NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think it is and why?

I think it is Antonin Scalia because he is the main supporter of Judicial originalism. This means that the Constitution, like any other series of laws or legal document, means the same thing as it did when its text was written. Close seconds are Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.
As we saw in Bush v. Gore and Roe v. Wadethe Supreme Court's rulings dominate our government. But they are far from perfect. One only needs to look to the overturned precedent of dred scot and plessy v. ferguson to see that. You might find these two interesting as well...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061500730.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

So who is it? Who is the one that does not make you furious? Or bored to tears? For me it is Scalia.

Honestly, the whole thing is set up ass backwards. Laws should be reviewed for constitutionality before they go into effect. And there should be a branch that does nothing but repeal laws.

Meh, OT, so sue me ;)

Well I like the looks of the Poll so far.:D

Scalia has MENTAL problems. For real. He can't be sane. He's... wow.

Plus there's the conflict of interest stuff.

Scalia has MENTAL problems. For real. He can't be sane. He's... wow.

What is your rationale to saying that? Do you have any evidence to provide, or is it just insults?

Plus there's the conflict of interest stuff.

All of it nonsense.

What is your rationale to saying that? Do you have any evidence to provide, or is it just insults?My opinion + insult. The guy a nutcase and a douche. :eek:

For me it is Scalia.
Among other things Scalia thinks it's perfectly fine to put innocent people to death even if it can be proved they're innocent. He's an ass-hat and should die in a fire.

All of it nonsense.

Hardly. There was a specific and very obvious conflict of interest in the Bush vs. Gore case. I don't remember the details, someone else can remind you, but it was very clear.

Among other things Scalia thinks it's perfectly fine to put innocent people to death even if it can be proved they're innocent. He's an ass-hat and should die in a fire.

Source your claim.

My opinion + insult. The guy a nutcase and a douche. :eek:

Well, I guess you can't back up your opinion with reasoning.

Hardly. There was a specific and very obvious conflict of interest in the Bush vs. Gore case. I don't remember the details, someone else can remind you, but it was very clear.

I don't see an evidence of that.

He's an asshole, there's my reason.

I voted for Stevens, as he seemed to get the shaft in the poll description. I like an underdog.

He's an asshole, there's my reason.

Well arent your an intelligent reasonable person. :rolleyes:

Dealing with you liberals on this forum seems like such a waste of effort some times. It seems like you really have nothing to offer but petty insults.

I voted for Stevens, as he seemed to get the shaft in the poll description. I like an underdog.
Finally! Somebody makes a positive statement instead of merely insulting my choice. Thank you. I disagree with Justice Stevens in many of his rulings but I believe that he is an honest and fair judge and a good man. A World War II vet too!

Well arent your an intelligent reasonable person. :rolleyes:
Perhaps, but you just misspelled a simple pronoun and forgot an apostrophe (and arguably a comma or two).

Finally! Somebody makes a positive statement instead of merely insulting my choice. Thank you. I disagree with Justice Stevens in many of his rulings but I believe that he is an honest and fair judge and a good man. A World War II vet too!
To be honest, I know almost nothing about the Supreme Court justices. Although I did find it strange that his vote in that case was the whole of your description of him.

Perhaps, but you just misspelled a simple pronoun and forgot an apostrophe (and arguably a comma or two).

As they say on the Interweb, "Owned."

Anywho, I voted for Souter. I like his last name.

To be honest, I know almost nothing about the Supreme Court justices. Although I did find it strange that his vote in that case was the whole of your description of him.
Yeah, I know...for a more detailed description go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens

Anywho, I voted for Souter. I like his last name.

Souter is often viewed as a turncoat by Republicans. he was appointed by Bush the first....but ended up being one of the most liberal justices ever. He even sided with Gore in election 2000 and voted to uphold partial birth abortion.

I was just pulling your strings. :p You got all mad 'cause I dissed your choice.

He's too conservative + he thinks everything is beneath him, but that's just the impression I get when I hear him speak... then again, he did actually say in a Q&A that he is never wrong. It was on C-SPAN.

I chose Breyer. You may rip him to shreds now.

Souter is often viewed as a turncoat by Republicans. he was appointed by Bush the first....but ended up being one of the most liberal justices ever. He even sided with Gore in election 2000

This comment somewhat amuses me. Are you actually suggesting that for a justice to be a "faithful conservative" he must side with a conservative politician no matter what his particular view on the matter is?

Are you actually suggesting that it is more important that a justice be in line with the party that appointed him and not his own particular viewpoints?

I was just pulling your strings. :p You got all mad 'cause I dissed your choice.

He's too conservative + he thinks everything is beneath him, but that's just the impression I get when I hear him speak... then again, he did actually say in a Q&A that he is never wrong. It was on C-SPAN.

I chose Breyer. You may rip him to shreds now.

Well you pulled the strings pretty hard :D No harm done.

I highly doubt he said he was "never wrong" but he can be rather arrogant in public forums. I remember seeing him live in front of a bunch of college students once and I sympathized with his wrath at their dumb and off topic questioning. Here are some quick examples...http://www.penraker.com/archives/003480.html
all 7 questions were staggeringly mind numbingly dumb

Breyer, is somebody who I think is a great speaker and writer but not a good interpreter of the text of the Constitution. I find him too broad and willing to allow things like emminant domain and affirmative action to continue ( both of whom I think are violations of the equal protection clause).

This comment somewhat amuses me. Are you actually suggesting that for a justice to be a "faithful conservative" he must side with a conservative politician no matter what his particular view on the matter is?

Are you actually suggesting that it is more important that a justice be in line with the party that appointed him and not his own particular viewpoints?
No, I was assuming that he would side with the other appointees of Republicans who tend to be strict constructionist. Any person who applies strict construction can see that they would have sided with Bush in 2000 because Florida's Constitution demanded an unconditional end to the recounts. It has nothing to do with party loyalty.

No, I was assuming that he would side with the other appointees of Republicans who tend to be strict constructionist. Any person who applies strict construction can see that they would have sided with Bush in 2000 because Florida's Constitution demanded an unconditional end to the recounts. It has nothing to do with party loyalty.

So in other words...the only possible right answer the one you think is right?

Must be a great burden, always being right like that....I see what you like Scalia.

So in other words...the only possible right answer the one you think is right?

Must be a great burden, always being right like that....I see what you like Scalia.

The only answer that was based on the actual text of Florida law in 2000 was the one that prevailed. If it said the recounts could continue forever I would have sided with Justice Stevens.

Must be a great burden, always being right like that....I see what you like Scalia.

I would imagine it's pretty easy actually.

While you all go on with personal attacks instead of facts...I will present an interesting side fact. I read nothing into it but I think it is interesting anyway.

who appointed them and Confirmation votes out of 100 recieved:

Ford appointedStevens:100 votes
Reagan appointed Scalia :98 votes
Reagan appointed Kennedy: 100 votes
Bush appointed Souter: 90 votes
Bush appointed Thomas: 52 votes
Clinton appointed Ginsburg: 96 votes
Clinton appointed Breyer: 87 votes
Bush II appointed Roberts: 78 votes
Bush II appointed Alito: 58 votes

Source your claim.
First a debunking of his rational
http://blog.justiceflorida.com/2006/07/innocence_the_death_penalty.html
His claim that the state murdering an innocent person is acceptable, even insignificant.
http://blog.justiceflorida.com/2006/07/execution_of_innocent_people.html
Keep in mind, he's happy to open up execution to a whole host of crimes.

http://www.counterpunch.org/fellows04192003.html
There are a few things the Cruel and Unusual punishments clause would preclude in the Constitution according to Antonin Scalia. According to Scalia these punishments are what he calls "always and everywhere 'cruel' punishments, such as the rack and the thumbscrew." (2) I'm sure we all find that comforting. Of course, Scalia wrote this in a decision in which he said-in dissent, thankfully-that it is perfectly all right to execute retarded people (down to an I.Q. of about 25). In another decision (this time not in dissent) Scalia said that the Constitution has nothing to say about executing children down to at least the age of 14 and, "theoretically" anyway, executing "anyone over the age of 7." (3)

Occasionally I find myself thinking that Antonin Scalia is simply nuts. I begin to think this way when I read opinions like the concurrence he wrote in a case called Herrera v Collins. (7) In Herrera, Justice Scalia said that even if a person had obtained evidence after trial which showed that he was actually innocent of the crime for which he had been convicted, he could still be legally put to death by the state. Wow. You don't believe me? Here then, in his own words, is the Honorable Justice Antonin Scalia: "There is no basis in text, tradition, or even contemporary practice for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."

2/ "God's Justice and Ours," First Things 123 (May 2002); 17-21.
3/ Stanford v Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989)
7/506 U.S. 390 (1993)

But why the fuck am I the one doing all this? Collecting a digest of more or less common knowledge. It's not like his insane views haven't been published in your local newspaper.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Scalia+death+%22fair+trial%22+innocent&btnG=Google+Search

That's my relatively primitive google query. And look, I didn't even have to investigate past the first page, which is an increasingly common need with the modern google.

He's YOUR idol. The guy who'd execute innocent, veggitative, seven yearold children. He's your idol, and you know nothing of him. By many measures of civilized people, he's actually evil. So, yeah, think about that. And by the way, Roberts and Thomas largely agree with him.

By way of comparision, I offer you one of the people I look to as an example
Hugh Thompson (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/010820/archive_038241.htm)

Nice one, Kibolonia.

"One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly. . . . But with regard to the punishment of death in the current American system, that possibility has been reduced to an insignificant minimum."-scalia

two liberal blog posts
a link to a liberal attack site

no link to Judicial opinions. Only a petty attack. Not worth my time.

The language cruel and unusual punishment means the same thing as it did in 1789. The text of the document has not changed.

no link to Judicial opinions. Only a petty attack. Not worth my time.

126 S.Ct. 2516, 2539

Surely a great legal scholar like yourself would know just what to do with this.

:confused: 126 S.Ct. 2516, 2539

Surely a great legal scholar like yourself would know just what to do with this.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22126+S.Ct.+2516%2C+2539%22


follow the link to see what I saw.

The language cruel and unusual punishment means the same thing as it did in 1789. The text of the document has not changed.

Read some Derrida my friend. Text is irrelevant.

:confused:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22126+S.Ct.+2516%2C+2539%22


follow the link to see what I saw.

You prove my point.

Since you fail to demonstrate the capacity to read even the most basic legal citation, I have no reason to take any further legal analysis on your part seriously.

:confused:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22126+S.Ct.+2516%2C+2539%22


follow the link to see what I saw.

pst...put it into Lexis Nexis

Read some Derrida my friend. Text is irrelevant.

Scary indeed.

So far we have 3 pages of attacks on Scalia and nothing relating to the purpose of the thread.

So far we have 3 pages of attacks on Scalia and nothing relating to the purpose of the thread.
You expect different on NS General?

"One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly. . . . But with regard to the punishment of death in the current American system, that possibility has been reduced to an insignificant minimum."-scalia
Yes, Scalia used his ignorance of statistics to justify the not the death of 1 in 10000 innocent people, but their baseless murder at the hands of a merciless unjust state. He even considers this insignificant. Presumably, were I to choose to kill him out of 1 in 300,000,000 people he'd find it both significant and a grotesque violation of his rights.

two liberal blog posts
a link to a liberal attack site

no link to Judicial opinions. Only a petty attack. Not worth my time.
506 U.S. 390 (1993) would be what exactly? You've got the quote, and the document it was taken from.

But since you're completely unable to do even the simplest tasks yourself:
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring.

We granted certiorari on the question whether it violates due process or constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a State to execute a person who, having been convicted of murder after a full and fair trial, later alleges that newly discovered evidence shows him to be "actually innocent." I would have preferred to decide that question, particularly since, as the Court's discussion shows, it is perfectly clear what the answer is: there is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough) for finding in the [506 U.S. 390, 428] Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. In saying that such a right exists, the dissenters apply nothing but their personal opinions to invalidate the rules of more than two thirds of the States, and a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure for which this Court itself is responsible. If the system that has been in place for 200 years (and remains widely approved) "shock[s]" the dissenters' consciences, post, at 430, perhaps they should doubt the calibration of their consciences, or, better still, the usefulness of "conscience shocking" as a legal test.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=506&invol=390

As you can plainly see, searching for a digest is more useful for everyone. Not only is it easier to read, something I've no doubt you can appreciate, it's annoying to search dense descisions without exact quotes. Not to mention, people writing law books who footnote their quotes, well, you can bet the quotes are probably pretty accurate. (That's a little lesson you can take with you.)

As a point of bureaucracy, and nothing more, Scalia demands good men are forced to stand by and do nothing while great injustice is worked; indeed, even aid it along. Scalia fundmentally contends that the only legitimate relief for an "actually innocent" person is from the very executive powers which are so grossly unfair in their persecution of this poor soul. A world where one's only hope for relief from injustice is the devil bent on tormenting you, that's Scalia's best vision of America.

You, sir, are a fool, a willing, lazy one at that. What a sham conservative ideology has become.

So who is it? Who is the one that does not make you furious? Or bored to tears? For me it is Scalia.The one who liked Clinton's line-item veto?

Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen G. Breyer dissented, with Scalia and O`Connor saying the Idaho potato growers had not shown they were harmed and hence lacked standing to sue; all three said the line-item veto should have been declared constitutional.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm

I'm sure you were truly tempted to choose "Harriet Miers", but alas, something just went kinda all higgedly-piggedly over that situation, hmmm? Wonder what it was .... some term you like to accuse others of ... what was it ... judicial something .... or something activism ... eh, *shrug*

Who do you think it is and why?

I think it is Antonin Scalia because he is the main supporter of Judicial originalism. This means that the Constitution, like any other series of laws or legal document, means the same thing as it did when its text was written. Close seconds are Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.
As we saw in Bush v. Gore and Roe v. Wadethe Supreme Court's rulings dominate our government. But they are far from perfect. One only needs to look to the overturned precedent of dred scot and plessy v. ferguson to see that. You might find these two interesting as well...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061500730.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

So who is it? Who is the one that does not make you furious? Or bored to tears? For me it is Scalia.

Slight tangent, but I just thought it would be fun to share:

My boss "hangs out" with several of the Supreme Court Justices. I just found this out a few months back, when she made an off-hand remark about a recent dinner with Scalia. Apparently she and her husband are personal friends with at least two of the Justices, and they've had five of the nine over for dinner at their home. She said that she finds Scalia intelligent but irritating, and that she and Thomas have to politely ignore each other lest they get into fights over dinner.

Keep in mind, I'm a grad student studying neurophysiology and neuroanatomy. So it's not like I ever expected to have a boss who hangs out with Supreme Court Justices. Kind of cool, though.

Who do you think it is and why?

I think it is Antonin Scalia because he is the main supporter of Judicial originalism. This means that the Constitution, like any other series of laws or legal document, means the same thing as it did when its text was written. Close seconds are Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.

Thomas is way more of an originalist than Scalia ever was, and I'll give him this much--he's consistent, even when it's ludicrous for him to be so. Scalia, however, is more than willing to toss originalism overboard when it suits his political purposes, and it's been shown time and again.

And by the way, as an argument goes, originalism is a particularly bad one, because it presumes that society is static and that language does not change over time in response to society.