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

311–320 of 382 posts

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

#311

Post by hackuser »

nickff wrote: post #271
hackuser wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint He believed in judicial restraint when it came to interfering with conservative political causes; but when it came to furthering those causes, he was an activist. The court should not protect LGBT Americans due to "judicial restraint". But when it comes to a healthcare law passed by Congress and signed by the President, the court should overturn it. I could pred…

This is plainly untrue; Scalia was one of the most consistent and strong advocates for defendants' rights, and often decided cases which went against his personal morality. He was often quoted saying that the side he liked got no preferential consideration when it came to deciding a case, and if you look at the way he wrote his opinions, you will see this is true. He would often decide in favor of people who he perso…

> Scalia was one of the most consistent and strong advocates for defendants' rights

That's not my impression and I quickly found the following, but I can't say the examples are representative of the overall trend or if the analyses are accurate (and I can't say the same of your examples). However, they are hard to reconcile with your claim:

1) Scalia is known for taking a hard stance against criminal defendants, and has long advocated striking down Miranda v. Arizona and upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty

http://scarinciattorney.com/supreme-court-justices/antonin-s...

2) Defendants in criminal cases have a constitutional right to a competent lawyer's advice when deciding whether to accept a plea bargain, the Supreme Court ruled ... The ruling drew a sharply worded dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, ... He angrily called the court's rulings a "judicially invented right to effective plea bargaining." The article notes, 97% of federal convictions and 94% of state convictions result from guilty pleas.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/21/nation/la-na-court-p...

3) Ring v Arizona: holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury [i.e., not merely a judge] to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. Scalia dissented: He voted to deny defendants the right to a jury for those purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_v_Arizona

4) Lawrence v Texas: The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. - in 2003! Scalia dissented, which if successful (and IIUC) would have sent defendant Lawrence to prison for having sex. Again, in 2003!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

----

If the above is correct and I understand correctly: He opposed Miranda, the minimal requirement to inform defendants of their rights; opposed the right to an attorney for plea bargains, from which result >94% of criminal convictions; opposed the right to a jury for a essential aspect of death sentences; and voted to allow the state to imprison a defendant for having consensual sex with an adult.

I'm sure there are some grey areas, but I have a hard time seeing him as a ally of criminal defendants.

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

#312

Post by ianamartin »

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…

I didn't say the court has a need or obligation to representative. I said that there are real people who believe the same things Scalia did.

Those people, minority or not, have as much of a right to try to elect people who are like them and and gain support for what they think is right as you do.

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

#313

Post by hysan »

rdancer wrote: post #284
hysan wrote: post #275

Question for those familiar with how the Judicial system works: If Congress prevents any new appointments until after the election cycle, does that mean that the Supreme Court is effectively halted on making any rulings? What happens to the cases currently being taken on and those that are queued up? Would they all potentially be delayed an entire year+?

No. There are eight justices left. The quorum is six. Source: 28 U.S. Code § 1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1

Ok, thanks.

Do you also know how split decisions are handled now?

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

#314

Post by rdancer »

emmelaich wrote: post #308
rdancer wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .."

Since at other times he is a veritable balloon animal artist able to make the constitution support whatever conclusion he wants, I do find him refusing to do it in cases when he could remedy manifest injustice with a stroke of a pen capricious.

Other than that, what CamperBob2 says.

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

#315

Post by CamperBob2 »

emmelaich wrote: post #308
rdancer wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .."

As I stated, the Eighth Amendment alone would have sufficed.

Basically, Scalia was always steadfastly loyal to the Constitution's original intent, except when it conflicted with his religion, his political ideology, or his personal opinion. It's unfortunate to see all these hagiographies being written about him.

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

#316

Post by rdancer »

hysan wrote: post #313
rdancer wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There are eight justices left. The quorum is six. Source: 28 U.S. Code § 1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1

Ok, thanks. Do you also know how split decisions are handled now?

Split decision means the lower court decision is affirmed. Simple majority is required for a reversal, or any change to status quo.

Think about the Supreme Court as a very small Senate. The individual justices do not make decisions. The whole body does. They do operate a lot like a legislative body procedurally.

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

#317

Post by CamperBob2 »

dang wrote: post #273
CamperBob2 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just on a purely objective level, isn't "terrible" a reasonable adjective to describe someone who wrote this? “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.” Scalia could easily have stated that the Eighth Amendment's prohi…

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.

(Shrug) If I ever wrote something as outrageous and indefensible as that, I'm truly and honestly sorry.

I don't believe I've ever done so.

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

#318

Post by lbaskin »

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…

While he was somewhat of an originalist, Scalia was foremost a textualist - much more than an originalist (the latter term better describes Thomas).

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

#319

Post by hysan »

rdancer wrote: post #316
hysan wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, thanks. Do you also know how split decisions are handled now?

Split decision means the lower court decision is affirmed. Simple majority is required for a reversal, or any change to status quo. Think about the Supreme Court as a very small Senate. The individual justices do not make decisions. The whole body does. They do operate a lot like a legislative body procedurally.

Ah ok, thanks for explaining it.

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

#320

Post by dang »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #317
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.

(Shrug) If I ever wrote something as outrageous and indefensible as that, I'm truly and honestly sorry. I don't believe I've ever done so.

I don't mean that we've all written something like that, but that we've all (or practically all) done something as bad as that. No doubt the impact is many times worse when one is a Supreme Court justice, but that doesn't change the kind of person one is, it just amplifies it.
Post reply on HN