Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died (theguardian.com)
clovis writes: US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died in his sleep while on a hunting trip near Marfa, Texas. Justice Scalia was a Constitutional originalist and textualist. He did not believe the Constitution was a living document to be interpreted with the evolving standards of modern times.
I, for one, am very interested to see what happens next.
I, for one, am very interested to see what happens next.
He was asking, from the bench, for the plaintiff's response to an amicus brief. The doesn't mean that he supported what the brief said.
I've got green eyes, red hair, and I'm left handed. A hundred years ago, I'd have been considered in league with the De
All he said was accepting people to tougher schools than their academic records justify, to fulfill an affirmative action quota, may be harder on them and less rewarding, in the end.
It's politically incorrect to say so, and he could have phrased it more carefully, but not at all racist. Everybody jumped at it to make their own political points with their base, knowing full well they were spouting crap. Of course, he still might have been a racist, but that doesn't prove it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
That's not even remotely close to what I said and you know it. It doesn't matter who he nominates - they're going to block it. THAT is not doing their job; that is obstructionism.
I agree with you, and find it reprehensible.
That said, I'm old enough to have watched this evolve - and it was the Democratic torpedoing of Robert Bork's nomination by President Reagan that started this new era of the opposition party actively attempting to derail the supreme court nominations of the sitting president. I imagine you can go back to the "old days" and find rancorous fights as well; but during my lifetime (1960s onward) pre-Bork nominees were occasionally asked tough questions, but typically were more or less rubber-stamped by Congress because it was seen as a prerogative of the president to pick justices matching his political bent - regardless of who controlled the House and Senate.
#DeleteChrome
There are several very important cases coming up for the supreme court, including immigration, abortion, and unions. Any of these Supreme Court decisions that end up tied at 4-4 means that the lower court's decision will stand.
I agree. He claimed to be an original intent guy but frequently ruled by current conservative desires in conflict with the text.
In reality, Scalia's interpretation of the constitution seemed to be "whatever Scalia wants-- Scalia gets."
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
They've only turned it into a political showdown for the last few decades, since Bork was nominated.
Says somebody who doesn't know the history.
Tyler would be the worst example, as he was a lame duck period, but Cleveland would be another clear example.
Every justice should be apolitical
The one that just died was famous for digging through the historical records to try to determine what the authors of the Constitution might have thought instead of going by whichever way today's wind is blowing. What exactly do you have in mind when you want 'apolitical'?
Except for recess appointments... something this President has abused to the point of having a 9-0 SCOTUS ruling against some of his more egregious interpretations of the constitution with regards to the subject... though that ruling did not tie his hands enough I fear.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The longest previous delay in replacing a justice was about a third as long as the time until the next president takes office. It's an insanely horrible precedent to propose keeping the seat vacant for a year and would have permanent negative ramifications.
This space intentionally left blank
Honest and factual debates, yes, but judges like Scalia who believe in the devil and strict traditional Catholicism have no business in pushing their pseudoreligious doctrine through in any court. But what else to expect from a Reagan appointee, this is what the worst president ever did to the country.
Justice John Rutledge (September 26, 1789 – March 4, 1791) was succeeded by Justice Thomas Johnson (August 5, 1792 – January 16, 1793). That's a 17-month gap. IIRC there are other, longer gaps.
Oh? I don't believe that the Judiciary Act of 1869 cites a specific penalty with not having 9 butts in the ordained 9 seats of the supreme court, so it is quite possible that current and future administrations could opt to reduce the court to a smaller size through attrition and simply refuse to nominate replacements.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Anyway, can we stop with all of the anger for a minute and remember that a human being just died here? Show some respect.
He barely qualified as a human being in my book.
Sorry, but I won't show respect to a man who did his best to frustrate the application of rights and liberties to so many. He was a reprehensible person who literally believed in crazy magical stuff (demons, Satan, the End Times, etc etc etc). He compared gays to murderers. He opposed gay marriage and had said he would have opposed interracial marriage if he'd had the chance.
He was well-known as a racist and bigot who based many of his decisions on his nutty, bible-based beliefs. He said that people have no right to privacy in their bedrooms. He said "Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms?" He said that sex discrimination is constitutionally okay.
I will not shed a tear for this horrid man, nor will I pretend to respect him just because his heart stopped beating.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Well, let's see... election year... senate controlled by the opposition party... Ah Ha! Here's an example that's actually from February as well:
Anthony Kennedy.
On February 3, 1988 the US senate, controlled 55-45 by the democratic party, voted on Ronald Reagan's nomination of Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court; confirming him to the position with a 97-0 vote... because Kennedy was qualified for the position and that's the senate's god-damned JOB.
So no, the democratic party would not behave like this. They've already demonstrated that in a situation identical to the current one.
Imagine all the people...
Whoa whoa whoa.
Firstly, if you have 80% of the money, it's reasonable to expect you to pay 80% of the taxes.
If you have 40% of the income, it's reasonable to expect you to pay 40% of the income tax (and when you consider even minimal standard deductions to pay over 40%).
BUT stop for a cotten picken minute saying the poor pay no taxes.
The average poor person pays the going rate for sales tax, pays 7.5% for social security (15% if self employed), and with gas tax, cigarette tax, car license tax the typical state portion of a poor person's income is roughly 11%.
The average wealthy person pays roughly .3% of their income in social security and state taxes. It's a little more fair in some states like South Carolina. And that's only for wealthy people who have a salary/wages. Those who live off investment income pay as little as 13% while the poor person next door is losing close to 30% of their income to state,city, and local taxes.
PLUS- when you break the poor down- you get two groups.
1) Anyone without children- pays taxes. Even making only $12,000 a year they pay $600 in federal income taxes.
2) It's the poor people with children that skew the system. They pay no tax and even receive tax credits of up to a couple grand. And who's going to remove the standard exemption for children?
Heck- just recently (2014) 7,000 people who made a million dollars paid NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. That's equivalent to 350,000 poor people.
So stop harping on how the poor pay no federal income tax unless you are going to mention that the wealthy basically pay no state and local taxes. (under 1% of their income).
Wealthy is top 1.67% in the context of this article. Poor is the bottom 20% in the context of this article.
Everyone gets a standard deduction of roughly $6,200 and 1 exemption of $3,950. If a person makes under $10,150 then that means they pay no federal income tax. The standard deduction only reduces the tax burden of the poor by 10% (lowest marginal tax rate) $600). The SAME standard deduction lowers federal taxes of everyone in the top tax bracket by roughly $2400 (39.6%).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.