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

301–310 of 382 posts

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

#301

Post by cmurf »

KMag wrote: post #206
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I encourage everyone to not just read the opinions, but to be vigilante of this when doing so. Vigilantism, particularly against judges and justices for written opinions, is not the way to deal with laws and interpretations you find unjust. We must not fight the unjust with injustice.

That's funny considering he argued the exact opposite, that mere moral disagreement was sufficient reason to justify a community criminalizing said deviant behavior.

Calling the man names and suggesting it's a good thing that he's dead, is far more charitable than his worldview on morality.

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

#302

Post by splat »

throwaway43563 wrote: post #209

Why should the death of a Supreme Court Justice matter this much, let alone be a cause for celebration (as it clearly is for some in this thread)? That unelected, life-tenured judges exercise this much authority over us, that they routinely subvert our collective democratic will as expressed through elections and referendums, that people even defend their votes for President on the basis of what kind of Supreme Court…

> That unelected, life-tenured judges exercise this much authority over us, that they routinely subvert our collective democratic will as expressed through elections and referendums, that people even defend their votes for President on the basis of what kind of Supreme Court nominations they will likely make, does not suggest a healthy democracy.

Nor should it! The judiciary is at its best when it is overturning the will of the majority in order to defend the rights of minorities.

The Court did precisely that in its most celebrated cases (e.g., Brown v. Board, Lawrence v. Texas), and upheld the will of the majority in its most infamous cases (e.g., Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States).

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

#303

Post by cmurf »

merpnderp wrote: post #217
vonnik wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. The stay he supported on the Florida recount was rampant federal interference in a state matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Stay_of_the_Flori... Indirectly, he gave us eight years of incompetence and Iraq, a horrible farce of a war.

Ignoring the fact that every recount had Bush winning and at some point a winner had to be declared since we needed a president.

Nope. What should have happened, if we weren't such a litigious society, is it would have been considered a political question, not a judicial one. Florida's legislature could have decided its Electors alone. And then if Congress considered that decision questionable, the president would have been decided in the House, and the vice president by the Senate. George W Bush would have been president in that case. And Joe Lieberman would have been Vice President.

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

#304

Post by indrax »

mentat wrote: post #265
ianamartin wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really directed at you, but it seems like a good place to address the crowd. I didn't say the man was a saint or that he was always perfectly intellectually honest all the time. No one is. But I think was a lot more of those things than he often got credit for. Some of you seem to forget that people who have different opinions than you are also people. And as such, they have the right to try to get those o…

I'd love to see these people dealing with their every action criticized through their whole life. Now when he dies they can't stop piling on.

It's one thing to not speak ill of the dead, but you're complaining about a judge having their judgements judged.

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

#305

Post by chillwaves »

fixxer wrote: post #270
chillwaves wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He really does need to back up that second assertion.

Doesn't support progressive politics != Racist. Such a tired meme. Whenever a lefty plays that card in discussions, I know I've won the argument.

Are you responding to the right person?

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

#306

Post by nindalf »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #300
ianamartin wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't really directed at you, but it seems like a good place to address the crowd. I didn't say the man was a saint or that he was always perfectly intellectually honest all the time. No one is. But I think was a lot more of those things than he often got credit for. Some of you seem to forget that people who have different opinions than you are also people. And as such, they have the right to try to get those o…

> And as such, they have the right to try to get those opinions represented. At best, Scalia represented the opinions of an opinionated and influential but not truly representative minority of the population. Now - there's nothing in the constitution that says explicitly that the Supreme Court should be a representative body. But the political reality is that judges aren't picked for the SC because they're the best l…

This seems to make sense but it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to drag society forward when society's inertia is at odds with the Constitution. For example, 90% of people didn't support interracial marriage when the Supreme Court legalised it. If the bench's political values were the same as the general population, that would never have happened.

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

#307

Post by emmelaich »

hyperdunc wrote: post #222
splintercell wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't you think a person is likely to make better decisions when their beliefs more accurately reflect reality? I would much prefer an atheist president but that's not likely to happen any time soon.

From my experience it means very little difference.

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

#308

Post by emmelaich »

rdancer wrote: post #290
dang wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To go from having written a terrible thing to being a terrible person is an enormous leap, and a catastrophic one. Indeed, if the threshold is that low, then we're all a terrible person.

If I may, I respectfully disagree in this particular case. If you deny, capriciously, justice to wrongfully convicted humans, it is not just something you write about. It is that you personally are this person who denies these people justice for no particular reason except that you can. You are a terrible person. The phrase is appropriate, and that it is often used flippantly in other less fitting contexts doesn't ma…

Capriciously?

Can you find a ".. basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice .."

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

#309

Post by nindalf »

gyardley wrote: post #92
mikeyouse wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a precedent to replace 'like with like', so knowing that Scalia was very right-leaning, (if he gets the chance) Obama will very likely nominate a centrist, if not a right-leaning one. At least that seemed to previously be the case... In this new world of scorched earth politics, who knows.. Edit; My guess for nomination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Srinivasan He's a Stanford guy, Indian, already sailed…

While there is a tendency to replace like with like, that's because Supreme Court justices usually time their retirements to coincide with presidencies that share their views. In this case, I doubt it applies. In theory Obama could pick a nominee closer to the center to avoid a tiresome confirmation battle, but I suspect there's a bigger bang for the buck in nominating fairly left-wing candidates and making the Repub…

> looking obstructionist to the general public

Could you explain why this might cost the Republicans votes? Their core voters would absolutely love them standing up to the "tyranny" of Obama. Even independent/undecided voters would understand that its reasonable enough to postpone considering how close the Presidential election is.

To be clear, I think it would be best to have it completed within 3 months, like the previous 10 nominations to the court but I don't think it will cost the Republicans at all to postpone it till next year.

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

#310

Post by esturk »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #220
jayzalowitz wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean they do have to vote on a recess appointment. IIRC

Senators leave Washington, there are time limits on debate, they may not be able to return in time. Or, if a potential recess appointment is suspected, the Republicans will be spending their holidays in DC.

Good luck with that with 1/3 of Senate going for re-election. Summer is the best time to campaign but if they choose to stay in D.C., that's up to them.
Post reply on HN