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.
Netcraft does not confirm it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Obama should word with rankng Senate members of both parties and nominate a politically-centrist judge whose judicial qualifications are impeccable.
The Democratic Party base will hate him for blowing an opportunity to name a liberal, and the Republican Party base will hate their party leaders for allowing Obama to fill the slot at all.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
grrrr, phone keyboard, no preview, sorry folks
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I'm sorry he died. It does look like he lead a long life doing what he loved. He was a lucky man in that regard.
I disagree with his policies strongly and hope we are able to replace him with a reasonable justice.
On a sort of unrelated note-- he was only 79! So keep that in mind for your retirement plans. Despite having some of the best health care in the world, most of us are dead by 82. And 98.4% are dead by age 90.
Try to retire early and take up a second career doing something you love doing. I love doing therapeutic massage for people in pain. I didn't hate being a project manager too much but it was unpleasant with long hours and holiday work and always just a way to make money.
I thought I'd be drawing and painting more than I have. But reading Splat the Cat says "Sorry" to my grandsons is priceless.
Scalia leaves behind a wife and nine children (unless some have died). Who knows how many grand children.
He looks overweight in recent photos. That might be a side effect of medication (ala Jerry Lewis) or it may have been something that contributed to his early death. Keep in mind that puff pastry or extra gravy might cost you a few years with your grand kids. Not to mention change the course of the country.
I mean wow. ~Ten more months and it might have been a conservative jurist who replaced him. Even with filibustering and so on, I think Obama will seat this one. If the conservatives actually filibuster for 10 months, I think the democrats should filibuster any conservative justice nominee until the end of the term.
Fun Supreme Court Factoids.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/fa...
Quote:
Has anyone ever served as both President and Chief Justice?
William Howard Taft is the only person to have served as both President of the United States (1909-1913) and Chief Justice of the United States (1921-1930).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It was long in coming, but in the end, I see the quail got their revenge.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
We will never really know that he was not accidentally shot by Dick Cheney
He goes to kill and instead dies himself.
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
"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.
You seem to think that doing whatever the President says is part of a Senator's job. Alas, this is not so. Just because the President (Obama, Reagan, whoever) nominates someone in no way obligates any Senator to vote to confirm him. That's why we have Senate confirmation, after all....
It doesn't work that way. The *constitution* obligates the Senators to vote to confirm the person if they are competent and respectable. Not legally, but morally and precedentially. Anyone using the "advice and consent of the Senate" to delay the appointment on the pretext of defending the Constitution is engaging in hypocrisy of the highest order.
They've only turned it into a political showdown for the last few decades, since Bork was nominated.
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.
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
On a sort of unrelated note -- he was only 79! So keep that in mind for your retirement plans. Despite having some of the best health care in the world, most of us are dead by 82. And 98.4% are dead by age 90.
If you're lucky. My wife Sue died at 61 in Jan 2006 (I was 42 then). Other than the brain tumor that killed her just 7 weeks after diagnosis, she was in perfect health. She worked out with a trainer (cardio and weights) twice a week and walked several time a week. She was an English and Gifted Education teacher and was thinking of retiring in a few years.
I'm very, very grateful for the 20 years we had together. Remember Sue...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Not only that, so freakin what if he did. The black community is largely populated in dense urban environments ripe with gangs and notoriously bad schools (One teacher told me it was almost like holding school in a war zone at times and since he was a combat vet from Vietnam, I'll take his word for it).
Anyways, the situation is that many minorities do seem to come from tough environments and a slower pace could actually bring the talent out or nurture that talent that would let them shine above everyone else. I can see it as a net positive in some situations and probably a net negative in others. But admission due to your race and not qualifications or abilities will never foster this or weed out the differences.
There's and 11 month Filibuster coming to a senate near you.
He poisoned our Democracy with Citizens United. And just recently undermined Obama’s ground breaking Climate Change treaty.
I can’t believe people here are concerned about "his large family left behind” If he cared about his family, he would have supported the Climate Change regulation. If he cared about the voters in this country, the wouldn’t have shit on our democracy with Citizens United
He did not believe the Constitution was a living document to be interpreted with the evolving standards of modern times. And he was wrong. Then again, he pretty much made whatever argument that served his desired outcome, even if the argument contradicted his earlier opinions.
To reduce crime, make fewer things against the law.
I'm sorry for your loss. That is fairly young. I am glad you had 20 happy years.
There is a large group of the population who die 45 to 60 from cancer and then another who pass 61-70 from cardiac disease.
odd moderation of my parent post. I wonder if it was a liberal who couldn't stand that a fellow liberal could say something about Scalia without bile and venom or a conservative who thought it wasn't positive enough. lol.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I agree that it is not necessarily a racist comment, although it does have significant dog-whistle value.
The experience in New Zealand around affirmative action type quotas is that the students who get in on these quotas are equally capable with respect to completing their degree course. i.e. the grade average requirement is simply a way of filtering students, and is set so high that you can actually have lower grades and still pass the degree programme.
Scalia was a typical right-winger - strong on beg-the-question thought experiments, but a lightweight when it comes to actually doing the research *before* forming an opinion.
It's good luck to be superstitious
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.
"All he said was accepting people to tougher schools than their academic records justify"
Scalia made no mention of academic records, he only mentions being African American as a criterion.
Then the Senate will drag this out till after the elections and Hillary appoints Obama.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
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.'"
You're either ignorant of the topic, and falling for the inflammatory press coverage, or you're intentionally distorting the subject, yourself.
Scalia was merely making reference to a specific brief that had been submitted. The brief in question makes "mention of academic records" and discusses the favorability of various outcomes (for African American students, specifically) in-detail.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
If he had said, "What's the name of that book, you were reading, about that black guy who killed somebody?" would you be calling him a racist, who apparently thinks all African Americans are murderers? It's absurd and utterly disingenuous.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
He said that as he glanced to his left.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
"I, for one, am very interested to see what happens next."
Nothing happens next, none of those cases that were up for decision including: deporting 5 million illegals, abortions, etc will be decided this year, and there's a good chance that 2 more may die soon (consider Ruth's age and frailty).
The Republicans will not allow Obama to appoint one in his term, they will block it until the next president.
And who ever is the next POTUS may get to decide up to 3 replacements.
So now is the time to really, really study who you want to vote for... or if you don't do that then please don't vote.
So vote for Bernie, because we know what Clinton is, and we know what the other candidates are.
More of the same sewage, so lets make it interesting (not in the Chinese curse sense) and put someone odd in there.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Thanks ObamaCare!
That will never happen, he will be blocked until the end of his term.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
The Constitution evolves by amendments. It does not evolve because you want it to mean something entirely different.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The Ninth Amendment tells interpreters not to be like Scalia.
Clever.
I wonder how many in this audience will catch that.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Modern civilization overall is dumber, and more diseased than it has ever been.
Can we get a source?
Clever. I wonder how many in this audience will catch that.
As much as I like to slag the general slashdot population, I do think you're not giving the audience nearly enough credit on this one.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
That's interesting. I have a friend who's a really successful jazz bassist and makes a really good living doing session work. He went to study massage (shiatsu, etc) for the same reason. He says it has given him a renewed sense of purpose and has made his hands stronger and more dexterous, which is good for his bass playing. I was initially puzzled when he told me he was going to massage school, but now I get it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If corporations are people, then corporations owning corporations, or people owning corporations, must be unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment.
It is robustly clear that corporations are not people and do not possess Constitutional rights intrinsically, but only such rights and responsibilities granted by legislature.
Of course the phrase in question “an Exchange established by the State.” literally has two different meanings depending on how one uses the word "state". If someone refers to Obama as being the head of state are they saying he is the governor of their respective state?
Words like this have their meaning determined through context and since the context wasn't clear here then intent is the only way to go.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Your "evolving standard" is so meaningless you can't even criticize his rulings
You are wasting time playing with an obvious and flaming troll, but if you want to do that over Scalia, then you should start with Bush v Gore, a decision that was SO bad that even at the time they wrote it, they said that it should NOT be regarded as a legal precedent. As if setting precedent wasn't the main job of the so-called Supreme Court.
There are two aspects of Scalia that I find most interesting. One is how he became his own enemy. At least he claimed that "judicial activism" was a bad thing, only to become one of the most activist judges in the history of the court. His creative work on the Second Amendment was especially amazing in abusing and even destroying the intentions of the Founders he claimed to admire.
The other aspect was his voting power. As far as I know, there has never been a justice who had a shadow second vote like that of Clarence Thomas. Actually, this would be an easy topic to research, though the last part of it will have to wait until Thomas dies. (Gee, now there's a reason to hope Thomas lasts for at least a short while longer?) The votes of all of the Supreme Court justices could be correlated to see which justices vote the same way most often. It's probably already been done, now that we have these computer things, eh? I'm pretty sure that the correlation between Scalia and Thomas will be one of the highest ever recorded.
However, I can go farther and make a new prediction for Thomas without Scalia to tell him how to vote. I think Thomas will attach himself to some other justice, probably Alito if he is the most conservative replacement available, and now correlate extremely highly with that justice's votes. Whatever voting pattern signifies judicial leadership, I'm confident that Scalia's votes showed that pattern (even if he was leading in the wrong direction) and the votes of Thomas will never show such a pattern.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
It looks to me like Democrats/progressives/liberals are sitting pretty. The Republicans are down one Justice - let's call a spade a spade here - so as long as the seat remains empty the other side is that much better off. And ISTM that there's not much prospect that the next president will be Republican, and the Democrats may pick up a few Senate seats as well. So the smart Republicans may be well advised to get the best deal they can get now rather than putting it off. But the reactionary caucus will ensure that that doesn't happen.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
deferring all major decisions helps ted cruz as his Birther issues may not be heard till he is in office.
Depends on your goal. For networking purposes absolutely, provided you don't get snubbed for being last. However if you're LAST, then you're probably failing out, and if you fail out of a top-tier school then that's a LOT of money down the drain. If you're last in the graduating class then you probably still failed some classes, which is, again, a lot of money down the drain. Going to a second-tier school may save you a lot of cash both on failed classes and on not failing them to begin with.
I think that's actually a GREAT idea. And they'd confirm her. They want her out of the race.
She might even want it. Being beaten AGAIN in the primaries would be a little tiresome. It'll be clear in less than a month if that's going to happen, which puts us right about when the appointment needs to be made.
That said, the Republicans running for president would love it, but the rank and file wouldn't understand it as a political maneuver. And Hillary has no experience as a judge.
You gave me a sort of crazy idea, but maybe it would push the neo-GOP lunatics away from the deadlock stalling?
Since the Supreme Court's main job (beyond the work of any other court) is to arbitrate the constitutionality of legislation, and since they cannot do that with deadlocked 4-4 decisions, we should modify the Constitution to prevent it. (Setting aside for the moment the fact that they will stall such a proposal to death.) Here's the suggestion:
If there are an even number of justices, then for each case, one justice will be picked by lottery to sit it out. There will always be an odd number of justices ruing on every case, and there will be no ties.
That means the fanatics on either side would be afraid to leave a closely balanced Supreme Court with a missing justice. If that happens, then they could lose on major decisions just by an unlucky draw.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The GOP has control of the house and senate currently. Now they have yet another matter to be non-productive on as they hope (beyond reason) to be able to win the 2016 presidential election so they can keep Scalia's seat occupied by a conservative. When they overplay this hand they can expect the public to react negatively.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
People aren't looking very far ahead. Immediately all the GOP leaders said that they won't confirm a nomination, and many have asked Obama not to make a nomination. On the other hand, Obama immediately said that he will make a nomination. So, that's likely to be the first public thing to happen.
Obama will likely pick somebody with impeccable credentials, but more importantly, a toughness to survive 11 months of vitriolic attacks -- because he's going to insist that the nominee maintain his or her determination to be confirmed. If he nominates somebody who pulls out after a few months, that would be devastating to Obama and the Democrats. And while that might limit the number of nominees to 10% of what they would be in normal (or, perhaps, historic) times, Obama will find somebody. It will likely be somebody who isn't strongly politically polarized.
And the GOP will immediately insist that they won't confirm him or her. Little question about that. That's when it gets interesting.
Obama will likely use the fact that the GOP Senators are blocking a reasonable candidate to attack them, and likely attack the ones who are at most risk to lose their elections this year. If Obama can make these senators look more like jerks -- and I think he probably can -- then things may change.
I think that the most politcally reasonable thing for the GOP to do would be to vote on the nominee, and just vote him or her down. Obama can probably nominate three or four people during the next eight months, the GOP taking a few months to evaluate each one would be typical and easily defensible.
I don't like it, but that's what I think will happen.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
While you may state facts here, the main reason for high crime and low academic achievement is that those areas are also no future areas. There are only a few who care about the urban youth these days. If nothing that you do as a young person will matter in the end then where is the incentive to do anything decent with your life? If the biggest struggle is to get food on the table and have a place to live then school grades are secondary. The reason is not because these people are black, it is because they have zero chance of gaining anything no matter how hard they work for it. There are just too many who see them as gang members, criminals, or notorious underachievers.
"The black community is largely populated in dense urban environments ripe with gangs and notoriously bad schools"
The result of Democratic municipal rule. Blacks in the inner cities so rife with violence and failure are victims of this rule.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
There aren't 'storm sewers' out in the countryside that you so eloquently referenced. Do you ever get out of that big dirty liberal city??
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.
That is correct. Nor does it mention privacy. If you want it, get a law or amendment passed. It does say every man but we needed an amendment for equal rights...so the bar is we would need a law to include new concepts, even if it explicitly said privacy.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Dead AS.
Anybody want a peanut?
You need to read Constitution before you try arguing about it. Amendment IX and X.
-- Will program for bandwidth
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/
"living document" is a way to make the Constitution not a "legal document". In other words, it was a legal theory invented specifically for the purposes of ignoring the Constitution.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
So, what I'm hearing is that Reagan nominated some person with a surname of 'Bork' and now the system of appointments is borked? I don't know whether to congratulate the posthumous President, the Senate of that time or the Democrats of the time but all I can say is...well played!
They are not human. That's enough of a flaw to make many democratic country see such entity as having no political right.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
#antoninscalia His death is nice but he wasn't all bad. Look at his opinion writing on Kyllo vs United States one of the courts greatest decisions to date. It actually bans through wall #radar/#satellite surveillance without a warrant, a tech that lets them scan our #homes, #bodies, #brains, and #effects #covertly. Read that opinion here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/su... and learn about it's violation on http://www.drrobertduncan.com/
His opinion on #torture was fucked as he wasn't sure the #constitution protected anyone from it. His decision to vote against #BarackObama care was gay.
#scalia on torture: https://youtu.be/T72vgAEX66M?l...
I would be fearful someone killed him and made it look natural .. Even Obama might have done it, as he is violating Kyllo vs #UnitedStates and had the #justice under total #surveillance. Then using the Venus electronic countermeasure from the spaced deployed #phasedarray/#electronicwarfare system they killed him in his sleep.
No trace of #foulplay can be detected.
There are plenty of other techniques - #chemicalweapons and other #bioweapons - that cannot be detected in #autopsies which the United States has the most of.
#ussupremecourt #scotus #fbi
http://www.obamasweapon.com/
What's great about your comment: You literally reacted to his death. You didn't exactly grandstand as a D or R but as a person that, too, will die someday, "and here's some thoughts for all of us mortals"
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Yeah, there need to be more justices that hate women, blacks, the poor, Latinos and homosexuals, 'cause that's the way Jesus would want it!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Reading it hasn't helped you understand the issues and that's a large part of the problem. Privacy isn't a well defined term so there's nothing to suggest that 10 applies. If you want to imagine some form of it and then backwardly point to it, that's not good enough (as I pointed out initially). You aren't arguing as much as you're wharglbarging which isn't how a case succeeds in front of the SC. GL with that.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Is this the kind of stuff i can expect under /.'s new management? Because i won't stay around if that's the case.
Why thank you. Your comment gave me some happiness and a smile. I appreciate your comment. It was insightful to me about my own comment too. lol!
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The suggestion that the Senate has a duty to accept any nomination is flawed. The phrase 'advice and consent' points to a consensus forming model, where all sides agree on a suitable candidate. The fact that the whole process has broken down is a function of the partisanship which George Washington warned against; that the judiciary has become politicised calls the legitimacy of the Republic into question. That's the real issue - for which there is no obvious solution.
This is redundant but your post merits it...
Confirmation time:
Kagan: 3 months
Sotomayor: 2 months
Alito: 2 months
Meirs: withdrawn same month
Roberts: 2 months (well, two attempts at one month each)
Breyer: 2 months
Ginsburg: 2 months
Thomas: 3 months
Souter: 3 months
Kennedy: 3 months
Bork: 3 months (rejected 1987)
Scalia: 3 months
Rehnquist: 3 months
Any evidence of Pelosi blocking Roberts, Scalia, Rehnquist, etc.?
Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice by a full Senate vote of 78â"22.
All 55 Republicans voted to confirm Roberts and 22 Democrats voting yes.
Similar votes (and not endless filibusters and procedural roadblocks) for other conservative justices.
*Forgot to say the above durations are a quote from another board where this is being discussed in my other post. The names / months list isn't mine (tho it's public record).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The best memory I have of Scalia is that when Stephen Colbert gave his infamous White House Correspondents Dinner address, Scalia was laughing his ass off when he was lampooned. I might not agree with the man, but he had a great life lived on his own terms.
Film at 11 pm tonight.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
and is set so high that you can actually have lower grades and still pass the degree programme
Ahh the value of the modern education. The "attaboy" degree.
When I graduated as an engineer I did so with the knowledge that one of the kids in my class repeated several core subjects 3 times, didn't know basic engineering concepts much less those related to his discipline, and couldn't solve basic equations or even derive equations from problems. Makes me sad to see employment requirements that say "must hold a relevant degree" as the concept itself has no value.
University education was once the hallmark of the academic elite. Now it's just another 4 years of school to get a piece of paper that every company puts on their requirements whether they need it or not.
Despite having some of the best health care in the world
hahahahaha.
Oh wait... supreme court justices are normally quite wealthy and can afford it. Never mind.
While I agree with the general sentiment, there is only one version that could do this great moment justice.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Maybe he forgot to add "if you're rich".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I might not agree with the man, but he had a great life lived on his own terms.
You could say the same about Josef Stalin.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hey, I agree with you. You know, I really loved Stalin, he made those 1930s sure a colorful, interesting period in Russia. Though it was advisable not to be in Russia in the 30s.
Pretty much the same with this goofball. Sure, his decisions were always good for a laugh and a "you're shitting me, no judge is THAT kind of dense!", and it's all fun
As long as you're not affected by the raving lunatic's decisions, that is!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, despite being wealthy, powerful, and having the best health care in the world, wealthy rich powerful u.s. citizens die all the time between 50 and 80.
However, people with good jobs at large corporations also have good health care. And at medium size companies.
Not so much for small companies and pre-ACA, only nearly worthless catastrophic plans for individuals or self employed unless they were wealthy.
Despite this, a little under 2% of americans do make it to 90 and many of them are not wealthy. They just won the lottery in some way ( good genes mostly).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The legal system should be separated from the political completely.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Try to retire early and take up a second career doing something you love doing.
Some of us did that the first time...
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
About 8% manage it the first time around.
It's harder than you think.
But grats if you were one of the lucky ones!
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
So then the 4th amendment doesn't apply to a telephone conversation because that doesn't fall under the category of "papers" or "effects"?
affect
[ih-fekt]
noun
1.
something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence:
Also the amendment goes on to state unequivocally that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" which is actually the important part. See, it was understood implicitly that you needed a warrant to conduct a search. Look at how we've thrown that under the bus. You're arguing about the constitution when that's not even the part we're failing on. We're failing on basic practice of law when we don't require a warrant for every search.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Frightening. I always thought at least money could get your healthcare on par with the developed world in the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
All the health care in the world won't protect you from stress, high work hours, lack of exercise, and a poor diet.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
But the context in which those amendments exist DOES change, and therefore so must their application - (e.g. you now have a standing army, which the second amendment was not written/designed/intended to co-exist with).
No, having a standing army only means we need the second amendment more. Now, not only do we have to deal with foreign enemies, but there is the threat of occupation from within — both due to illegal acts by our own government, but also the potential of rogue military elements acting inappropriately, especially during times of crisis. Everyone thinks that the culture of obedience and respect in their military means it can't happen right up until it does.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There are a bunch of liberal perspectives arguing that scalia should be replaced with a liberal. But this will dramatically unbalance the court. Set your political views aside for a moment and recognize that the best situation that can exist is when the court is truly balanced--the nation has people of different perspectives. Not everybody agrees with you, and having a highest court that represents this diversity is the most open minded approach.
I frankly would hope that Obama's integrity would be such that he would nominate somebody with conservative values, just like Scalia, to replace the conservative seat he represented.
tora
Well, under that theory, can you point out where the Constitution grants anybody the right to license drivers, pilots, et all?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
You're forgetting the most obvious, Bush v Gore. Since when does the SCOTUS intervene in a state's election process in order to "select" the POTUS? Because somehow Florida's voter's rights are "violated" by the recall process not being completed by Dec 12, 2000? And the judicial solution is for the SCOTUS to "thwart" a recount?
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
...and then Scalia has the GALL to claim himself to be a Constitutional Originalist!
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Fascist's want to force fascism on everyone, conservatives want to force conservationism on everyone. Again I remind you...legalizing gay marriage did not force you to be gay.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
First, I am glad that Scalia is gone. His decisions were often a moral outrage. Next, the right wing is about to screw up big time. They intend to stop Obama from seating a new justice on the court. That is a really lousy idea for them. They have not looked forward. Bernie Sanders may well be the next president. So if they block Obama's candidate who would be somewhat conservative they will end up seating President Sanders candidate who will be far more liberal than Obama's candidate. In other words, no matter what, the right will end up with a new justice who is more liberal than what they want.
If you had posted that comment in Iran, the inherent spin would have enriched tons of uranium, and you would have broken the latest nuclear agreement.
If you can't muster support for a constitutional amendment, you have no business change the constitution in the name of reinterpretation.
To play devil's advocate here for a moment, even the difference between "sufficiently different to need an amendment" and simply "a clear implication and logical conclusion based on the principles expressed" can be a blurry line at times. Case in point, most of Slashdot agrees that while the fourth amendment says "...to be secure in their papers and effects", it applies to data on smartphones, too. While it's bleeding obvious that smartphone data wasn't referenced in the Constitution because they kinda sorta didn't exist 230 years ago, extending "papers and effects" to include that data could be considered a reinterpretation or a "clear implication" is itself a judgment call that would need to be made.
I'm with you in that the Constitution was not intended to mean "whatever is popular today, because interstate commerce"...but let's also not assume that it's always trivial to distinguish the line past which an amendment is needed.
President Obama has appointed two woman so far. With life appointments, appointing younger women gives the President a very long influence on the court.
Just looking at this topic illustrates the 95% B.S. Rule of the Internet in that about 5% of the comments thus far are rated at a 5 which suggests that most people have no idea how the government works or the reasons for Scalia's opinions.
Well, with drivers, it's pretty simple. First, they are issued by the states. So the 10th amendment gives the states that right. And second, only driving on public roads requires a license. On a private track, you drive cars which are not street-legal without a license to drive. And a "public" road is government property, so the government can dictate terms under which anyone can enter. Pilots' license are probably harder to explain other than that if you fly something that shows up on DOD'd radar, then it falls within national defense mandate.... but honestly I don't know enough about pilots' licenses and how they are issued to answer that question.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
To say that courts interpret the laws is an oversimplification which borders on a lie. Their power only goes so far as to interpret applicability of the laws. Otherwise, they could interpret a word "red", in some law, to mean "green" if they so chose. In other words, it would give courts the power to completely re-write the laws.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
That is overly simplistic. Or would you care to explain the founder's original intent regarding the internet? Our interpretation of the constitution evolves because circumstances have changed beyond anything the writers could have imagined. The internet is only one example.
The Constitution evolves by amendments. It does not evolve because you want it to mean something entirely different.
The framers of the Constitution believed in structural checks and balances. But they were not much given to casting their own vision of how the country should evolve in stone. That is the fundamental reason why the Constitution is short, spare, and has been amended only 27 times in the past 225 years.
If you can't muster support for a constitutional amendment, you have no business change the constitution in the name of reinterpretation.
Exactly. Which is why people who complain that rulings like Citizens United are examples of activism by the court have it exactly backwards. It's an example of the court holding activist legislation accountable to the constitution (the First Amendment, in that particular case). There's nothing wrong with "activist legislation" as long as it passes constitutional muster - something the court is there to decide, when such things are tested.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Ok, let me try again.
Please point to the section of the US Constitution that grants the Supreme Court the power to declare a duly enacted law as unconstitutional.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
The way this country is, I doubt you could get a simple majority saying people should be free to breathe oxygen. There would be some bickering about some groups shouldn't be allowed to breathe whereas others would take umbrage that some freeloaders do nothing and yet get to breathe the same air that they do and it just isn't fair because they work hard for their air.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Robert Bork respectfully notes that Senate review is not a speedy process and that simply being nominated by a sitting President doesn't guarantee one a seat at the Supreme Court. For additional information, look up 'borked' and consider the role Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden had in those proceedings.
A funny farm isn't actually a farm, and can be in a city.
Do you ever get out of that cesspit of stupidity you inhabit?
The Republicans are in between a proverbial rock and a hard place. Obama is a sitting duck president, who can afford to burn bridges and such, so there isn't anything from stopping him from naming a young, ultra liberal for nomination. The problem is that if the republicans stall a nomination until the election in hopes that their guy might win, they risk having Bernie elected, and he is quite likely to nominate someone they would like even less than who ever Obama might pick.
They could go for a 'Hail Mary', and hope that they win in November, but Bernie is polling quite well so there is considerable risk if they do this. A game theory analysis of things would suggest that the logical Republican play would be to pounce on the first Justice nominee that is remotely 'center' politically and appoint them as fast as the hearings will allow. It doesn't advance the conservative agenda, but it is purely a damage control move to prevent the next 40 years of 5-4 'liberal' decisions from being handed down by the court. It you cannot win a game, don't play for a win, play for a tie. The right is stupid, and this will not happen. The Teabaggers will scream a try to scuttle anyone who isn't hard right. They seem to have little patience for diplomacy and compromise these days.
Obama's smart play here is to work with Sunders and Hillary, and get them to both publicly come out in favor of a radical left nominee, and then put a solid moderate liberal nominee up for appointment. The right is scared of what they get if the fumble the election, and he gets a liberal on the bench with minimal fuss.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
If you think his picks were moderates you must consider Bernie Sanders a far right fascist!
Does it matter? They're all corporatists.
Obama, like Bush is a corporatist (of the slightly left flavor), and will do what the corporatocracy wants (See: TPP). Expect more of the same in this regard, whether the appointee is moderate, rightwing
So keep complaining about small issues like abortion, or cloning or whatever is en vogue for the right vs. left dichotomy - the corporations will end up winning (why do you think they pump so much money into the political process - for bad investments?).
You won't get any different from the establishment machine.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
yeah, he was a fucking hypocrit...from the wa.po obit:
"[scalia dismissed intent as]...simply an excuse for judges to impose their own ideological views.
Critics countered that the same could be said for originalism — and that the legal conclusions Justice Scalia said were dictated by that approach meshed neatly with the justice’s views on the death penalty, gay rights and abortion. ...except for the 2nd amendment
. . .
Scalia redefined and popularized originalism. His approach to understanding the Constitution focused not on the framers’ intent but on the meaning of the words to ordinary citizens in 1787."
That was actually a definition for "effect", I looked it up, but I then I typed "affect" at the top here. In case anyone is wondering what kind of boneheaded error I made, that's what kind.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
bush v. gore? talk about judicial activism:-\ a bloodless coup:-P
i 4 1 am glad the fucker's dead
I'm surprised I didn't see this.
If the republicans filibuster and refuse to approve a supreme court justice until the election then voter turnout is going to be huge.
This is an issue that would electrify the voters.
It's my impression that democrats benefit a lot more from voter turnout than republicans so this would be a bad move by republicans.
So the likely way this will play out is that Obama will nominate a safe, moderate judge with mild liberal leanings and the republicans will approve the nominee.
If the republicans turn down a reasonable nomination for judge, it's likely to cost them the election (and maybe even some house and senate seats).
Of course then the question is-- what if obama nominates a left wing judge? Not sure who comes off worse in that case.
Anyway, many judges (including scalia and roberts) were nominated and voted for in less than 90 days (and with a lot of yes votes from democrats).
If the republicans block confirmation of a reasonable nominee- I think it's a yoooge mistake.
(so they'll probably try to paint any nominee much more left than the nominee really is). Obama has been fairly cagey so I think he'll make the right move here and pick a very qualified, mildly liberal judge, with a ton of experience.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Pelosi is hardly extreme. If fact, she's considered to be fairly conservative, almost to the point of being a DINO; and is not well-liked here in her district. She keeps getting elected because the people who run against her every two years are the most ridiculous assortment of space-cases you'd have to see to believe. And she winds up being the least-bad choice every time. Even in San Francisco, we're pragmatic enough to know that Cindy Sheehan, for example, would do a pretty poor job in congress.
Imagine all the people...
' "What's the name of that book, you were reading, about that black guy who killed somebody?" would you be calling him a racist, who apparently thinks all African Americans are murderers?'
No, that would be a statement about a specific person that is back, becaus ethat would be what is*actually said*.
Scalia's own words connect African American and now doing well, because that is what he *actually said*. His words are right there in that article that you point to and we can both read the same thing.
"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas."
The brief may say something different, but what the brief says is not the subject here.
Despite having some of the best health care in the world, most of us are dead by 82. And 98.4% are dead by age 90.
Thanks for ruining my day...
Still mulling over his death. I think his life is worth more consideration, but that seems unlikely in this venue. Conversations in slashdot die quickly, but that seems to be a case of broken as designed.
Mostly I've been wondering why I am not rejoicing. I like to think of myself as someone who is opposed to evil, and I think Scalia was one of the most supremely evil (and hypocritical) people I've ever heard of. It seems that I should celebrate, and yet, his death doesn't seem to be a cause for joy. Right now I think that is because his legacy of evil is essentially unaffected by his death. That's the nature of the judicial dictatorship America has become.
Right after Bush v Gore, I remember being involved with a law student who didn't feel too bad about it. However, in the course of our exchanges, he mentioned that the reason he was in law school was because he believed America was becoming (or had already become) a judicial dictatorship and he wanted to become one of the dictators. Pragmatic, eh?
In the decision of Bush v Gore, the majority actually put it in writing that they didn't want the case to be regarded as precedent. As if the main job of the Supreme Court was not the definition of legal precedent. I don't think they were being stupid. I think they just wanted to leave their hands free if they got another chance to play politics.
Anyway, at least Scalia died doing what he loved: Torturing and killing helpless animals. (At least that's how I feel about hunting and part of why I eat so little meat these decades.)
Another conclusion is that the timing really seems to reflect the incredibly good luck of President Obama. His entire life seems to have been charmed, and I still think the nation has largely benefited from his luck, including his lucky timing. For Scalia to suddenly drop dead right now insures that the politicization of the Supreme Court will be one of the largest issues in this election, and notwithstanding Citizens United, maybe the actual voters of the 99.9% can still have some say in the outcome.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
It was long in coming, but in the end, I see the quail got their revenge.
Do they suspect fowl play?
At least he died doing what he loved: Torturing and killing small and helpless animals.
(Sorry, but I admit that I lack sympathy for recreational hunters and I feel increasingly bad about eating any meat these years...)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
The Supreme Court itself will likely demand a replacement
They can "demand" but that demand will have no legal weight. At best (and I think this is a stretch, as there is no real way to enforce such a ruling) the Court could demand that the Senate vote on every nominee within a reasonable period of time - but they cannot demand that they vote "yes."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Assuming Obama nominates someone left-of-center, expect the Senate to cave to public pressure and go through the motions of having several nomination hearings. Expect them to drag them out knowing good and well the candidate will be rejected.
By then, it will be April or May.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Now we are talking June, July, or August. Repeat again and we are talking August through November. And again and it's at least October, late enough that "let the next President nominate the replacement" becomes a politically viable solution.
Obama's kind of cornered here: He can either nominate a liberal the first time out hoping the Republicans will NOT hold hearings, giving his party a major boost in November, or nominate a centrist and use the rejection as campaign fodder. If the Senate rejects his first (or second, or third, etc.) choice after about May or so, his only option will be to nominate a centrist and shame the Senate into approving the nomination or risk having their inaction or rejection becoming election fodder. In any case (except maybe a second vacancy), Obama will not be able to seat a liberal this go-around.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Even if the Senate did go into recess before Christmas, it would be pointless as the appointment would expire next January 3rd.
However, back when there were a bunch of vacant judge-ships, he could have used recess appointments to temporarily bring severely-understaffed courts up to full strength. It's not as critical at the lower levels or even at the Circuit Courts of Appeal since retired judges (technically, those who are on "senior status" or something like that) can come in and do the work that needs to be done so the courts don't collapse. But if there weren't enough senior-status judges to get the work done, using recess appointments can be a way to ensure that the court system doesn't collapse entirely just because 41 Senators are holding up the works.
Oh, it's also a moot point now for District Court vacancies, as the Democrats (who were in charge of the Senate until very recently) changed the rules to make them un-filibuster-able and approved enough of Obama's nominations so the District Courts are now "staffed enough" that there isn't a crisis (there are still some vacancies, but not nearly as many as there once were).
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The world is a better place without him.
Privacy is also protected by the IV (secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures) and the V (right not to be a witness against oneself, e.g. the right to not say anything).
-- Will program for bandwidth
The internet doesn't change anything. See the I and IV Amendment. The Supreme Court covered this a long time ago when they said the IV applied to the telephone. The means of communication does not matter. It is protected.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Exactly. That's why they only covered the fundamentals. Freedom of the press is protected. They didn't bother to say "freedom to operate a printing press". How the press works has evolved, but the basic right as they envisioned still works perfectly, without any need to change it.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Great and thoughtful comment. it was a pleasure ot read.
Good point on Obama's luck!
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You're probably right in arguing that the precedent has emerged over the years, and the reality is that the Senate was conceived of as a body very different from what we now have. However my primary point is that the whole system is looking ever less secure, and this area is a clear symptom of that; that's the real problem, which should be worrying us. However because we always focus on the short term, we tend not to address wider concerns.
No, you can't. Stalin's daughter defected from the USSR, and she had a good reason. None of Scalia's descendants will be excluded from political speech, much less imprisoned due to their beliefs.
One interesting possibility I've seen is a hispanic liberal with awesome credentials (harvard, stanford, whitehouse, federal court judge- unanimous bipartisan approval by california senate).
If the republicans rejected him, they can kiss florida goodbye (and probably arizona too- hell maybe even texas).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The break down in the historic consensus about what is right and wrong is, I suspect, at the heart of the matter. The willingness to use the courts to resolve what are political questions - from the days of the New Deal by the right, then over racial segregation in the 1950s, has moved the role of the courts from referee to player. Clear evidence of government over-reach - as demonstrated by Snowden - has delegitimated the Executive branch, whilst noone takes Congress seriously.
So we are left with a system with limited legitimacy being used by partisans whose view are amplified by the internet and horrible amounts of money to achieve far more than the system was designed to allow. The result is cynicism about politicians, no agreed basis on which to make decisions, and a lack of goodwill. The response of many politicians - most obviously Trump, Saunders AND Obama, has been an attempt to offer hope which has or will be proved grossly unrealistic; meanwhile special interests in specific areas get their own way and appear unstoppable.
Not pretty!
I disagree with you. I think the Constitution does evolve by what it means to us today.
So, golly, how can we settle our disagreement? I have an idea! Let's have a panel of legal experts, chosen by a broad consensus of our national leaders, and that panel will carefully decide which one of us is right.
The result of Democratic municipal rule.
Even in Republican districts no doubt.
Maybe Obama should nominate Sanders or Clinton right now.
Or, heck, nominate himself, there's no rule against that. Or step down and install Biden as President, then have him nominate Obama.
So many good options for political theater!
My read on Hillary is that she wants all positions of power and influence. That's a fair thing for wonks to want. No problem with that.
But the Presidency is the big chair. She wants to sit in that chair. Being one of nine justices is something that might motivate her after she spends four or eight years in the big chair, but right now she has a plausible claim to being #45, and it's hard to imagine her giving that up.
There is nothing bipartisan about the CA senate.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Actually, no. That's the point of my note...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Not possible. I've been told in the last month the DINO is not a thing. As Ds are accepting good people, unlike Rs.
I guess whoever it was that said that, was full of shit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Unless the Republican candidate does something so embarrassing he's going to lose the country anyways, or unless he does something to specifically insult Texas voters or a sub-set of Conservative Texas voters (not an impossibility if "I don't care who I insult, the people still love me" Trump gets the Republican Presidential nomination), he's going to get Texas simply because of the Elephant.
Texas has voted "R" in every Presidential election since the Carter administration. The Republicans have carried 54+% of the Texas popular vote every Presidential and US Senate general election this century.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
A) It matters because the Constitution SAYS it matters. Justice Scalia was (allegedly) a strict constructionist, so he should be have been worshiping the 14th Amendment, not musing out loud on reasons to wipe his ass with it.
B) Gangs and bad schools are a symptom of institutional racism and lack of economic opportunity, not some inherent inferiority of race. There are plenty of districts in poor white areas that exhibit bad schools and gangs.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for