Merged Scalia is dead

[Tony Stark]

"Sticking it to the libs" has been the entire political platform of the GOP for the past seven years, and most of their platform for about 50 years before that.

That's not fighting. That's having a tantrum.

Many Republicans have this delusion that the GOP Congress have failed to achieve goals like repealing Obamacare because they haven't fought hard enough. Apparently the simple fact that the Republicans lack the votes is too hard for them to understand.

 

[sunmaster14]

There is one thing I don't get about justices like Scalia and Thomas - why the assumption that the interpretation of an 18th-century text must be done in accordance with the hermeneutics of 18th-century jurisprudence? It's silly - the law is the law, the method of interpretation of the law is separate from its being.

Not silly at all. I gave an analysis of this some time ago from the point of view of contract law. If you can draw a continuous line of citizens who have relied on the Constitution as a contract, from the time it was drafted until now, and it is possible to do exactly that, then it is essentially a breach of contract to interpret it differently at any point in time. If a super-majority of the citizenry thinks the Constitution should be changed, then there is a built-in amendment procedure to do just that.

Remember that the government is voted in by the majority, and since the Constitution was designed to protect the citizenry from the government, it is effectively a contract meant to protect the minority, on certain fundamental issues, from the majority. Of course, it was also meant not to protect the minority from the majority on other issues, and these were left to the legislative branch and the President to decide (or the states). Such an important contract should not be altered by 5 unelected appointees for life.

 

[Tony Stark]

Not silly at all. I gave an analysis of this some time ago from the point of view of contract law. If you can draw a continuous line of citizens who have relied on the Constitution as a contract, from the time it was drafted until now, and it is possible to do exactly that, then it is essentially a breach of contract to interpret it differently at any point in time. If a super-majority of the citizenry thinks the Constitution should be changed, then there is a built-in amendment procedure to do just that.

Remember that the government is voted in by the majority, and since the Constitution was designed to protect the citizenry from the government, it is effectively a contract meant to protect the minority, on certain fundamental issues, from the majority. Of course, it was also meant not to protect the minority from the majority on other issues, and these were left to the legislative branch and the President to decide (or the states). Such an important contract should not be altered by 5 unelected appointees for life.

BS. The textual originalism is just a cover for pushing bigotry. The ONLY reason that laws banning gay marriage were not struck down unanimously like the ones banning interracial marriage were is because there were four bigots on the bench (now thankfully three). And the only reason that people like Ted Cruz claim it was one of the worst moments in American history is because they are mad they can no longer push their bigotry on the country.

 

[foophil]

I have to ask if there's been an equivalent situation with a Republican President and what happeneded then. I'm guessing there was no holding off until after the election in those circumstances?

This seems to be the most naked piece of obstructionism by the Repubkican party to date. Not even a pretence this is about policy or the qualities of a particular nominee, just 'we ain't letting the ****** in the White House make an appointment'.

I pointed out earlier that if the Republicans hold out and refuse any appointment until the first day of the new president's term, it'll be nearly three times longer than any time in history.

It is fairly obvious that a vocal minority will absolutely demand inaction. Some are already voicing this. But the Senate has recently been good at passing stuff recently so maybe there is a chance if Obama appoints someone pretty moderate.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Dear Bob,

Can I presume that because the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the Internet, that it would be legal for Congress to ban certain political speech on blogs? Or certain forms of weapons not envisioned at the time of the Constitutional Congress. Or do you have some reason to find an out from these "strict constructions" of the intent of the authors of the US Constitution?

You are talking about unforseen. I'm discussing an unambiguous issue at the time of ratification.

 

[tsig]

News flash! The US is still a republic, not a monarchy, and the GOP won the 2010 and 2014 midterms by wide margins. You'd never know it from reading this board, but Obama is very unpopular among the public at large, which is why his name is barely mentioned in the Dem debates and repeated all the time by the GOP.

As for whether Congress can stall Obama's nominee: they damn well can, and it would serve him right. Obama has been unbelievably contemptuous of Congress, especially his second term. As Obama himself said, "elections have consequences." Or put another way, what goes around comes around.

Of course they can stall the question is "Is that a wise thing to do?".

 

[ehcks]

BS. The textual originalism is just a cover for pushing bigotry. The ONLY reason that laws banning gay marriage were not struck down unanimously like the ones banning interracial marriage were is because there were four bigots on the bench (now thankfully three). And the only reason that people like Ted Cruz claim it was one of the worst moments in American history is because they are mad they can no longer push their bigotry on the country.

But they don't know that it's bigotry. They actually believe in a giant in the sky that hates gay people and that if they don't also hate gay people they won't be able to climb the magic beanstalk and live in the clouds.

Of course, you're right that it's not actually textual originalism as the true reason for their opinions. They're always quite "activist" when it's something they want to change.

 

[tsig]

The Senate will swing back to the Democrats in the likely event that Democrat a wins the election. Maybe even if a Republican wins. The Senate seats that are up for grabs are unfavorable for Republicans this cycle.

If the GOP scum block any Obama nominee and do the same to Hillary/Bernie's, Senate Democrats can get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and tell the Republicans to **** themselves.

If Republicans are smart, they will allow Obama to appoint a moderate. Doing otherwise will prove that they are worthless obstructionists to most people. It will also probably result in someone more liberal than Obama's nominee taking Scalia's seat.

No one's been accusing them of that lately.

 

[sunmaster14]

Oh my God! Look at this:

Liberals Launch Racist Attacks On Clarence Thomas After Scalia’s Death

What a disgrace! Let's see some examples:

Oh, I can't cut and paste them because they are mostly screen shots of people's tweets.

Anyway, the gist is here:

There are actually some pretty damn racist tweets in there. One tweet imagines Clarence Thomas's reaction to Scalia's death as being similar to the scene from Django Unchained where the house slave Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) mourns the death of his master Calvin Candie (Leonard DiCaprio).

For the record, Clarence Thomas has been quite independent of Scalia. He has been far more intellectually consistent and honest. Scalia was more entertaining with his ascerbic wit, but Thomas is, in my opinion, the best justice by far. I doubt that virtually any of Thomas's detractors have even read any of his opinions, let alone understood them.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Not silly at all. I gave an analysis of this some time ago from the point of view of contract law. If you can draw a continuous line of citizens who have relied on the Constitution as a contract, from the time it was drafted until now, and it is possible to do exactly that, then it is essentially a breach of contract to interpret it differently at any point in time. If a super-majority of the citizenry thinks the Constitution should be changed, then there is a built-in amendment procedure to do just that.

Remember that the government is voted in by the majority, and since the Constitution was designed to protect the citizenry from the government, it is effectively a contract meant to protect the minority, on certain fundamental issues, from the majority. Of course, it was also meant not to protect the minority from the majority on other issues, and these were left to the legislative branch and the President to decide (or the states). Such an important contract should not be altered by 5 unelected appointees for life.

I'm pretty sure Contract Law doesn't trump Constitutional and Common law. Also, I seriously doubt anything resembling a constitution could be valid under any reasonable take on contract theory.

 

[rdaneel]

I'm not sure phrases such as jiggery-pokery or argle-bargle using "Pure applesauce" to describe a legal complaint are good elocution.

Well, you've got to bear in mind that when Trump is your point of reference, "better" doesn't necessarily mean "good".

 

[Elind]

Will you be laughing if by taking the unprecedented step of leaving a Supreme Court seat open for a year, the Republicans prove to the American people that they worthless obstructionist garbage

What have they been doing for the past 7 years except obstruct on principle, or no principle?

 

[Rare Truth]

The Originalist stand is clearly : Obama gets 3/5 of a presidency.

LOLGOP

 

[sunmaster14]

BS. The textual originalism is just a cover for pushing bigotry. The ONLY reason that laws banning gay marriage were not struck down unanimously like the ones banning interracial marriage were is because there were four bigots on the bench (now thankfully three). And the only reason that people like Ted Cruz claim it was one of the worst moments in American history is because they are mad they can no longer push their bigotry on the country.

The gay marriage decision was unadulterated politics. It was completely dishonest and had no justification in anything remotely approximating logic or law. And this is the opinion of somebody (me) who supports gay marriage. The only reason that the decision came to fruition was that the majority opinion in the country was quickly moving in favor of gay marriage. But that's what the legislative process is for, to reflect public opinion within the constraints of the Constitution.

 

[shemp]

Have doctors yet performed emergency surgery to separate his conjoined twin, Clarence Thomas?

 

[tsig]

Their job is to decide what to do.not voting is a valid use of legislative power.

Just like not fighting fires is a valid use of firefighting power.

Not fixing cars - mechanics power

Not responding to emergencies - EMT's power.

 

[Elind]

I'm not sure phrases such as jiggery-pokery or argle-bargle using "Pure applesauce" to describe a legal complaint are good elocution.

It's still better than Trump speak for entertainment value.

 

[Tony Stark]

Re: McConnell saying that the appointment should wait until after the election.

Well, Reagan filled an empty seat his last year in office (Kennedy). The Senate (I believe it was controlled by Democrats at the time) confirmed 97-0. Mitch McConnell himself was a Senator at the time.

Could he possibly be more of a hypocritical piece of crap?

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

 

[BobTheCoward]

BS. The textual originalism is just a cover for pushing bigotry. The ONLY reason that laws banning gay marriage were not struck down unanimously like the ones banning interracial marriage were is because there were four bigots on the bench (now thankfully three). And the only reason that people like Ted Cruz claim it was one of the worst moments in American history is because they are mad they can no longer push their bigotry on the country.

Originalist is not bigotry. My originalism serves as a guide for what we should amend.

 

[tsig]

And frankly congress has been FAR far more contemptuous of Obama than the other way around. Attempt to be block, repel , fight ACA all the time, birther and so forth.

Your congress has been a contemptuous obstruction the whole past years including obstruction and stopping federal budget.

Pretending that Obama has been contemptuous is rewriting history. The last congress has been contemptuous of the American public and government process at a whole.

Note that I am not saying Obama was very good at his job, he certainly promised far more than he delivered, and Guantanamo is still standing. But contemptuous ? To the congress ? Are you kidding me ?

I'm not sure if he's rewriting history he seems to have lived in a different history.