Merged Scalia is dead

[lobosrul]

You don't have to be Nazi to believe that they have 1st Amendment rights.

You do have to be a creationist (or really stupid) to believe that there is a secular reason for teaching creation "science" in biology class.

To put it another way, you'd have to be a Nazi to say its OK for schools to teach the Nazi's philosophy in school as an alternative that may be valid.

 

[The Big Dog]

You don't have to be Nazi to believe that they have 1st Amendment rights.

You do have to be a creationist (or really stupid) to believe that there is a secular reason for teaching creation "science" in biology class.

and you don't have to be a creationist to believe that the Louisiana Legislature had satisfied the first prong of the Lemon test for purposes of summary judgment.

Scalia (a Catholic) and Rehnquist (a Lutheran) were neither fundamentalists nor Bible literalists.

I will concede that there is a slight possibility that these jurists might not have the extensive legal background that you have.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That is what Judges do. As I have pointed out repeatedly, for example, several Judges have upheld the right of Nazis to march, without themselves being Nazis!

I know, amazing!

Did any of those Judges write decisions that included phrases such as "the superiority of Nazi philosophy was unrefuted in testimony" to support their decision?

 

[Tony Stark]

and you don't have to be a creationist to believe that the Louisiana Legislature had satisfied the first prong of the Lemon test for purposes of summary judgment.

Scalia (a Catholic) and Rehnquist (a Lutheran) were neither fundamentalists nor Bible literalists.

I will concede that there is a slight possibility that these jurists might not have the extensive legal background that you have.

And there are three prongs, all of which must be met for a law to be constitutional. Only a creationist (or a really stupid person) could believe Louisiana met all three.

So what if Scalia was a Catholic? Are you telling me that there are no Catholic creationists?

And I don't think that I know more about the Constitution than Scalia did. I think that Scalia ruled the way he did because he wanted to allow states to push religion in public schools. Which was clearly the intent of the law. Not just my opinion, but that of seven justices.

Do you believe that teaching creation "science" in public schools has a secular purpose? Or are you just defending your dear departed hero on this for ***** and giggles?

 

[quadraginta]

That is what Judges do. As I have pointed out repeatedly, for example, several Judges have upheld the right of Nazis to march, without themselves being Nazis!

I know, amazing!

There is no Constitutional barrier to Nazis (or anyone else) peacefully exercising their rights to free speech or assembly.

There is, however, a Constitutional barrier to state sponsored religious indoctrination.

Your comparison is invalid.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I will concede that there is a slight possibility that these jurists might not have the extensive legal background that you have.

Lets not lose sight of the fact that seven other jurists whose credentials are reasonable equivalent did disagree with Scalia.

And the one who didn't rarely disagreed with Scalia on anything.

 

[Suddenly]

You don't have to be Nazi to believe that they have 1st Amendment rights.

You do have to be a creationist (or really stupid) to believe that there is a secular reason for teaching creation "science" in biology class.

He could just be wrong about the secular reason. I may find it "really stupid" when a judge has an opinion I strongly disagree with, but that usually says more about my intolerance for those that disagree with me than it does about the quality of the reasoning.

Scalia may well have been a creationist, and that may have influenced his reasoning, but using his case opinions to imply anything about his personal beliefs is at best dicey.

 

[Tony Stark]

He could just be wrong about the secular reason. I may find it "really stupid" when a judge has an opinion I strongly disagree with, but that usually says more about my intolerance for those that disagree with me than it does about the quality of the reasoning.

Scalia may well have been a creationist, and that may have influenced his reasoning, but using his case opinions to imply anything about his personal beliefs is at best dicey.

Well, I don't believe that Scalia was stupid at all.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

This is a good link to save the next time one of our righties assert that Breitbart is a reliable media organization.

Actually, reading a Breitbart article on this, they don't seem to be running with the conspiracy theory, but rather reporting that it exists.

you're right. I jumped the gun and trusted the Raw Story headline. Rookie mistake.

But to be fair, a lot of the commentators are running with the "MURDER!" line, although quite a few others are pointing and laughing. I especially like the ones that insist that conservatives never believe conspiracy theories, only those on the left do.

 

[Suddenly]

Well, I don't believe that Scalia was stupid at all.

Then why have it as part of your dichotomy? Couldn't he just be wrong?

I'd suspect that Scalia had an emotional blind spot about religion. As I recall most of his howlers were in religion cases. In, say, criminal law cases he here or there voted on the more "liberal" side, like when he dealt a death blow to the mandatory sentencing guidelines and when he gave teeth back to the confrontation clause.

Which is to say Scalia was perfectly capable of distancing his personal conservative beliefs from his legal analysis, so using his opinions as proof of his personal beliefs seems a shaky proposition.

I'd suspect this was less true when religion was on the table, but that is based more on his actions away from the bench than what he wrote in his opinions.

 

[sunmaster14]

Then why have it as part of your dichotomy? Couldn't he just be wrong?

I'd suspect that Scalia had an emotional blind spot about religion. As I recall most of his howlers were in religion cases. In, say, criminal law cases he here or there voted on the more "liberal" side, like when he dealt a death blow to the mandatory sentencing guidelines and when he gave teeth back to the confrontation clause.

Which is to say Scalia was perfectly capable of distancing his personal conservative beliefs from his legal analysis, so using his opinions as proof of his personal beliefs seems a shaky proposition.

I'd suspect this was less true when religion was on the table, but that is based more on his actions away from the bench than what he wrote in his opinions.

I agree with this to a large extent. I did sometimes get the feeling that Scalia would decide which way he wanted to come down on an issue, particularly religious issues, and then would craft a fairly persuasive argument in support.

I'll note also however that Scalia was something of a contrarian, which is something I'm particularly sensitive to because I am one as well. If he knows a vote is going to go a certain way, he might have been inclined to dissent just to get the strongest possible opposing arguments out there for other legal scholars to consider. It's not particularly stimulating or intellectually challenging to join a 9-0 majority.

 

[Tony Stark]

Then why have it as part of your dichotomy? Couldn't he just be wrong?

I'd suspect that Scalia had an emotional blind spot about religion. As I recall most of his howlers were in religion cases. In, say, criminal law cases he here or there voted on the more "liberal" side, like when he dealt a death blow to the mandatory sentencing guidelines and when he gave teeth back to the confrontation clause.

Which is to say Scalia was perfectly capable of distancing his personal conservative beliefs from his legal analysis, so using his opinions as proof of his personal beliefs seems a shaky proposition.

I'd suspect this was less true when religion was on the table, but that is based more on his actions away from the bench than what he wrote in his opinions.

He was most definitely wrong. Probably because he was a creationist. There is also the possibility that he wasn't a creationist but was too dumb to understand that there is no such thing as creation "science". I doubt very much that the latter is true though.

 

[Tony Stark]

I agree with this to a large extent. I did sometimes get the feeling that Scalia would decide which way he wanted to come down on an issue, particularly religious issues, and then would craft a fairly persuasive argument in support.

I obviously agree. And I thank you for your intellectual honesty in admitting it. To be clear, I don't think that it was unique to Scalia. Probably most justices (including the liberals) have done it.

I'll note also however that Scalia was something of a contrarian, which is something I'm particularly sensitive to because I am one as well. If he knows a vote is going to go a certain way, he might have been inclined to dissent just to get the strongest possible opposing arguments out there for other legal scholars to consider. It's not particularly stimulating or intellectually challenging to join a 9-0 majority.

That is an interesting possibility that I had not thought of.

 

[The Big Dog]

Then why have it as part of your dichotomy? Couldn't he just be wrong?

I'd suspect that Scalia had an emotional blind spot about religion. As I recall most of his howlers were in religion cases. In, say, criminal law cases he here or there voted on the more "liberal" side, like when he dealt a death blow to the mandatory sentencing guidelines and when he gave teeth back to the confrontation clause.

Which is to say Scalia was perfectly capable of distancing his personal conservative beliefs from his legal analysis, so using his opinions as proof of his personal beliefs seems a shaky proposition.

I'd suspect this was less true when religion was on the table, but that is based more on his actions away from the bench than what he wrote in his opinions.

actually the dissent was consistent with his view on original intent.

Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion -- not freedom from it.

 

[quadraginta]

I agree with this to a large extent. I did sometimes get the feeling that Scalia would decide which way he wanted to come down on an issue, particularly religious issues, and then would craft a fairly persuasive argument in support.

I'll note also however that Scalia was something of a contrarian, which is something I'm particularly sensitive to because I am one as well. If he knows a vote is going to go a certain way, he might have been inclined to dissent just to get the strongest possible opposing arguments out there for other legal scholars to consider. It's not particularly stimulating or intellectually challenging to join a 9-0 majority.

This might be a useful, perhaps even admirable quality in a columnist or drawing room raconteur, but it is a great deal less than admirable in a Supreme Court Justice.

If you are trying to offer it as an apology for his disgraceful coddling of religious fundamentalists and his support of entrenching their illiterate beliefs in our public school system then it fails. Miserably.

 

[Tony Stark]

actually the dissent was consistent with his view on original intent.

It is also consistent with my view that he was a creationist who had no qualms whatsoever about pushing religion in public schools.

 

[Suddenly]

He was most definitely wrong. Probably because he was a creationist. There is also the possibility that he wasn't a creationist but was too dumb to understand that there is no such thing as creation "science". I doubt very much that the latter is true though.

The point is there are other possibilities than his ruling based on specific personal religious beliefs and being "really stupid" or now "too dumb to understand." He could simply have an emotional blind spot, for example. He could very well not be a creationist, just that his blind spot when it comes to analyzing religious issues causes him to reach a pro-creationist conclusion.

Everyone has blind spots when it comes to these sorts of things. It isn't a question of intelligence. Intelligence often makes blind spots worse because the brain gets really good at twisting things.

 

[The Big Dog]

It is also consistent with my view that he was a creationist who had no qualms whatsoever about pushing religion in public schools.

Well, considering that you managed to avoid calling him a scumbag, perhaps your arguments aren't utterly worthless

 

[quadraginta]

dup

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

actually the dissent was consistent with his view on original intent.

Defending his strict adherence to the plain text of the Constitution, Scalia knocked secular qualms over the role of religion in the public sphere as “utterly absurd,” arguing that the Constitution is only obligated to protect freedom of religion -- not freedom from it.

Another patently ridiculous comment. One which is about as far from "original intent" as can be gotten while still discussing the same document.

The very purpose of the "Establishment Clause" was expressly to protect citizens from government sponsored religion and indoctrination, of which there can be few more glaring and obvious examples than teaching creationism in public schools.

I suppose you are going to try and unearth some more statements in your continuing and futile attempts at apologetics for this man, but you'd be well advised to give up.

So far, everything you've come up with just makes him look worse and worse.