For this scumbag to imagine he can count a dead justice's opinion (that is the opinion HE thinks would have happened) that hasn't been written yet...
I even see one of you trying to compare it to person who dies AFTER he's voted in an election.
I am with whatever the written rules say.
eace
In fact, that is exactly what the lawyer in AZ is suggesting.If that's what he was arguing for then I'd agree with you that it was a "bizarre" position.
But that isn't at all what the article is saying.
I bring it up to illustrate how unhinged the people suggesting this can get. You should know the company you keep.I certainly didn't bring that up, so I see no reason for you to go ranting and raving at me behind it.
If you'd actually read my response you would know that while I don't think Langhofer's position is insane or psychotic neither do I agree with it.
I am with whatever the written rules say.
eace
Some of this was addressed in an article I posted last week.
If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway
A deadlocked court favors Democrats...
It discusses the situation facing the court now about cases that have been heard, but are in that pipeline phase where drafts are circulated and the final opinion is worked out, which can take months. During that time, a justice can change his or her vote along the way.
"The court is not yet halfway through the 80 or 90 cases it deals with each term, but many of the most contentious have already been heard.
Normally, justices meet the week a case is argued, and vote on the outcome. So they have most likely already voted on pending cases on apportionment and affirmative action, for example.
But weeks or months can go by while the justice assigned the opinion circulates drafts. Any justice can change his or her vote at any point during that process, and often does. It’s all very hush-hush, so there is no way to tell how far along the cases Scalia heard are in the pipeline.
There is no constitutional provision, no case law and no official policy about what the court should do with cases that have been argued and voted on when a justice dies.
If the vote in a case that hasn’t yet been handed down was 5 to 4, as one might expect with these controversial rulings, can Scalia cast the deciding vote from beyond the grave to change the way America chooses every legislature in the land or integrates its public universities? "
A court that cares about its image and constitutional role will not rule in the name of a majority that counts on a dead justice, especially on the core issues of American social life. Such posthumous decisions are so unprecedented they would make Bush v. Gore look like responsible judicial behavior."
In fact, that is exactly what the lawyer in AZ is suggesting.
I bring it up to illustrate how unhinged the people suggesting this can get.
You need to reread the article.
He's arguing that in cases where Scalia had already sat for the trial, heard all of the oral arguments and examined whatever evidence was presented, met in conference with his fellow justices to discuss the case, and cast his vote - that vote should stand - whether or not the opinions have been written and published.
He even says that he isn't proposing we use a ouija board to determine Scalia's position or opinion on issues he hadn't actually voted on before his death.
But all you're really doing is illustrating how unhinged you are.
You're claiming that your article says things it doesn't say just so you can take a contradictory position and manufacture a hypothetical argument against and imaginary position.
Actually, I think even that is giving you far too much credit because you aren't even presenting a rational counter argument, you're just calling people names like some kind of myopic, ideological robot.
Feel free to go ahead and have the last word here but I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this ridiculous "discussion".
You aren't even making sense.
"There’s no Ouija board required to figure out how Justice Scalia would vote on these things, he’s already voted," attorney Kory Langhofer said during a discussion on Phoenix, Arizona, television station KPNX. "We're at the second-to-last step in how these cases unfold when Justice Scalia died."
What "votes?" Where and what are they? Again, I really marvel at the **** you people think you can rationalize not to mention get away with.
if he already casted his vote on the case while he was alive then it should be counted as such.
which 100% negates what you said.
if he already casted his vote on the case while he was alive then it should be counted as such.
which 100% negates what you said.
Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count
Golly, I just love republicans for **** like this. Here they make up stories about voter fraud and how dead people are voting for dems in yooooge numbers, stealing elections away from real americans and this guy comes out and actually declares that voting by a dead person should be allowed.
As I've said before many times, ridiculing or satirizing republicans is so difficult since they do such a good job doing it to themselves. Can we pleeeeze, pleeeeze have some moah? Why, yes, yes we can. There's plenty of insanity to go around:
Of course these psychopathic sociopaths don't back down. That's why they're psychopathic sociopaths.
My post is going to be nuanced. The cases have been heard, and the justices were writing their opinions. In cases where Scalia failed to finish writing his opinion, then his vote should not count because the opinion gives the legal justification for that vote. However, in cases where Scalia did finish writing his opinion, then whether or not he is alive doesn't matter. His opinion exists, and the vote based on that opinion should count.
You need to reread the article.
He's arguing that in cases where Scalia had already sat for the trial, and heard all of the oral arguments and examined whatever evidence was presented, and met in conference with his fellow justices to discuss the case, and cast his vote - that vote should stand - whether or not the opinions have been written and published.
He even says that he isn't proposing we use a ouija board to determine Scalia's position or opinion on issues he hadn't actually voted on before his death.
And as I've said, I don't even agree with the guy as far as his real argument goes.
There is a very, very, very, very minuscule chance that, unlikely as it may have been, Scalia could have changed his mind in the period of time between when is vote was cast and when the official opinion was published so that even though for all practical purposes his vote was final it wasn't actually final in a fully official sense.
Because that gnat's hair of a chance exists that he might have changed his mind had he chosen to I think we have to scratch any cases he rendered a vote on which hadn't been finally published at the time of his death.
But to reiterate, neither Kory Langhofer nor myself are arguing that there is any option but to retry the case if Scalia hadn't even voted on it.
But all you're really doing is illustrating how unhinged you are.
You're claiming that your article says things it doesn't say just so you can take a contradictory position and manufacture a hypothetical argument against and imaginary position.
Actually, I think even that is giving you far too much credit because you aren't even presenting a rational counter argument, you're just calling people names like some kind of myopic, ideological robot.
Feel free to go ahead and have the last word here but I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this ridiculous "discussion".
You aren't even making sense.
if he already casted his vote on the case while he was alive then it should be counted as such.
which 100% negates what you said.
Mine's going to be a little more nuanced. It would require that all the final opinions would have to have been written and the case completed for that to occur.
Addendum: IOW, just as descibed by Paperview's comment and references above which I've just now seen.
Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count
Golly, I just love republicans for **** like this. Here they make up stories about voter fraud and how dead people are voting for dems in yooooge numbers, stealing elections away from real americans and this guy comes out and actually declares that voting by a dead person should be allowed.
As I've said before many times, ridiculing or satirizing republicans is so difficult since they do such a good job doing it to themselves. Can we pleeeeze, pleeeeze have some moah? Why, yes, yes we can. There's plenty of insanity to go around:
Of course these psychopathic sociopaths don't back down. That's why they're psychopathic sociopaths.
Maybe you can answer the question but if it was permissible or possible for Scalia to change his mind prior to the opinion being issued, then I don't see how he's actually cast a binding vote before the opinion is released. And if the "vote" isn't binding until publication, and he died before it's published, then obviously his vote cannot count.
That's entirely different than someone casting an early ballot - once it's cast, it's final, no take backs possible.
It is not obvious. Why would you think he would change his vote in any of the matters before the court?
If he already voted on a certain case, what grounds do you have to nullify his vote?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?