Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

They brought on scrutiny for the rest of his career. But he did it anyways. That's above-the-law behavior.

If only your arguments could be supported by your own blind assertions, then you'd have a chance.

[hack]

Is ``had her folks working on defenses to keep ObamaCare intact'' equal to ``served as "counselor or advisor" concerning a current matter before the Court''? I don't honestly know, but if that's a false equivalence, it wouldn't be the first one in the past few minutes. We've argued enough that it's easy to spot the difference between you pounding facts and you pounding the table.

[froot loops]

Yeah the Republican debates have been clown shows going on for at least two election cycles, but last night they upped the crazy a couple notches. At this rate I expect the studio audience chanting Steve Wilkos name by the next debate.

I'm not sure Scalia was corrupt to the core but he was way too close to the Republican establishment.

[Da Geezer]

And in other news:

Trump began to show his real colors last night by claiming Bush(43) knew that Saddam had no WMD before initiating the Gulf War and that 43 should have been impeached. The stuff he said would have made moveon.org blush. I'm beginning to come over to Jon's point of view.

Strangelove, I owe you a response to your question about paying teachers very little as some sort of solution. I only really know about Michigan, so what seems reasonable to CGTV in AL or you in OH can vary. I will note that the $ 36,000 starting pay in CGTV's post is accurate.

And, as an edit at 10:11, Trump also said John Roberts "was a disaster" and all the candidates agreed.

[hack]

I'm not sure Scalia was corrupt to the core but he was way too close to the Republican establishment.

I highly doubt he was when he arrived in '86.

[froot loops]

Trump was right.

[Mike]

Corruption claims are news to me. I'd bet similar claims can be made of anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes in D.C. My problem with Scalia is that he did everything in his power, which was considerable, to make life more difficult for a specific population. I am a layman when it comes to Constitutional Law but I am of the belief that the Constitution is a living document and that the founders intended it as such. IMO, Scalia was a political ideologue masquerading as a SCOTUS justice. I think the court and the country will be better served by his replacement. Given the importance of the vacancy created by his death, discussing his replacement or recognizing the opportunity for Obama to appoint another Justice is completely in bounds, IMO.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Brown v Board of Education was an anti-democratic decision. So was the ruling (I forget the name off the top of my head) that struck down anti-miscegenation laws. I'm not aware that Scalia ever took issue with either ruling. So even he could be okay with the courts striking down the popular will when he agreed with the outcome.

When it came to gays I think Scalia refused to view them as a protected class and instead solely as citizens engaging in deviant behavior that "many" (himself included) found morally objectionable. So he insisted that gays could ONLY achieve protections through the legislative process and not through the courts. I don't know if he ever said it outright but his rulings seem to make it pretty clear that Scalia considered homosexuality a choice and not something you came by naturally. That would be consistent with his devout Catholicism as well.

I imagine he'll mainly be remembered for his fierce obstinacy on this issue and his entertaining dissents. I'm sure he has some really strong majority opinions that he wrote that'll be long be remembered as good law but I'm less familiar with them.

[hack]

I think this thread as it is now speaks to what a bad idea it is to apply common sense to legal matters, in particular if lawyers present are hell-bent on lawyering the thread. I suspect you're right, and I've read enough coverage to feel that he was principled on the Constitution until he needed to be otherwise. I've read enough of his writing to know, as a writer myself, that he was clear when he wanted to be and loudly purposefully unclear when he wanted to be, and that was a tactic for those times when he was veering away from what he claimed to be. But, IMO, what I said about corruption is the biggest thing. You see frequenly in DC that when one person breaks a taboo, others will too. If Talent's thing about Kagan is not a false equivalence, it very well may be an example. When one side ignores the rules, you can expect the other will too. That's one way the whole thing gets sick in the first place.

[iam416]

Geezer:

If you're interested in the actual facts of the duck hunting thing, just search Scalia recusal and you'll find the opinion. It's way more innocuous that I even made it sound.

Mike:

I find him far less of an ideologue. Your question is the fundamental question -- are Justices to be moored to anything other than their conscience and political whims? There's certainly a ton of literature that ably show Scalia, while basically a "strict constructionist", also drifted toward ideology on a few cases. A perfectly fair criticism.

And, to be clear, the vast majority of cases are generally moored to something and decided with a comfortable majority. We focus on the controversial 5-4 cases, but the bulk of the Justices have a fidelity to certain constraints. On the more controversial cases is where you start to see it break down a bit.

But THAT is the really fascinating and interesting discussion to have. His influence in terms of how you approach the Constitution and a statute are enormous. I happen to agree with much of his approach -- moreso on Constitutional issues than statutory. But I also enjoy and respect Brennan opinions and even RBG opinions.

[iam416]

Brown v Board of Education was an anti-democratic decision. So was the ruling (I forget the name off the top of my head) that struck down anti-miscegenation laws. I'm not aware that Scalia ever took issue with either ruling. So even he could be okay with the courts striking down the popular will when he agreed with the outcome.

Loving v Virginia

When it came to gays I think Scalia refused to view them as a protected class and instead solely as citizens engaging in deviant behavior that "many" (himself included) found morally objectionable. So he insisted that gays could ONLY achieve protections through the legislative process and not through the courts. I don't know if he ever said it outright but his rulings seem to make it pretty clear that Scalia considered homosexuality a choice and not something you came by naturally. That would be consistent with his devout Catholicism as well.

I don't think he cared about the deviant behavior. There's literally nothing in the EPC that says "sexual orientation." Kennedy's majority "LOVE WINS!!!!" opinion is, as a piece of legal reasoning, fucking god-awful. As a matter of philosophy, he's entirely right, IMO. IMO, Scalia's dissent in that case was dead balls right as a matter of Constitutional interpretation. But I liked the overall outcome.

I imagine he'll mainly be remembered for his fierce obstinacy on this issue and his entertaining dissents. I'm sure he has some really strong majority opinions that he wrote that'll be long be remembered as good law but I'm less familiar with them.

He'll be remembered for re-defining the way Justices look at law. In the wake of Brennan and the direction of the Court, he was a stark alternative. His influence as a jurist is massive. I think even those lawyers who detest him would acknowledge that (it's surely part of the reason they detest him).

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump bashing the Bushes over Iraq is very interesting...an overwhelming majority of Americans view Iraq as a mistake, even among Republicans. Not sure they will go along with "Bush lied us into the war" though.

[hack]

The actual facts are simple: Scalia took a vacation paid for by someone with business before the court, and then wrote a dripping-with-hatred justification that amounted to ``trust me''. There's no dispute about it. But, again, this was in those shell-shocked few years after 9/11 and an astonishingly corrupt period for the country. Tom Delay was destroying public records to avoid incriminating himself. Cheney retained Halliburton shares and the DOD was awarding it no-bid contracts. Scalia of course helped to make it all possible in the aftermath of the 2000 election.

Talent, you consider yourself a very cynical person. This looks like a duck and walks like a duck. And yet you seem more skeptical of climate science than of men who have enriched themselves by the million using the processes described above. So count me as cynical about your cynicism.

[iam416]

The actual facts are simple: Scalia took a vacation paid for by someone with business before the court

If the facts are so simple, I'd think you would AT LEAST get that one right. Instead, you're absolutely wrong. Cheney did NOT pay for Scalia to take the duck hunting trip. It was a trip he had on for years. One of his friends was a Cheney fan. Scalia, being a long-time friend with Cheney, invited him to join the group of 8 or 9 duck hunters. The invitation was extended a year before-hand and prior to the Cheney case going up to the Court.

Perhaps with that bit of clarity you may change your tune. LOL. Right.

You're right, I am cynical. And even I don't believe for a flying fucking second that a Supreme Court Justice would be "bought" by the chance to ride in a government plane!

[froot loops]

Trump is marrying all of those candidates to George W. Bush. It looks like a kamikaze mission in SC but it might pay dividends down the line. Plus he is right on that.