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.
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.
We will never really know that he was not accidentally shot by Dick Cheney
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
It was long in coming, but in the end, I see the quail got their revenge.
Do they suspect fowl play?
"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.
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. . . .
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
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.
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.
How do you know he didn't care about climate change?
Doing something that is illegal or unconstitutional does in no way all the sudden become good or correct just because you like the desired outcome. What he did was proper regardless of his views on climate change, Obama, or some treaty that isn't a treaty because the senate has to confirm all treaties for it to become a treaty.
As for Citizens United, I do not see any flaws in the ruling. Can you point them out? And no, businesses or corporations having political speech or money equals speech is not a flaw in the ruling. What constitutional basics is incorrect or flawed in it?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.