Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 382 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#171

Post by sokoloff »

angersock wrote: post #130
orbitur wrote: post #43

He didn't actually say that, and I'm not sure how it spread. However, he's still a terrible person, and here's the quote yours spawned from: “There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.” edit: This was originally in reply…

Why is that a terrible quote? Remember, there's a reason that the process and traditions are followed. It helps provide (theoretically) a uniformity of enforcement. In the case of your quote, the exact same mechanism for "evidence found after the trial changes to innocence" is quite possibly used for "evidence found after the trial changes to guilty". It nudges up against double-jeopardy. There are other problems wit…

The Fifth Amendment (which bars double jeopardy) is asymmetric. (I believe it is so by design and intent.)

A slippery slope evidentiary argument that would tend to exonerate is not a concern that it would later be applied to retry or change to guilty a previous acquittal, IMO. The courts have been quite clear on this.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#172

Post by dang »

im3w1l wrote: post #150
dang wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop.

Dang, could explain the difference between what generic_user and vonnik is doing that prompts the different response? Is it the difference between saying someone is in hell, versus wishing someone were in hell? Or is it the difference between attacking another user vs a third party? Or is it because you think Scalia is a legitimate target of hatred?

The difference is small. vonnik got the flamewar rolling. But I'd say generic_user made it worse in two ways, by upping the rage ante and by making it purely ideological, i.e. completely unmoored from anything factual in the story. Once things get to that point, people are just taking turns bashing each other tribally and trying to outdo the other in venom, and that's always bad for discussion here.

My issue has nothing to do with Scalia; it's the venom. There are plenty of examples in this thread of thoughtful, substantive critiques of Scalia. Consider https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11096422 and all its replies. That's how it's done.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#173

Post by rrggrr »

bradleyjg wrote: post #146
rrggrr wrote: post #25

Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint, who believed that the further the Courts stretched interpreting law, the more vulnerable the Courts become to the animosities of the Executive and Legislative branches. The Judiciary, Scalia understood, was the least powerful and most vulnerable of the three branches of government, and its strength and influence rests in its artful and judicious use of its very,…

Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint, who believed that the further the Courts stretched interpreting law, the more vulnerable the Courts become to the animosities of the Executive and Legislative branches. I don't think that's accurate. There is a position, albeit more in the academy than on the bench, that holds that judges should only in the rarest of circumstances hold that the actions of the oth…

A restrained judiciary is easily confused with judicial restraint. Consider mandatory sentencing guidelines, knee jerk reactive handcuffs placed on wrists of Judges vilified for using judicial descretion. I think, but will never know, Scalia recognized how easily the legislative branch could sideline the Courts and he advocated for adoption of the Founder's intent as a means to protect the Courts foremost.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#174

Post by splintercell »

notthegov wrote: post #153

I can't escape the thought of him driving to work and getting all his news only from conservative talk radio. And then declaring he literally believes in Satan. I'm for religious freedom but a Supreme Court judge who literally believes in evil and refuses to read news contrary to his politics beliefs, seems dangerous.

Are you ok with the President believing in God, believing in praying daily, and receiving guidance at the time of crises?

I am no fan of religious people, but a LOT of people are able to do their job properly despite of holding these crazy beliefs, and at the same time a lot of atheist do crazy stuff without having to resort to these beliefs.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#175

Post by sandworm101 »

ianamartin wrote: post #133

I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man. He's always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two intelligent, educated people with reasonable minds may legitimately come to different conclusions about the same set of facts. I also found when reading transcripts of oral arguments that Scalia was really terrifically funny pretty often. Once, I was doing some computer repai…

>>> I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man. He's always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two intelligent, educated people with reasonable minds may legitimately come to different conclusions about the same set of facts.

I didn't have much respect for the man or the justice. As a justice, his interpretations were always based on a selectively warped view of history. As a man, he issued a steady stream of insults against all sorts of people. Specifically, he said of lawyers like me (the not-harvard crowd) "You cannot make a purse out of a sow's ear". And he regularly talked down to anyone he though not ivy enough to share the room. That sort of disrespect isn't forgotten. Nobody should ever take joy in the death of another, but I will not miss his voice on the court.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#176

Post by orbitur »

tptacek wrote: post #131
jbapple wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did you know him personally, or know someone who knew him personally, or is there some other reason beyond "you profoundly disagreed with him" that would lead you to calling him a "terrible person"? Is there anyone you would call a terrible person? "No" is an OK answer here. Are any of them people you did not know? Again, "no" is an OK answer here. I'm not the poster you're responding to, and I'm sympathetic to the…

Yes, there are people I think are terrible. Yes, some of them are people I don't know. Would I say it on the day their death was announced? Tougher question. Candidly: if I felt like most of the people calling Scalia a "terrible person" were well acquainted with his work, beyond sound bites like "opposed marriage equality" or "thought we should shoot condemned convicts first and then hear their appeals", I wouldn't c…

Being so detached from humanity and so attached to his principles that he was willing to let someone die when he had the power to decide, that alone makes him a terrible person. I'm not going to get into my other issues with him because I don't have the time right now, but even if I were completely ignorant of the other terrible things he's said both in his writing and speeches, he's still a terrible person for that statement alone.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#177

Post by lawnchair_larry »

ianamartin wrote: post #133

I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man. He's always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two intelligent, educated people with reasonable minds may legitimately come to different conclusions about the same set of facts. I also found when reading transcripts of oral arguments that Scalia was really terrifically funny pretty often. Once, I was doing some computer repai…

> You will find that there is a hell of a lot of thought that goes into opinions, and there is much less predetermined ideology than the way these things often get painted.

Yeah, retconning to twist everything that seeks to disturb one's bigoted and repressive worldview does take an extraordinary amount of thought, credit where it is due. I encourage everyone to not just read the opinions, but to be vigilant of this when doing so.

The true crime of this is that it leads reasonable people like yourself to the belief that his deplorable behavior is merely a case of "reasonable people can disagree intelligently".

Make no mistake, the outcome is predetermined based on his ideology. Reading individual opinions in isolation may tempt you to believe otherwise, but consulting his record over the long term will make it pretty clear.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#178

Post by Steko »

michaelt wrote: post #121
Steko wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The longest confirmation in history was apparently Brandeis at 125 days. Assuming Obama takes about a month to get a nomination together that leaves just over 300+ days left in this administration. That said, would not surprise me to see the Senate serially find reasons to reject say 3-4 candidates or screw precedent and just take forever to run out the clock on purpose. They will likely also have pro forma sessions…

Do you think candidates who turn the job down will be expecting another chance later?

Well the simplest game theory is (100% chance to be nominated now but near 0% chance to be confirmed) vs (??% chance to be nominated later but 90%+ chance to be confirmed) which seems fairly straightforward. Given current outlook for POTUS election I would decline in their shoes. An older nominee or one that expected 8+ years of GOP presidents might reasonably say this is their only chance and take it though.

I guess an interesting question is whether being nominated now and not approved or stonewalled until withdrawn disqualifies you from being nominated again. I think the default answer is 'yes' (disqualified) although various circumstances could allow it to happen.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#179

Post by tptacek »

orbitur wrote: post #176
tptacek wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there are people I think are terrible. Yes, some of them are people I don't know. Would I say it on the day their death was announced? Tougher question. Candidly: if I felt like most of the people calling Scalia a "terrible person" were well acquainted with his work, beyond sound bites like "opposed marriage equality" or "thought we should shoot condemned convicts first and then hear their appeals", I wouldn't c…

Being so detached from humanity and so attached to his principles that he was willing to let someone die when he had the power to decide, that alone makes him a terrible person. I'm not going to get into my other issues with him because I don't have the time right now, but even if I were completely ignorant of the other terrible things he's said both in his writing and speeches, he's still a terrible person for that…

To what statement are you referring?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died

#180

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

tptacek wrote: post #161
dlandis wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really what that quote says. It sounds more like he is expressing an opinion about what should happen.

He's the Senate Majority Leader and the official spokesperson for Republicans in the Senate. The fact that he said it right away , after two GOP Senators who are also viable Presidential candidates said it as well, is a pretty strong indication of what's going to happen.

Point of Inquiry, Is there a parliamentarian in the house? There may be one or more ways to force McConnell's hand.
Post reply on HN