RIP Antonin Scalia
As most of you know by now, Antonin Scalia, who spent almost thirty years as a Justice on the US Supreme Court died yesterday, a month before his 80th birthday. He was nominated to his place on the court by Ronald Reagan in 1986 and I can’t think of a single instance in which I disagreed with any of his decisions.
He died in his sleep after a day of quail hunting – which really isn’t a bad way to go.
I’m not sure what will happen after today in this country, but I do know that the country won’t be the same without Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
Category: Blue Skies
From reason.com this morning-Scalia’s defense of originalism: “”if the people come to believe that the Constitution is not a text like other texts; that it means, not what it says or what it was understood to mean, but what it should mean,… well, then, they will look for qualifications other than impartiality, judgment, and lawyerly acumen in those whom they select to interpret it. More specifically,” Scalia wrote, “they will look for judges who agree with them as to what evolving standards have evolved to; who agree with them as to what the Constitution ought to be.”
RIP.
As then the Constitution States all men are created equal. Scalia did not think so. How can you be a voice of Justice for the people if you do not believe all are equal.
Sometimes evolving standards are needed like believing African Americans are not second citizens.
I’m pretty sure that it’s the Declaration, not the Constitution, that states that “all men are created equal” (and that’s a wonderful sentiiment, but it isn’t law). The Constitution also does not state that African Americans are “second citizens”, so I’m not sure where you think Scalia’s inconsistency lies with regard to his originalism.
With statements like those he penned, I am quite confident that he thinks at all, 68W58.
and that is why Ronnie Reagan selected him: so Scalia’s ideology, his “textualism” could be used to further conservative interests. the Citizens United stunt was enough to sour Scalia’s rep forever.
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about-but keep ****ing that chicken.
Justice Scalia, as a strict constitutionalist, was one of the staunchest bulwarks between American gun owners and those on the left who want to reinterpret the Constitution so as to disarm the public.
You can bet that Obama, who has made no secret of his contempt for both gun owners and the Constitution, will name a stealth gun-grabber to fill Scalia’s seat on the court. We all need to contact our senators and urge them to delay the appointment and approval of a new justice until after the presidential election.
R.I.P. Justice Scalia, and thank you for looking out for us.
I’m a Progressive and own guns (9mm) and i don’t like anything about disarming Americans, but….allowing anyone to go out and buy machine guns is a bit of a stretch. the bottom 99% need to be armed in order to keep their dwindling Freedoms, but weapons designed for War is a little much. i would, though rather have no restrictions than unlimited restrictions on gun ownership.
Looking at The Glorious Leader’s other judicial appointments, suffice it to say I’m rather worried.
so Citizens United was a good thing?? allowing Billionaires to buy YOUR elections/Legislators is good for you?? Destroying Democracy is good for America?? Interesting.
Linux: “Like”.
What made Scalia great was his resistance to the concept of legislating from the bench. He rightly pointed out that laws are supposed to be made or changed only by elected representatives, not by unelected judges, and that the judges’ only purpose is to determine whether or not a law conflicts with the Constitution, regardless of their own ideology.
His will be enormous shoes to fill, and I trust neither the Glorious Leader nor most of the current candidates to select a worthy successor, and Lord knows I don’t trust most members of the whorehouse at the east end of the National Mall.
Except for Citizens United, EPA, Bush V Gore,
Gonzalez V Raich. Just to name a few.
The 14th amendment does not apply to woman?
CB Senior: “Like”
I truly admired Justice Scalia. He was a throw-back kind of man. The son of a immigrants, he took to his studies and lived the American dream of succeeding through effort and sacrifice. He married Maureen well before many here were born and together they raised nine children, one of whom was a major in the Army, if I recall correctly. Justice Scalia was a pip, perhaps the best humored justice who ever served. I am saddened by his death but, as lives go, his was certainly rich and full. Conservatives have lost a great friend on the court and the nation a true constitutionalist.
I don’t think the Senate should have a say when Obama nominates a new Justice. The Senate should do is take their time having hearings and should Bork any nominee he sends them.
Not that McConnell is really any better but be glad the GOP is controlling the Senate instead of Harry Reid still running the show and bypassing any filibuster.
Not only a strong conservative, but (at least in my memory) the best-humored Justice on the Supreme Court. RIP.
His funniest Joke was voting in the Majority on the Citizens United decision. allowing unlimited amounts of money from the wealthy into our Elective process is good for the bottom 99%, i suppose. the rich really care about us, ya’ know.
By all accounts a well respected jurist among all who knew him.
Peace to his family who will surely miss him even more than will the rest of us.
Thank you, sir, for your service in defending the US Constitution on our behalf.
Form what I’ve read about him, many people consider Justice Scalia a good man and a good person. His presence on the bench is going to be sorely missed for many years to come.
As for McConnell and his claims about an appointment before bodaprez leaves office, he’ll knuckle under and put one of King Mompants minions on the court…
Honestly, I would like to see Judge Andrew Napolitano fill his shoes. Every time I hear him speak it is about “What does the Constitution SAY.” Not “what do you want it to mean”
Obama will never nominate someone like that. But hey, on the bright side we can expect a visit from that legal Ubermensch Commissar to tell us how we are all wrong, so we have that going for us.
Fuck Lars the bitch!
This IS more scary than anything I can remember. The right thing to do would d be to maintain balance over power, but that is not what Obama will be about. So forgive me if I don’t believe his feigned “grieving” because if power were a dollar sign they’d be rolling in his eyes like a winning slot machine.
RIP, Justice Scalia and may your light shine upon us all in these trying times.
I honestly don’t think the left has a clue about how mad many Americans are about the direction they are pushing this country.
If burnedbutthole gets elected there will be a shift in the machinations of America and we won’t have Justice Scalia to hold the doorstop…
He wrote Heller, and that is the one thing they want to destroy, the Second Amendment…
Bernie supports the second amendment and has said so explicitly despite the political cost among liberals to do so.
YOU don’t know me, Commissar.
I’m certain that Justice Scalia knew you.
Actually, this is somewhat true. But as one of the following links states:
“As for Bernie Sanders overall position on the Second Amendment, it seems his position is best described as “all over the place.”
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns
http://www.inquisitr.com/2228223/where-is-bernie-sanders-on-the-second-amendment/
But he still is a communist. 😛
Which is why he wants gun manufacturers to be liable for the actions of buyers/owners several steps removed, just be cause that is now a politically fashionable stance in the Democrat party? kind of like suing Bayer if someone who bought a big bottle of aspirin had it stolen by someone who fenced it to someone who tried to OD on them. He only supports the second when it is politically advantageous to do so.
This^^^
Don’t think for one fucking second he’d support the Second Amendment if he represented CA, NY, or any other state outside VT.
His at best haphazard approach and voting record is more a reflection of the fact he’d have never won a seat that requires statewide support if he came out as a gun grabber.
But make no mistake, he is exactly that when it suits him.
Or worse, if Hillary gets elected….
Maybe we should start a pool now as to which one of her “allies” gets put on the supreme court. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if she nominated Bill to fill the seat.
Or, as was “such a wonderful idea!” that she had scripted into a question, “How about nominating Obama to the supreme court?”
There could be big SCOTUS turnover in the next administration. 3 associate justices are getting up there in age:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg – 82
Anthony Kennedy -79
Stephen Breyer – 77
Controlling the WH, and the Senate will be priority 1 & 2.
Citizens United v. FEC
Do you mean the decision that said that a documentary that was critical of Hillary Clinton was constitutionally protected speech? Yes, that was correctly decided.
That is not what the decision said.
It had nothing to do with the content of the documentary.
And if you think it was correctly decided than you do not believe we should have a democracy.
It allows unlimited spending by individuals, organizations, and corporations on political candidates.
It essentially legalized bribery. And made genuine campaign finance reform almost impossible short of a constitutional amendment.
It was one of the worst decisions in the court’s history.
The merits of the case were completely about whether or not Congress could censor the makers of that documentary film. I see that you have come down on the side of censorship of political speech. Of course that’s perfectly consistent with your political position, just glad to see you admit it.
Yes, every single one of us can make as much “speech” about politics as one cares to, including spending unlimited amounts of ones own wealth to do so.
It is called “Liberty”, and I do not become politically limited by someone else’s lack of effort or success. Nor do I expect more successful people to limit themselves to my level of output.
Folks of modest means can band together to speak loudly and often. But certain folks want to strictly limit that, so that only -their- collective voice gets heard.
No thanks. I prefer Liberty to its absence.
no, the one that allows the rich and big business to pour as much money into YOUR election process to game it so they can get THEIR guys into office at YOUR expense. that Citizens United decision. after all, the rich want to make sure YOU’RE being represented in the Decisions government makes that affect YOUR life every day. they really care about you, ya’ know.
And yet we currently have two “outsiders” thick in the running of the Presidential election, both of whom declaring that they can’t be bought. Of course I don’t believe that the rich have my best interests at heart, I also don’t believe that about our corrupt elected officials or bureaucracy. Allowing citizens to unite (see what I did there) to produce political commentary to expose that seems like a good thing-too bad you seem to disagree.
Bingo-bango 68W58. I read your reply after I posted the tome below. That’s pretty much my point–in 5000 fewer words.
Here’s the Citizens United case, in a nutshell, for those of you who are either unfamiliar with it or have a strong pinion about it but don’t know what the hell you are opining about. The FEC tried to apply the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to a film that was quite unfavorable to Hillary Clinton. (She is still whining about it to this day!) Sections of the BCRA contained a variety of prohibitions and restrictions regarding electioneering communications. One, for instance, barred corporations and labor unions from funding electioneering communications from the entities’ general funds. Another required disclosure of donors to communications covered by the BCRA. So, with the prospect of bad things happening if it showed the film, United Citizens (a conservative group that is a nonprofit corporation) sought an injunction against the FEC, seeking to stop it from applying the BCRA to the movie. CU argued that any bar to showing the movie was a violation of its rights under the 1st Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia disagreed and ruled against Citizens United. The case thereafter went to the Supreme Court, as provided for in the BCRA, and the result was a 5-4 decision that took the financial limits off political speech. The majority said that whether one is dealing with an individual or a corporate person, unfettered political speech is vital to a democracy. But it wasn’t a win for CU, by the way. The Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s rulings. So, what’s the beef? The beef is that politicians are presumed to be corrupt or corruptible (whether you agree or not, that’s telling in itself, is it not?) and that by their taking larger amounts of money, indirectly, from corporations, to run for election or re-election, the individual’s interest is stymied. Somehow, however, the “government” is not corruptible and has only our best interest at heart in making the decisions it does, including limiting political speech of corporations, be there international corporations or mom and pop corporations. Me? I’ll take the competing corporations’ views before I take the government’s quashing… Read more »
When Trump was asked why he donated to both sides of the aisle he was pretty blunt when he answered, “Because when I call they have to take my call after taking my money.”
He wasn’t saying they were corruptible, but he sure as hell made it clear they were granting him access well above what you and I are ever going to get…it’s also telling that so many laws are passed that benefit donors who offer large donations.
One need only look at the current crop on both sides of the aisle, their voting history and their donor list to see where the truth lies AC, sadly it doesn’t seem to lie with doing right by you and I, more like doing right by the donor list…politicians and whores both sell themselves for money, the difference is the whores are honest about it.
No question about the access. “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” could have been a documentary, but for Jimmy Stewart’s role! Of course, there is another, less evil, angle to this and that is that most legislators have no clue whatsoever about the bills they vote on. Sponsors’ staff do the legwork, usually relying on experts in the field that is the subject matter of the bill. And that means lobbyists and those they represent. It’s all quite incestuous, thanks, in large part, to the permanent political class that has developed. Hell, congresscritters are elected for lousy two-year terms. As soon as they take their oath, they need to work on re-election to retain their phoney-baloney jobs–if jobs is the right word.
And while we are looking at evil money, I have to wonder what is stopping anyone, including a presidential candidate to take the moral high ground and refuse to accept donations above a certain amount from any single donor. Show of hands? Thought so. Oh, there’s a cutesy movement afoot for pols to take oaths of some sort, but it’s a sham, a show and will not happen. Hell, there have been more than afew critters who swore up and down that they would serve only one term. As their terms neared end, they saw that “there is much important work yet to be done for the People!” and ran again. But it’s not just Congress, of course. The Transparent One took oodles of money and thanked certain bundlers–29 of them–by naming them ambassadors, mostly to Euro nations. One famously admitted that he he could not identify Norway’s government or any of its political parties, yet he was nominated to be the ambassador to Norway. And then there’s the righteous other one–H. Wide Load– who dares to speak about corporate money. Cripes.
To me, he fit the description of “enemy of the people”.
You are looking in a mirror.
Besides, -you- ain’t “the people”, nor do you even remotely speak for them. You are part of a small loud-mouthed and hate-filled minority hell-bent on self-immolation, intent on taking western civilization along with you. Your premises are false, your reason absent, and your results are 100 million graves in the 20th century alone. Neither -you-, nor anyone else, is smart enough to make your stupidity functional at any level, from the personal to the national to the global.
What you call yourself and your “ism” is irrelevant. We here know you and your ilk, and your words, are seen for the worthless crap they are.
Even by trollish standards, you are lame.