Reply With Quote
Regardless of politics,he was a miserable cheap curmudgeon of a person.I had to deal with him on the regular for years
I think it's going to be a really easy case for the Democrats to make that the Republicans are the party of obstructionism if the seat goes vacant because they won't confirm anyone. It's going to be a great battle cry for high voter turnout. I suspect they'll eventually cave and confirm a moderate appointment. And I can't see Cruz winning the general election. Not when he filibustered Obamacare. 2012 felt like the vote on the ACA, and the repealers got spanked. Cruz is the only Republican I think Sanders would actually beat in the general because of that filibuster.
Regardless of politics,he was a miserable cheap curmudgeon of a person.I had to deal with him on the regular for years
A nasty little asshole. Racist, misogynist, Catholic, LGBT-hater, killer, SUPREME hypocrite, the PERFECT Repug "justice"
Thanks, Repugs
12 “memorable” quotes from Antonin Scalia
Conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, who spent decades warning the nation about the flag-pole-like sitting nature of sexuality, died of natural courses on Friday at a luxury resort in Texas. He was 79.
Death is always sad. I feel bad for his family. And it’s not time to talk about politics. (Unless you’re a Republican who really wants to honor Scalia’s memory by using his death to push for a totally unheard of postponement of his replacement so it happens after Obama leaves office.)
But it might be time to memorialize the man through rounding up some of the most memorable things he ever said or wrote.
1. sexuality: It’s a lot like murder!
Romer v. Evans challenged a Colorado amendment which banned outlawing anti-gay discrimination (I know, I have a headache, too) in 1993. Justice Scalia expressed his sympathy for the people of Colorado, who wanted nothing more than to protect themselves from gay sex like they would from murder:
The Court’s opinion contains… hints that Coloradans have been guilty of ‘animus’ or ‘animosity’ toward sexuality, as though that has been established as Unamerican. . . . I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible–murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals–and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct.
2. sexuality: it’s a lot like incest!
The Supreme Court struck down a Texas ban on sodomy in 2003 in Lawrence v Texas. Amazingly, Scalia’s murder comparison had not convinced his colleagues of the danger posed by the gays. So he tried again. Only this time, with a different analogy.States continue to prosecute all sorts of crimes by adults “in matters pertaining to sex”: pros ution, adult incest, adultery, obscenity, and child pornography
3. sexuality: it’s a lot like flagpole sitting!
To his credit, Scalia would try, time and time again, to use the power of simile to enlighten his colleagues. Within the same dissent, he pointed out that not everything was a right just because it had once been illegal. The act he chose to use to demonstrate is a great American pastime:
Suppose that all the states had laws against flagpole sitting at one time [which they then overturned].Does that make flagpole sitting a fundamental right?
4. Legalizing same-sex marriage: nothing more than ‘fortune cookie justice.’
When the Court legalized same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, Scalia lamented that,
The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
5. Legalizing same-sex marriage: nothing more than pretentious, egomaniacal ‘fortune cookie justice.’
In the same dissent, he described the majority opinion as being, couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.
6. ladies: not protected by the Cons ution.
Scalia didn’t limit himself to reactionary ideologies based on sexual orientation. Ironically, his bigotry embraced the diversity and equality that, he claimed, the Cons ution lacked.During a 2011 interview withCalifornia Lawyer, Scalia said,
Certainly the Cons ution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t.
Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.
7. Women: can’t live with em, can’t stand having to sit on The Supreme Court with them because they’re hysterical, shrieking, fetus-viability redefining banshees.
Sandra Day O’Connor had already made the mistake of becoming the first woman on the United States Supreme Court. Then, adding insult to injury, she refused to join Scalia’s effort to overturn Roe vs. Wade in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, 1989. Always a gentleman, Scalia offered O’Conner some subtle and respectful constructive criticism, describing her reasoning as “irrational,” and not to “be taken seriously.”
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. Voting rights: the result of peer pressure and popularity contests.
During the oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, 2013,Scalia referred to voting rights as “perpetual racial en lements,” the passage of which is,
I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial en lement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial en lements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.
I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act.
10. Executing intellectually disabled people: kosher.
Interestingly, when it came to the death penalty, Scalia wasn’t as critical of the kind of group think that tricks people into supporting voting rights. In his dissent in Atkins v. Virginia, 2002, which barred executing people with mental disabilities, Scalia defended sentencing re ed people to death because everyone is doing it!
The fact that juries continue to sentence mentally re ed offenders to death for extreme crimes shows that society’s moral outrage sometimes demands execution of re ed offenders.
11. Executing innocent people: also kosher.
Scalia he went so far as to argue that executing the innocent didn’t even violate the cons ution:
[t]his court has never held that the Cons ution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.
So, if you’re feeling conflicted about Scalia’s death, don’t lose too much sleep over it. You probably feel guiltier over his natural death, than he ever did about the government-sanctioned killing he so enthusiastically supported.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/12-m...e+Raw+Story%29
The originalist, fundamentalist cons utional ideas that have driven many of the court’s decisions were more the product of Mr. Scalia’s intellect and politics than of the other conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Scalia wrote few of the divided court’s 5-to-4 decisions, perhaps because
the chief justices were aware that Justice Scalia’s lack of self-control in his judgments made him unreliable in those cases.
From abortion rights to marriage equality and desegregation, Justice Scalia opposed much of the social and political progress of the late 20th century and this one.
The question now is whether the Senate will honor Justice Scalia’s originalist view of the Cons ution by allowing President Obama to appoint a successor, and providing its advice and consent in good faith.
Or will the Republicans be willing to create a cons utional crisis and usurp the authority of the president to ensure that the Supreme Court functions as one branch of this government?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/opinion/justice-antonin-scalias-supreme-court-legacy.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
I could care less about Scalia just like he cared less about people in life....he can rot in for all I csre...good ing riddance to be honest
In 2009, Pelosi was able to push a health plan that included a public option through the house. Then Obama + Reid got their hands on it, chopped it up, and turned it into Romneycare. Maybe a single payer option wasn't going to happen with the tea party, but I don't think Obama needed to cave on a public healthcare option the way he did. He caved because he's in bed with Blue Cross/United/CIGNA and they didn't want a public option driving down healthcare prices. Regarding what else I would have done differently:
1) I wouldn't have bombed Libya and destabilized a country with a secular dictator
2) I wouldn't have increased federal enforcement of marijuana offenses the way he did
3) I wouldn't have picked an uncle tom attorney general who represented Wall Street his entire career and proceeded to let HSBC off the hook for offenses that would get any small bank shut down
4) I wouldn't have agreed to the countless estate tax loopholes that became law during Obama's presidency
5) I wouldn't have nominated a judge who made a ruling on the court of appeals that disenfranchised college athletes to the supreme court
6) I wouldn't have made immigration such a high priority. Working class white families feel like they've been disenfranchised by Democrats over the last 40 years and I would have tried more to fix that
7) I would have nationalized any bank that needed bailout rather than giving it free money
8) I wouldn't have picked a cabinet full of corporate shill Clintonites
The list goes on...
You mean it's devastating for cons utional "religiosity". Scalia was anything but "conservative" when attempting to interpret the cons ution, unless you're just associating conservatives with right-wing ideologies (which are not congruous at all).
RIP, the court lost a keen mind and one of its best writers ever.
Tom Goldstein in scotusblog on the 3D chess related to replacement:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/ni...ntonin-scalia/If Kemala Harris wanted the job, I think it would be hers. But I don’t think she does. Harris is the prohibitive favorite to win Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat in the 2016 election. After that, she is well positioned potentially to be president herself. If nominated, she would have to abandon her Senate candidacy and likely all of her political prospects. So I think she would decline.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who is fifty-six, is a serious possibility. But she would likely have to recuse from her job, leaving that position open indefinitely. I also think that the Republicans would have an argument that the attorney general’s position shouldn’t be left open.
No other black woman immediately comes to mind as a nominee, though I haven’t researched the question in some time. But there is an obvious black male: Paul Watford, an Obama appointee to the Ninth Circuit. Watford is in his late forties. He is well respected and reasonably well known in Democratic legal circles.
Watford was confirmed by the Senate in 2012 by a vote of sixty-one to thirty-four, which is a filibuster-proof majority. Nine Republicans voted in favor of his nomination. That gives the Administration considerable ammunition to argue publicly that Republicans, by refusing to process the nomination, are blocking someone who is recognized to be qualified.
Logistically, the fact that Watford was vetted so recently also makes it practical for the president to nominate him in relatively short order. There is some imperative to move quickly, because each passing week strengthens the intuitive appeal of the Republican argument that it is too close to the election to confirm the nominee. Conversely, a nomination that is announced quickly allows Democrats to press the bumper sticker point that Republicans would leave the Supreme Court unable to resolve many close cases for essentially “a year.”
The favorite candidate in Democratic legal circles is generally Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit, followed by Patricia Millett of the same Court. Both are recent Obama appointees. Srinivasan is a Indian American. Millett is a woman. Both would fit the ideological profile that the administration would want. But neither provides the same political benefit.
So while I will update my research on potential nominees, at this point I think that Judge Paul Watford is the most likely candidate.
sameSo given the dynamic, how does each side proceed? The administration can pick a nominee that fulfills both its jurisprudential and political goals, without giving Republicans a tool with which to fight back to persuade undecided voters. Dozens of nominees fit the ideological bill of being solidly progressive and changing the Court’s ideological balance if confirmed. The more interesting question for the administration will be which one creates the greatest political benefit and exacts the greatest political costs for Republicans in the general election.
Democrats have two political priorities: motivating turnout by their own voters and persuading independents to vote for the Democratic nominee. Two Democratic cons uencies in particular vote in disproportionately low numbers: young Democrats and minorities.
While McConnell's position on a replacement nominee is hardly surprising (and reeks, in many ways, of desperation), I don't think it's an intellectually honest position.
Had a "liberal" justice passed away in the early spring of 2008 and had Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed so expressly to block any nomination that President Bush might have made, I suspect the rancor of the Republicans would have been nearly without precedent. It's a relevant test, I think, to assess the honesty of the position: if you would have opposed the other guy doing it (and Senate Republicans, Republican Presidential candidates, and their mouthpieces in the media almost certainly would have), I don't know that it's a respectable choice to take that road yourself.
Of course, intellectual dishonesty is hardly without precedent on either Capital Hill or on the presidential campaign trail.
the attempt to win every battle, while characterizing the President and Democrats as illegitmate, dangerous to the country, and unworthy partners in statecraft, has been strategically costly for the GOP and may be again.
the vacancy on the Supreme Court and upcoming election raises the stakes and throws the strategy of delegitimizing the opposition (and government per se) into clear relief.
Keen mind? Scalia did an interview not too long ago about how "You used to be able to see the devil 2000 years ago but he's gotten more 'wily' recently." He was a religious zealot who set America back.
off the cuff remarks and ideology don't speak to Scalia's mental acuity or rhetorical craft.
his opinions, agree or disagree with them, are entertaining to read. that's pretty unusual for a judge at any level.
it wasn't an off the cuff remark. He was literally talking about how the devil had gotten more wily and was harder to detect.
I personally don't want a supreme court justice who's paranoid about the devil being sneaky.
totally understandable
Elaborate.
Scalia isn't necessarily a dimwit because he holds beliefs you think outlandish or unreasonable. it's no secret Scalia was a practicing Roman Catholic.
I didn't say he was a dimwit. I said he shouldn't be a supreme court justice if some devil that may or may not exist plays a significant role in his decision making.
A lot of the nastiest, craziest top Repugs and judges are RCCs. Steve "cantaloupe calves" King, Rick "man on dog" Santorum, Boner, Paul Ryan, Gregg Abbott
I think the 4 remaining for Repug extremist SCOTUS assholes are RCCs.
5 Catholics and 3 Jews. I think all of them are Harvard and Yale, and nearly all from NY area, just a wonderfully representative cross-section of America.
There are a lot of very intelligent assholes. I'm hesitant to fondly remember Justice Scalia because of his gift with words.
RIH, frankly.
And for Republicans who (predictably) don't want the current President nominating Scalia's replacement, exactly when is the appropriate cutoff point at which a sitting President should pass the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice on to the next elected President? A year? After the first opponent announces his candidacy? One month after inauguration?
What a ing joke.
avg confirm time for SCOTUS appointee is 120 days. Obama has 300+ days.
Repugs to , every one of them. They're ing up, have ed America, the Middle East worse than Muslim terrorists.
GO talk to Schumer ala 2007
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
