Bigred_inSD Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/index.html Internet already full of Obama conspiracy theories. Link to comment
teachercd Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 I would be surprised if this is filled anytime soon. Link to comment
ZRod Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 It won't be filled till after the elections more than likely. As a human RIP. From a purely political point of view good riddance! Link to comment
QMany Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 RIP Scalia. Lose-lose situation for the GOP. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a former Supreme Court clerk, warned: "We are one justice away from a Supreme Court that would undermine the religious liberty of millions of Americans." If that's how you feel about an Obama nominee you better beat Trump. This sh#t is so backwards. Telling people they aren't allowed to discriminate based on their religion is not taking away their religious freedom. 4 Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Putting aside the replacement aspect for a minute, Scalia's loss is a sad day for those that believe in judgments founded upon the Constitution. He was a brilliant scholar whose writings were influenced by our Founding Fathers. Too much of our judicial system is now influenced by a judges personal beliefs rather than interpreting the Constitution which is unfortunate. I would like to see Obama nominate somebody like Scalia that believes in interpreting the Constitution as it was intended, but the reality is that he will pick another Sotomayor that believes the Supreme Court can also act as the Legislature. Obama has an opportunity to pick a nominee that can be supported by the Republican majority in Congress, and the burden is on him to do just that. Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a former Supreme Court clerk, warned: "We are one justice away from a Supreme Court that would undermine the religious liberty of millions of Americans." If that's how you feel about an Obama nominee you better beat Trump. This sh#t is so backwards. Telling people they aren't allowed to discriminate based on their religion is not taking away their religious freedom. The left has used the same argument to advance same sex marriage, stating that their rights are being taken away because some states chose to ban same sex marriage (while allowing civil unions). The whole topic of gay marriage is deeply divisive, and telling half the country that their beliefs are not allowed, while the other half that their beliefs are allowed will ensure this issue continues to be divisive. If the country feels strongly that Gay Marriage should be accepted at a federal level, and is not a states rights issue, then that issue should be passed by Congress and signed by the President, not decided in a 5-4 manner by the Supreme Court. That is my biggest beef with that decision. I don't believe in activists courts that seek to legislate, and Scalia was one of the key voices to ensure the highest court in the land was not a legislature. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a former Supreme Court clerk, warned: "We are one justice away from a Supreme Court that would undermine the religious liberty of millions of Americans." If that's how you feel about an Obama nominee you better beat Trump. This sh#t is so backwards. Telling people they aren't allowed to discriminate based on their religion is not taking away their religious freedom. The left has used the same argument to advance same sex marriage, stating that their rights are being taken away because some states chose to ban same sex marriage (while allowing civil unions). The whole topic of gay marriage is deeply divisive, and telling half the country that their beliefs are not allowed, while the other half that their beliefs are allowed will ensure this issue continues to be divisive. If the country feels strongly that Gay Marriage should be accepted at a federal level, and is not a states rights issue, then that issue should be passed by Congress and signed by the President, not decided in a 5-4 manner by the Supreme Court. That is my biggest beef with that decision. I don't believe in activists courts that seek to legislate, and Scalia was one of the key voices to ensure the highest court in the land was not a legislature. I don't recall the left talking about religious freedom when it came to gay marriage. It was personal freedom. And they claimed it because it was a fact. When it comes to this topic, one side is telling a whole group of people they can't do something (get married) based on the Bible. The other side is telling a group of people they can't do something (stop people from marrying) based on the law. One side is opposed to the separation of church and state. The other is not. People who claim that they don't understand how backwards the logic of claiming religious freedom to stop people from getting married is are kidding themselves or are just stupid. People who feel persecuted by not being able to tell 2 people they can't love each other and get married are kidding themsleves or are just stupid. This isn't an argument about gay marriage it's pure logic. We could make the topic be about eating ham. Let's say 90% of Americans were Jewish and it was illegal to eat ham. A law passes allowing people to eat ham and a court won't give a restaurant license to a hot dog stand and they're forced to do it and claim their religious freedom is being compromised. This is absolute lunacy. Why can't the people who think homosexuality is a sin just be honest and admit the truth that they're worried the country is becoming more sinful and evil? And maybe if becoming gay is the norm more people will be gay? That's all this is about. The religious freedom claim is just a way to make things sound better. No one is being told they have to believe it's okay for gays to get married. No one's religious freedom is being compromised by a law that allows gays to get married. Providing a service to someone who's willing to pay does not mean you support every sin you think they commit. Fulfilling the duties of your government job does not allow you to say no to certain people based on the sins that you perceive they commit. 5 Link to comment
Landlord Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 The left has used the same argument to advance same sex marriage, stating that their rights are being taken away because some states chose to ban same sex marriage (while allowing civil unions). The whole topic of gay marriage is deeply divisive, and telling half the country that their beliefs are not allowed, while the other half that their beliefs are allowed will ensure this issue continues to be divisive. 1. No they haven't 2. Gay marriage being legal is not telling half the people that their beliefs are not allowed. Now everyone's beliefs are allowed. People that believe that gays can get married, well, they can! People that believe it's wrong, well, they aren't gay and it doesn't affect them, and they're still allowed to believe that. 4 Link to comment
zoogs Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 I don't know the half of Scalia as a person. However, the little bits I've seen of him particularly in recent reading has shown him, to me, to be a hateful, backwards man standing in the way of women's rights and equal love. There are few excuses for that, and he owns how he defined himself in the boisterous missives he was so fond of sending off from the bench. From his suggestion that UT-Austin is not a slow enough track school for some black students, to his impassioned defense of Americans who ...do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home... He's one hell of a throwback in his vision for America, and one he devoted a lifetime of effort to securing. I suppose the purpose of the Supreme Court is to move at a 'glacial pace', and he certainly was an important voice in that regard. So his service can be respected, even if his personal views that he made transparent do not seem worthy of the same deference. 2 Link to comment
obert1 Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Rip. A man with values. 3 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Rip. A man with values. Yup. Prejudiced, bigoted values. 5 Link to comment
Landlord Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Rip. A man with values. Yup. Prejudiced, bigoted values. Among good ones as well. I don't know much about him but my old poli sci professor, as liberal as they get, seemed to have a lot of tempered respect for him with acknowledgment of his shortcomings. Link to comment
TonyStalloni Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Rip. A man with values. Yup. Prejudiced, bigoted values. Many if not most civilized Americans will at least wait for the body to be cold before the vitriol begins. But it's a free country so continue on. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts