Scathing Look at Scalia: Made US Less Fair, Less Tolerant

[calamity]

All I can say is to go read what Ginsburg said about his written opinions both in the majority and as dissent. She acknowledged they were both brilliant and masterful in language.

Calamity, the gifts remark is ridiculous. 8 other judges had the opportunity to accept the certiorari and none of them did. Further the jurisdictional appellate refused to intervene and the opponent in the case couldn't even make a prima facie discrimination case. Since when is refusing to intervene in a case showing quid pro quo? The other 8 judges didn't accept the case either, I guess they were bought off too? Sorry, this is an unsupported argument.

He seemed a bit tight with the Kochs too. His attendance at Koch sponsored conferences would be like Ginsberg going to events put on by George Soros.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I'd like to believe that. But, he seems to have tipped his hand when he said, "Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

He assigned himself the arbiter of morality, basically ignoring the equal rights clause in the 14th in order to police shameful conduct. I see that more as an example of Saclia overreaching than I would his constitutional originalism.

Just the bolded, so he articulated that the gay agenda was to remove the stigma attached to homosexuality? Is he correct? Because it certainly seems that he is. Wider acceptance of LGBT norms seems to be a stated goal. So how is wrong when Scalia says it but right when an LGBT activist says it?

 

[TurtleDude]

Compels us to allow. At no point did I say anything about making a gas station do any such thing. But you knew that and decided to be dishonest.

It's interesting. You claim the 2nd amendment is incorporated against the states, yet turn around and say that a state can prohibit gun sales at gas stations.

If the 2nd amendment prohibits the Feds from restricting gun sales, why do you think states can do it to? Was all your talk about incorporation just total bull****?

you are confused yet again. you are confused between what the intent of the second amendment was (applicable only to the federal government, and what it has become with McDonald V Chicago_

 

[TurtleDude]

Just the bolded, so he articulated that the gay agenda was to remove the stigma attached to homosexuality? Is he correct? Because it certainly seems that he is. Wider acceptance of LGBT norms seems to be a stated goal. So how is wrong when Scalia says it but right when an LGBT activist says it?

an excellent point that has much truth.

 

[poweRob]

Yeah, constitutional originalism: slavery, flogging and public executions. Rah rah.

He's in the ground now. It's now fair game to rip his intolerant ass a new one.

Scalia believed in constitutional originalism and ruling by what he called "textualism". Both of these are just fancy ways of saying "Screw precedent... I prefer much more latitude to pursue my judicial activism."

 

[Deuce]

you are confused yet again. you are confused between what the intent of the second amendment was (applicable only to the federal government, and what it has become with McDonald V Chicago_

Great, so back to an old question of yours, we've successfully demonstrated that the state of New York can ban whatever the **** guns it wants to ban because the 2nd amendment was never intended to be applied to states.

If you're an originalist, that is.

 

[OpportunityCost]

He seemed a bit tight with the Kochs too. His attendance at Koch sponsored conferences would be like Ginsberg going to events put on by George Soros.

Or the ACLU...
Or Steinem events...

 

[OpportunityCost]

Scalia believed in constitutional originalism and ruling by what he called "textualism". Both of these are just fancy ways of saying "Screw precedent... I prefer much more latitude to pursue my judicial activism."

wtff...2 Fs aint a typo.

Textualism is a method of statutory interpretation whereby the plain text of a statute is used to determine the meaning of the legislation. Instead of attempting to determine statutory purpose or legislative intent, textualists adhere to the objective meaning of the legal text

How does that mean whatever he wants?

 

[TurtleDude]

Great, so back to an old question of yours, we've successfully demonstrated that the state of New York can ban whatever the **** guns it wants to ban because the 2nd amendment was never intended to be applied to states.

If you're an originalist, that is.

well that was how it was originally intended, but too many people starting with FDR couldn't leave well enough alone and now the Second amendment will clash with some legitimate actions by NYS. banning guns is never legitimate BTW

 

[TurtleDude]

Scalia believed in constitutional originalism and ruling by what he called "textualism". Both of these are just fancy ways of saying "Screw precedent... I prefer much more latitude to pursue my judicial activism."

Liberals love precedent when it keeps conservative justices from overturning the radical crap liberal courts foist on us but Liberals hate precedence when it stood in the way of the FDR court's rape of the tenth amendment and the radical expansion of the commerce clause

its why liberals see the court as their main ally. Liberal justices crank the case law leftward and then a conservative court respects the precedence

 

[poweRob]

wtff...2 Fs aint a typo.


How does that mean whatever he wants?

It means he ignores precedent. If you ignore precedent, you can basically willy nilly your rulings.

 

[poweRob]

Liberals love precedent when it keeps conservative justices from overturning the radical crap liberal courts foist on us but Liberals hate precedence when it stood in the way of the FDR court's rape of the tenth amendment and the radical expansion of the commerce clause

its why liberals see the court as their main ally. Liberal justices crank the case law leftward and then a conservative court respects the precedence

Yeah, no.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It means he ignores precedent. If you ignore precedent, you can basically willy nilly your rulings.

Its not ignoring precedent, its reading the actual text and deciding whether the precedent was activism. That's reading the law....

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah, no.

you do know that most of the FDR jurisprudence was complete disrespect for the existing precedent and when the conservatives got hold of the court, fans of FDR era decisions whined that overturning complete idiocy like Wickard would violate Stare decisis

 

[TurtleDude]

Its not ignoring precedent, its reading the actual text and deciding whether the precedent was activism. That's reading the law....

Bork scared the Liberals because he said that bad precedent deserved no respect.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Bork scared the Liberals because he said that bad precedent deserved no respect.

Ill go further, bad precedence deserves to be overturned.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ill go further, bad precedence deserves to be overturned.

exactly. almost no leftwing legal scholars attempt to justify the FDR nonsense. Rather they claim overturning that nonsense would cause massive social distress. which is probably true So many people are now addicted to unconstitutional programs

 

[OpportunityCost]

exactly. almost no leftwing legal scholars attempt to justify the FDR nonsense. Rather they claim overturning that nonsense would cause massive social distress. which is probably true So many people are now addicted to unconstitutional programs

The social distress highlights that we probably should not have accepted the rulings and legislation in the first place.

 

[TurtleDude]

The social distress highlights that we probably should not have accepted the rulings and legislation in the first place.

FDR knew that the crisis of the depression was going to allow him to rape the tenth amendment and permanently destroy the balance of power between the states and the federal government. Many leftwingers want to constantly change the constitution for short term gratification. and those changes almost always cause far more problems than the solve

 

[poweRob]

Its not ignoring precedent, its reading the actual text and deciding whether the precedent was activism. That's reading the law....

The actual text of... and so help me if you say constitution.

 

[poweRob]

you do know that most of the FDR jurisprudence was complete disrespect for the existing precedent and when the conservatives got hold of the court, fans of FDR era decisions whined that overturning complete idiocy like Wickard would violate Stare decisis

FDR did try to pack the courts to get his way so I know he had no love for the SCOTUS that ruled during his time. The rest of your other post was just a randomized "i hate liberals" rant.

 

[TurtleDude]

FDR did try to pack the courts to get his way so I know he had no love for the SCOTUS that ruled during his time. The rest of your other post was just "i hate liberals" rant.

you deny that those arguing for the FDR decisions after FDR was gone didn't appeal to a respect for the FDR era precedent?

do you think Wickard was a legitimate decision

 

[poweRob]

you deny that those arguing for the FDR decisions after FDR was gone didn't appeal to a respect for the FDR era precedent?

do you think Wickard was a legitimate decision

I do not know the wickard case.

 

[OpportunityCost]

The actual text of... and so help me if you say constitution.

The actual text of the law. Not what congressional figures are going to purport what it means but the actual text of a given law to determine whether it deserves to be upheld or overturned.

If a law says they want to cats with white faces, you don't allow a precedence that says white cats are hereby banned because some congressmen says that's what he meant. Terrible analogy I know.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I do not know the wickard case.

Probably the most powerful case in modern US constitutional law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/317/111

It made interstate commerce be applicable to pretty much everything.