This dude was a massive dickwad and our sociopolitical landscape is significantly improved without him. I'm not one to celebrate death, and it's sad that this is how his reign ended instead of simply stepping down from his post, but I am quite pleased at the possibility of getting somebody a little less fucknut crazy in the Supreme Court.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;49735399] He was right to compare the whole-sale legalization of Homosexuality on the basis of "it's fully consensual!" to bestiality and incest. [/QUOTE]
Wait, what?
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;49735440]Wait, what?[/QUOTE]
Some of the earlier arguments before the supreme court concerning Anti-Homosexual legislation had to do with a person's consent and their freedom to act on that consent, given that there was no victim and no one would by hurt be consensual actions.
However, there was what is now called, "no limiting principle" to those arguments. An adult brother-and-sister could, on the same basis of that argument, have sex. The owner of a horse could have sex with the horse on that basis (since we typically view animals as property, particularly in slaughtering and butchering them.) The laws we use to block those actions are purely moral legislation.
Antonin Scalia managed to persuade, I believe, Justice Kennedy to this line of reasoning. It's the reason that anti-sodomy laws were not declared unconstitutional until the early 00's.
Imagine Obama nominating himself.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49734993]Damn. And the supreme court just agreed to see aa case about the ridiculous gun bans in CT.
Wonder how that's going to go now.
RIP either way, he served for a long time.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.inquisitr.com/2773483/gun-control-maryland-assault-weapons-ban-overturned-u-s-supreme-court-case-to-put-liberals-in-a-panic/]As far as that's concerned, it's already going to be dealt with[/url]. So don't worry yourself all to much.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;49735399]
It will be interesting to see who takes the seat.[/QUOTE]
There's speculation (Read: discussion between my friends and I) that Obama might get political and choose someone like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariano-Florentino_Cu%C3%A9llar"]Mariano-Florentino Cuellar[/URL] or a different Latino judge to put the Republicans in a tight position.
The death of this disgusting toad of a man is to be celebrated. I'm very happy to hear it.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;49735458]Some of the earlier arguments before the supreme court concerning Anti-Homosexual legislation had to do with a person's consent and their freedom to act on that consent, given that there was no victim and no one would by hurt be consensual actions.
However, there was what is now called, "no limiting principle" to those arguments. An adult brother-and-sister could, on the same basis of that argument, have sex. The owner of a horse could have sex with the horse on that basis (since we typically view animals as property, particularly in slaughtering and butchering them.) The laws we use to block those actions are purely moral legislation.
Antonin Scalia managed to persuade, I believe, Justice Kennedy to this line of reasoning. It's the reason that anti-sodomy laws were not declared unconstitutional until the early 00's.[/QUOTE]
I don't know where you thought you were going with that bestiality line. You started off by saying it was equivocal by right of consent, but explained it via the notion of animals as property. If we're being consistent, bestiality is incomparable because you cannot definitively prove consent.
Heterosexual incest is different in that it poses genetic impairment upon potential children (though I'm not making an argument for or against it in that regard, only explaining that there is a difference between this subject and homosexuality).
The only comparable situation is homosexual incest: one that is only equivalent until you consider complex consent arguments regarding family pressure and ages.
My point is that you're wrong because you didn't think that through at all.
edit
[QUOTE=bitches;49735532]I was thrown off by the "He was right" part, not looking deeper at the part where Ivan implied that Scalia's fallacies brought new exigence to civil rights law.
my b[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bitches;49735504]I don't know where you thought you were going with that bestiality line. You started off by saying it was equivocal by right of consent, but explained it via the notion of animals as property. If we're being consistent, bestiality is incomparable because you cannot definitively prove consent.
Heterosexual incest is different in that it poses genetic impairment upon potential children (though I'm not making an argument for or against it in that regard, only explaining that there is a difference between this subject and homosexuality).
The only comparable situation is homosexual incest: one that is only equivalent until you consider complex consent arguments regarding family pressure and ages.
My point is that you're wrong because you didn't think that through at all.[/QUOTE]
Get mad at Scalia for that. Not Ivan.
Ivan did a pretty good job at breaking down what Scalia thought, I have no idea(neither do you mind you) of what Ivan actually thinks of this.
[QUOTE=27X;49735162]So much this. That a man with this kind of moral center can decide the literal fate of not just another human being but of the way an organized society conducts justice is beyond frightening. Polarized politics are for the fucking birds.[/QUOTE]
Well at least this means one less bird :excited:
Feel bad for him and his family but not for polarized politics.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49735515]Get mad at Scalia for that. Not Ivan.
Ivan did a pretty good job at breaking down what Scalia thought, I have no idea(neither do you mind you) of what Ivan actually thinks of this.[/QUOTE]
I was thrown off by the "He was right" part, not looking deeper at the part where Ivan implied that Scalia's fallacies brought new exigence to civil rights law.
my b
[QUOTE=bitches;49735504]I don't know where you thought you were going with that bestiality line. You started off by saying it was equivocal by right of consent, but explained it via the notion of animals as property. If we're being consistent, bestiality is incomparable because you cannot definitively prove consent.
Heterosexual incest is different in that it poses genetic impairment upon potential children (though I'm not making an argument for or against it in that regard, only explaining that there is a difference between this subject and homosexuality).
The only comparable situation is homosexual incest: one that is only equivalent until you consider complex consent arguments regarding family pressure and ages.
My point is that you're wrong because you didn't think that through at all.[/QUOTE]
I did actually.
I possess the animal. You will not, legally, block me from acting on my own intent and say, slaughter it or put it down. Almost no court would try me for doing that.
However, the moment I stick my dick in that animal, I have violated a code of moral legislation (same for if I abused it, tortured it, or killed in a ghastly way actually.) I am doing something that I myself consent to with my own property.
Furthermore, if incest is only frowned upon because of the genetic impairment it would impose on the children (it's not) then the fact we live in the age of contraceptives and abortions means that incest should be fully legal and happily condoned. (It's not.)
We still engage in lots and lots of moral legislation that has nothing to do with consent, and no amount of consent will overrule it. That is the point.
[I]You[/I] failed to think about this, because, surprise, you have something you'd like to justify and you'd enjoy strawmanning anyone who opposes you and paint them as backwards or ignorant.
[QUOTE=bitches;49735532]I was thrown off by the "He was right" part, not looking deeper at the part where Ivan implied that Scalia's fallacies brought new exigence to civil rights law.
my b[/QUOTE]
I'm glad we've sorted that out.
I'll also go an extra step to make what should have been clear in my post, clear here:
Antonin Scalia was not someone I liked. I disliked his moralizing, his overwhelming paperwork snowjobs, his use of bureaucratic choke-holds to essentially stomp on anything he disliked, then reversing all of those maneuvers for what he did like.
Antonin Scalia was someone I respected, professionally, in the field of law. He was talented and intelligent. He did good things, inadvertently, by forcing the arguments he disliked to find paths that were not only strong but legally consistent.
I am sad that he is dead, because the Supreme Court should not be a tool of progress, nor should it be a magical supra-legislative fairywand. It is a court, meant to deal with the proceedings of the letter of law. Scalia was quite good at that, even if his morality seemed ancient and distasteful to me.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;49735537]I did actually.
I possess the animal. You will not, legally, block me from acting on my own intent and say, slaughter it or put it down. Almost no court would try me for doing that.
However, the moment I stick my dick in that animal, I have violated a code of moral legislation (same for if I abused it, tortured it, or killed in a ghastly way actually.) I am doing something that I myself consent to with my own property.
Furthermore, if incest is only frowned upon because of the genetic impairment it would impose on the children (it's not) then the fact we live in the age of contraceptives and abortions means that incest should be fully legal and happily condoned. (It's not.)
We still engage in lots and lots of moral legislation that has nothing to do with consent, and no amount of consent will overrule it. That is the point.
[I]You[/I] failed to think about this, because, surprise, you have something you'd like to justify and you'd enjoy strawmanning anyone who opposes you and paint them as backwards or ignorant.
I'm glad we've sorted that out.[/QUOTE]
We were talking on grounds of comparability in regard to what one believes to be moral. Unless you're implying that there's some direct comparison between bestiality and homosexuality, or you're making an obvious point about the fluid origins of law in America, you're only spinning the subject around to be as aggressive as possible
[QUOTE=bitches;49735557]We were talking on grounds of comparability in regard to what one believes to be moral. Unless you're implying that there's some direct comparison between bestiality and homosexuality, or you're making an obvious point about the fluid origins of law in America, you're only spinning the subject around to be as aggressive as possible[/QUOTE]
No, we weren't. I'm not sure where you took that.
I have, since my post, talked about legal intent and legal form.
There is a recognized difference between laws with victims, where the law is in place to protect the innocent and laws where there are not victims, where the law is in place to prevent something we do not like.
That is moral legislation. That was the basis of Scalia's so-called "abhorent" beliefs. It is real and is important that it be respected, because no small part of the country believes in it.
It has nothing to do with "what is comparable." If comparability was relevant at the level of the Supreme Court, then we need to unwind the clock on gay rights because they are fundamentally built on constitutional elements that were passed [I]for the basis of race and religion.[/I]
I guarantee you that, if anti-sodomy laws had been struck down on the basis of consent, some smart lawyer would have leaned on that precedent on behalf of a cattle rancher who wanted some bovine [I]amore[/I]. No one gives a damn about the consent of an animal, and if they did, then we need to break up the whole process of farming and slaughtering, and perhaps holding pets while we're at it.
Hallelujah!
[QUOTE=DogGunn;49735314]That's not a true quote.[/QUOTE]
It's a summation of his practices.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;49735586]No, we weren't. I'm not sure where you took that.
I have, since my post, talked about legal intent and legal form.
There is a recognized difference between laws with victims, where the law is in place to protect the innocent and laws where there are not victims, where the law is in place to prevent something we do not like.
That is moral legislation. That was the basis of Scalia's so-called "abhorent" beliefs. It is real and is important that it be respected, because no small part of the country believes in it.
It has nothing to do with "what is comparable." If comparability was relevant at the level of the Supreme Court, then we need to unwind the clock on gay rights because they are fundamentally built on constitutional elements that were passed [I]for the basis of race and religion.[/I]
I guarantee you that, if anti-sodomy laws had been struck down on the basis of consent, some smart lawyer would have leaned on that precedent on behalf of a cattle rancher who wanted some bovine [I]amore[/I]. No one gives a damn about the consent of an animal, and if they did, then we need to break up the whole process of farming and slaughtering, and perhaps holding pets while we're at it.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is that because he used the argument that "consent" is no good basis for lawmaking in that regard as a tool for his dislike of homosexuals, people were forced to use a better reasoning which benefited the process in the end?
[editline]14th February 2016[/editline]
Just to see if I got that right.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49735001]I'm not going to shed any tears, but he reportedly died in his sleep, which is better than some ways to go. He leaves a fairly large family behind, though, and that's always sad.[/QUOTE]
'I don't feel sympathy for those I disagree with'
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49735784]'I don't feel sympathy for those I disagree with'[/QUOTE]
Christ, not crying doesn't mean he doesn't have any sympathy.
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49735784]'I don't feel sympathy for those I disagree with'[/QUOTE]
Jesus fucking christ. the man stood in the way of gay marriage and readily compared the two to incest, and beastiality.
I don't get why I have to have sympathy for every person that dies. I have symapthy for tons of people, but I don't get why I need it for this guy just because it's "wrong" to disrespect the dead
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49735784]'I don't feel sympathy for those I disagree with'[/QUOTE]
Not even kind of that cut and dried.
The man could never properly justify some of his opinions other than "my feels, which these laws and precedents vaguely support, see here", and ->IN THEREOF<- he attempted to essentially control the right to THINK, bearing in mind this is the same guy that supported Potter's "I know porn when I see it" thesis.
So he's fine with gauging a common sense approach to the depiction of "procreation as enjoyment/leisure activity," he's fine with substantiated voter fraud getting Bush into office because Florida allowed it to happen, but he's not fine with two men playing hide the snausages IN THE PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOME and he's not fine with those same two men wishing to pay the government extra taxes via a meritocratic bullshit piece of paper saying they are legal spouses.
That doesn't strike you as something of a dichotomy?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49735819]Jesus fucking christ. the man stood in the way of gay marriage and readily compared the two to incest, and beastiality.
I don't get why I have to have sympathy for every person that dies. I have symapthy for tons of people, but I don't get why I need it for this guy just because it's "wrong" to disrespect the dead[/QUOTE]
and what's more is that johnny totally ignored the rest of the post, which was explicitly about feeling sympathy
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49735784]'I don't feel sympathy for those I disagree with'[/QUOTE]
he was one of the upholders of the shitty status quo and we shouldn't have to be sad for the members of institutions that oppress us
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49735784]'I don't feel sympathy for those I disagree with'[/QUOTE]
Surprised it took until page 2 for one of these holier than thou posts to pop up.
Scalia is a bad dude. I'm not going to celebrate his death, but I'm not going to break down in tears every time someone with shitty, bad, regressive opinions croaks.
[QUOTE=Levithan;49735846] institutions that oppress us[/QUOTE]
:what:
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49735874]:what:[/QUOTE]
If anyone was LGBT then Scalia opposed giving them the same rights you enjoy
[editline]13th February 2016[/editline]
He even believed gay marriage was a threat to democracy
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;49735458]Some of the earlier arguments before the supreme court concerning Anti-Homosexual legislation had to do with a person's consent and their freedom to act on that consent, given that there was no victim and no one would by hurt be consensual actions.
However, there was what is now called, "no limiting principle" to those arguments. An adult brother-and-sister could, on the same basis of that argument, have sex. The owner of a horse could have sex with the horse on that basis (since we typically view animals as property, particularly in slaughtering and butchering them.) The laws we use to block those actions are purely moral legislation.
Antonin Scalia managed to persuade, I believe, Justice Kennedy to this line of reasoning. It's the reason that anti-sodomy laws were not declared unconstitutional until the early 00's.[/QUOTE]
Um no bestiality is not consentful in the slightest as animals cannot give consent at all and incestral marriage is outlawed because of the actual factual evidence that children born of incest have a higher amount of genetic problems, which the state has a compelling reason to outlaw
The reason why it took so fucking long on antisodemy was because the courts kept refusing to hear cases on the matter, just like they tend to ignore the NSA spying cases through legal hurdles like standing to sue or proof of damage
Now we need Clarence Thomas to leave next, because he was as much of a joke as scalia, having gone 10 fucking years without asking a single question in oral hearings and basically rubberstamping scalia's arguments
[QUOTE=27X;49735682]It's a summation of his practices.[/QUOTE]
It's taking a legal argument that he made, and turning it into something emotive.
It's not a valid 'summation of his practices'.
[QUOTE=patq911;49734972]Now I don't want to be rude here, but ding dong the witch is dead.[/QUOTE]
hahaha BARBARISM
[QUOTE=DogGunn;49735944]It's taking a legal argument that he made, and turning it into something emotive.
It's not a valid 'summation of his practices'.[/QUOTE]
Bearing in mind that gay sex carries all the same context and ramifications of not gay sex, except no babies happen, it is in fact a valid summation.
Bearing in mind this is the architect of ->institutionalized<- ass dragging that occurred at Bush Sr's behest on AIDS research and treatment.
Literal.
Lives.
Lost.
[url]http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/films/we-were-here/[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.