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.
What is going to happen next is this: Obama will nominate someone and the Senate Republicans will do everything in their power to block it. Already, Cruz and Rubio have said as much -- that the next President should be the person to make the nomination, not Obama. Obama could nominate Rush Limbaugh and Senate Republicans would object. The only hope that there is for a reasonably speedy confirmation is for moderate -- or reasonable -- Republicans to, you know, do their jobs.
"Textualist" is how Scalia portrayed himself, but if you look at Shelby County vs Holder, where the Supreme Court struck down most of the Voting Rights Act, Scalia's arguments basically came down to the idea that he was a mind-reader about what Congress really wanted to do, but was not politically able to do, never mind the text. Other times, he disregarded the clear intent of the lawmakers in favor of the strict textual reading. But he was hardly consistent. He was a textualist when the text favored him, he ignored it when it didn't. And maybe that's not unique to him - I'm not saying he was unique in that respect, but let's not pretend he was intellectually consistent.
In the end, he was a Republican justice. Nothing more, nothing less.
Scalia was very controversial and much of the left will be likely happy about this. But he was a human being, and by most accounts he was a decent one and a smart one. His best friend on the Court was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is one of the most liberal justices. We should all take a lesson from them on being civil and friendly even with those we disagree with.
It was long in coming, but in the end, I see the quail got their revenge.
These quail were raised in coops, with plenty of human contact, and then released right before the "hunt". They have little fear of humans, and killing them is hardly "sport". He should have just gone to the local animal shelter, adopted some kittens, and then taken them home and drowned them.
He did not believe the Constitution was a living document to be interpreted with the evolving standards of modern times. And he was wrong.
To the extent that he actually believed what you think he believed, he was right. If you can't muster support for a constitutional amendment, you have no business change the constitution in the name of reinterpretation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
| What constitutional basics is incorrect or flawed in it?
Natural born people have rights.
Corporations are entities which are created by human laws, and given privileges and responsibilities for the purpose of aiding society and economics. There is an economic segregation and legal liability segregation created artificially.
Therefore, it is proper that legislatures may regulate a corporation's expenditure of money owned by the corporation on political issues as it regulates its expenditure of money for all sorts of other purposes and regulates its tax liability.
He was certainly famous for claiming to do that. The actual doing, not so much in some cases.
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'?
When it suited his beliefs, yes. Scalia used historical records like a drunk uses a lamppost -- for support, rather than illumination.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
The real question i see nobody addressing is this. Why are all liberals so insistent on appointing a new justice before obama is gone?
Obama has almost a full year until the end of his term. If he were to agree to the argument in delaying his appointment, he'd be agreeing in deferring all major decisions until next year and would set himself up as an early "lame duck" president for a full year.
The argument might make sense if the vacancy had opened up after the election, but to agree to the Republican's demand now he'd be agreeing that he's lost the authority to make major presidential appointments and decisions for the whole year.
What I find unsound is the automatic conflation of corporations with people, when they are distinctly different.
Since corporations do not have any independent cognitive power or will, but act only that of the human managers, the true underlying question is not about free speech in reality, but whether managers may use corporate finances for overtly political purposes at their discretion.
I see no reason to suppose this use of finances should not be regulated by legislation the way other uses of finance is regulated.
Regulation of corporations should be left to legislatures, as they are for all sorts of things which do not apply to human citizens. Why can a legislature compel a corporation to produce certain accounting activities and products to others but doesn't make a person give a balance sheet to others? Is there anything wrong with this? No.
Here is a quote from the decision: "The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin ’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
This is wrong. What was attempted to be banned is the corporate form paying money from corporate accounts at the direction of corporate management to engage in political speech. It would indeed be wrong if the ban were "spokespeople for public C corporations cannot donate (their own) money or speak at political events", but it is not.
That corporate form is similarly banned from paying money from corporate accounts at the direction of corporate management to individual's people's pocketbooks when such is against the normal business operations (i.e. embezzlement) expected and interests of shareholders. Nobody has a problem with this restriction on financial freedom.
It is a linguistic shortcut (saying that 'corporations speak') as if they were aware. It is necessary to be precise about the actual activity: "financial expenditures {including labor rendered with compensation} of a corporate account at the direction of management". Managers of corporations have different responsibilities with money than natural citizens with their own money.
I would accept single-person S corporations to be functionally equivalent to natural people.
The position has to be filled eventually. Hopefully it's not 9 years in the future. This current congress is more intransigent than any congress we've had and they appear poised to get worse as they continue kicking out moderates (also known as people willing to govern rather than be controlled by ideology).
If you think his picks were moderates you must consider Bernie Sanders a far right fascist!
If judges had to appeal to the public we would still have Jim Crow laws and laws against miscegenation.
they're very friendly, helpful and charitable with people who they think of as equals but anyone else it's open season on. It took me a long time to piece this behavior together since it's so nonsensical. One minute they'd be giving you the shirt off their back the next they'd be laying into the poor with all their might.
The mark of a truly good man is that he cares for folks outside his class. Churchill seemed to be. Obama is definitely. Scalia was just another in a long line of borderline psychopaths who seem nice when they're around their own kind...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So then the 4th amendment doesn't apply to a telephone conversation because that doesn't fall under the category of "papers" or "effects"?
Give me a fucking break.
Republican freedom: Personal liberty for all and no government running your life! Except for abortion, federal funding for abstinence campaigns, strict regulation of broadcast profanity and indecency, criminalisation of pornography and prostitution, a strict war on recreational drugs, frequent government proclamations to make it clear that real americans worship Jesus and heretics are lesser citizens, and taxation to fund continued military buildup and corporate subsidies.
Democratic freedom: We'll still tax the hell out of you to pay for ill-managed social programs and micro-manage your life to meet our ideology, but at least we'll be honest about it.
Hillary is not going to jail - that's not even a remote possibility. She may not win the nomination - and yes, batshit like this may be part of why. But Hillary's not under indictment - or even suspicion - of a crime. The FBI is looking into whether any secrets were compromised - not whether stuff that later became classified was sent to HRC via email. The private email server wasn't even against regulations when she was in office. There was a recommendation to only use the government email - but it wasn't codified into a regulation until Kerry got in. And yes, for the zillionth time Powell and Rice both used personal email addresses - and both received emails that were later classified. And neither leaked any classified info to anyone who wasn't supposed to have it. Neither did Hillary. General Patraeus - yep, gave stuff to his journalist girlfriend. That's a crime - not a double standard.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...