• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Scalia is dead

Suddenly said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I don't find it at all plausible that he had a blind spot but wasn't actually a creationist. Christian judges, even Republican ones have consistently ruled against this BS. Most notably in the relatively recent past, John Jones, a Dubya appointee who ruled in Kitzmiller v Dover that intelligent design is not science and is indistinguishable from creationism.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
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.
Click to expand...

lol, read the dissent yet? I'm guessing no, and that is why you wildly misinterpreted the reason for quoting Scalia there.
 
Tony Stark said:
Yeah, but I don't find it at all plausible that he had a blind spot but wasn't actually a creationist. Christian judges, even Republican ones have consistently against this BS. Most notably in the relatively recent past, John Johns, a Dubya appointee who ruled in Kitzmiller v Dover that intelligent design is not science and is indistinguishable from creationism.
Click to expand...

Could be both, in reality. He could be a creationist trying to analyze a legal issue from a secular point of view with his blind spot keeping him from doing so.

Having read way too many of his opinions, I don't find plausible the idea that Scalia looked at this case and thought: "I'll find for the creationists because I'm a creationist." That wasn't his style. He was so wrapped up in the concept of original intent that he'd first have to decide that the framers would have been in favor of the creationists.

I mean, Scalia probably was unable to decide how he wanted his eggs cooked without justifying his personal preference by pawning it off as the original intent of the framers. He was highly intelligent but used most of that intelligence in a shell game where he tried to make his opinions appear to be those of the founders. He didn't stop doing that when religion was at issue.
 
16.5 said:
lol, read the dissent yet? I'm guessing no, and that is why you wildly misinterpreted the reason for quoting Scalia there.
Click to expand...


LOL.

If the diligent cherry picking of that document which you're engaging in in a completely failed effort to make him look better is any example, then I don't see why I should waste my own time just to read more of the same.

Others have. Plenty of others, whose credentials are far more authoritative than mine or even yours. Most of them disagree with you. Even seven other Justices, although I thought your little ploy about "contrarian" dissents was cute.

It obviously isn't going to help rehabilitate him. He may not himself be a creationist, although thanks to you that seems increasingly unlikely, but it is clear through your own citations that he supports them and has nothing but scorn for the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

"Original intent"

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
 
quadraginta said:
LOL.

If the diligent cherry picking of that document which you're engaging in in a completely failed effort to make him look better is any example, then I don't see why I should waste my own time just to read more of the same.

Others have. Plenty of others, whose credentials are far more authoritative than mine or even yours. Most of them disagree with you. Even seven other Justices, although I thought your little ploy about "contrarian" dissents was cute.

It obviously isn't going to help rehabilitate him. He may not himself be a creationist, although thanks to you that seems increasingly unlikely, but it is clear through your own citations that he supports them and has nothing but scorn for the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

"Original intent"

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It is rare that one gets accused of cherry picking by someone refusing to read the entire document in question. It was not me who posted about "contrarian" anything, ploy or otherwise. Reading comprehension...

"Original intent"

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That was spectacularly meaningless. Let me guess, you also don't understand Scalia's judicial philosophy...

Oh well.
 
Suddenly said:
Could be both, in reality. He could be a creationist trying to analyze a legal issue from a secular point of view with his blind spot keeping him from doing so.

Having read way too many of his opinions, I don't find plausible the idea that Scalia looked at this case and thought: "I'll find for the creationists because I'm a creationist." That wasn't his style. He was so wrapped up in the concept of original intent that he'd first have to decide that the framers would have been in favor of the creationists.

I mean, Scalia probably was unable to decide how he wanted his eggs cooked without justifying his personal preference by pawning it off as the original intent of the framers. He was highly intelligent but used most of that intelligence in a shell game where he tried to make his opinions appear to be those of the founders. He didn't stop doing that when religion was at issue.
Click to expand...
Well, he may have decided that they were hard core Christians, but I think that would have been because that's what he wanted to believe. The founding fathers (at least most of the most important ones) were more accurately deists. If they wanted to enshrine the Christian god in the Constitution, they could have done that. They didn't and there were plenty of people upset about that fact. There is no mention of god in it at all. And the only mention of religion is the establishment clause and the article (I forget which one) that forbids religious tests for public office.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
Well, he may have decided that they were hard core Christians, but I think that would have been because that's what he wanted to believe. The founding fathers (at least most of the most important ones) were more accurately deists. If they wanted to enshrine the Christian god in the Constitution, they could have done that. They didn't. There is no mention of god in it at all. And the only mention of religion is the establishment clause and the article (I forget which one) that forbids religious tests for public office.
Click to expand...

Deism is not at all inconsistent with creationism. Isn't that the point of deism, that the deity sets up everything and then steps back and watches it run? Our courts adopted Jefferson's "wall of separation" concept when interpreting the establishment clause. If one were obsessed with "original intent" as was Scalia, it isn't too far a leap for him to disagree with the adoption of Jefferson's expansive interpretation of that clause in favor of one that construed the language far more narrowly. That seems to be the space in which Scalia operated.

Yeah, he was probably a creationist, and that's why he went through these gymnastics to opine as he did. My point is that I seriously doubt this was a simple conscious process. It just wasn't how the man operated. It is also plausible that he personally didn't believe in creation but read the establishment clause so narrowly that his opinions gave the impression that he did
 
I am saddened by Scalia's death. I know he had a long life and loved what he was doing, but still, any person's passing is a reason to reflect, and even mourn.

That being said, I am happy that Scalia is no longer on the court, although I am not happy that it is death that removed him. He was consistent in picking a result and then twisting the concept of originalism to fit his result. He was very good at it, but he is a study in unprincipled juris prudence. The court, and originalism, are better off for his absence.

logger said:
newyorkguy said:
Yes Ruth Bader Ginsburg was personal friends with Antonin Scalia. She said he was a very nice man, very warm friend and that she liked him very much. She also conceded some of his legal decisions were irrational. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm sure to a socialist pedophile they would be.
Click to expand...

I'm unclear on whether logger is calling newyorguy or Notorious RBG a socialist pedophile. Or is there another reading I'm missing here?

I don't follow all every poster here very closely, but I think I would have noticed if one of you was an avowed pedophile. Even among all you other socialists.
 
Suddenly said:
Deism is not at all inconsistent with creationism. Isn't that the point of deism, that the deity sets up everything and then steps back and watches it run? Our courts adopted Jefferson's "wall of separation" concept when interpreting the establishment clause. If one were obsessed with "original intent" as was Scalia, it isn't too far a leap for him to disagree with the adoption of Jefferson's expansive interpretation of that clause in favor of one that construed the language far more narrowly. That seems to be the space in which Scalia operated.

Yeah, he was probably a creationist, and that's why he went through these gymnastics to opine as he did. My point is that I seriously doubt this was a simple conscious process. It just wasn't how the man operated. It is also plausible that he personally didn't believe in creation but read the establishment clause so narrowly that his opinions gave the impression that he did
Click to expand...

Deism is most certainly incompatible with Christianity and I don't think I have ever come across a person who was a creationist but not a Christian (or Muslim, ect) or a deist but not an evolutionist.

Also, James Madison is the person most responsible for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He was close to Jefferson with his views on religion and the state's role in it.

If Scalia thought the founding fathers would have agreed with him on religion, that's only because that's what he wanted to believe.
 
16.5 said:
It is rare that one gets accused of cherry picking by someone refusing to read the entire document in question. It was not me who posted about "contrarian" anything, ploy or otherwise. Reading comprehension...



That was spectacularly meaningless. Let me guess, you also don't understand Scalia's judicial philosophy...

Oh well.
Click to expand...

Once convicted, always convicted, we don't need no steekin' evidence.

Sincerely held beliefs trump facts.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I am saddened by Scalia's death. I know he had a long life and loved what he was doing, but still, any person's passing is a reason to reflect, and even mourn.

That being said, I am happy that Scalia is no longer on the court, although I am not happy that it is death that removed him. He was consistent in picking a result and then twisting the concept of originalism to fit his result. He was very good at it, but he is a study in unprincipled juris prudence. The court, and originalism, are better off for his absence.



I'm unclear on whether logger is calling newyorguy or Notorious RBG a socialist pedophile. Or is there another reading I'm missing here?

I don't follow all every poster here very closely, but I think I would have noticed if one of you was an avowed pedophile. Even among all you other socialists.
Click to expand...

I didn't notice this post before. It seems to me that he was calling RBG a socialist pedophile. I can understand how conservative "news" would have brainwashed him into believing that RBG is a socialist. But a pedophile? I am pretty sure that even they haven't gone that far.

Or I am wrong and logger will be presenting evidence that newyorkguy is both a socialist and a pedophile. (Lol)
 
tsig said:
Once convicted, always convicted, we don't need no steekin' evidence.

Sincerely held beliefs trump facts.
Click to expand...

Multi quote enables you to avoid making sense in one large post, not lots of little ones. Check it out!
 
tsig said:
Once convicted, always convicted, we don't need no steekin' evidence.

Sincerely held beliefs trump facts.
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
Multi quote enables you to avoid making sense in one large post, not lots of little ones. Check it out!
Click to expand...

Your post makes no sense. It is not responsive to what I posted. Please try to at least appear rational
 
Tricky said:
You know, Clarence Thomas has always done exactly as Scalia has done, so maybe...
Click to expand...
Get murdered by Obama like Alex Jones predicts? I hope so.

To be serious, I don't want Thomas to get murdered and I think that anybody who thinks Obama murdered Scalia is insane. And in the one in a billion chance that Obama murdered Scalia, he should be prosecuted, no matter if he is the President.

I wouldn't be the slightest bit saddened if Thomas suddenly died of a heart attack though.
 
Tony Stark said:
If Scalia thought the founding fathers would have agreed with him on religion, that's only because that's what he wanted to believe.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with original intent. There isn't just one founder. Or two. It is sort of an amorphous group and it's too easy to pick and choose, and that's before we get into revisionists with axes to grind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom