Scalia has passed away

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

We will have to disagree on this one. It all has to do with the society that a person would like to be a part of. For those who are deeply religious, they truly do not feel their federal government should recognize a marriage that goes against their faith, and that it diminished the role of a traditional family. I am not saying I am completely on board with this view, but another hot button issue in this country where the roles are reversed is gun control. Many progressives favor restricting gun rights and putting in more gun control measures, and unlike gay marriage, the right to bear arms is specifically called out in amendment II. Gun rights advocates are making the same claim that those opposed to gun rights have no reason to take away their rights to bear arms since they are law abiding citizens. Those opposed to gun rights claim that a lack of gun control is a threat to society they prefer to live in.

 

I think their is hypocrisy on both sides of these two debates, but when it comes to the rights of gun owners, this is at least specifically recognized by the Constitution. As I said previously, my biggest complaint with the gay marriage ruling is the fact that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and took on legislative responsibilities.

 

 

Church and state is supposed to be separate, so it's not relevant what people think should be banned based on their religion. Also, a gay couple being married has no effect on those people. It does not in any way, shape, or form affect their right to follow their own religion.

 

Your comparison is pretty terrible. Who is taking guns away from anyone? Most people who are pro gun control want it to be harder someone who's mentally unstable or a felon to get guns. This isn't impinging on gun rights of anyone whose opinion I care about in this matter - felons and people who don't have the mental capacity to be wielding guns. The right to bear arms wasn't originally in the constitution. It was added 2 years later, but what's the cut off date for when they shouldn't have been allowed to start amending it? Let's just pick a random year out of a hat.

 

As far as constitutionality goes, the first amendment is about the separation of church and state. Courts who were consistently not letting homosexuals get married more than likely were doing it because it was against the majority religion. They were acting against the constitution in my opinion. It had nothing to do with any law of the land. After all, felons were allowed to get married by these same courts.

 

 

Let me give you a comparison that is actually close.

 

The 19th amendment didn't become part of the constitution until 1920. Before that the constitution did not expressly forbid women from voting, but many state laws did.

 

So was this the wrong decision because allowing women to vote was not specifically mentioned in the constitution? Should I not be able to vote?

 

 

The theory that the left suggests is that all gun owners opposed any sort of checks on gun sales. That is not true and is pure propaganda. Also, gun supporters have no concerns with focusing on screen for those with mental illness, and in fact are pushing for more research and emphasis on mental illness and not the gun itself. Any sort of gun violence, including in cases of terrorism, draw an IMMEDIATE call by Obama and the left to implement gun control legislation. Mark my words that the next horrific episode of gun violence will result in this same critique, despite the fact that most of the shootings like the one in Oregon would still have been possible even if the lefts gun control policies were in place. So, although you fail to acknowledge reality, this is a fair comparison.

 

As for the ability to vote, I have not once suggested that gays are not allowed to vote, and protecting the institution of marriage is based upon American's faith and religion. Offering (or failing to offer) the ability of a particular group to vote is not something I have seen called out in the Bible or other religious doctrine, so this is a totally useless comparison you are trying to make.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

We will have to disagree on this one. It all has to do with the society that a person would like to be a part of. For those who are deeply religious, they truly do not feel their federal government should recognize a marriage that goes against their faith, and that it diminished the role of a traditional family. I am not saying I am completely on board with this view, but another hot button issue in this country where the roles are reversed is gun control. Many progressives favor restricting gun rights and putting in more gun control measures, and unlike gay marriage, the right to bear arms is specifically called out in amendment II. Gun rights advocates are making the same claim that those opposed to gun rights have no reason to take away their rights to bear arms since they are law abiding citizens. Those opposed to gun rights claim that a lack of gun control is a threat to society they prefer to live in.

 

I think their is hypocrisy on both sides of these two debates, but when it comes to the rights of gun owners, this is at least specifically recognized by the Constitution. As I said previously, my biggest complaint with the gay marriage ruling is the fact that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and took on legislative responsibilities.

 

 

Church and state is supposed to be separate, so it's not relevant what people think should be banned based on their religion. Also, a gay couple being married has no effect on those people. It does not in any way, shape, or form affect their right to follow their own religion.

 

Your comparison is pretty terrible. Who is taking guns away from anyone? Most people who are pro gun control want it to be harder someone who's mentally unstable or a felon to get guns. This isn't impinging on gun rights of anyone whose opinion I care about in this matter - felons and people who don't have the mental capacity to be wielding guns. The right to bear arms wasn't originally in the constitution. It was added 2 years later, but what's the cut off date for when they shouldn't have been allowed to start amending it? Let's just pick a random year out of a hat.

 

As far as constitutionality goes, the first amendment is about the separation of church and state. Courts who were consistently not letting homosexuals get married more than likely were doing it because it was against the majority religion. They were acting against the constitution in my opinion. It had nothing to do with any law of the land. After all, felons were allowed to get married by these same courts.

 

 

Let me give you a comparison that is actually close.

 

The 19th amendment didn't become part of the constitution until 1920. Before that the constitution did not expressly forbid women from voting, but many state laws did.

 

So was this the wrong decision because allowing women to vote was not specifically mentioned in the constitution? Should I not be able to vote?

 

 

The theory that the left suggests is that all gun owners opposed any sort of checks on gun sales. That is not true and is pure propaganda. Also, gun supporters have no concerns with focusing on screen for those with mental illness, and in fact are pushing for more research and emphasis on mental illness and not the gun itself. Any sort of gun violence, including in cases of terrorism, draw an IMMEDIATE call by Obama and the left to implement gun control legislation. Mark my words that the next horrific episode of gun violence will result in this same critique, despite the fact that most of the shootings like the one in Oregon would still have been possible even if the lefts gun control policies were in place. So, although you fail to acknowledge reality, this is a fair comparison.

 

As for the ability to vote, I have not once suggested that gays are not allowed to vote, and protecting the institution of marriage is based upon American's faith and religion. Offering (or failing to offer) the ability of a particular group to vote is not something I have seen called out in the Bible or other religious doctrine, so this is a totally useless comparison you are trying to make.

 

I'm not failing to acknowledge the reality. The reality is people can and do own guns. Not too long ago, gays were not allowed to get married. How this is a fair comparison is beyond me. Not because I'm failing to acknowledge something but because it's not a fair comparison. And, as I've already stated, not many have suggested that people lose their rights to own guns.

 

To the 2nd bolded, huh? It should be intuitively obvious that I'm not talking about gays having the right to vote and that the women's suffrage comparison had nothing to do with religion.

 

I'm talking about things that were not in the original constitution being added as amendments or at the very least having laws made about them.

Let me try to be more clear:

 

The right to bear arms was not originally in the constitution. Women being allowed to vote was also not originally in the constitution. So I guess I shouldn't be able to vote. Just like gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, right? This is the flaw in your argument. Something not being "specifically recognized by the Constitution" is an incredibly stupid argument for not implementing it. If that was the reason we decided to go by:

 

We would not have the right to bear arms

Non white males would not be allowed to vote

Women would not be allowed to vote

18 year olds would not be allowed to vote

Obama would be allowed to run for a 3rd term

[teachercd]

This just keeps getting better!

 

(I know Knapp will get mad about this but honestly...this is awesome)

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

 

We will have to disagree on this one. It all has to do with the society that a person would like to be a part of. For those who are deeply religious, they truly do not feel their federal government should recognize a marriage that goes against their faith, and that it diminished the role of a traditional family. I am not saying I am completely on board with this view, but another hot button issue in this country where the roles are reversed is gun control. Many progressives favor restricting gun rights and putting in more gun control measures, and unlike gay marriage, the right to bear arms is specifically called out in amendment II. Gun rights advocates are making the same claim that those opposed to gun rights have no reason to take away their rights to bear arms since they are law abiding citizens. Those opposed to gun rights claim that a lack of gun control is a threat to society they prefer to live in.

 

I think their is hypocrisy on both sides of these two debates, but when it comes to the rights of gun owners, this is at least specifically recognized by the Constitution. As I said previously, my biggest complaint with the gay marriage ruling is the fact that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and took on legislative responsibilities.

 

 

Church and state is supposed to be separate, so it's not relevant what people think should be banned based on their religion. Also, a gay couple being married has no effect on those people. It does not in any way, shape, or form affect their right to follow their own religion.

 

Your comparison is pretty terrible. Who is taking guns away from anyone? Most people who are pro gun control want it to be harder someone who's mentally unstable or a felon to get guns. This isn't impinging on gun rights of anyone whose opinion I care about in this matter - felons and people who don't have the mental capacity to be wielding guns. The right to bear arms wasn't originally in the constitution. It was added 2 years later, but what's the cut off date for when they shouldn't have been allowed to start amending it? Let's just pick a random year out of a hat.

 

As far as constitutionality goes, the first amendment is about the separation of church and state. Courts who were consistently not letting homosexuals get married more than likely were doing it because it was against the majority religion. They were acting against the constitution in my opinion. It had nothing to do with any law of the land. After all, felons were allowed to get married by these same courts.

 

 

Let me give you a comparison that is actually close.

 

The 19th amendment didn't become part of the constitution until 1920. Before that the constitution did not expressly forbid women from voting, but many state laws did.

 

So was this the wrong decision because allowing women to vote was not specifically mentioned in the constitution? Should I not be able to vote?

 

 

The theory that the left suggests is that all gun owners opposed any sort of checks on gun sales. That is not true and is pure propaganda. Also, gun supporters have no concerns with focusing on screen for those with mental illness, and in fact are pushing for more research and emphasis on mental illness and not the gun itself. Any sort of gun violence, including in cases of terrorism, draw an IMMEDIATE call by Obama and the left to implement gun control legislation. Mark my words that the next horrific episode of gun violence will result in this same critique, despite the fact that most of the shootings like the one in Oregon would still have been possible even if the lefts gun control policies were in place. So, although you fail to acknowledge reality, this is a fair comparison.

 

As for the ability to vote, I have not once suggested that gays are not allowed to vote, and protecting the institution of marriage is based upon American's faith and religion. Offering (or failing to offer) the ability of a particular group to vote is not something I have seen called out in the Bible or other religious doctrine, so this is a totally useless comparison you are trying to make.

 

I'm not failing to acknowledge the reality. The reality is people can and do own guns. Not too long ago, gays were not allowed to get married. How this is a fair comparison is beyond me. Not because I'm failing to acknowledge something but because it's not a fair comparison. And, as I've already stated, not many have suggested that people lose their rights to own guns.

 

To the 2nd bolded, huh? It should be intuitively obvious that I'm not talking about gays having the right to vote and that the women's suffrage comparison had nothing to do with religion.

 

I'm talking about things that were not in the original constitution being added as amendments or at the very least having laws made about them.

Let me try to be more clear:

 

The right to bear arms was not originally in the constitution. Women being allowed to vote was also not originally in the constitution. So I guess I shouldn't be able to vote. Just like gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, right? This is the flaw in your argument. Something not being "specifically recognized by the Constitution" is an incredibly stupid argument for not implementing it. If that was the reason we decided to go by:

 

We would not have the right to bear arms

Non white males would not be allowed to vote

Women would not be allowed to vote

18 year olds would not be allowed to vote

Obama would be allowed to run for a 3rd term

 

 

You are operating blindly if you don't believe many on the left want to have as many guns as possible removed from the US. We will have to agree to disagree on this. As it related to the right to bear arms and the 2nd amendment, I never said that the Constitution could not be amended, but simply that the proper process should be followed to implement the amendment. So, as it related to the 2nd amendment, it was passed by congress on Sept 25, 1789, and ratified on Dec 15, 1791. I am personally neutral on the gay marriage topic and see both sides of the argument, but my objection is that a federal law redefining marriage should be something passed by Congress if its going to be the law of the land, and not a state issue anymore. I would like to see that process used for all of the examples you referenced where it was not passed by Congress. I think anytime the Supreme Court is operating as a Legislature is a slippery slope and an activist court is not what was intended by the Founding Fathers.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We will have to disagree on this one. It all has to do with the society that a person would like to be a part of. For those who are deeply religious, they truly do not feel their federal government should recognize a marriage that goes against their faith, and that it diminished the role of a traditional family. I am not saying I am completely on board with this view, but another hot button issue in this country where the roles are reversed is gun control. Many progressives favor restricting gun rights and putting in more gun control measures, and unlike gay marriage, the right to bear arms is specifically called out in amendment II. Gun rights advocates are making the same claim that those opposed to gun rights have no reason to take away their rights to bear arms since they are law abiding citizens. Those opposed to gun rights claim that a lack of gun control is a threat to society they prefer to live in.

 

I think their is hypocrisy on both sides of these two debates, but when it comes to the rights of gun owners, this is at least specifically recognized by the Constitution. As I said previously, my biggest complaint with the gay marriage ruling is the fact that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and took on legislative responsibilities.

 

Church and state is supposed to be separate, so it's not relevant what people think should be banned based on their religion. Also, a gay couple being married has no effect on those people. It does not in any way, shape, or form affect their right to follow their own religion.

 

Your comparison is pretty terrible. Who is taking guns away from anyone? Most people who are pro gun control want it to be harder someone who's mentally unstable or a felon to get guns. This isn't impinging on gun rights of anyone whose opinion I care about in this matter - felons and people who don't have the mental capacity to be wielding guns. The right to bear arms wasn't originally in the constitution. It was added 2 years later, but what's the cut off date for when they shouldn't have been allowed to start amending it? Let's just pick a random year out of a hat.

 

As far as constitutionality goes, the first amendment is about the separation of church and state. Courts who were consistently not letting homosexuals get married more than likely were doing it because it was against the majority religion. They were acting against the constitution in my opinion. It had nothing to do with any law of the land. After all, felons were allowed to get married by these same courts.

 

 

Let me give you a comparison that is actually close.

 

The 19th amendment didn't become part of the constitution until 1920. Before that the constitution did not expressly forbid women from voting, but many state laws did.

 

So was this the wrong decision because allowing women to vote was not specifically mentioned in the constitution? Should I not be able to vote?

The theory that the left suggests is that all gun owners opposed any sort of checks on gun sales. That is not true and is pure propaganda. Also, gun supporters have no concerns with focusing on screen for those with mental illness, and in fact are pushing for more research and emphasis on mental illness and not the gun itself. Any sort of gun violence, including in cases of terrorism, draw an IMMEDIATE call by Obama and the left to implement gun control legislation. Mark my words that the next horrific episode of gun violence will result in this same critique, despite the fact that most of the shootings like the one in Oregon would still have been possible even if the lefts gun control policies were in place. So, although you fail to acknowledge reality, this is a fair comparison.

 

As for the ability to vote, I have not once suggested that gays are not allowed to vote, and protecting the institution of marriage is based upon American's faith and religion. Offering (or failing to offer) the ability of a particular group to vote is not something I have seen called out in the Bible or other religious doctrine, so this is a totally useless comparison you are trying to make.

I'm not failing to acknowledge the reality. The reality is people can and do own guns. Not too long ago, gays were not allowed to get married. How this is a fair comparison is beyond me. Not because I'm failing to acknowledge something but because it's not a fair comparison. And, as I've already stated, not many have suggested that people lose their rights to own guns.

 

To the 2nd bolded, huh? It should be intuitively obvious that I'm not talking about gays having the right to vote and that the women's suffrage comparison had nothing to do with religion.

 

I'm talking about things that were not in the original constitution being added as amendments or at the very least having laws made about them.

Let me try to be more clear:

 

The right to bear arms was not originally in the constitution. Women being allowed to vote was also not originally in the constitution. So I guess I shouldn't be able to vote. Just like gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, right? This is the flaw in your argument. Something not being "specifically recognized by the Constitution" is an incredibly stupid argument for not implementing it. If that was the reason we decided to go by:

 

We would not have the right to bear arms

Non white males would not be allowed to vote

Women would not be allowed to vote

18 year olds would not be allowed to vote

Obama would be allowed to run for a 3rd term

You are operating blindly if you don't believe many on the left want to have as many guns as possible removed from the US. We will have to agree to disagree on this. As it related to the right to bear arms and the 2nd amendment, I never said that the Constitution could not be amended, but simply that the proper process should be followed to implement the amendment. So, as it related to the 2nd amendment, it was passed by congress on Sept 25, 1789, and ratified on Dec 15, 1791. I am personally neutral on the gay marriage topic and see both sides of the argument, but my objection is that a federal law redefining marriage should be something passed by Congress if its going to be the law of the land, and not a state issue anymore. I would like to see that process used for all of the examples you referenced where it was not passed by Congress. I think anytime the Supreme Court is operating as a Legislature is a slippery slope and an activist court is not what was intended by the Founding Fathers.

I think our definition of many is different. And again, of most importance in arguing your comparison, gay marriage was banned. Guns are not even close to being banned.

 

How do you feel about Brown vs the Board of Education?

 

I'm just not seeing how they've done anything that goes against the original intentions of the Supreme Court. They found the states to be doing something unconstitutional and made it illegal.

[Mavric]

I used the word bigot, for good reason. I am not a bigot, and I find the bolded line an odd attempt at deflection. Let's not rewrite the history of Antonin Scalia.

Eh, I think most of those quotes are being taken out of context. Seems like wherever you're getting them from is the one who's trying to rewrite the history. They are taking specific quotes and applying them in general to try to make a point. I'm not saying that makes the accusations false, but that specific remarks are being used to make a point that seems to be larger than what he actually said.

 

Cue the semantic arguments:

 

He was not stating that all blacks would be less successful. In the context of the case, they were looking at whether minorities who otherwise wouldn't have been admitted to the school because they failed to qualify should be admitted anyway simply because of their race. It shouldn't be surprising that students who are less qualified would be less successful. He's not saying that the school should not be desegregated. Simply that it should only have to admit students who are qualified, regardless of their race.

 

Next, he was not equating homosexuality with the other items listed. It was in the context of "should sexual acts be able to be legislated?" It was pointed out that other sexual acts are regulated, which is clear when you look at the larger quote:

Realizing that fact, the Court instead says: "[W]e think that our laws and traditions in the past half century are of most relevance here. These references show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex." Apart from the fact that such an "emerging awareness" does not establish a "fundamental right," the statement is factually false. States continue to prosecute all sorts of crimes by adults "in matters pertaining to sex"

Link

So it wasn't a comparison of the acts. It was a refutation of the argument that sexual acts can't/shouldn't be legislated.

 

Also, he wan't advocating the discrimination of women. He was saying the Constitution doesn't say anything about it. Thinking it should say something about it and having it actually say something about it are not the same thing. If you look at the context of the remarks, he repeatedly says he's not against certain things, just that he thinks they should be gone about differently:

CL: In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

AS: Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

Link

 

I'm not going to particularly defend the last statement you quoted. I think it would be fair to criticize him for this. But I'm also having trouble finding a more complete context for it. From what I've found, that quote seems to be more directed at the fact that he thought Senators were feeling pressure to vote a certain way rather than actually vote what they thought was right. But that's getting pretty nit-picky.

 

Like I said, I'm not saying that any of that disproves your assertion. But I think it's worth questioning when many of those points seem to be taken out of context. And I also think there can be a distinction between what a person feels personally and what they think the government can/should do. There are many things that I personally agree or disagree with but I concede that the government either can't do them or can't prevent them because of how our government is set up. Just because I say "the government can't do ....." doesn't necessarily mean I personally don't think it should be done. Sometimes it does, other times it doesn't.

[knapplc]

If it was one time, you could make the argument that he was being taken out of context. If it was twice, maybe again. But I grabbed a few of the dozens and dozens of such quotes out there for Scalia. How many more do we need to come to the realization that this isn't a matter of parsing words, but what the man actually was? Ten? Twenty?

 

Honestly, I don't get the defense of this man. This seems more of a "my side is being attacked" defense than an actual dispassionate analysis of what the man was, what he stood for, and how his time on the Supremes affected Americans.

 

Parse the words however you want. Scalia was a bigoted man, and felt so comfortable in his worldview that he frequently allowed it to show through in his rulings and in interviews.

[BigRedBuster]

If it was one time, you could make the argument that he was being taken out of context. If it was twice, maybe again. But I grabbed a few of the dozens and dozens of such quotes out there for Scalia. How many more do we need to come to the realization that this isn't a matter of parsing words, but what the man actually was? Ten? Twenty?

 

Honestly, I don't get the defense of this man. This seems more of a "my side is being attacked" defense than an actual dispassionate analysis of what the man was, what he stood for, and how his time on the Supremes affected Americans.

 

Parse the words however you want. Scalia was a bigoted man, and felt so comfortable in his worldview that he frequently allowed it to show through in his rulings and in interviews.

Mavric clearly stated that his post doesn't necessarily disprove your assertion. However, it is very appropriate to make sure quotes are viewed in the correct context.

 

If I were public figure, I would probably be heard saying things against abortion and how I don't agree with them and how I wish they could be greatly reduced.

 

Those quotes could be used against me by the left claiming I am part of the "war on women" and maybe even claim I'm a bigot against women. In reality, I actually believe this debate doesn't belong in the political arena as it pertains to trying to ban abortions or even promote funding for more of them.

So, to claim I am a bigot and want to take healthcare away from women due to my views abortions is wrong, is taking my quotes out of context and using them against me in a wrong way.

 

Mavric is simply saying the same thing about most of the quotes you used.

[knapplc]

That clearly isn't the case with Scalia, however. There are dozens of such quotes, and rulings. He wasn't considered a Conservative bastion for no reason.

 

Again, I have no idea why the man is being defended this way. He didn't shy away from being a bigot while alive. Why try to lessen the impact of his actions after his death? Is there some reason to hide it now?

 

The man isn't even dead one week and we're rewriting his history. As reprehensible as it is for some in this thread to complain about "I'm glad he's dead" posts on twitter, why is it not equally reprehensible to whitewash his words and actions?

[BigRedBuster]

How is seeing more clearly the context to which quotes were said "whitewashing his words"?

[knapplc]

Because the attempt is to show that he's not being bigoted. The impact of Fisher is that lesser-advantaged minorities won't be given a chance. These are the same minorities Scalia stamped down when he dismembered the Voting Rights Act. IN CONTEXT, Scalia consistently rules against minorities.

 

Mavric put no more work into his defense of Scalia on this page than I put into my denouncement on page 1. Mavric's post is not 9 hours old and three people have +1'd it. One person has +1'd the other post. The context of Scalia's rulings are bigoted. Pointing that out isn't popular in this thread. Defending it, whitewashing it, is.

 

Are people commenting in this thread interested in the truth, or are they interested in defending their ideology? It's ideology, all the way.

 

+1 if you agree.

[schriznoeder]

 

 

I think the position should be filled before election. It's the job of the President to do this and he should.

 

What would be interesting if Obama nominates Hillary.

 

 

While she's not qualified in the slightest for a SJC position, I'd have to strongly weigh where she'd do the least damage. I think she's going to win the presidency this year, but she'd likely do far less damage as a Justice.

 

Of course, if he did (which he wouldn't) she'd just decline the nomination. It's not like she'd be force to take it.

 

But what an interesting thought.

 

 

Let's assume that the Senate GOP plays politics and doesn't vote on any of Obama's nominees this year. Then let's assume that Hillary wins the White House and the Democrats manage to retake the Senate. And finally, as a way of paying him back for asking her to serve as Secretary of State, let's assume that Hillary nominates Obama for the open SCOTUS seat. Chew on that for a minute...

[knapplc]

That would be crazy, and some conservative heads would definitely explode in that eventuality.

 

Obama is going to make his worldly fortune as a speaker for the next 20 years. 'First Black President Speaks At Local Event' will sell tickets for years and years. So while he also isn't qualified for the post anyway, I think he'll elect to take the money after his term is up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking of who will replace Scalia, how long do people think it should be before Obama nominates someone? Within the next month? There'll be a mourning period of reasonable decency, but business will have to go on. The next set of cases are to be heard next Monday, 2/22/16.

[BigRedBuster]

Obviously the replacement will have no input in the next session starting on 2/22/16.

 

I don't see a reason to rush into a nomination immediately unless he had someone already in mind in case something like this happened. If so, I would see it within the next couple weeks.

 

Not sure how messy it gets if he waits long enough that the nomination goes into late summer or early fall with the election in November. I would actually hope something is done before the election.

 

With a Democratic President and Republicans having control of congress, it gives us the best chance of a moderate being nominated and accepted.

[QMany]

I don't think he will wait long, I think it will be within the next month.