grass-roots people are off their radar, so they keep getting surprised by how well Trump and Bernie are doing.

And Trump is technically not doing as well as Bernie, he just happens to be doing much better than each of the other GOP, but his numbers against a single opponent would be significantly different.

Bernie has picked up some moderate (fiscal) republicans fed up with the current candidates, and a lot of independents, and that makes him more likely to win the election imho. I also think he will bring in more senate seats than Hillary because of his ability to attract new and young voters -- more voters usually benefits the democrats (which is why they lose off-year elections).

Pick up 4 seats and the Democrats win back the majority of the Senate, but win back 14 seats and they get a supermajority that would be filibuster proof.

Not likely to win back the House this year (especially with gerrymandered districts), but the senate is all you need to approve all those appointments.

Can you imagine the GOP *dismay* if Bernie is elected and nominates Cornell West ... (heads explode)

They should be careful what they wish for.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : Loretta link


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by NoNukes, posted 02-16-2016 2:31 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 02-18-2016 12:54 PM RAZD has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 69 of 122 (778227)
02-18-2016 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
02-18-2016 12:03 PM


Re: Justice appointments in all Federal Court positions
Two candidates are not accepting big money donations: Bernie and Trump.

Trump is doing that for the primary race. Are any of the candidates going to tell PACs to butt out?

My personal favorite for an Obama nomination would be Loretta Lynch -- she was vetted and approved by this very senate on April 23, 2015.

Perhaps the person chosen won't be achieve anything except being forced to withdraw from consideration after an uncomfortable, degrading, and ridiculous spectacle in the senate, and then being out of consideration even if Bernie or Clinton wins. I'm far too pessimistic about the chances for confirmation of an Obama pick to even want to have a favorite candidate.

And Trump is technically not doing as well as Bernie, he just happens to be doing much better than each of the other GOP, but his numbers against a single opponent would be significantly different.

Interesting. I think getting 35% in a field of 8-10 candidates and coming close to tripling the next guy looks even better than Bernie's trouncing of Clinton in NH. And both Clinton and Trump seem set to do quite well in SC. Let's revisit this in two weeks.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2016 12:03 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2016 12:27 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 70 of 122 (778239)
02-18-2016 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Percy
02-18-2016 11:36 AM


Re: NYT Columnist Lays Into Scalia
quote:
If that seems an uncharitable, even tasteless observation, so be it.

In my view, this article is a bit tasteless this shortly after the good Justices death. On the other hand, I suppose there are other puff pieces being published in the same newspaper to balance this stuff out.

I’ve become increasingly concerned, as my recent columns have suggested, that the conservative majority is permitting the court to become an agent of partisan warfare to an extent that threatens real damage to the institution. Justice Scalia’s outsize role on and off the bench contributed to that dangerous development to an outsize degree.

Well said. And almost certainly, Obama is going to get the blame for being divisive.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 02-18-2016 11:36 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 71 of 122 (778246)
02-18-2016 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by RAZD
02-18-2016 11:14 AM


Re: President until January 2017 inaugeration ...
True. But I think it's a more compelling argument after the President is in fact a lame duck, so I framed the argument in the most favorable terms for the opposition to show how wrong-headed it is.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2016 11:14 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19100
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 72 of 122 (778346)
02-19-2016 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by NoNukes
02-18-2016 12:54 PM


Re: Justice appointments in all Federal Court positions
Perhaps the person chosen won't be achieve anything except being forced to withdraw from consideration after an uncomfortable, degrading, and ridiculous spectacle in the senate, and then being out of consideration even if Bernie or Clinton wins. I'm far too pessimistic about the chances for confirmation of an Obama pick to even want to have a favorite candidate.

Another reason to pick Lynch -- she already has a federal position to fall back on -- is that she can wait out the process and let the people see their persecution as either racist, misogynist, or both. That would bring angry voters to the booths to elect senators as well as the president.

Yes that is political maneuvering, but the GOP is already politicizing this -- they still resent Bork ...

Interesting. I think getting 35% in a field of 8-10 candidates and coming close to tripling the next guy looks even better than Bernie's trouncing of Clinton in NH. And both Clinton and Trump seem set to do quite well in SC. Let's revisit this in two weeks.

Well I expect Dr Carson to be the next to drop out. I don't see his supporters going to Cruz but to Rubio (because of Cruz skulduggery re Carson ... and now Rubio). I expect Bush to keep hanging by his fingernails because he has the money and hopes to pick up in Florida and other "Bush-family-loving" states, especially now that brother Schrubia is welcomed into the campaign ...

Kasich may also drop out; I can see his supporters going to Rubio or Bush, as "best establishment" candidates. And as the field narrows I see voters clustering to "establishment" Rubio and Bush or to "anti-establishment" Cruz and Trump.

We'll see. Tomorrow Nevada for Dems, S.Carolina for GOPs.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NoNukes, posted 02-18-2016 12:54 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 02-22-2016 1:19 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2016 1:02 PM RAZD has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 73 of 122 (778623)
02-22-2016 1:17 PM


Original Intent at work...
Scalia was particularly strident about the viability of the death penalty. Scalia ended up in the minority on a case that the Supreme Court decided that makes it essentially impossible to execute a man with an IQ less than 70. Scalia acknowledged that the original intent allowed men who were 'idiots' to escape execution, but he balked on the use of any modern technique to establish mental incompetence.

quote:
In his dissent, Scalia used as his moral criterion an 18th century dictionary's definition of "idiot" as "such a person who cannot account or number twenty pence, nor can tell who was his father or mother, nor how old he is." According to Scalia's perception of the Constitution as not living but dead, that archaic definition should have guided the court's decision and not any modern understanding of diminished mental capacity. Dobie, who had an IQ of 65 but knew exactly who his mama was, would have failed Scalia's "idiot" test.

Here, the difference between 'originalism' and 'textualism' is readily apparent. Scalia digs through history to find what 18th century history could discern regarding mental illness and insists on using that archaic medical position as definitive on how we ought to read the constitution. In my view that's patently ridiculous.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 74 of 122 (778624)
02-22-2016 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
02-19-2016 12:27 PM


Re: Justice appointments in all Federal Court positions
I don't see his supporters going to Cruz but to Rubio (because of Cruz skulduggery re Carson

Ah, RAZD. Ever the rational one. I don't think people really care about that stuff. Carson's complaints about that stuff have been decreed to be whining.

ABE:

Or maybe not! Ted Cruz let his number one spokesman go today after yet another dirty trick. Rick Tyler was forced to resign after he posted a video showing Rubio stating that there were no answers to be found in the Bible, when in fact Rubio had stated that all of the answers were there, and in particular citing the book of Proverbs as being replete with wisdom.

I think that is about four or so blatant lies that Cruz has had to acknowledge originated with his campaign.

Edited by Admin, : Typo.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2016 12:27 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 75 of 122 (778694)
02-23-2016 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
02-19-2016 12:27 PM


Re: Justice appointments in all Federal Court positions
Another reason to pick Lynch -- she already has a federal position to fall back on -- is that she can wait out the process and let the people see their persecution as either racist, misogynist, or both. That would bring angry voters to the booths to elect senators as well as the president.

I've thought about this over the last few days, and I now agree with your choice of nominee.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2016 12:27 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Theodoric, posted 02-23-2016 1:25 PM NoNukes has not yet responded
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 02-24-2016 3:54 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017