Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count [W:24]

[digitusmedius]

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.

With no apparent sarcasm, an Arizona attorney on Sunday proposed that the late Justice Antonin Scalia's votes in cases pending before the Supreme Court should still count even though he died before the court issued its rulings.

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:

"The general rule is: dead justices don’t vote," Ryan added. "I mean, that sounds cruel, but that’s it."

Langhofer did not back down, however.

Of course these psychopathic sociopaths don't back down. That's why they're psychopathic sociopaths.

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

If Scalia voted, and the other 8 justices know and agree upon what his vote was, this guy is right. If he didn't vote, and nobody can verify what his vote was, then you don't speculate on what his vote may have been, and move on.

What does this have to do with voter fraud and dead people voting in elections?

 

[year2late]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

My first thought is "you can't make this **** up"

My second thought is "is there any precedent for this" on the SCOTUS?

But I guess if folks try to demand that a dead woman carry a fetus to term against the will of the father, they can try to make a dead judge vote..

 

[year2late]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

If Scalia voted, and the other 8 justices know and agree upon what his vote was, this guy is right. If he didn't vote, and nobody can verify what his vote was, then you don't speculate on what his vote may have been, and move on.

What does this have to do with voter fraud and dead people voting in elections?

If the vote happened, we would already have known about it, right? I will plead total lack of knowledge of how the process becomes formalized.

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

If the vote happened, we would already have known about it, right? I will plead total lack of knowledge of how the process becomes formalized.

Not sure, but my understanding is they were in the process of writing the opinions (majority and dissent). I believe only they know about the vote results but I'm also pleading a total lack of knowledge on what happens in this process

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

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.

so if someone casts a vote in the presidential election pursuant to the laws but that vote is cast before election day (as is possible in almost every state of the union) and that person dies the night before the election, then that vote should be stricken? same thing

the psychotic sociopaths are those who have a pathological hatred towards Scalia, most likely due to the fact that he was not a fan of the court created right to engage in gay sex

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

If the vote happened, we would already have known about it, right? I will plead total lack of knowledge of how the process becomes formalized.

often what happens is that the justices vote. The CJ assigns one of the justices in the majority to write the majority opinion and dissenting justices write a dissenting opinion. Sometimes a justice in the majority wants to write a concurring opinion and sometimes a justice agrees with some of the holding and dissents from other parts and will so write an opinion noting that. and the justices then circulate their opinions and others can write an agreement or take into account that opinion in their dissent. If you read Heller you will see the dissent referring to Scalia's majority opinion and he referring to their dissent

so the public usually doesn't know what happened until long after the vote has been taken because the opinion or opinions have not yet been released

 

[Crovax]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

often what happens is that the justices vote. The CJ assigns one of the justices in the majority to write the majority opinion and dissenting justices write a dissenting opinion. Sometimes a justice in the majority wants to write a concurring opinion and sometimes a justice agrees with some of the holding and dissents from other parts and will so write an opinion noting that. and the justices then circulate their opinions and others can write an agreement or take into account that opinion in their dissent. If you read Heller you will see the dissent referring to Scalia's majority opinion and he referring to their dissent

so the public usually doesn't know what happened until long after the vote has been taken because the opinion or opinions have not yet been released

Which is amazing that in today's society the SCOTUS can still keep thier cases private until they are announced

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Which is amazing that in today's society the SCOTUS can still keep thier cases private until they are announced

lots of "experts" make lots of money writing articles suggesting how the court will vote based on the questions the justices ask the counsel during the oral argument before the court. and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. Most "experts" thought Roberts was going to strike down Obama care because

1) he was critical of the Commerce Clause argument the Obamacare proponents raised

2) and the counsel for obama care denied it was a "tax" which of course was the grounds Roberts used to both slap the CC nonsense but uphold the law

 

[MrT]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

If Scalia voted, and the other 8 justices know and agree upon what his vote was, this guy is right. If he didn't vote, and nobody can verify what his vote was, then you don't speculate on what his vote may have been, and move on.

The problem with this position is that it is entirely possible for a judge to alter his vote up until the court's opinion has actually been released. It may not be likely (I have no idea), but there is no requirement that a judge maintain the same vote that he cast behind the scenes - even if he were selected by the Chief Justice to write the brief for the court.

Also, TD points out above how the opinions will change based on what is stated in the other opinions (for example, a majority opinion will specifically reference a phrase from the dissent) and these statements are still very influential, if not binding. "Upholding" Scalia's vote would prevent this type of adjustment from occurring.

 

[soot]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Of course these psychopathic sociopaths don't back down.

What exactly strikes you as "psychopathic" about this argument:

"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. "We're at the second-to-last step in how these cases unfold when Justice Scalia died."

Langhofer explained that the justices have already heard some cases, discussed them and taken an initial vote. He said that Scalia may have even written a draft opinion before he passed away.

"We know exactly what he thought. And it’s not unprincipled to say we should give affect to that," he said.

I mean, you can certainly argue against it:

Another Arizona attorney on the panel, Thomas Ryan, thought Langhofer's proposal was a little far-fetched.

"That’s an interesting theory," he said. "Justices, after they do the conferences can also change their minds."

And that argument seems perfectly fair and rational, but no more fair and rational than Langhofer's proposal.

I think that this following statement is what really determines my opinion on this issue:

Ryan ultimately called Langhofer's theory "problematic."

"If they come out with a decision, and they say this is the way Scalia voted or he would have signed off on this opinion, there will always be some doubt or question as to whether or not that really was the case," he said.

I agree with Ryan, Langhofer's argument is "problematic", not psychopathic or sociopathic or anything like that.

If there was even a slight chance, however unlikely and uncharacteristic that chance may be, that Scalia could have changed his mind on something then you can't have the Constitution interpreted on the basis of eight final votes and one "maybe".

 

[Risky Thicket]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

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.

It's just another Arizona nutter with his head firmly planted up his ass. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

But I guess if folks try to demand that a dead woman carry a fetus to term against the will of the father, they can try to make a dead judge vote..

It's hilarious how you keep bringing that scenario up like your position in that thread was sympathetic or reasonable and not at all just your support for allowing a father to completely abdicate his parental responsibilities and suffocate / starve his kid.

Because that's what you did, and it remains deplorable and indefensible.

 

[MrT]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

lots of "experts" make lots of money writing articles suggesting how the court will vote based on the questions the justices ask the counsel during the oral argument before the court. and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. Most "experts" thought Roberts was going to strike down Obama care because

1) he was critical of the Commerce Clause argument the Obamacare proponents raised

2) and the counsel for obama care denied it was a "tax" which of course was the grounds Roberts used to both slap the CC nonsense but uphold the law

I still claim credit for calling that outcome (upheld under the ability to tax provision) before the case reached the Supreme Court. My worker's comp law professor dismissed the prediction because it was putting "lipstick on a pig."

Edit: Also, the fact that Roberts was so dismissive of the commerce clause argument is what led some of the initial reporters to claim that Obamacare was struck down - because the opinion starts by noting that it was not a win on the commerce clause, but then upheld it on the tax provision.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

If Scalia voted, and the other 8 justices know and agree upon what his vote was, this guy is right. If he didn't vote, and nobody can verify what his vote was, then you don't speculate on what his vote may have been, and move on.

If a final vote had already been taken, then yes, I agree. Although I would love to see all his votes count, if the final vote had not been taken by the Chief Justice, Scalia is not going to be present for the final vote or to write his opinion - opinions change, facts can change, other justices can influence other justice's votes.

What does this have to do with voter fraud and dead people voting in elections?

Nothing. Absolute balderdash on the part whoever thinks it does. Anyone on the left wants to talk about voter fraud needs to explain to me how Clinton and Sanders have the exact same number of delegates (51) from actual votes they received in primaries/caucuses, but because of "Super Delegates" (Democrat Party Officials) Clinton now has a few hundred more than Sanders - Democrats have been shown that their vote doesn't count at all. All that counts is who the party wants to be the candidate. The party that is screwing Democrat voters is not the GOP.

 

[ludin]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

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.

you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?
these were votes that were already cast while he was alive.

these are not votes that after he died someone went and voted for the issue.
then you might have a case.

that didn't happen :roll:

then the nerve to call other people psychopathic.

 

[ludin]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

If a final vote had already been taken, then yes, I agree. Although I would love to see all his votes count, if the final vote had not been taken by the Chief Justice, Scalia is not going to be present for the final vote or to write his opinion - opinions change, facts can change, other justices can influence other justice's votes.

Nothing. Absolute balderdash on the part whoever thinks it does. Anyone on the left wants to talk about voter fraud needs to explain to me how Clinton and Sanders have the exact same number of delegates (51) from actual votes they received in primaries/caucuses, but because of "Super Delegates" (Democrat Party Officials) Clinton now has a few hundred more than Sanders - Democrats have been shown that their vote doesn't count at all. All that counts is who the party wants to be the candidate. The party that is screwing Democrat voters is not the GOP.

super delegates carry a bit more weight than regular voters for some reason.
I think that is also why trump will not win the republican nomination.

Rubio has to hang in there to get enough super delegate votes to win.

 

[ludin]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

I still claim credit for calling that outcome (upheld under the ability to tax provision) before the case reached the Supreme Court. My worker's comp law professor dismissed the prediction because it was putting "lipstick on a pig."

Edit: Also, the fact that Roberts was so dismissive of the commerce clause argument is what led some of the initial reporters to claim that Obamacare was struck down - because the opinion starts by noting that it was not a win on the commerce clause, but then upheld it on the tax provision.

funny how Obama only called it a tax when it was required and then hugely denied it being called a tax at other times.
he wanted his cake and ate it to and Robert bought it hook line and sinker and unfortuantly screwed everyone in America.

now the federal government has the power to force consumers to buy whatever products it deems they should buy from any
private industry whether they want it or not just by taxing them for not buying it.

this was a huge loss of freedom for the American people. Roberts got it 100% wrong.
however yes it was struck down on the commerce clause.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

I still claim credit for calling that outcome (upheld under the ability to tax provision) before the case reached the Supreme Court. My worker's comp law professor dismissed the prediction because it was putting "lipstick on a pig."

Edit: Also, the fact that Roberts was so dismissive of the commerce clause argument is what led some of the initial reporters to claim that Obamacare was struck down - because the opinion starts by noting that it was not a win on the commerce clause, but then upheld it on the tax provision.

Roberts's goal, IMHO, was to slap the Democrat CC nonsense around as it should have been while doing what he likes to do-make the public responsible for their own stupid choices. He also has become enamored with being seen as "clever" by the legal commentators and this decision of his was an attempt to do so

 

[Lutherf]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

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.

A little common sense here wouldn't hurt you.

The court is made up of 9 justices who render an opinion in each case. Where those decisions are other than 5-4 Scalia's opinion wouldn't matter. In the rest of the decisions his opinion would only matter if he was in the majority. Should that be the case the decision would then be 4-4 and the lower court opinion would hold by default.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Not sure, but my understanding is they were in the process of writing the opinions (majority and dissent). I believe only they know about the vote results but I'm also pleading a total lack of knowledge on what happens in this process

The lawyer is out of his ****ing mind.

Scalia is dead. The right has to get over that.

NO evidence, testimony or other legal ruling can be done without the opportunity to examine that evidence. Scalia is no longer available to the other justices to discuss or question any ruling, and that goes against common law.

I suspect even the lower courts would cancel that idea

 

[tres borrachos]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

The problem with this position is that it is entirely possible for a judge to alter his vote up until the court's opinion has actually been released. It may not be likely (I have no idea), but there is no requirement that a judge maintain the same vote that he cast behind the scenes - even if he were selected by the Chief Justice to write the brief for the court.

Also, TD points out above how the opinions will change based on what is stated in the other opinions (for example, a majority opinion will specifically reference a phrase from the dissent) and these statements are still very influential, if not binding. "Upholding" Scalia's vote would prevent this type of adjustment from occurring.

I wish I knew more about how SCOTUS worked. It would come in handy in times like this, although I suspect the almost secretive nature in which they work is necessary.

My point was more about what the OP link was talking about, and also the idiotic OP itself calling him a "psychopathic sociopath" and droning on with partisanship about republicans and all of that. There's a much better way of discussing this than with petty insults and partisan crap. This really isn't a partisan issue. It's a logical issue, and it's hardly a dead man voting. Dead men can't vote, and to try to play it off that was is just stupid.

If Scalia cast votes, and it can be verified and proven, and most importantly, the other 8 justices agree, it's in the interest of everyone to observe his votes. We don't really need to be unnecessarily clogging up an already clogged up court system.

And, as TD said, dying immediately after you do something doesn't nullify what you did. If I sign a mortgage today and then die in a month, that doesn't mean my mortgage is going to be ripped up. If I send in my absentee ballot today and drop dead tomorrow, my vote is still going to count. These are actions before a death, not the actions of a dead person (as the OP dishonestly implies).

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

If the case is pending, arguments have been heard, judges have given their verdicts, and it's simply a matter that the majority opinion (along with dissents/concurrences) hasn't been formally written and announced...then yes, it absolutely should count. If he's actually placed his vote on the matter prior to dying, but the process has simply not resolved itself to completion yet, his vote on the matter should count.

If there are cases where he has not lodged his vote, there should be no "assumptions" about what he "would have" voted or anything ridiculous like that. But if all matters of the case have already been heard, and he's already rendered his vote, there's no good reason why it should not be tallied.

This is not the same as talking about "dead people voting", as those instances hypothetically speak of people who were dead prior to ever casting their ballot. NOT people who cast their ballot, but died prior to the votes being tallied and the results being done.

If a person goes into the voting booth, casts their vote, and on their way home is smashed by a semi and killed before the polls close and votes are tallied, that persons vote shouldn't be nullified simply because they died...because they were alive when they submitted it.

He was a sitting justice presiding over a particular case, and if he reached a determination on that case then it should stand as such.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Moderator's Warning:

Not an abortion thread. Anyone continuing to try and make it one will get points and a thread ban

 

[MrT]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

If Scalia cast votes, and it can be verified and proven, and most importantly, the other 8 justices agree, it's in the interest of everyone to observe his votes. We don't really need to be unnecessarily clogging up an already clogged up court system.

And, as TD said, dying immediately after you do something doesn't nullify what you did. If I sign a mortgage today and then die in a month, that doesn't mean my mortgage is going to be ripped up. If I send in my absentee ballot today and drop dead tomorrow, my vote is still going to count. These are actions before a death, not the actions of a dead person (as the OP dishonestly implies).

This is not the same as talking about "dead people voting", as those instances hypothetically speak of people who were dead prior to ever casting their ballot. NOT people who cast their ballot, but died prior to the votes being tallied and the results being done.

If a person goes into the voting booth, casts their vote, and on their way home is smashed by a semi and killed before the polls close and votes are tallied, that persons vote shouldn't be nullified simply because they died...because they were alive when they submitted it.

He was a sitting justice presiding over a particular case, and if he reached a determination on that case then it should stand as such.

The examples that you cite for your analogies are just not comparable to this situation. In terms of the Supreme Court, the only times that a vote is actually recorded is when the opinion is released by the Court. Until that moment occurs, the judges are free to switch their votes. It is, of course, unlikely that a judge would switch his vote after completing a brief, but it still allowed in these scenarios.

The examples that you both raise would only be comparable if the individual was on their way to the voting booth or the mortgage company. Once they have completed the action, then their action is binding and counts. The action, in this scenario, must be the releasing of the opinion by the Supreme Court. Until that moment has occurred, the "voting" that takes place behind closed doors is not binding on the judges or anyone else.