Merged Scalia is dead

[a_unique_person]

Isn't it the biggest tenet in Catholicism (as opposed to Protestantsim) that the Pope is the final arbiter of everything on Earth? Not that I have any problem believing that many Catholics don't actually follow their own religion.

No. Just on matters of faith. Of course what is a matter of faith can vary and what each pope says on matters of faith seems to vary too, but it is definitely not everything on earth.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I also agree with some of the pundits who have opined that for Cruz, Rubio and others to immediately announce they would not approve anyone Obama nominates was unnecessary and in some ways disrespectful to Antonin Scalia. Unnecessary because, let's face it, Obama wasn't going to nominate someone over the weekend. Disrespectful because Scalia isn't even in the ground yet.

There was no reason to act within hours of Scalia's death being announced. It could have waited until next week. Even better, it could have been communicated to the Obama Administration in a more discreet way.

It was totally (and typically) classless.

But what would be a better monument to him than making sure that they can discriminate against homosexuals? It would be the ideal tribute to him after all.

 

[newyorkguy]

I do not agree that the founding fathers would have approved of someone being put to death when evidence they may well be innocent has come to light. Not all of them anyway. I think we tend to forget, or take for granted, how revolutionary they were. They took up arms against probably the most powerful monarchy on the globe because of what they perceived as a string of injustices that were not going to change. The American Revolution produced writing and theory that inspired people all over the world.

It's like reducing the Constitution to a 'contract' between the people and our government. It is essentially a political statement, a manifesto.

 

[Desert Fox]

I do not agree that the founding fathers would have approved of someone being put to death when evidence they may well be innocent has come to light. Not all of them anyway. I think we tend to forget, or take for granted, how revolutionary they were. They took up arms against probably the most powerful monarchy on the globe because of what they perceived as a string of injustices that were not going to change. The American Revolution produced writing and theory that inspired people all over the world.

It's like reducing the Constitution to a 'contract' between the people and our government. It is essentially a political statement, a manifesto.

I think they might have some issues with companies treated as people as well

 

[BobTheCoward]

I do not agree that the founding fathers would have approved of someone being put to death when evidence they may well be innocent has come to light. Not all of them anyway. I think we tend to forget, or take for granted, how revolutionary they were. They took up arms against probably the most powerful monarchy on the globe because of what they perceived as a string of injustices that were not going to change. The American Revolution produced writing and theory that inspired people all over the world.

It's like reducing the Constitution to a 'contract' between the people and our government. It is essentially a political statement, a manifesto.

I completely disagree with everything you believe about the Constitution. It is only a contract and there are no penumbras. I left hear people say it is not a suicide pact. As if it is invested with some qualities that prevent harm from its own proscription. It is a suicide pact and we are obligated to follow it to the letter.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I think they might have some issues with companies treated as people as well

Really? Is there any evidence one way or the other that 18th century America had warrantless searches of corporate offices?

 

[sunmaster14]

Scalia was a piece of garbage that made the world worse. I'm glad that dung heap is dead.

This really does typify the tone of this thread, as well as the reaction of liberals in general to news of Scalia's death. And I think it is a good example of the divide between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives may rejoice in the death of our mortal enemies, but they do not, by and large, rejoice in the death of their domestic political enemies. Liberals appear to do the opposite. They focus on the sliver of good in people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and they deplore his waterboarding, but when it comes to a brilliant man whose legal decisions they won't even bother to read, let alone understand, they call him a piece of garbage and rejoice in his demise.

I can assure you that you would not see anywhere near such an outpouring of elation by conservatives at the death of any of the liberal Supreme Court justices. Certainly not by me, even though I think that Breyer and Ginsburg have broken all the old records for legislating from the bench, Kagan and Sotomayor are cowards who will bend to liberal desires on important issues, and Kennedy has no intellectual mooring whatsoever.

 

[ehcks]

I completely disagree with everything you believe about the Constitution. It is only a contract and there are no penumbras. I left hear people say it is not a suicide pact. As if it is invested with some qualities that prevent harm from its own proscription. It is a suicide pact and we are obligated to follow it to the letter.

So is it only a contract or a suicide pact required to be followed to the letter?

Those are not the same thing.

 

[elbe]

This really does typify the tone of this thread, as well as the reaction of liberals in general to news of Scalia's death. And I think it is a good example of the divide between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives may rejoice in the death of our mortal enemies, but they do not, by and large, rejoice in the death of their domestic political enemies. Liberals appear to do the opposite. They focus on the sliver of good in people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and they deplore his waterboarding, but when it comes to a brilliant man whose legal decisions they won't even bother to read, let alone understand, they call him a piece of garbage and rejoice in his demise.

I can assure you that you would not see anywhere near such an outpouring of elation by conservatives at the death of any of the liberal Supreme Court justices. Certainly not by me, even though I think that Breyer and Ginsburg have broken all the old records for legislating from the bench, Kagan and Sotomayor are cowards who will bend to liberal desires on important issues, and Kennedy has no intellectual mooring whatsoever.

From my reading of this very thread most of the responses have been along the lines of "I didn't agree with him but I wish his family well." Nice job on focusing in on the exception to "prove" your point, though.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So is it only a contract or a suicide pact required to be followed to the letter?

Those are not the same thing.

Good point. It is more like a contract than a statement of deals when comparing the two. But it is a suicide pact. There is no relief to be found if it harms all parties other than amendment.

 

[twinstead]

Sounds a lot like what some people believe the Bible or Qur'an is, without the amendments of course

 

[Dr. Keith]

From my reading of this very thread most of the responses have been along the lines of "I didn't agree with him but I wish his family well." Nice job on focusing in on the exception to "prove" your point, though.

To those who are willing to put in the work, the outrage will be their reward.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I read that Scalia claimed not to be an adherent of Original Intent (or Strict Constructionism) but a school of thought referred to as "Original Meaning", that considers how a reaslnable person at the time of the adoption of the Constitution or an amendment would understand it.

Well, at least it isn't utterly intellectually indefensible unlike Original Intent, but it certainly swings the doors wide open for Scalia to make up whatever archconservative interpretation he pleases.

 

[Suddenly]

I do not agree that the founding fathers would have approved of someone being put to death when evidence they may well be innocent has come to light. Not all of them anyway. I think we tend to forget, or take for granted, how revolutionary they were. They took up arms against probably the most powerful monarchy on the globe because of what they perceived as a string of injustices that were not going to change. The American Revolution produced writing and theory that inspired people all over the world.

It's like reducing the Constitution to a 'contract' between the people and our government. It is essentially a political statement, a manifesto.

My objection to your point is that it does exactly what Scalia does as you seem to be using the framers as a mouthpiece to voice your own viewpoint.

In Scalia's eyes, the framers would not approve of executing the innocent, it is just that, according to Scalia, they saw the pardon power as the proper remedy for this situation rather than reopening cases every time something new comes to light. Scalia says as much in his opinion.

On the other hand, I'd say that our society has developed since ratification, and we have the resources to review a conviction so the need to hold a jury verdict as final is far less. Thus the principles of fairness enshrined in the constitution require us to allow for more judicial scrutiny.

Think about how hard it would be, in terms of resources and time, to file and litigate a comprehensive appeal or new trial motion in 1796 as against how it can be done today. Trying to project what a handful of dead guys would say about this is just speculation at best.

ETA: Also, the volume of cases in modern practice would more or less paralyze the executive so the responsibility of policing wrongful convictions arguably is better placed on the judicial branch as it can be enlarged whereas the executive is by definition one person. It just works better that way...

 

[Tony Stark]

This really does typify the tone of this thread, as well as the reaction of liberals in general to news of Scalia's death. And I think it is a good example of the divide between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives may rejoice in the death of our mortal enemies, but they do not, by and large, rejoice in the death of their domestic political enemies. Liberals appear to do the opposite. They focus on the sliver of good in people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and they deplore his waterboarding, but when it comes to a brilliant man whose legal decisions they won't even bother to read, let alone understand, they call him a piece of garbage and rejoice in his demise.

I can assure you that you would not see anywhere near such an outpouring of elation by conservatives at the death of any of the liberal Supreme Court justices. Certainly not by me, even though I think that Breyer and Ginsburg have broken all the old records for legislating from the bench, Kagan and Sotomayor are cowards who will bend to liberal desires on important issues, and Kennedy has no intellectual mooring whatsoever.

Liberals don't deplore KSM's waterboarding because of anything about him (besides the fact that he is a human), but rather because waterboarding is torture and therefore immoral. And definitely a war crime.

And KSM is still alive. You were talking about deaths of enemies. America's biggest enemy was Osama bin Laden. Until he died. Or rather until Barack Obama had him whacked. You will find very few liberals that are upset about that fact. And conservatives pretend like it never happened. They hate that it will always and forever be a fact that Barack HUSSEIN Obama whacked America's worst enemy.

 

[sunmaster14]

I'm just curious on how you decide whether an expression of sympathy or respect is sincere.

Mostly introspection. I examine how I would feel if I had a certain point of view on various issues, and then I extrapolate from there. Regardless, I don't care if somebody is sincere or not in their feels of sympathy. I don't think it is wrong to feel happy that Scalia died. It certainly makes perfect sense for one who felt that he had a negative influence on justice. What I do find appalling is the lack of restraint in expressing such happiness. It is not even about showing proper respect for the dead or for death itself. It is about showing proper respect for those who don't feel as you do and actually feel a real sense of loss. Personally, I am very saddened by Scalia's death. Not just for the loss of somebody I considered to be having a positive influence on justice, but also for the loss of future legal opinions and speeches which will no longer get written. You can probably imagine that it is no fun seeing other people gloating about or mocking the thing that makes you sad.

I am sincere in my feelings of sympathy for him and his family. While I am also sincere in my relief that he is no longer on the court. I sincerely wish he had left the court in another way.

I have no doubt that whatever feelings of relief or joy you may have over the death of, by all personal accounts, a wonderful human being, are tempered by a sense of embarrassment or impropriety to have such feelings, let alone to express them. And that's good enough, in my book.

 

[elbe]

Liberals don't deplore KSM's waterboarding because of anything about him (besides the fact that he is a human), but rather because waterboarding is torture and therefore immoral. And definitely a war crime.

And we should just be better than that. What happened to the shining city upon a hill? Isn't America supposed to be an ideal? It's hard to feel like we're as great as we claim to be when most of the rest of the developed world looks down on us as backwoods clowns.

 

[elbe]

Mostly introspection. I examine how I would feel if I had a certain point of view on various issues, and then I extrapolate from there.

Gonna be honest here, that says a bit more about you than it does about anyone else.

 

[theprestige]

My objection to your point is that it does exactly what Scalia does as you seem to be using the framers as a mouthpiece to voice your own viewpoint.

In Scalia's eyes, the framers would not approve of executing the innocent, it is just that, according to Scalia, they saw the pardon power as the proper remedy for this situation rather than reopening cases every time something new comes to light. Scalia says as much in his opinion.

On the other hand, I'd say that our society has developed since ratification, and we have the resources to review a conviction so the need to hold a jury verdict as final is far less. Thus the principles of fairness enshrined in the constitution require us to allow for more judicial scrutiny.

Think about how hard it would be, in terms of resources and time, to file and litigate a comprehensive appeal or new trial motion in 1796 as against how it can be done today. Trying to project what a handful of dead guys would say about this is just speculation at best.

ETA: Also, the volume of cases in modern practice would more or less paralyze the executive so the responsibility of policing wrongful convictions arguably is better placed on the judicial branch as it can be enlarged whereas the executive is by definition one person. It just works better that way...

Thanks for this. I'm really appreciating your analysis of both Scalia and the Constitution in this thread.

Speculating on what the handful of dead guys would say, or did say, or meant to say seems like the entire point of having a Supreme Court.

Why wouldn't the handful of dead guys simply say, "if the document doesn't serve you, change it"?

Considering they designed it to be amended, and promptly did so after ratifying it, I don't think we need to speculate very much at all...

 

[BobTheCoward]

My objection to your point is that it does exactly what Scalia does as you seem to be using the framers as a mouthpiece to voice your own viewpoint.

In Scalia's eyes, the framers would not approve of executing the innocent, it is just that, according to Scalia, they saw the pardon power as the proper remedy for this situation rather than reopening cases every time something new comes to light. Scalia says as much in his opinion.

On the other hand, I'd say that our society has developed since ratification, and we have the resources to review a conviction so the need to hold a jury verdict as final is far less. Thus the principles of fairness enshrined in the constitution require us to allow for more judicial scrutiny.

Think about how hard it would be, in terms of resources and time, to file and litigate a comprehensive appeal or new trial motion in 1796 as against how it can be done today. Trying to project what a handful of dead guys would say about this is just speculation at best.

ETA: Also, the volume of cases in modern practice would more or less paralyze the executive so the responsibility of policing wrongful convictions arguably is better placed on the judicial branch as it can be enlarged whereas the executive is by definition one person. It just works better that way...

That involves making a lot of stretches in interpretation from the most obvious answer. Why not just amend the Constitution rather than contort yourself.