|
Dik Hz posted:Why yes, using 19th century slang in your court opinions is literally the same as killing women. How about killing and eating "unlawful combatants?"
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Why yes, using 19th century slang in your court opinions is literally the same as killing women. I wonder which caused more suffering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Lumberjack Bonanza posted:I wonder which caused more suffering. the dead can't suffer
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/698649076691173376?lang=en Now that's poetry. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
With Scalia dead, how will Thomas know how to vote?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Deadpool comes out, Scalia kicks it that weekend. Coincidence? ...well, yes, actually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Holy shuttlecocks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Pomp posted:he failed to stop gay marriage No, I mean something small in his personal life like not seeing an upcoming grandchild or leaving a stew on the stove.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
will he come back alive?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Having just recently lost my grandmother, I sympathize for his family and his loved ones. Losing someone close to you is very hard. That said, his death makes America a better place in a very tangle way
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
The GOP stonewalling a SCOTUS nominee for the next 9 months is a huge gift to the Democrats to completely bash them all the way to the election. There's no healthcare.gov meltdown to save them. If the GOP willingly fucks around with the SCOTUS this openly then the Dems only have themselves to blame if they can't turn it against GOP in the election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I'm really hoping he left something he considered important unfinished so that his last moments were filled with all-consuming regret. Other than the waffles?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Pomp posted:it's an appointment for life quote:The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. You can argue on a constitutional basis that he no longer possessed good behavior, but its a stretch, so its what Scalia would have wanted
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
More horrible Scalia opinions please, vyelkin. I want to read an avalanche of evil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
RIP to Mark Pringle
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:More horrible Scalia opinions please, vyelkin. I want to read an avalanche of evil. Open the blood gates  Scalia generally voted to strike down laws which make distinctions by race, gender, or sexual orientation. In 1989, he concurred with the Court's judgment in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., in which the Court applied strict scrutiny to a city program requiring a certain percentage of contracts to go to minorities, and struck down the program. Scalia did not join the majority opinion, however. He disagreed with O'Connor's opinion, for the Court, that states and localities could institute race-based programs, if they identified past discrimination, and if the program was designed to remedy the past racism.[84] Five years later, in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña he concurred in the Court's judgment and in part with the opinion which extended strict scrutiny to federal programs. Scalia noted in that matter his view that government can never have a compelling interest in making up for past discrimination by racial preferences, quote:To pursue the concept of racial entitlement—even for the most admirable and benign of purposes—is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American.[85]
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/698659911400448001
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The GOP stonewalling a SCOTUS nominee for the next 9 months is a huge gift to the Democrats to completely bash them all the way to the election. There's no healthcare.gov meltdown to save them. If the GOP willingly fucks around with the SCOTUS this openly then the Dems only have themselves to blame if they can't turn it against GOP in the election. are you presuming basic competence on the part of the democratic party
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:You can argue on a constitutional basis that he no longer possessed good behavior, but its a stretch, so its what Scalia would have wanted Good behavior means that he isn't committing impeachable offenses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
In one of the final decisions of the Burger Court, the Court ruled in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick that homosexual sodomy was not protected by the right of privacy and could be criminally prosecuted by the states.[89] In 1995, however, that ruling was effectively gutted by Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado state constitutional amendment, passed by popular vote, which forbade anti-discrimination laws being extended to sexual orientation.[90] Scalia dissented from the opinion by Justice Kennedy, believing that Bowers had protected the right of the states to pass such measures, and that the Colorado amendment was not discriminatory, but merely prevented homosexuals from gaining favored status under Colorado law.[91] Scalia later said of Romer, "And the Supreme Court said, 'Yes, it is unconstitutional.' On the basis of—I don't know, the Sexual Preference Clause of the Bill of Rights, presumably. And the liberals loved it, and the conservatives gnashed their teeth."[92] In 2003, Bowers was formally reversed by Lawrence v. Texas, from which Scalia dissented. According to Mark V. Tushnet in his survey of the Rehnquist Court, during the oral argument in the case, Scalia seemed so intent on making the state's argument for it that the Chief Justice intervened: "Maybe we should go through counsel."[93] According to his biographer, Joan Biskupic, Scalia "ridiculed" the majority in his dissent for being so ready to cast aside Bowers when many of the same justices had refused to overturn Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[94]
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACpNVD5GMUw
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Scalia believed that the death penalty is constitutional.[95] He dissents in decisions that hold the death penalty unconstitutional as applied to certain groups, such as those who were under the age of 18 at the time of offense. In Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), he dissented from the Court's ruling that the death penalty could not be applied to those aged 15 at the time of the offense, and the following year authored the Court's opinion in Stanford v. Kentucky sustaining the death penalty for those who killed at age 16. However, in 2005, the Court overturned Stanford in Roper v. Simmons and Scalia again dissented, mocking the majority's claims that a national consensus had emerged against the execution of those who killed while under age, and noted that less than half of the states that permitted the death penalty prohibited it for underage killers. He castigated the majority for including in their count states that had abolished the death penalty entirely, stating that doing so was "rather like including old-order Amishmen in a consumer-preference poll on the electric car. Of course they don't like it, but that sheds no light whatever on the point at issue."[96]
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Was wondering what they would say about this. Perfect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Tasteful Bulge posted:With Scalia dead, how will Thomas know how to vote? By voting for his well defined, if loving weird and terrible, judicial philosophy that he has never strayed from even when it resulted in liberal outcomes. Scalia was the hack that just started voting straight GOP party line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Not an empty quote
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
UberJew posted:are you presuming basic competence on the part of the democratic party No, but as today is a day of miracles please just let me dream. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
In March 2006, Scalia gave a talk at the University of Fribourg, in Switzerland, where he was asked about detainee rights. He responded, "Give me a break ... I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son, and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."[66]
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:In 2003, Bowers was formally reversed by Lawrence v. Texas, from which Scalia dissented. According to Mark V. Tushnet in his survey of the Rehnquist Court, during the oral argument in the case, Scalia seemed so intent on making the state's argument for it that the Chief Justice intervened: "Maybe we should go through counsel."[93] According to his biographer, Joan Biskupic, Scalia "ridiculed" the majority in his dissent for being so ready to cast aside Bowers when many of the same justices had refused to overturn Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[94] hence SCOTUS Thread 2015: Justice Scalia attempted to respond on petitioners behalf
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
When I read the headline I burst into tears. It's finally over. Antonin Scalia is finally dead. Can we drive a stake through his heart? Just to be sure?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
The quails found his phylactery it seems
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
...inasmuch as Bachmann has read neither.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
re: that famous fake quote, Scalia later actually wrote something similar in a dissent: http://www.businessinsider.com/antonin-scalia-says-executing-the-innocent-is-constitutional-2014-9 quote:"This Court has never held that the Constitution 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," Scalia wrote in a 2009 dissent of the Court's order for a federal trial court in Georgia to consider the case of death row inmate Troy Davis. "Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged 'actual innocence' is constitutionally cognizable." Which may be technically correct if you don't mind being technically Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
quote:The Republican obstruction will break when John Roberts calls for the confirmation of Obama's pick. Roberts respects the non-political nature of the court too much to allow that poo poo to fly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
scalia's death confirmed to be just so much applesauce
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:scalia's death confirmed to be just so much applesauce
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Clarence Thomas is trending on Twitter because conservatives keep repeating "Clarence Thomas is trending on Twitter because liberals are big poopy heads who joked about wishing he was next to die!" That's seriously like 75% of the tweets about Clarence Thomas right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
I doubt Roberts would say anything one way or the other on the confirmation process because he wants to avoid embroiling himself and the court in political matters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Chief Justice Roberts? Oh, do you mean Chief Justice OBAMACARE? Surely, he'll convince conservatives about the nonpartisan nature of the court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
biznatchio posted:I doubt Roberts would say anything one way or the other on the confirmation process because he wants to avoid embroiling himself and the court in political matters. Agree. He'll stay out of it and he probably should.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
This is a better day for politics then the current election. gently caress that man for sticking his beliefs into the rule of law. I can only give this thread one  for the announcement and it beats hearing about Thatcher or Regan passing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 01:41
|
|
