Scalia has passed away

[BigRedBuster]

Apparently I also keep ignoring the comments calling me to task for my analysis of Schumer. Could you quote those and put them in bold for me, to alleviate my confusion? Thanks in advance.

I don't see you using quotes taken out of context to justify this stance. Schumer might be an idiot just like Scalia might be a bigot.

[knapplc]

I didn't take quotes out of context to justify my analysis of Scalia, either. Mavric saying I did doesn't mean it's so. Further, I could go point by point through Mavric's post and show where he's erred. If I cared enough, I would. But apparently people are glancing through it without reading or analyzing it and taking it as truth. It's not, so why isn't it being called to task?

 

The point everyone is ignoring is, this is a board full of Conservative-leaning people. I called a noted Conservative a bigot (which he is, which I've demonstrated, "context" argument notwithstanding), and there have been - and continue to be - dozens of posts arguing the point. In fact, this is what's still going on.

 

Yet, the same guy makes the same kind of statement about a Liberal, and nothing is said.

 

That's the point. And people keep proving it.

[BigRedBuster]

Are you claiming I'm saying he isn't a bigot? If so, you obviously haven't read my posts.

[knapplc]

No. But the absence of protestation on the other statement is deafening.

[Lil' Red]

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.

 

I don't believe it is accurate to say that Obama would not be qualified for the job. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years in addition to being POTUS for two terms. He may or may not be the most qualified for the position but possessing judicial experience is not a necessary prerequisite for the job. I do agree that he probably would not be interested in the position.

[BigRedBuster]

No. But the absence of protestation on the other statement is deafening.

Similar to the many many times I have said Trump is an idiot with little to no protestation to the fact?

[knapplc]

 

No. But the absence of protestation on the other statement is deafening.

Similar to the many many times I have said Trump is an idiot with little to no protestation to the fact?

 

 

Not in the slightest similar, because I have not similarly beleaguered you in those threads for other, similar accusations. It's entirely not the same thing. In any way.

[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.

 

I don't believe it is accurate to say that Obama would not be qualified for the job. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years in addition to being POTUS for two terms. He may or may not be the most qualified for the position but possessing judicial experience is not a necessary prerequisite for the job. I do agree that he probably would not be interested in the position.

 

 

The bold is probably a better way of putting it than what I said. But my preference would be for one of those more-qualified people, not Obama.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

No. But the absence of protestation on the other statement is deafening.

Similar to the many many times I have said Trump is an idiot with little to no protestation to the fact?

 

 

Not in the slightest similar, because I have not similarly beleaguered you in those threads for other, similar accusations. It's entirely not the same thing. In any way.

 

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about all these other conservative leaning people on this board who you claim is protesting your claim but not protesting you saying Schumer is an idiot.

 

Well....if all of those people are doing that because Scalia is conservative and Schumer a liberal (I'm assuming that's your assertion), then....wouldn't those same people protest me claiming Trump is an idiot?

[knapplc]

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about all these other conservative leaning people on this board who you claim is protesting your claim but not protesting you saying Schumer is an idiot.

 

Well....if all of those people are doing that because Scalia is conservative and Schumer a liberal (I'm assuming that's your assertion), then....wouldn't those same people protest me claiming Trump is an idiot?

Are you claiming the people protesting my statement are or aren't Conservative? And are those the exact same people posting in the thread in which you called Trump an idiot? Because if they aren't, this is likely not the best of comparisons.

[Saunders]

Please don't let Hillary get to choose a SCJ...

[Saunders]

 

Through the Ars lens: Looking at Justice Scalia’s opinions, dissents Scalia weighed in on Aereo, GPS tracking, thermal imaging, drug dogs, gun rights, and DNA.

 

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday, will go down in history as the backbone of the court's modern conservative wing. The Reagan-appointee's long tenure touched upon so many facets of life that intersection with the Ars worldview was inevitable.

When viewed through this lens, the 79-year-old justice's writings concerned cases involving Aereo, video gaming, GPS tracking, thermal imaging, drug dogs, Second Amendment rights, Obamacare, and DNA among a host of other topics. So as the remembrances and reflections continue to trickle out, here's a reminder of how Justice Scalia's opinions and dissents impacted the technologies and policies we keep an eye on at the Orbital HQ.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/through-the-ars-lens-looking-at-justice-scalias-opinions-dissents/

 

[NUance]

Just a general comment here: A lot of folks seem to think that Scalia was out of place on the court. That he was too conservative. A dinosaur with a gavel. I don't agree. Sure, Scalia's views are much more conservative than my own. I disagree with a lot of his stances on various topics. But I think an ultra conservative voice has a place on the Supreme Court. Just like I think an ultra liberal voice has a place. It's my opinion that the court should have two or three conservatives of varying degrees, along with two or three liberals of varying degrees. And a core of moderates that aren't necessarily anchored on one side of the aisle or the other. I don't think we would want a court of all moderates. Who would represent the conservative perspective? Or the liberal viewpoints? But we also wouldn't want a court that had too many conservative justices or too many liberals. I guess what I'm saying is that, despite all the criticism in general and in this thread, Antonin Scalia's conservative voice served a useful and valuable role on the court these past three decades. So there's my two cents worth on the matter. Carry on.

[knapplc]

Just a general comment here: A lot of folks seem to think that Scalia was out of place on the court. That he was too conservative. A dinosaur with a gavel. I don't agree. Sure, Scalia's views are much more conservative than my own. I disagree with a lot of his stances on various topics. But I think an ultra conservative voice has a place on the Supreme Court. Just like I think an ultra liberal voice has a place. It's my opinion that the court should have two or three conservatives of varying degrees, along with two or three liberals of varying degrees. And a core of moderates that aren't necessarily anchored on one side of the aisle or the other. I don't think we would want a court of all moderates. Who would represent the conservative perspective? Or the liberal viewpoints? But we also wouldn't want a court that had too many conservative justices or too many liberals. I guess what I'm saying is that, despite all the criticism in general and in this thread, Antonin Scalia's conservative voice served a useful and valuable role on the court these past three decades. So there's my two cents worth on the matter. Carry on.

Do you think the harm he did to minorities, whether they be Black, gay, women, etc, are outweighed by the good he did? And specifically, what "good" has he done? Who did his time on the bench benefit, and how?

[Saunders]

 

Just a general comment here: A lot of folks seem to think that Scalia was out of place on the court. That he was too conservative. A dinosaur with a gavel. I don't agree. Sure, Scalia's views are much more conservative than my own. I disagree with a lot of his stances on various topics. But I think an ultra conservative voice has a place on the Supreme Court. Just like I think an ultra liberal voice has a place. It's my opinion that the court should have two or three conservatives of varying degrees, along with two or three liberals of varying degrees. And a core of moderates that aren't necessarily anchored on one side of the aisle or the other. I don't think we would want a court of all moderates. Who would represent the conservative perspective? Or the liberal viewpoints? But we also wouldn't want a court that had too many conservative justices or too many liberals. I guess what I'm saying is that, despite all the criticism in general and in this thread, Antonin Scalia's conservative voice served a useful and valuable role on the court these past three decades. So there's my two cents worth on the matter. Carry on.

Do you think the harm he did to minorities, whether they be Black, gay, women, etc, are outweighed by the good he did? And specifically, what "good" has he done? Who did his time on the bench benefit, and how?

 

For starters, any individual who enjoys the right to reasonable privacy, and views unwarranted searches as unconstitutional (hello Patriot Act). He was a staunch supporter of the 1st and 4th Amendments.

 

Some examples from the Ars link I posted above:

 

Jones v. United States: The court decided 5-4 in 2012 that law enforcement officials generally need probable-cause warrants to place a GPS tracker on a suspect's vehicle and monitor their every move. Writing for the majority, Scalia said that affixing the device to the car was a search, requiring Fourth Amendment scrutiny. “We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,'” he wrote.

Kyllo v. United States: The high court declared 5-4 in 2001 that scanning a house with a thermal-imaging device without a warrant was unconstitutional because Americans had an expectation of privacy while in their residences. "To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment," Scalia wrote for the majority.

Florida v. Jardines: The top court ruled 5-4 in 2013 that the authorities usually need a warrant to use a drug-sniffing dog outside a residence to determine if there are drugs on the inside. Scalia wrote the majority opinion.

"But when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is first among equals. At the Amendment's ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion,'" the justice wrote, quoting a 1961 high court decision. "This right would be of little practical value if the State’s agents could stand in a home’s porch or side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity; the right to retreat would be significantly diminished if the police could enter a man’s property to observe his repose from just outside the front window."