|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said. Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa. According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body |
As far as Scalia is concerned, I agree with this:
He also supported the death penalty for a man who was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence: Link. And I support the death penalty.
He was also on the Court for nearly thirty years. I am against anyone holding that position for longer than fifteen years. The hallmark of democracy is the voluntary surrender of power.
And despite what his supporters say, Scalia was a dreadful expository writer. Some of his sentences were long enough to be paragraphs. Most of his opinions are just acerbic temper tantrums.
He was undoubtedly a major force on the Court, but screaming the loudest doesn't make you correct.
As far as Scalia is concerned, I agree with this:
Quote:
in some matters he was a "strict constructionist" but when it came to gun rights he conveniently overlooked the phrase "in a well regulated militia." I'm an advocate for gun rights but it is blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a strict constructionist and then ignore phrases that don't support your position.
He also supported the death penalty for a man who was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence: Link. And I support the death penalty.
He was also on the Court for nearly thirty years. I am against anyone holding that position for longer than fifteen years. The hallmark of democracy is the voluntary surrender of power.
And despite what his supporters say, Scalia was a dreadful expository writer. Some of his sentences were long enough to be paragraphs. Most of his opinions are just acerbic temper tantrums.
He was undoubtedly a major force on the Court, but screaming the loudest doesn't make you correct.
Except both of you citing the text of the 2A have misspoken. The qualifying clause, which is "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...", precedes "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." And there was nothing inconsistent about that particular part of Scalia's jurisprudence, as the original intent on the subject is almost universally understood (even by leftish originalists like Akhil Amar) to be more expansive than you're suggesting.
In your opinion...
Quote:
election just got a lot more interesting. There is going to be a major fight over the Supreme Court now, especially since many of its most important decisions were by a 5-4 majority.
As far as Scalia is concerned, I agree with this:
Quote:
in some matters he was a "strict constructionist" but when it came to gun rights he conveniently overlooked the phrase "in a well regulated militia." I'm an advocate for gun rights but it is blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a strict constructionist and then ignore phrases that don't support your position.
He also supported the death penalty for a man who was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence: Link. And I support the death penalty.
He was also on the Court for nearly thirty years. I am against anyone holding that position for longer than fifteen years. The hallmark of democracy is the voluntary surrender of power.
And despite what his supporters say, Scalia was a dreadful expository writer. Some of his sentences were long enough to be paragraphs. Most of his opinions are just acerbic temper tantrums.
He was undoubtedly a major force on the Court, but screaming the loudest doesn't make you correct.
Except both of you citing the text of the 2A have misspoken. The qualifying clause, which is "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...", precedes "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." And there was nothing inconsistent about that particular part of Scalia's jurisprudence, as the original intent on the subject is almost universally understood (even by leftish originalists like Akhil Amar) to be more expansive than you're suggesting.
Except that Robert Bork, nobody's idea of a judicial leftist, and heralded by conservatives as a great constitutional scholar, thought otherwise:
Link
The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possible tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.
-Judge Bork-
Link
Trump gets to pick.
As far as Scalia is concerned, I agree with this:
Quote:
in some matters he was a "strict constructionist" but when it came to gun rights he conveniently overlooked the phrase "in a well regulated militia." I'm an advocate for gun rights but it is blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a strict constructionist and then ignore phrases that don't support your position.
He also supported the death penalty for a man who was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence: Link. And I support the death penalty.
He was also on the Court for nearly thirty years. I am against anyone holding that position for longer than fifteen years. The hallmark of democracy is the voluntary surrender of power.
And despite what his supporters say, Scalia was a dreadful expository writer. Some of his sentences were long enough to be paragraphs. Most of his opinions are just acerbic temper tantrums.
He was undoubtedly a major force on the Court, but screaming the loudest doesn't make you correct.
And J.P. Stevens called him out on it many times. J.P. Stevens' stance on the Second Amendment is factually the right way to approach Second Amendment issues.
Quote:
election just got a lot more interesting. There is going to be a major fight over the Supreme Court now, especially since many of its most important decisions were by a 5-4 majority.
As far as Scalia is concerned, I agree with this:
Quote:
in some matters he was a "strict constructionist" but when it came to gun rights he conveniently overlooked the phrase "in a well regulated militia." I'm an advocate for gun rights but it is blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a strict constructionist and then ignore phrases that don't support your position.
He also supported the death penalty for a man who was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence: Link. And I support the death penalty.
He was also on the Court for nearly thirty years. I am against anyone holding that position for longer than fifteen years. The hallmark of democracy is the voluntary surrender of power.
And despite what his supporters say, Scalia was a dreadful expository writer. Some of his sentences were long enough to be paragraphs. Most of his opinions are just acerbic temper tantrums.
He was undoubtedly a major force on the Court, but screaming the loudest doesn't make you correct.
And J.P. Stevens called him out on it many times. J.P. Stevens' stance on the Second Amendment is factually the right way to approach Second Amendment issues.
Explain to me what the "factually" right way to approach a legal issue is?
Quote:
In comment 12813947 AcidTest said:
Quote:
election just got a lot more interesting. There is going to be a major fight over the Supreme Court now, especially since many of its most important decisions were by a 5-4 majority.
As far as Scalia is concerned, I agree with this:
Quote:
in some matters he was a "strict constructionist" but when it came to gun rights he conveniently overlooked the phrase "in a well regulated militia." I'm an advocate for gun rights but it is blatant hypocrisy to claim to be a strict constructionist and then ignore phrases that don't support your position.
He also supported the death penalty for a man who was eventually exonerated by DNA evidence: Link. And I support the death penalty.
He was also on the Court for nearly thirty years. I am against anyone holding that position for longer than fifteen years. The hallmark of democracy is the voluntary surrender of power.
And despite what his supporters say, Scalia was a dreadful expository writer. Some of his sentences were long enough to be paragraphs. Most of his opinions are just acerbic temper tantrums.
He was undoubtedly a major force on the Court, but screaming the loudest doesn't make you correct.
And J.P. Stevens called him out on it many times. J.P. Stevens' stance on the Second Amendment is factually the right way to approach Second Amendment issues.
Explain to me what the "factually" right way to approach a legal issue is?
If you want to know (which Scalia did) what the framers of the Constitution meant with the Second Amendment, look no further than his dissent in US. Heller.
Scalia was a textualist, the first rule of which is that when then text is clear, you stop. The text of the second amendment is clear. I support the right of people to own guns, subject to some limitations like universal background checks. But Bork was right.
Quote:
might be ineffectual may mean that the amendment is anachronistic (it may not), it does not mean that the text means something now that it didn't then.
Scalia was a textualist, the first rule of which is that when then text is clear, you stop. The text of the second amendment is clear. I support the right of people to own guns, subject to some limitations like universal background checks. But Bork was right.
It wasn't unambiguous, but textualists like Scalia have always sought to understand the text of the Constitution in the language in which it was written (for instance, "regulated" at the time was more properly understood to mean "trained").
If McConnell wants to make some history, here's his shot.
It's too bad that Obama is a classy guy - I'd suggest he recess appoint himself to the SCOTUS and let Uncle Joe finish out his term. As long we're smashing historical precedent.
The Dems definitely got handed an Ace in the hole with this.
Quote:
In comment 12813988 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
might be ineffectual may mean that the amendment is anachronistic (it may not), it does not mean that the text means something now that it didn't then.
Scalia was a textualist, the first rule of which is that when then text is clear, you stop. The text of the second amendment is clear. I support the right of people to own guns, subject to some limitations like universal background checks. But Bork was right.
It wasn't unambiguous, but textualists like Scalia have always sought to understand the text of the Constitution in the language in which it was written (for instance, "regulated" at the time was more properly understood to mean "trained").
Scalia was a little like Hugo Black. He enforced the confrontation clause, even when it was politically unpopular to do so. He also correctly concluded that the first amendment protects the right to desecrate the flag.
As far as the text of the second amendment is concerned, we will have to disagree. I think it's completely clear.
My biggest problem with Scalia is the same problem I have with nearly every Supreme Court justice, regardless of their ideology. And that is that they won't leave. Powell and Souter are the only justices I can think of who left after a reasonable tenure. Powell of course never wanted the job, and Souter wanted to go back to New Hampshire.
And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also said Saturday that a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should not be selected until after the 2016 election by asserting that President Obama not no longer represents the American people.
Take a look at Gregg Costa of the Fifth Circuit. Would make it difficult for Republicans especially the two Senators from Texas
Btw, as of the last detailed analysis I saw, the Dems were NOT a favorite to take back the Senate. In a significant number of the seats the Reps have to defend, they have the advantage of either being in a red state, or having a strong candidate--incumbent or otherwise. Of course, this event changes that a bit, as would nominations of Trump or Cruz on one side or Sanders on the other.
This was a January 11 analysis by an analyst who works for Real Clear Politics and is pretty neutral:
In another analysis, Dems were ahead in 44, Reps in 47, with 9 undecided.
http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/
It's those nine that potentially become much more contentious with today's event.
Link - ( New Window )
Wow.
Wow.
*pages
It's truly an interesting subject that crystallizes strategies from all sides. Nop one is crowing now, its just political theory being discussed
Btw, as of the last detailed analysis I saw, the Dems were NOT a favorite to take back the Senate. In a significant number of the seats the Reps have to defend, they have the advantage of either being in a red state, or having a strong candidate--incumbent or otherwise. Of course, this event changes that a bit, as would nominations of Trump or Cruz on one side or Sanders on the other.
This was a January 11 analysis by an analyst who works for Real Clear Politics and is pretty neutral:
In another analysis, Dems were ahead in 44, Reps in 47, with 9 undecided.
http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/
It's those nine that potentially become much more contentious with today's event.
Link - ( New Window )
I think this situation becomes the wildcard that either keeps the status quo, or breaks it open. I agree with the analysis that shows that the senate and Congress were going to stay a Conservative majority, the way this plays out now may be determined by how both sides address the appointment, whoever it may be
Legal scholarship...not so much.
I think Ash's point was that the warning has proven to be quite toothless.
Ain't gonna happen. Obama doesn't want it. Why would he? Yes, SCOTUS is a great gig but Ex-POTUS is the greatest gig on the planet earth.
Obama was careful with his words - said s candidate should have a fair chance at an up or down vote. Reps can give him that without being obstructionist.
I agree. See my post above. If it looks like his nominee will be to the right of Hillary or Sanders potential nomination and Trump is leading they may want to have Obama's nominee
Pretty much.
are you talking about Jon Beason?
Brilliant move. Nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has ZERO scholarly publications in the law, and no record of ever contributing anything of value to jurisprudence.
But hey, he's so cool it doesn't matter, right?