Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 79, Has Died, Officials Say

  • 103 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b78379493e12
deactivated-5b78379493e12

15625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#1 deactivated-5b78379493e12
Member since 2005 • 15625 Posts

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-79-has-died-officials-say-n518156

Seems like the November election just got that much more interesting. It was very likely that up to three SCOTUS judged would be replaced in the coming term, but since this is under President Obama, the resistance to any nominee will be fierce, and this will now be a huge point of emphasis for the candidates.

He was obviously knowledgable, but from my view, very arrogant and borderline vile with his resistance to LGBTQA rights.

Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
deactivated-598fc45371265

13247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#2 deactivated-598fc45371265
Member since 2008 • 13247 Posts

@jimkabrhel said:

He was obviously knowledgable, but from my view, very arrogant and borderline vile with his resistance to LGBTQA rights.

excuse my privileged ignorance but what does the A stand for?

Avatar image for deactivated-5b78379493e12
deactivated-5b78379493e12

15625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#3 deactivated-5b78379493e12
Member since 2005 • 15625 Posts

Asexual

Avatar image for allicrombie
Allicrombie

26223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 43

User Lists: 0

#4 Allicrombie
Member since 2005 • 26223 Posts

Really sad. They are saying he was hunting quail, a dangerous animal to be sure. Rest in peace, legendary hunter.

I also found USA Today to have the most extensive coverage so far.

------From USA Today------

WASHINGTON — Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, the outspoken leader of the Supreme Court's conservative bloc, was found dead at a Texas ranch Saturday morning, the San Antonio Express News reported on its website.

The newspaper quoted U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, who said he had been told of the death.

Scalia, 79, was a guest at the resort in West Texas, the Cibolo Creek Ranch, reportedly as part of a private group of about 40 people. When he didn't appear for breakfast Saturday, someone went to his room to check on him and found a body.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued a statement Saturday afternoon extending condolences to Scalia's family. He called the justice "the solid rock who turned away so many attempts to depart from and distort the Constitution."

Over nearly three decades on the high court, Scalia's sharp intellect and acerbic opinions made him a hero to conservatives and a target for liberals. Yet he also was a close friend to a leader of the court's liberal wing, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a 2016 Republican presidential hopeful and himself a former clerk on the Supreme Court, posted a statement on Facebook mourning the death of "one of the greatest Justices in history." Cruz said, "A champion of our liberties and a stalwart defender of the Constitution, he will go down as one of the few Justices who single-handedly changed the course of legal history."

"My reaction is it's very unfortunate," Biery told the newspaper. "It's unfortunate with any death, and politically in the presidential cycle we're in, my educated guess is nothing will happen until the next president is elected."

President Obama could nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy, but winning confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate in an election year would be difficult. The opening undoubtedly will fuel at debate in the presidential campaign about the importance of choosing his successor on a closely divided court.

APPOINTED BY REAGAN

Scalia managed to steer the federal judiciary toward his twin theories of “originalism” and “textualism” -- strictly reading the Constitution and federal statutes to mean what their authors intended, and nothing more. Yet he leaves with more disappoinments than achievements and a legacy written in acerbic dissents.

The first Italian-American to serve on the court when he was named by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, “Nino” Scalia established himself as a firm opponent of abortion, gay rights and racial preferences. He was the lone dissenter when the court opened the Virginia Military Institute to women and consistently opposed affirmative action policies at universities and workplaces. When the court struck down the key section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, he angrily predicted that it would lead to same-sex marriage -- and in 2015, he was proved right.

On the winning side of the ledger, Scalia was best known for authoring the court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller upholding the right of citizens to keep guns at home for self-defense. The 5-4 decision, he said, was “the most complete originalist opinion that I’ve ever written.”

But Scalia’s sharp-elbows brand of conservatism more often showed up in testily worded dissents and even what The New York Times labeled “furious concurrences,” in which he agreed with the end result but ranted about the reasoning.

“Dissents are where you can really say what you believe and say it with the force you think it deserves,” he said. And if they prove correct years later, he went on, it “makes you feel good.”

That was the case in Morrison v. Olson, in which the court upheld Congress’ establishment of an independent counsel within the executive branch but beyond the president’s control. Scalia, as the lone dissenter in just his second term, said it infringed on presidential power.

“Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the court clad, so to speak, in sheep's clothing,” he wrote of the balance-of-powers issue. “But this wolf comes as a wolf.”

In time, many conservatives and liberals came to distrust the power given to independent counsels, including Kenneth Starr, whose four-year investigation of President Clinton culminated in his impeachment. Congress let the law expire in 1999.

“It turns out that everything that Justice Scalia says in that opinion … is true,” his liberal colleague, Justice Elena Kagan, said recently.

Scalia also dissented vehemently from a 2012 ruling in an Arizona case that restricted the rights of states to regulate immigration. “You’re not a sovereign state if you can’t control your borders,” he groused.

NO RETREAT, NO SURRENDER

He opposed the president and favored Congress in the more recent test of President Obama’s recess appointments power. While agreeing with the court’s majority that Obama exceeded his authority by going around the Senate to name members to the National Labor Relations Board, Scalia argued that such power should be limited far more than the court allowed.

"The majority practically bends over backward to ensure that recess appointments will remain a powerful weapon in the president's arsenal," he wrote. "That is unfortunate, because the recess appointment power is an anachronism."

Never one to compromise his principles, Scalia spent most of his career on the court watching helplessly as its moderate members -- Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and, later, Anthony Kennedy -- cut the deals that led to majority opinions on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

His objections, he said recently, were not based on policy views but on “who decides” -- and his answer almost invariably was the Constitution, the Congress or the president, not unelected judges with lifetime appointments like himself.

“Don’t paint me as anti-gay or anti-abortion or anything else,” he said. “We are a democracy. Majority rules.”

Despite his sometimes petulant personality, which he used on occasion to berate unprepared litigators standing alone at the lectern, Scalia was popular with his colleagues. He maintained close friendships with liberals such as Kagan and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with whom he bonded in the 1980s when they served together on a federal appeals court.

Ginsburg recently recalled listening to Scalia deliver a speech to the American Bar Association. She disagreed with the thesis, she said, but "thought he said it in an absolutely captivating way."

Kagan, whom Scalia taught to hunt for ducks, deer and other game, called him "funny and charming and super-intelligent and witty."

“If you can’t disagree on the law without taking it personally,” Scalia was fond of saying, “find another day job.”

A STICKLER FOR LANGUAGE

Scalia’s entire career on the high court was spent alongside two chief justices -- William Rehnquist, a nominee of President Richard Nixon who became chief when Scalia joined the court in 1987, and John Roberts, who took over upon Rehnquist’s death in 2005.

Scalia harbored faint hopes of getting the top job then but acknowledged that, at 69, he was too old to give President George W. Bush a chief justice who might serve for several decades. Roberts, at 50, fit the bill.

Instead, Scalia’s claim to fame remained his reliance on the plain language of the Constitution and congressional statutes to guide his decision-making. The founding documents, he said, should not be subject to “whimsical change” by five judges.

“The Constitution means what the people felt that it meant when they ratified it,” he said. “Only in law do we say that the original meaning doesn’t matter.”

While he faced difficulty convincing liberal members of the court to follow his lead on the Constitution, he had more luck when it came to statutory interpretation. “He has won that battle,” Kagan said.

On the bench, Scalia was one of the court’s most active and incisive questioners. Virtually every year, he led all justices in quips that elicited laughter in the courtroom, according to careful tabulations by Boston University law professor Jay Wexler.

Along with Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the high court’s first Hispanic member, Scalia also was a hot ticket on the speaking circuit. He was the inspiration for several theatrical endeavors, including a play, The Originalist, which ran for three months to rave reviews in Washington, D.C., and a comic opera, Scalia/Ginsburg.

‘INTELLECTUAL THRUST AND PARRY’

While the Heller decision on the right to bear arms was perhaps Scalia’s most famous, he later admitted that the right is not unlimited. Many states impose restrictions on firearms outside the home, such as requiring a demonstrated need to carry a gun, whether concealed or in plain sight. Most lower courts have upheld those restrictions.

“There are doubtless limits – but what they are, we will see,” he said. Still, he waxed sentimental about the days when, as a student, he could carry a .22-caliber rifle on the New York City subways.

At times hard to categorize, Scalia joked that he “should be the pin-up for the criminal defense bar” because of his oft-stated defense of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and his belief that defendants have the right to confront their accusers in court.

Inside the marble-columned courtroom, Scalia led the way toward more intense interaction between the justices and lawyers. Only his ideological soul mate, Justice Clarence Thomas, refuses to participate in the rapid-fire questioning.

“It’s a very noisy court, not just me,” Scalia said. Another time, he acknowledged that “I often ask a question just for the hell of it.”

“I really do enjoy oral argument,” he said. “The intellectual thrust and parry -- it’s almost like an English play.”

Yet he despised displays of overt partisanship, such as those at the president’s annual State of the Union addresses. Scalia boycotted the event for many years, arguing that for the justices to sit quietly in the front row gives “dignity to a childish spectacle.”

He was never a fan of the media, complaining that most news reports of the court’s work focused only on the result, rather than the underlying reasoning. He imposed strict limits on press access at his public appearances and remained a firm opponent of letting cameras into court.

“It will be ‘man bites dog,’” he said of the imagined spectacle. “Why should I participate in the mis-education of the American people?”

A PROUD AND PRODUCTIVE LIFE

Antonin Gregory Scalia was born March 11, 1936, in Trenton, N.J., the only child of a Sicilian immigrant father and second-generation Italian mother. His family moved to the borough of Queens in New York City during his childhood, and he established himself as a devout Catholic and a quick study in school.

After graduating from Georgetown University, Scalia said, “I had no idea what I wanted to do.” He chose law school and “just loved it ... everything about it is what I liked to do.”

Scalia graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1960 and spent seven years in private practice before yearning for academia. He taught for five years at the University of Virginia School of Law, then worked for the Nixon and Gerald Fordadministrations in a variety of jobs, culminating as assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel.

After Democrat Jimmy Carter’s election in 1976, Scalia returned to academia at the University of Chicago Law School, where he became one of the first faculty advisers to the fledgling Federalist Society, now the institutional bulwark of conservative legal doctrine.

Reagan’s election gave him a shot to become U.S. solicitor general, whose job it is to represent the federal government before the Supreme Court. He lost out but in 1982 was named to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a well-worn stepping-stone to the Supreme Court. Four years later, he won unanimous Senate confirmation.

Along the way, he and his wife, Maureen, had nine children who in turn, at last count, produced 36 grandchildren. He frequently credited his wife for raising the family.

“I take care of the Constitution. She takes care of everything else,” he said. “That’s the deal.”

Avatar image for lamprey263
lamprey263

45418

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By lamprey263
Member since 2006 • 45418 Posts

good riddance, burn in hell motherfucker

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#6 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@jimkabrhel said:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-79-has-died-officials-say-n518156

Seems like the November election just got that much more interesting. It was very likely that up to three SCOTUS judged would be replaced in the coming term, but since this is under President Obama, the resistance to any nominee will be fierce, and this will now be a huge point of emphasis for the candidates.

He was obviously knowledgable, but from my view, very arrogant and borderline vile with his resistance to LGBTQA rights.

Utter nonsense.

RIP Scalia you were a absolute brilliant legal mind who did not get caught up in PC shit...... You will be missed.....

Avatar image for Riverwolf007
Riverwolf007

26023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Riverwolf007
Member since 2005 • 26023 Posts

hmmm, hunting you say?

during a rare time away from the office and it's legions of security personnel you say?

on an isolated private ranch you say?

well, what an extremely well timed and tragic coincidence.

Avatar image for TheHighWind
TheHighWind

5724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 TheHighWind
Member since 2003 • 5724 Posts

@lamprey263 said:

good riddance

Loading Video...

Avatar image for TheHighWind
TheHighWind

5724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 TheHighWind
Member since 2003 • 5724 Posts

I'm not going to give my opinion because I don't follow the supreme court closely. R.I.P.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

On one hand a truly evil man is out of power, on the other hand a man is dead.

Avatar image for deactivated-58a78a043e9d4
deactivated-58a78a043e9d4

2269

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#11 deactivated-58a78a043e9d4
Member since 2005 • 2269 Posts

@Riverwolf007 said:

hmmm, hunting you say?

during a rare time away from the office and it's legions of security personnel you say?

on an isolated private ranch you say?

well, what an extremely well timed and tragic coincidence.

He was on a hunting trip, he died in his sleep.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@toast_burner said:

On one hand a truly evil man is out of power, on the other hand a man is dead.

Wow , a truly evil man? so he is evil because you a legal layman did not agree with his reasoning behind his legal decisions.

Decisions that you have no knowledge, experience or education to even question.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#13 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

hahahaha ding dong the witch is dead

The next few months until the new President is inaugurated will be VERY interesting.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:

On one hand a truly evil man is out of power, on the other hand a man is dead.

Wow , a truly evil man? so he is evil because you a legal layman did not agree with his reasoning behind his legal decisions.

Decisions that you have no knowledge, experience or education to even question.

Where did I say he's evil because I disagree with him? He's evil because he exploited his position of power to try to force his own bigoted views on other people.

Also you of all people have no right to criticise any ones understanding of law.

Avatar image for omotih
omotih

1556

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 omotih
Member since 2015 • 1556 Posts

what a mad and ugly mind ...

Avatar image for deactivated-5b78379493e12
deactivated-5b78379493e12

15625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#16 deactivated-5b78379493e12
Member since 2005 • 15625 Posts

@Aljosa23 said:

hahahaha ding dong the witch is dead

First thing I thought.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

@toast_burner said:
@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:

On one hand a truly evil man is out of power, on the other hand a man is dead.

Wow , a truly evil man? so he is evil because you a legal layman did not agree with his reasoning behind his legal decisions.

Decisions that you have no knowledge, experience or education to even question.

Also you of all people have no right to criticise any ones understanding of law.

lmao right? I can't tell if Jacanuk is trolling or he's just legitimately that stupid.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#18 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@toast_burner said:
@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:

On one hand a truly evil man is out of power, on the other hand a man is dead.

Wow , a truly evil man? so he is evil because you a legal layman did not agree with his reasoning behind his legal decisions.

Decisions that you have no knowledge, experience or education to even question.

Where did I say he's evil because I disagree with him? He's evil because he exploited his position of power to force his own bigoted views on other people.

Also you of all people have no right to criticise any ones understanding of law.

That argument is utter nonsense. He did not exploited anything to further his own "agenda".

You may as a progressive liberal not agree with his decisions, but those decisions are based on his legal expertise Your argument is based on anything but the law, its your own political views.

And the last comment is just a lame attempt at making this personal. poor just poor. But to be fair i am not surprised , you do seem to lack the ability to argue.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#19 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@Aljosa23 said:
@toast_burner said:
@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:

On one hand a truly evil man is out of power, on the other hand a man is dead.

Wow , a truly evil man? so he is evil because you a legal layman did not agree with his reasoning behind his legal decisions.

Decisions that you have no knowledge, experience or education to even question.

Also you of all people have no right to criticise any ones understanding of law.

lmao right? I can't tell if Jacanuk is trolling or he's just legitimately that stupid.

Funny .... did you work hard on that line or did you have to ask mommy for help?

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#20 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/justice-scalia-dead-following-30-year-battle-socia-52356

hahahahahahahahaha

Avatar image for omotih
omotih

1556

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 omotih
Member since 2015 • 1556 Posts

Loading Video...

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

50053

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 50053 Posts

Incredibly brilliant individual with some fairly stark opinions. Condolences to his family and friends.

Not surprised to see liberals turning to their classy mantra as always.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#23 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@Stevo_the_gamer said:

Incredibly brilliant individual with some fairly stark opinions. Condolences to his family and friends.

Not surprised to see liberals turning to their classy mantra as always.

Spot on, no surprise there

Liberals are supposed to be so open and all, but it´s crazy how narrow minded they are.

Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#24 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts

A great man that stood for a great America

He will be missed. Thankfully Obama wont be able to nominate anyone and president Trump will pick someone else with the same mindset.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#25 deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:
@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:

On one hand a truly evil man is out of power, on the other hand a man is dead.

Wow , a truly evil man? so he is evil because you a legal layman did not agree with his reasoning behind his legal decisions.

Decisions that you have no knowledge, experience or education to even question.

Where did I say he's evil because I disagree with him? He's evil because he exploited his position of power to force his own bigoted views on other people.

Also you of all people have no right to criticise any ones understanding of law.

That argument is utter nonsense. He did not exploited anything to further his own "agenda".

You may as a progressive liberal not agree with his decisions, but those decisions are based on his legal expertise Your argument is based on anything but the law, its your own political views.

And the last comment is just a lame attempt at making this personal. poor just poor. But to be fair i am not surprised , you do seem to lack the ability to argue.

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... The Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed."

That's what he had to say after homosexuality was legalised nationwide in 2003. So tell where's the legal expertise there? He makes it clear that his issue is a moral one, not a legal one. He clearly does not care for the constitution, especially the 14th amendment.

I bring up your lack of understanding of law because you claimed that since I'm not as qualified as he is then I can't say that any of his actions are bad. So surely since your understanding of law is so much worse than mine and everyone else in this thread, then you must not be allowed to say his decisions are correct. Since verifying something requires understanding as well.

Avatar image for Archangel3371
Archangel3371

46767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#26 Archangel3371
Member since 2004 • 46767 Posts

Shame that someone is dead but he did seem like a bigoted jerk.

Avatar image for AFBrat77
AFBrat77

26848

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#27 AFBrat77
Member since 2004 • 26848 Posts

Even greater reason to vote Democrat now, especially if voting on a new judge is delayed.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#28 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@toast_burner said:
@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:
@Jacanuk said:

Wow , a truly evil man? so he is evil because you a legal layman did not agree with his reasoning behind his legal decisions.

Decisions that you have no knowledge, experience or education to even question.

Where did I say he's evil because I disagree with him? He's evil because he exploited his position of power to force his own bigoted views on other people.

Also you of all people have no right to criticise any ones understanding of law.

That argument is utter nonsense. He did not exploited anything to further his own "agenda".

You may as a progressive liberal not agree with his decisions, but those decisions are based on his legal expertise Your argument is based on anything but the law, its your own political views.

And the last comment is just a lame attempt at making this personal. poor just poor. But to be fair i am not surprised , you do seem to lack the ability to argue.

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... The Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed."

That's what he had to say after homosexuality was legalised nationwide in 2003. So tell where's the legal expertise there? He makes it clear that his issue is a moral one, not a legal one. He clearly does not care for the constitution, especially the 14th amendment.

I bring up your lack of understanding of law because you claimed that since I'm not as qualified as he is then I can't say that any of his actions are bad. So surely since your understanding of law is so much worse than mine and everyone else in this thread, then you must not be allowed to say his decisions are correct. Since verifying something requires understanding as well.

Yes, that is what he said and he is right. Like he also said in his dissenting argument to the decision about homosexual marriages

But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion:.

So what absolute nonsense that he did not care for the american constitution, he cared for nothing else, he was the biggest supporter of it.

You may not agree with him, but calling him evil, bigot or being a person who did everything to push his own political agendas is nonsense, Scalia had one agenda and that was the law and that the constitution was held higher than anything else.

And as to my understanding of the law, again you are talking nonsense, . You are basing that on a personal opinion because i disagree with your liberal progressive views, like you do about Scalia

It´s just bad argumentation from your side.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... The Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed."

That's what he had to say after homosexuality was legalised nationwide in 2003. So tell where's the legal expertise there? He makes it clear that his issue is a moral one, not a legal one. He clearly does not care for the constitution, especially the 14th amendment.

I bring up your lack of understanding of law because you claimed that since I'm not as qualified as he is then I can't say that any of his actions are bad. So surely since your understanding of law is so much worse than mine and everyone else in this thread, then you must not be allowed to say his decisions are correct. Since verifying something requires understanding as well.

And as to my understanding of the law, again you are talking nonsense, .

hahahahaha your "understanding"

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
LostProphetFLCL

18526

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30  Edited By LostProphetFLCL
Member since 2006 • 18526 Posts

It never gets old seeing conservatives go off about "yay freedom" and "yay constitution" yet they are always the first ones to try and shit on others freedoms.

Didn't really know much about Scalia, but what I read here is enough to see he was a bigoted asshat so **** him. Hopefully someone who is NOT a bigot gets his spot in the Supreme Court.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:
@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:

Where did I say he's evil because I disagree with him? He's evil because he exploited his position of power to force his own bigoted views on other people.

Also you of all people have no right to criticise any ones understanding of law.

That argument is utter nonsense. He did not exploited anything to further his own "agenda".

You may as a progressive liberal not agree with his decisions, but those decisions are based on his legal expertise Your argument is based on anything but the law, its your own political views.

And the last comment is just a lame attempt at making this personal. poor just poor. But to be fair i am not surprised , you do seem to lack the ability to argue.

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... The Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed."

That's what he had to say after homosexuality was legalised nationwide in 2003. So tell where's the legal expertise there? He makes it clear that his issue is a moral one, not a legal one. He clearly does not care for the constitution, especially the 14th amendment.

I bring up your lack of understanding of law because you claimed that since I'm not as qualified as he is then I can't say that any of his actions are bad. So surely since your understanding of law is so much worse than mine and everyone else in this thread, then you must not be allowed to say his decisions are correct. Since verifying something requires understanding as well.

Yes, that is what he said and he is right. Like he also said in his dissenting argument to the decision about homosexual marriages

But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion:.

So what absolute nonsense that he did not care for the american constitution, he cared for nothing else, he was the biggest supporter of it.

You may not agree with him, but calling him evil, bigot or being a person who did everything to push his own political agendas is nonsense, Scalia had one agenda and that was the law and that the constitution was held higher than anything else.

And as to my understanding of the law, again you are talking nonsense, . You are basing that on a personal opinion because i disagree with your liberal progressive views, like you do about Scalia

It´s just bad argumentation from your side.

The idea that people in the past didn't figure out that what they were doing is wrong means it's right is incredibly illogical. The 14th Amendment clearly gives homosexuals equal rights. If they didn't want gays to have equal rights then they should have stated so in the constitution.

Now if the government wants to change the constitution then they can try (good luck with that) but they haven't done that so as the constitution stands it grants gays equal rights. It is not a judges job to change the constitution, and that what Scalia tried to do, force what he wanted into the court regardless as to what it actually says in the constitution.

I don't get why you think agreement has anything to do with this. There are plenty of people that disagree with same sex marriage but don't try to manipulate courts to force their views on other people, and there's plenty of things I hate but still defend there legal status. He's free to hate gays and believe in the gay agenda conspiracy theory as much as he wants, but that shit has no place in a court of law.

I find it funny how your acting like I was the one who made this personal. You were the one to question my understanding of law. I was simply pointing out that it's not a wise argument for someone as ignorant as you to make.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#32 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@Aljosa23 said:
@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... The Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed."

That's what he had to say after homosexuality was legalised nationwide in 2003. So tell where's the legal expertise there? He makes it clear that his issue is a moral one, not a legal one. He clearly does not care for the constitution, especially the 14th amendment.

I bring up your lack of understanding of law because you claimed that since I'm not as qualified as he is then I can't say that any of his actions are bad. So surely since your understanding of law is so much worse than mine and everyone else in this thread, then you must not be allowed to say his decisions are correct. Since verifying something requires understanding as well.

And as to my understanding of the law, again you are talking nonsense, .

hahahahaha your "understanding"

Ok, Nelson now go back to detention and stay there.

Avatar image for GreySeal9
GreySeal9

28247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

#33 GreySeal9
Member since 2010 • 28247 Posts

@Aljosa23 said:

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/justice-scalia-dead-following-30-year-battle-socia-52356

hahahahahahahahaha

That's pretty clever.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#34 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@toast_burner said:
@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:
@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:

Where did I say he's evil because I disagree with him? He's evil because he exploited his position of power to force his own bigoted views on other people.

Also you of all people have no right to criticise any ones understanding of law.

That argument is utter nonsense. He did not exploited anything to further his own "agenda".

You may as a progressive liberal not agree with his decisions, but those decisions are based on his legal expertise Your argument is based on anything but the law, its your own political views.

And the last comment is just a lame attempt at making this personal. poor just poor. But to be fair i am not surprised , you do seem to lack the ability to argue.

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... The Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed."

That's what he had to say after homosexuality was legalised nationwide in 2003. So tell where's the legal expertise there? He makes it clear that his issue is a moral one, not a legal one. He clearly does not care for the constitution, especially the 14th amendment.

I bring up your lack of understanding of law because you claimed that since I'm not as qualified as he is then I can't say that any of his actions are bad. So surely since your understanding of law is so much worse than mine and everyone else in this thread, then you must not be allowed to say his decisions are correct. Since verifying something requires understanding as well.

Yes, that is what he said and he is right. Like he also said in his dissenting argument to the decision about homosexual marriages

But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion:.

So what absolute nonsense that he did not care for the american constitution, he cared for nothing else, he was the biggest supporter of it.

You may not agree with him, but calling him evil, bigot or being a person who did everything to push his own political agendas is nonsense, Scalia had one agenda and that was the law and that the constitution was held higher than anything else.

And as to my understanding of the law, again you are talking nonsense, . You are basing that on a personal opinion because i disagree with your liberal progressive views, like you do about Scalia

It´s just bad argumentation from your side.

The idea that people in the past didn't figure out that what they were doing is wrong means it's right is incredibly illogical. The 14th Amendment clearly gives homosexuals equal rights. If they didn't want gays to have equal rights then they should have stated so in the constitution.

Now if the government wants to change the constitution then they can try (good luck with that) but they haven't done that so as the constitution stands it grants gays equal rights. It is not a judges job to change the constitution, and that what Scalia tried to do, force what he wanted into the court regardless as to what it actually says in the constitution.

I don't get why you think agreement has anything to do with this. There are plenty of people that disagree with same sex marriage, but don't try to manipulate courts to force their views on other people, and there's plenty of things I hate but still defend there legal status. He's free to hate gays and believe in the gay agenda conspiracy theory as much as he wants, but that shit has no place in a court of law.

I find it funny how your acting like I was the one who made this personal. You were the one to question my understanding of law. I was simply pointing out that it's not a wise argument for someone as ignorant as you to make.

The 14th amendment does not mention same-sex marriages and as Scalia i agree that it does not cover same-sex marriages. If the people of america want that to change, they would have to vote in local elections for the right people and let each states lawmakers decide and make laws that abide by that. The constitution itself , well it clearly states what it does.

So it´s not about changing the constitution because it does not need to change, Each state is able to decide for themselves if they want to have same-sex marriages legal, like they do with the DP and so many other things. So you are dead wrong, the only 4 people who actually did not want to change the constitution was Scalia and the 3 other dissenting justices. So you got that all wrong.

And i do not get why you try to argue that Scalia was attempting to manipulated anything? he was a justice of the supreme court and each decision he made , he backed up with legal arguments. And he did not forbid or try to ban any state from making same-sex marriage legal, in fact he clearly says that its up to each state to decide it. And that the supreme court by deciding for, was taking a moral stand and was entering the state of actual lawmakers.

Also i did not make anything personal, i just pointed out that calling him evil because you did not agree politically with his legal opinions was stupid. Particular when you as a layman have no legal expertise.

Avatar image for drunk_pi
Drunk_PI

3358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 Drunk_PI
Member since 2014 • 3358 Posts

When I heard the news, the first thing I thought was "Holy shit!" mostly because this will usher in a new debate regarding the Supreme Court and make the 2016 presidential election matter... a lot.

That said, I'm not going to pretend I know Scalia, nor will I ever agree with half of his rulings and political views. I'm pretty sure he was a good family man and a good friend to many (I heard he was a friend to RBG) so it's tragic for them and I'm sorry for their loss.

Also, lol @ people jerking Scalia off. The guy had incredibly questionable views on homosexuality and affirmative action.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

@Jacanuk said:
@toast_burner said:

The idea that people in the past didn't figure out that what they were doing is wrong means it's right is incredibly illogical. The 14th Amendment clearly gives homosexuals equal rights. If they didn't want gays to have equal rights then they should have stated so in the constitution.

Now if the government wants to change the constitution then they can try (good luck with that) but they haven't done that so as the constitution stands it grants gays equal rights. It is not a judges job to change the constitution, and that what Scalia tried to do, force what he wanted into the court regardless as to what it actually says in the constitution.

I don't get why you think agreement has anything to do with this. There are plenty of people that disagree with same sex marriage, but don't try to manipulate courts to force their views on other people, and there's plenty of things I hate but still defend there legal status. He's free to hate gays and believe in the gay agenda conspiracy theory as much as he wants, but that shit has no place in a court of law.

I find it funny how your acting like I was the one who made this personal. You were the one to question my understanding of law. I was simply pointing out that it's not a wise argument for someone as ignorant as you to make.

The 14th amendment does not mention same-sex marriages and as Scalia i agree that it does not cover same-sex marriages. If the people of america want that to change, they would have to vote in local elections for the right people and let each states lawmakers decide and make laws that abide by that. The constitution itself , well it clearly states what it does.

So it´s not about changing the constitution because it does not need to change, Each state is able to decide for themselves if they want to have same-sex marriages legal, like they do with the DP and so many other things. So you are dead wrong, the only 4 people who actually did not want to change the constitution was Scalia and the 3 other dissenting justices. So you got that all wrong.

And i do not get why you try to argue that Scalia was attempting to manipulated anything? he was a justice of the supreme court and each decision he made , he backed up with legal arguments. And he did not forbid or try to ban any state from making same-sex marriage legal, in fact he clearly says that its up to each state to decide it. And that the supreme court by deciding for, was taking a moral stand and was entering the state of actual lawmakers.

Also i did not make anything personal, i just pointed out that calling him evil because you did not agree politically with his legal opinions was stupid. Particular when you as a layman have no legal expertise.

It also doesn't explicitly state interracial marriage is allowed yet it was one of the main arguing points for legalising that. So do you think legalising interracial marriage was a mistake as well? Like I said it states that all citizens are granted the same protection of the law and that the government may not make laws that abridge on their privileges. So since marriage being a human right that is also a formal legally binding contract, it is unconstitutional to create exceptions such as "only if they're of the same race" or "only if they're of the opposite sex". It wasn't just same sex marriage either, he was opposed to not throwing gays in prison, funny how you ignored that part.

Again why are you trying to make this about disagreement? I don't care if he believes in crazy conspiracy theories. The fact is he didn't have a legal leg to stand on, yet still tried to push it anyway, in his own words he saw it as a moral issue and referenced conspiracy theories. The constitution is what he should be basing his arguments on.

If I'm a layman (which I am) then what does that make you? Seriously what point are you trying to make? If people who aren't judges shouldn't be allowed to talk about law, then why should you, a person who's understanding of law is miles below average, be allowed to talk about it? Why don't you listen to yourself and shut up?

Avatar image for allicrombie
Allicrombie

26223

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 43

User Lists: 0

#37 Allicrombie
Member since 2005 • 26223 Posts

I'm about as liberal as you can get, and while I didn't agree with many of his decisions, and personally found him quite polarizing, it's still tragic that he's no longer with us. You don't have to like or agree with him to be saddened by the loss.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

25240

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 25240 Posts

While I wanted the guy to leave SCOTUS, I did not want him to leave like this. The demise of a person is (almost) always tragic.

Rest in peace.

Edit: People still bringing up the same-sex marriage win, and appearant butthurt over that? Man, Obergefell v. Hodgesis a gift that keeps on giving.

Avatar image for davillain
DaVillain

58557

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#39  Edited By DaVillain  Moderator
Member since 2014 • 58557 Posts

I really don't like this guy but I'm also sorry to hear about his death. R.I.P Antonin Scalia.

Avatar image for Stesilaus
Stesilaus

4999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#40 Stesilaus
Member since 2007 • 4999 Posts
@pongley said:
@Riverwolf007 said:

hmmm, hunting you say?

during a rare time away from the office and it's legions of security personnel you say?

on an isolated private ranch you say?

well, what an extremely well timed and tragic coincidence.

He was on a hunting trip, he died in his sleep.

I wonder whether it might have been deep vein thrombosis (DVT), resulting in pulmonary embolism, that caused his death.

Hunters who spend long periods sitting almost motionless (while waiting for prey to make an appearance) are often in significant danger of developing DVT, especially if they also limit liquid intake in order to avoid having to "go to the bathroom".

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23333

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23333 Posts

@toast_burner: Although he largely gave up the pretense of consistently interpreting the law years ago, calling him evil is probably inaccurate. If my experience in dealing with similar individuals is any indication, he truly believed that what he did was morally right.

He was probably simply..... wrong. Albeit on important issues from a position of power.

Avatar image for Seiki_sands
Seiki_sands

1973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#42  Edited By Seiki_sands
Member since 2003 • 1973 Posts

He seemed like an interesting person with a lot of positive character traits who I would liked to have known personally.

I dislike the legal ideologies of originalism and textualism more than the political ideology of conservatism, and his legacy on legal thought will unfortunately long outlive his relatively few successes on the court.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#43 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

@Allicrombie said:

I'm about as liberal as you can get, and while I didn't agree with many of his decisions, and personally found him quite polarizing, it's still tragic that he's no longer with us. You don't have to like or agree with him to be saddened by the loss.

A loss to whom exactly?

Avatar image for deactivated-58ce94803a170
deactivated-58ce94803a170

8822

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#44 deactivated-58ce94803a170
Member since 2015 • 8822 Posts

Its sucks to lose a man of such power, but the quicker President Obama finds his replacement, the quicker America can heal her wounds. Godspeed Mr. President.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#45 deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@toast_burner: Although he largely gave up the pretense of consistently interpreting the law years ago, calling him evil is probably inaccurate. If my experience in dealing with similar individuals is any indication, he truly believed that what he did was morally right.

He was probably simply..... wrong. Albeit on important issues from a position of power.

I don't think believing that what you're doing is good means you're not evil. I don't want to invoke Godwin's law but Hitler strongly believed he was doing the morally right thing. Very few people actually think they're bad people, so if we define evil as you do then nobody could really be considered evil.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23333

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23333 Posts

@toast_burner: I reject the notion that everyone thinks what they do is right, which is probably the root of our disagreement. Some people know that they're jerks and just don't give a rat's rear end.

Avatar image for SupraGT
SupraGT

8150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#47 SupraGT
Member since 2003 • 8150 Posts

It's sad that he died, but he didn't belong on the Supreme Court. Last year or so ago he made a comment about blacks being "slower" learners than their white counterpart and that special attention will be needed to their education. wtf

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48  Edited By HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

I'm not one to celebrate the death of anyone. However I'm incredibly glad he's no longer in a position of power to make decisions that affect the country.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36092 Posts

Sorry to hear that he died. He had a large family that will surely be grieving over his death.

I'm hoping his successor on the Supreme Court, whoever it may be, will be of a more moderate mindset.

Avatar image for Shmiity
Shmiity

6625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 0

#50 Shmiity
Member since 2006 • 6625 Posts

I'm not sad that he is no longer on the supreme court. Now we can elect another liberal leaning judge and move social progress forward. The onion posted:

"Scalia loses 30 year battle with social progress". This summarizes my thoughts.