Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

And for the record, within hours of Scalia's death being announced, the Senate Republicans loudly proclaimed that they would block ANY nomination Obama tries to make for the next 350 days.

So whine whine whine some more about liberals politicizing his death and not giving it a respectable 11 months of silence (the obligatory grieving period, apparently)

[hack]

I have nothing to say about ballot initiatives or the individual decisions of Scalia, so please quit assuming. I hope those of you questioning what I'm saying here will respond to what I am saying, rather than what you seem to be assuming I am thinking. Doubly so given you’ve had the chance to read this thread for a while: it should be no surprise to you that corruption is the thing that matters most to me if you've been following along here. So, for a second time, copied from above, what I said is that Democracy is not a result. It is a process. I can respect anyone who has a genuine belief in a specific outcome, but anyone who debases the process deserves none. My point here is that good policy, regulation and laws are only somewhat determined by what’s in them. What also matters – maybe most – is that they are implemented in an environment as free as possible from corruption.

As for Scalia, well, the duck hunt was fucking insanely corrupt, and his explanation of why he wouldn’t recuse himself it was the very picture of ``Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’’. The whole point of the American system of checks, balances and transparency is that no one person is allowed to say ``just trust me on this’’. Power had clearly gone to his head to an extent unusual for a supreme court justice. It was a testament to his intellect that, despite the coverage of his inconsistencies and indulgences, he was able to maintain a degree of credibility. There is no questioning his influence. The question is whether it was, in the long run, good or bad for the country. Obviously we know what I think about that.

Entropy, I will not reply with a critique of your character like you have mine, but your above post encapsulates what I think is a misguided focus: Bernie seems very trustworthy and would behave honorably, but his policy and ideas are some of the furthest from my own

Power seduces 99% of elected representatives in DC. When someone emerges who’s been here for 25 years and hasn’t succumbed, then that is someone who is rare and special. Americans need to stop thinking that any one or group of right-wing or left-wing ideas can make or break the country if only they were faithfully applied. Ideologies come and go, and no matter what's in them they are going to be much better for all of us if executed without anyone’s hands in the till or thumb on the scale.

[iam416]

As I suspected...nothing. Embarrassingly so.

[Da Geezer]

Perhaps it is time to listen to Doc.

Justice Scalia and his wife usually celebrated New Years Eve with Justice Ginsberg and her husband. This has gone on for many years.

I think another thread for "Off Topic" stuff is silly. I like the sports threads because they don't involve politics. Most other stuff in the world somehow involves politics.

[hack]

As I suspected...nothing. Embarrassingly so.

You're welcome tell me why I'm wrong to focus first and foremost on corruption, or why Scalia wasn't. Did EVERYONE with business before the court take him duck hunting? Feel free to move from assertion to proof.

[hack]

Justice Scalia and his wife usually celebrated New Years Eve with Justice Ginsberg and her husband. This has gone on for many years.

He was extremely charming. It's a lot harder to hate boring people.

[Da Geezer]

I don't know that there's a way to refute me without being bound by ideology. You cannot be for democracy only some of the time.

C'mon Hack. That is pure mush, just like Talent says. May I oppose democracy all of the time? I then do so because of the tyranny of the majority that you seem so enamored with. In your world of "process" and "democracy" all that you are really saying is that the 51% can vote to take away the property and natural rights of the 49%. That's what you are so happy about.

I'd also appreciate some specifics about this alleged corruption by Scalia. I've just never heard that claim made.

[iam416]

He's gone duck hunting with Justice Kagan. I rather doubt that means he was then more predisposed to agree with her. He was great friends with RBG and I don't seem to recall that influencing. RBG has spoken glowingly about her rapport with Obama AND how important Obama are is. And her son worked on Obama's Senatorial campaign. I rather doubt her opinions were corrupt.

There's nothing in Scalia's opinion re Cheney that is at all inconsistent with his rulings. He was also with 5 other justices. I don't think there's anything in RBG's opinions re Obama care that are at odds with her rulinys.

If you're going to call a Justice corrupt - dishonest - you better be damn sure able to prove it up in the opinion. Damn sure. Your tripe is twitter-lite bullshit. It's 9-11 conspiracy level innuendo and garbage.

[hack]

Did Justice Kagan have a case pending before the court when they went duck hunting?

[hack]

C'mon Hack. That is pure mush, just like Talent says. May I oppose democracy all of the time? I then do so because of the tyranny of the majority that you seem so enamored with. In your world of "process" and "democracy" all that you are really saying is that the 51% can vote to take away the property and natural rights of the 49%. That's what you are so happy about.

No I'm not. Are you suggesting that democracy is nothing more than having elections?

[iam416]

Scalia and Cheney were friends. That's no great surprise. They went duck hunting together. At the same time a case was pending before the Court about Cheney documents. Scalia refused to recuse himself. The Court then ruled in favor of Cheney 7-2. Scalia is "corrupt to the core." QED.

[Da Geezer]

You're welcome tell me why I'm wrong to focus first and foremost on corruption, or why Scalia wasn't. Did EVERYONE with business before the court take him duck hunting? Feel free to move from assertion to proof.

So in this new world order of yours, you assert that Scalia is/was corrupt. It then becomes Talent's job to prove that Scalia is not corrupt. Hack, it is not possible to prove a negative. I don't think I'm going to like this new system.

[iam416]

That's the only way hack argues.

[hack]

There's nothing in Scalia's opinion re Cheney that is at all inconsistent with his rulings. He was also with 5 other justices.

That's in part what was so remarkable about it. He didn't need to be there to cast a crucial vote. He could have recused himself, not put Cheney at risk of having to disclose, and not suffered the accusations. They brought on scrutiny for the rest of his career. But he did it anyways. That's above-the-law behavior. Those were some incredibly corrupt years in DC.

[iam416]

Incidentally, Justice Kagan, when she was Solicitor General, had her folks working on defenses to keep ObamaCare intact. And then refused to recuse herself. Even though the Court rules require Justices to recuse themselves in their previous capacity they served as "counselor or advisor" concerning a current matter before the Court. "Corrupt to the core" -- again, I rather doubt it.