Replacing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[Genivaria]

Scalia didn't care about original meanings. I remember him once saying (not exact) no founding father uttered the phrase separation of church and state.

What Scalia was is now irrelevant.

His replacement is what matters and the BS the repubs will do......

Scalia cared about whatever supported his preconceived ideology in any particular case. One particularly notable area of this was in corporate rights - no-one with a reasonable understanding of history would argue that the Constitution was written such as to grant incorporated entities all the rights accorded to human beings, yet despite calling himself a "textual originalist", Scalia repeatedly wrote opinions arguing that that was precisely what should happen!

Because he was a liar and a hypocrite not to mention an idiotic ideologue.

[Genivaria]

President Obama's nominee should be heard and voted upon by the Senate -- that is only constitutional history and precedent. However, I would vote against Garland and await (hopefully) a conservative President nominating someone to the bench in 2017.

You're not gonna have a conservative President, you will have a Democratic president.
Either accept a moderate now or accept a liberal later, those are your options.

[Greed and Death]

I find this solo practitioner's view less than persuasive.



This is tilting at a windmill, Scalia did not care about original intent, he cared about the original meaning of the words.

Scalia is quoted as saying about original intent.


If he can not even start off his critique of Justice Scalia with the correct brand of oringalism how we can expect him to actually address Scalia's arguments?

Scalia didn't care about original meanings. I remember him once saying (not exact) no founding father uttered the phrase separation of church and state.

What Scalia was is now irrelevant.
.

Except when the subject is an article critiquing Justice's Scalia judicial philosophy and jurisprudence.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You'd be surprised. The moderate appointments by Reagan of Kennedy and Bush of Roberts have led to unexpected votes in the past. From my perspective, Garland is an ideological centrist (as shown by his record on the bench) who is being used to portray the Republicans in the Senate as extreme. It is a brilliant political strategy from Obama, but I fear long term consequences.

It could be that Obama doesn't expect the Republicans to confirm him but that it will be used to give Democrats a better chance of winning the Senate. But even if he is confirmed, he will be far more liberal than Scalia.

Exactly. Replacing one of the most conservative jurists with a progressive might be a hard sell, but replacing him with a swing vote? That's harder to deny.

[Gauthier]

It could be that Obama doesn't expect the Republicans to confirm him but that it will be used to give Democrats a better chance of winning the Senate. But even if he is confirmed, he will be far more liberal than Scalia.

Exactly. Replacing one of the most conservative jurists with a progressive might be a hard sell, but replacing him with a swing vote? That's harder to deny.

Obama could have nominated Scalia's corpse and they'd still deny a hearing.

[Trollgaard]

If anything, an even more conservative justice than Scalia should be his successor.

[Neu California]

If anything, an even more conservative justice than Scalia should be his successor.

Why?

Why should a left-leaning president nominate an even more right-wing justice than Scalia? I'm pretty sure that's never been done before.

[Trollgaard]

If anything, an even more conservative justice than Scalia should be his successor.

Why?

Why should a left-leaning president nominate an even more right-wing justice than Scalia? I'm pretty sure that's never been done before.

Well, perhaps Obama shouldn't, but hopefully the Republicans stand strong and deny deny deny any of his picks. And then when Trump sweeps the white house a nice conservative, at least more conservative than Garland, can be appointed.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why?

Why should a left-leaning president nominate an even more right-wing justice than Scalia? I'm pretty sure that's never been done before.

Well, perhaps Obama shouldn't, but hopefully the Republicans stand strong and deny deny deny any of his picks. And then when Trump sweeps the white house a nice conservative, at least more conservative than Garland, can be appointed.

Trump isn't going to win, I'm sorry.

[Trollgaard]

Well, perhaps Obama shouldn't, but hopefully the Republicans stand strong and deny deny deny any of his picks. And then when Trump sweeps the white house a nice conservative, at least more conservative than Garland, can be appointed.

Trump isn't going to win, I'm sorry.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Sanders won't be, that's for sure. And I think Trump would beat Clinton, if only by a narrow margin.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Trump isn't going to win, I'm sorry.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Sanders won't be, that's for sure. And I think Trump would beat Clinton, if only by a narrow margin.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that that is a likely outcome.

[Fartsniffage]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Sanders won't be, that's for sure. And I think Trump would beat Clinton, if only by a narrow margin.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that that is a likely outcome.

[Zoice]

An interesting article (by an actual lawyer) about how terrible Scalia was.

http://patorrez.com/2016/02/19/original ... ia-eighth/

EDIT: tl;dr Scalia was clever, and used dishonest interpretations of the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law, in order to accomplish his political goals.

I find this solo practitioner's view less than persuasive.

Justice Scalia’s “orginialism” deifies the intent of people who never intended for their intent to be treated in such a fashion.

This is tilting at a windmill, Scalia did not care about original intent, he cared about the original meaning of the words.

Scalia is quoted as saying about original intent.

"If someone found a letter from George Washington to Martha telling her that what he meant by the power to lay taxes was not what other people meant, that would not change our reading of the Constitution in the slightest.... Law is a public act. Secret reservations or intentions count for nothing. All that counts is how the words used in the Constitution would have been understood at the time."

If he can not even start off his critique of Justice Scalia with the correct brand of oringalism how we can expect him to actually address Scalia's arguments?

You've missed the point entirely. The issue is not about using different definitions for words, or some code language where tax means something else. It's about Scalia adhering to the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. He used loopholes in the letter of the law to accomplish political goals.

[Diopolis]

I find this solo practitioner's view less than persuasive.



This is tilting at a windmill, Scalia did not care about original intent, he cared about the original meaning of the words.

Scalia is quoted as saying about original intent.


If he can not even start off his critique of Justice Scalia with the correct brand of oringalism how we can expect him to actually address Scalia's arguments?

You've missed the point entirely. The issue is not about using different definitions for words, or some code language where tax means something else. It's about Scalia adhering to the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. He used loopholes in the letter of the law to accomplish political goals.

That's, you know, exactly the point of his ideology- follow the letter of the law at all costs.

[Zoice]

You've missed the point entirely. The issue is not about using different definitions for words, or some code language where tax means something else. It's about Scalia adhering to the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. He used loopholes in the letter of the law to accomplish political goals.

That's, you know, exactly the point of his ideology- follow the letter of the law at all costs.

That is not a good thing. The spirit of the law is far more important.

[Diopolis]

That's, you know, exactly the point of his ideology- follow the letter of the law at all costs.

That is not a good thing. The spirit of the law is far more important.

Except you can make the spirit of the law say whatever you want, even contradictory to whatever it was intended to be, just by saying the spirit is more important. It's harder to do that with the letter.

[Zoice]

That is not a good thing. The spirit of the law is far more important.

Except you can make the spirit of the law say whatever you want, even contradictory to whatever it was intended to be, just by saying the spirit is more important. It's harder to do that with the letter.

Scalia himself is a great example of how that isn't true. The spirit of the law generally has a consensus of law professionals agreeing, and it's usually pretty clear. An example is how people have a right to due process. The point, the spirit, is that everyone from jay walkers to murderers should be allowed some official way to protest or prevent being convicted, AND the greater the infringement on the person by the government (fine vs. execution), the more opportunities to appeal. If you take a literal reading of the letters, it means nothing at all, you could say that accused murderers are not owed anything, therefore what is "due" to them is just their last meal before you execute them. You can't take the letter of the law approach, you have to look at the spirit of the law.

[Greed and Death]

I find this solo practitioner's view less than persuasive.



This is tilting at a windmill, Scalia did not care about original intent, he cared about the original meaning of the words.

Scalia is quoted as saying about original intent.


If he can not even start off his critique of Justice Scalia with the correct brand of oringalism how we can expect him to actually address Scalia's arguments?

You've missed the point entirely. The issue is not about using different definitions for words, or some code language where tax means something else. It's about Scalia adhering to the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. He used loopholes in the letter of the law to accomplish political goals.

But if Mr. Torrez does not comprehend Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy to begin with how is he fit to critique that philosophy?

The first step in critiquing a philosophy is to understand that philosophy, Mr. Torrez either does not understand justice Scalia's philosophy or is intentionally misrepresenting it to strength his own argument. Given his education I am inclined to the latter.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

Why should a left-leaning president nominate an even more right-wing justice than Scalia? I'm pretty sure that's never been done before.

lolling like there's no tomorrow

[Zoice]

You've missed the point entirely. The issue is not about using different definitions for words, or some code language where tax means something else. It's about Scalia adhering to the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. He used loopholes in the letter of the law to accomplish political goals.

But if Mr. Torrez does not comprehend Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy to begin with how is he fit to critique that philosophy?

The first step in critiquing a philosophy is to understand that philosophy, Mr. Torrez either does not understand justice Scalia's philosophy or is intentionally misrepresenting it to strength his own argument. Given his education I am inclined to the latter.

He does understand it, you misunderstood his understanding.

[Neon Trotsky]

Trump isn't going to win, I'm sorry.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Sanders won't be, that's for sure. And I think Trump would beat Clinton, if only by a narrow margin.

This is an incredibly foolish gamble, especially based on current polling.

[Greed and Death]

In slightly more postive news.

2 Law schools have announced they are changing their name to Antonin Scalia School of Law.

The first is George Mason School of law.
The Second is Harvard as an answer to Reclaim Harvard which has been demanding the removal of several high profile items they reflect slavery (the coat of arms) and these will be replaced with the Scalia family emblem and such.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/george-maso ... 1459452145

Practically these schools will still be referred to as George Mason and Harvard law.

[Zoice]

In slightly more postive news.

2 Law schools have announced they are changing their name to Antonin Scalia School of Law.

The first is George Mason School of law.
The Second is Harvard as an answer to Reclaim Harvard which has been demanding the removal of several high profile items they reflect slavery (the coat of arms) and these will be replaced with the Scalia family emblem and such.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/george-maso ... 1459452145

Practically these schools will still be referred to as George Mason and Harvard law.

I'd view that as shameful rather than positive, but I guess you would've been able to guess that from our previous interactions.

[The East Marches]

In slightly more postive news.

2 Law schools have announced they are changing their name to Antonin Scalia School of Law.

The first is George Mason School of law.
The Second is Harvard as an answer to Reclaim Harvard which has been demanding the removal of several high profile items they reflect slavery (the coat of arms) and these will be replaced with the Scalia family emblem and such.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/george-maso ... 1459452145

Practically these schools will still be referred to as George Mason and Harvard law.

That is pretty cool. I assumed that Harvard removed the slavery influenced coat of arms to auction the spot off to another donor. Nice to see they did something good with it instead.

[TomKirk]

Trump isn't going to win, I'm sorry.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Sanders won't be, that's for sure. And I think Trump would beat Clinton, if only by a narrow margin.

Clinton leads Trump by double digits. Clinton would carry Utah against Trump.