• Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia has died.
    143 replies, posted
God, this election really is going to be interesting, won't it? Off to go get my endless bucket of popcorn.
I don't celebrate his death, I celebrate that he is no longer an active supreme court justice.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;49736142]I don't celebrate his death, I celebrate that he is no longer an active supreme court justice.[/QUOTE] well the problem is now the republicans are vowing to hold up the process for 11 months to wait out the clock, meanwhile they're just going to have to accept losses on many of their lawsuits heading to the court this is exactly the kind of thing sanders has been talking about, the political parties are going to make 2 branches of the government nonfunctional until people get angry that they're blocking the SCOTUS from working
This man was based as fuck, rest in peace.
To be honest, I think Scalia served as an important balance to the supreme court. He was one of four conservative justices, balanced out by four liberal justices, and Justice Kennedy is the swing vote. I think this setup is the best overall, and more conservative or liberal justices would be a bad thing.
While it's a shame he's passed, we can finally look to overturning things like fucking citizens united [B]finally[/B].
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49736366]To be honest, I think Scalia served as an important balance to the supreme court. He was one of four conservative justices, balanced out by four liberal justices, and Justice Kennedy is the swing vote. I think this setup is the best overall, and more conservative or liberal justices would be a bad thing.[/QUOTE] Discrimination isn't "important balance". Yeah, why don't we go back to the good days when we had Supreme Court justices who ruled against the rights of black people?
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49736431]While it's a shame he's passed, we can finally look to overturning things like fucking citizens united [B]finally[/B].[/QUOTE] Still will take a long time. You can't just go say "Whelp the judge is dead, time to change everything he ruled on". That's just not how the legal system works. [editline]13th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49735881]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] Which essentially boils down to having the same tax breaks as me if I were married. I would hardly call that "oppressive". No, it wasn't right nor it was fair but to call it "institutional oppression" is absurd. Segregation was institutional oppression, gays not being able to have the same taxation deals as others (should they choose, completely dependent on the desire to get married or not) is no where near the same line of thought.
I watched him give a speech back in '07 at Utah State University about the importance of Constitutional Law and adherence to The Constitution. What he said back then resonated with me and influenced part of my political views to this day. Regardless if you agree with his political leanings, he was a smart, charming, and humorous guy who stayed true to his convictions and was a fine judge. I feel like his passing is an end to a very significant era to The Supreme Court and he will me missed.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49736460]Which essentially boils down to having the same tax breaks as me if I were married. I would hardly call that "oppressive". No, it wasn't right nor it was fair but to call it "institutional oppression" is absurd. Segregation was institutional oppression, gays not being able to have the same taxation deals as others (should they choose, completely dependent on the desire to get married or not) is no where near the same line of thought.[/QUOTE] Did we grow up in alternate realities? Did yours lack the part where partners were denied being with their mates as they [I]died[/I] in the hospital, were deported on rejection of marriage-based citizenship, lacked the choice on whether or not to pull the plug, were denied all access to funeral practices or had the relatives of the deceased claim ownership of the home? Or the part where the government refused to acknowledge and even cut funding to a then-unknown disease claiming huge numbers of the gay population? How about being classified as second class, as a danger to children as such not being allowed to adopt? Or dealing with the constant struggle of fighting proposed legislation that would explicitly allow employment and housing to discriminate? Not being protected by hate-crime legislation? This isn't the first time you've seen these claims, and naturally you rationalize it away as the gays just being [I]~whiny~[/I], as though all that's ever been a problem surrounding LGBT rights in America was a tax form. That's just horrible, and further demonstrates the problem here.
[QUOTE=bitches;49736703]Did we grow up in alternate realities? Did yours lack the part where partners were denied being with their mates as they [I]died[/I] in the hospital, were deported on rejection of marriage-based citizenship, lacked the choice on whether or not to pull the plug, were denied all access to funeral practices or had the relatives of the deceased claim ownership of the home? Or the part where the government refused to acknowledge and even cut funding to a then-unknown disease claiming huge numbers of the gay population? How about being classified as second class, as a danger to children as such not being allowed to adopt? Or dealing with the constant struggle of fighting proposed legislation that would explicitly allow employment and housing to discriminate? Not being protected by hate-crime legislation? This isn't the first time you've seen these claims, and naturally you rationalize it away as the gays just being [I]~whiny~[/I], as though all that's ever been a problem surrounding LGBT rights in America was a tax form. That's just horrible, and further demonstrates the problem here.[/QUOTE] My issue with calling it "institutional oppression" is that marriage and companionship is a choice. One can easily be gay and decide to not have a relationship, not get married, not adopt kids and never have an issue with any of these anti-LGBT marriage laws. What I call "institutional oppression" is something that is inescapable, such as a segregation, where a man cannot decide to be a different race, such oppressed people are constantly strained under laws against them regardless of what they do or believe. Again, I'm arguing his choice of words of description, not against LGBT rights.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49736735] Again, I'm arguing his choice of words of description, not against LGBT rights.[/QUOTE] Try applying that train of thought to interacial marriage or just marriage between black people.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49736735]My issue with calling it "institutional oppression" is that marriage and companionship is a choice. One can easily be gay and decide to not have a relationship, not get married, not adopt kids and never have an issue with any of these anti-LGBT marriage laws. What I call "institutional oppression" is something that is inescapable, such as a segregation, where a man cannot decide to be a different race, such oppressed people are constantly strained under laws against them regardless of what they do or believe. Again, I'm arguing his choice of words of description, not against LGBT rights.[/QUOTE] Similarly, unless you're bi, you cannot choose to have a heterosexual relationship. Just because you don't have to enter a relationship doesn't mean the discrimination isn't institutionalized if the institution is specifically targeting your kind in preventing your legal status from reaching equality. Not being as bad as full-on slavery doesn't mean it isn't institutionalized discrimination.
[QUOTE=Insulator;49736485]I watched him give a speech back in '07 at Utah State University about the importance of Constitutional Law and adherence to The Constitution. What he said back then resonated with me and influenced part of my political views to this day. Regardless if you agree with his political leanings, he was a smart, charming, and humorous guy who stayed true to his convictions and was a fine judge. I feel like his passing is an end to a very significant era to The Supreme Court and he will me missed.[/QUOTE] ya but he still put his party before those constitutional views, like a lot of the worst bits of his writing were when he couldn't find a reasonable constitutional ground to dissent but he still didn't like the majority, like his arguments against same-sex marriage boiled down to "the constitution doesn't say the feds can specifically do this, and its yucky so we shouldn't" but the 14th amendment + the constitution pretty much spell out if gay marriage is allowed to happen in 1 state, all 50 states have to allow it, and the federal government does not have a right to outlaw marriage between one group of people, but he still ignored all that to stick to his base
[QUOTE=27X;49735981]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.[/QUOTE] It is not a valid summation because in no sense did he say "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." in any of his legal arguments, not was such an idea even implied. Also lol, find the exact quote where gay sex = no babies happen, therefore illegal.
Rest in pieces citizens united. It's genuinely sad that someone died, I'm sure he was a genuine guy who held true to what he believed in and I really feel bad saying it, but this is going to have a positive impact on American poltics. [editline]14th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Monkah;49736048]God, this election really is going to be interesting, won't it? Off to go get my endless bucket of popcorn.[/QUOTE] This is a really fascinating time for American politics.
I have mixed feelings about him, on one hand he has strong conservative stances on abortion and anti gay marriage, but on the other hand he did defend video games from California's attempt to treat them like alcohol and cigarettes, saying that they qualify for the First Amendment.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49736735]My issue with calling it "institutional oppression" is that marriage and companionship is a choice. One can easily be gay and decide to not have a relationship, not get married, not adopt kids and never have an issue with any of these anti-LGBT marriage laws. What I call "institutional oppression" is something that is inescapable, such as a segregation, where a man cannot decide to be a different race, such oppressed people are constantly strained under laws against them regardless of what they do or believe. Again, I'm arguing his choice of words of description, not against LGBT rights.[/QUOTE] Your definition of "institutional oppression" is wrong. Institutional describes that it comes from an institution, not that it is unavoidable, these are unrelated things. I should further point out that its entirely possible for segregation to be described in a similar way by saying that you can simply choose to never want to go somewhere segregated. Sure, the water fountains may be segregated, but if you simply never choose to need a water fountain then its not institutional right? Wrong. That would make no sense.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49736366]To be honest, I think Scalia served as an important balance to the supreme court. He was one of four conservative justices, balanced out by four liberal justices, and Justice Kennedy is the swing vote. I think this setup is the best overall, and more conservative or liberal justices would be a bad thing.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't a three-three-three split possibly be better? Having only one person who, on a lot of topics, can be the deciding vote seems a bit risky.
Rip, he was a good judge. Ruled against a case that would have made America's video game industry more like Germany's.
Just saw this on Facebook and spat my drink. [t]http://i.imgur.com/fgHHmKv.png[/t]
rip the guy who help give 1st amendment protection to video games
[QUOTE=Wii60;49737365]rip the guy that gave 1st amendment protection to video games[/QUOTE] I wouldn't give him too much credit for that though, it was a 7-2 decision so whatever he said didn't really matter
[QUOTE=Sableye;49737377]I wouldn't give him too much credit for that though, it was a 7-2 decision so whatever he said didn't really matter[/QUOTE] Yeah so? That decision was serious business.
[QUOTE=Mark Unread;49737403]Yeah so? That decision was serious business.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that 6 other justices came to the same conclusion, it wasn't like his view swayed the court. Also I can't believe the Republican debate justified waiting 12+ months to fill a vacancy, the supreme Court has only ever gone 100 days without filling a vacancy, they're talking the 340 days till the next congress, and then if they are lucky, it will still take weeks afterwards to get it through
[QUOTE=Sableye;49737448]I'm saying that 6 other justices came to the same conclusion, it wasn't like his view swayed the court. Also I can't believe the Republican debate justified waiting 12+ months to fill a vacancy, the supreme Court has only ever gone 100 days without filling a vacancy, they're talking the 340 days till the next congress, and then if they are lucky, it will still take weeks afterwards to get it through[/QUOTE] Oh come on. You know the democrats would try and do the exact same thing. It's fine if you don't like the politics of it, but you're either blinded by bias or extremely ignorant if you think the politics of the supreme court only comes from one side. Let's also not pretend that the liberal judges don't all vote down the party line. The only one who ever switched was Kennedy and he was appointed by a conservative.
[QUOTE=sltungle;49737326]Wouldn't a three-three-three split possibly be better? Having only one person who, on a lot of topics, can be the deciding vote seems a bit risky.[/QUOTE] It's something like only 20% of the time that the swing vote comes into play, so it's not too often imo. But yes, a three three three split would be better IF you can find another swing judge.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49737458]Oh come on. You know the democrats would try and do the exact same thing. It's fine if you don't like the politics of it, but you're either blinded by bias or extremely ignorant if you think the politics of the supreme court only comes from one side. Let's also not pretend that the liberal judges basically all vote down the party line. The only one who ever switched was Roberts and he was appointed by a conservative.[/QUOTE] Except they didn't, not during Bush's terms or during Regan's terms when such events happened, its one thing to hold off a few weeks to get a favorable candidate, its another to hold off an entire fucking year and then some, they're literally holding up two branches of the government at that point [editline]14th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49737475]It's something like only 20% of the time that the swing vote comes into play, so it's not too often imo. But yes, a three three three split would be better IF you can find another swing judge.[/QUOTE] The issue is they've had a lot of cases in the last few years that have been 4-5 split along party lines and this year's docket has the EPA rules, more obamacare, several gun law cases, and an abortion one to name a few, if they split 4-4 on any case, the lower court rulings stand as if the case were never heard, which can be bad because both sides have a tendency to file their cases in jurisdictions that are friendlier to their challenges, like when Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky challenged the gay marriage ban overturns, they did it in a court packed with conservatives which ignored all the arguments against the appeal
[QUOTE=Sableye;49737492]Except they didn't, not during Bush's terms or during Regan's terms when such events happened, its one thing to hold off a few weeks to get a favorable candidate, its another to hold off an entire fucking year and then some, they're literally holding up two branches of the government at that point[/QUOTE] Do you mean like when Democrats in the senate wouldn't even give Bush's appeal's court nominees a hearing during his first term when they had the majority in congress? Or when they lost control of congress then continued to filibuster their nomination votes? (the first ever appeal's court nominees to be filibustered in the history of the country) Also, it doesn't look like Bush had any supreme court nominations during elections years and Reagan's was Kennedy, the most moderate judge in the court. Hell, he's sided more with the liberal judges than the conservative judges as a swing vote ([URL]http://supremecourtreview.com/default/justice/index/id/34[/URL]). If Obama nominates a very moderate judge and the republicans block it, then I'll eat my words, but based on recent history liberals have nominated extremely consistent liberal judges.
[QUOTE=Mark Unread;49737347]Rip, he was a good judge. Ruled against a case that would have made America's video game industry more like Germany's.[/QUOTE] holy shit how old are you? are videogames really more important to you than civil rights?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.