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

351–360 of 382 posts

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

#351

Post by hackuser »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #339
hackuser wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Senator McConnell has announced that the Senate won't take up a Supreme Court nomination this year. Of course. The question is, why do the Democrats let the GOP get ahead of and frame every debate? Will they roll over this time or draw every bit of blood they can and make this position cost the GOP more and more politically until they give in. Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if they roll over. You'll know t…

I doubt they roll over on this one. Reid had already said as much. Plus, the Republicans play dangerous game if they want to delay. They may not retain control of the Senate, and most consider them unlikely to win the presidency. At least right now, they're guaranteed a strong say in the process.

I hope you're right, but notice that all the headlines on the issue present the GOP side; the Dem side is included only in responses in the body of the article. Again, the GOP is ahead of the debate and frames it.

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

#352

Post by hackuser »

cookiecaper wrote: post #345
hackuser wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Judges are not deciding whether they believe these rights should or should not exist. They are deciding whether these rights do exist in the law at the time the case is litigated. If you believe you should have a right you don't have, or that you should or shouldn't be sent to jail for a particular activity, the right people to contact and hold accountable are your representatives in the appropriate legislative body.…

> Judges are not deciding whether they believe these rights should or should not exist. They are deciding whether these rights do exist in the law at the time the case is litigated.

I agree that's the ideal but we are talking about what happens in the real world, where clearly many judges' political and ideological views have significant influence. If not, why would the GOP care if Obama chooses the next Justice? Why is Scalia's passing considered a blow to partisan Republicans and ideological conservatives? A prominent attorney once said to me: Judges put on their pants one leg at a time, just like everybody else.

The point of my original comment (several levels up) and the person who responded is that Scalia indeed used his seat to advocate his beliefs.

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

#353

Post by 13thLetter »

MaysonL wrote: post #344
liquidise wrote: post #45

This will likely result in a major political shift of the court. Even if Obama places a staunch centrist, it will be a net left swing, as Scalia was perhaps the second most conservative justice beside Thomas. There have been a great deal of 5-4 decisions since Sotomayor's nomination that in the future could easily fall the other way.

It will be interesting to see whether the Republicans will be as obstructionist to an Obama SCOTUS appointment as they have been to almost everthing else he proposes.

Why, it's almost as if they are a different political party altogether!

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

#354

Post by 13thLetter »

nindalf wrote: post #306
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

I don't see where it says that in Article III of the Constitution. Can you point it out to me?

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

#355

Post by tptacek »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #182
CWuestefeld wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is really a shame. With the entire lot of candidates on both sides ranging from bad to awful, it seems likely to me that this will be one of, if not the , deciding issue in the election. That's bad, because it will perpetuate party politics. No matter how much people dislike the candidate nominated by their party, they'll think they've got no recourse but to vote for him/her lest they lose the Court. All the Re…

It was always going to be, now it's just become apparent to those who don't pay attention. Next POTUS will nominate a replacement for Notorious RBG as well. This is probably the most important Presidential election in a long time.

Maybe, because Kennedy is getting old (and Kennedy is probably the most important justice on the current court), and so the next President might get 3 seats to fill. But if it's just RBG and Scalia, that'll be the same number Obama, Bush 2, and Clinton got.

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

#356

Post by tptacek »

krallja wrote: post #289
tptacek wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a majority of Senate. They don't need token opposition. They can just decide, as Mitch McConnell has already said, that this is a rare opportunity for the people to vote directly on the direction they want to take the court, and that's that. This isn't unprecedented. Obama is a lame-duck President facing a majority opposition party in both Houses of Congress. His influence is close to its nadir. Scalia is a…

Obama is not a lame duck president until his replacement is nominated and then elected. That happens in November.

That depends on whose definition you use, but this discussion is mostly about precedent; look up the "Thurmond Rule" to see why technical strictness about the term "lame duck" isn't really an issue here.

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

#357

Post by 13thLetter »

hackuser wrote: post #254
PKop wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said this above, but I'll repeat: if they do not reject, their Republican base will revolt and not vote in the upcoming election. They will absolutely be expected to reject and oppose until Obama is out of office. There are 2 sides in the political game, remember. And since supreme court nominations are so important, and this changes the balance, voters will demand they reject his nominees.

> if they do not reject, their Republican base will revolt and not vote in the upcoming election. The upcoming election is a general election; they need to appeal to more than their base. In the past year the Republicans in Congress have been trying to shed their obstructionist, irresponsible reputation as the party that shuts down government, holds the solvency of the U.S. hostage, etc.

I wish them good luck with that, considering that the reputation of the GOP as uniquely obstructive in comparison with previous Congresses is purely a construction of media propaganda and is therefore not going to be overturned merely by their good behavior.

(A Democratic Senate slow-rolled or blocked innumerable Bush judicial nominees, some for several years, and the Democratic Congress shut down the government several times under Reagan. Both sides have the power to do these things, and have exercised them freely in the past, and somehow the world continued to turn.)

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

#358

Post by tptacek »

sangnoir wrote: post #321
tptacek wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a majority of Senate. They don't need token opposition. They can just decide, as Mitch McConnell has already said, that this is a rare opportunity for the people to vote directly on the direction they want to take the court, and that's that. This isn't unprecedented. Obama is a lame-duck President facing a majority opposition party in both Houses of Congress. His influence is close to its nadir. Scalia is a…

Will the central-mass of the voting public be amused by yet another "obstructionist move" by Republicans? That is how it will be spun by the Democrats: the ads will basically write themselves ("instead of working, the GOP is shutting down government. Again")

Refusing to confirm a nominee isn't "shutting down the government", and speaking as a liberal and moreover a supporter of the Democratic coalition, I don't think our side does itself any favors by pretending like the GOP's entirely predictable refusal to allow Obama to appoint a Supreme Court justice on his way out the door is unprecedented or harmful.

The GOP is making Scalia's replacement a campaign issue. So be it! If the Democrats win, they'll have earned a mandate to replace a lion of the Republican Party with a committed liberal.

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

#359

Post by MaysonL »

13thLetter wrote: post #353
MaysonL wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be interesting to see whether the Republicans will be as obstructionist to an Obama SCOTUS appointment as they have been to almost everthing else he proposes.

Why, it's almost as if they are a different political party altogether!

What the fuck ever happened to good old-fashioned bipartisan horse-trading?

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

#360

Post by CamperBob2 »

emmelaich wrote: post #323
CamperBob2 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The long term of imprisonment of innocent people in the USA is disturbing and perhaps if I was on the Supreme Court I would ave allowed it. But. It sounds like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction, even if you're not guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied. Put it this way; if the law is never wrong because you can rely on the good people on the Supreme Court to fix things, then the law will…

But. It sounds like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction, even if you're not guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied.

I'm afraid I don't follow you. If you're still being punished after evidence comes to light that you aren't guilty, then you're being "cruelly and unusually punished" by any sane person's definition. The Eighth is applicable, and should have been cited by Scalia to draw the opposite conclusion that he came to.

Post reply on HN