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

231–240 of 382 posts

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

#231

Post by lawnchair_larry »

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.

Going on a tangent here, that's an interesting claim, and I think I disagree. I posit that vigilantism is merely an alternative vehicle to the legal system, and only outcomes can be just or unjust.

Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the legal outcome is necessarily the just outcome.

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

#232

Post by ocdtrekkie »

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,…

Personally, while I've always preferred liberal legislatures, I do actually prefer conservative Justices. I want the Supreme Court to set a high Constitutional bar for a law to pass muster.

I can't say I've agreed with everything Scalia has ever said, but there's plenty I did agree with as well. I'm definitely a bit concerned at where we could end up if a far more liberal Justice is selected to replace him.

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

#233

Post by stephencanon »

ikeboy wrote: post #169
[deleted] wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

A quick look over http://politicalgraveyard.com/offices/pdio3.html says nobody has died in office in a presidential election year in the last century, so the circumstance is itself unprecedented in modern times.

Anthony Kennedy was nominated in November 1987, and confirmed in February 1988 (he replaced Lewis Powell, who retired in 1987). So a couple months earlier, but still very much in an election year. If Saint Reagan did it, it'll be difficult for the GOP to make an argument that this president can't (even if you ignore that the constitution says he can).

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

#234

Post by alexqgb »

clavalle wrote: post #144
tzs wrote: post #127

There has been some discussion here about whether or not Obama has time to get a replacement nominated and confirmed, or whether the Republicans can slow things down enough to push it to the next President (who they hope will be one of them). I wonder if it might be better for the Democrats to not even try to get a nominee through before the next election. From what I've seen liberal/progressive leaning younger voter…

The Democrats have everything to win by trying to get a nominee through. If they get through, great! A Democratic appointment on the Court! If they don't, it can be a call to arms and a constant rallying cry showing how different the Right and Left are. We are not just electing the next President for four years but the next Justice for the next 30. If there is anyone with any motivation to vote whatsoever they will v…

Exactly, the GOP is in a lose / lose situation now, with one loss having the potential to be exponentially worse than the other. This would seem to make their choice an easy one, except that the larger loss is also the one that's further away, and they're beholden to a base so blinded by fury that playing a longer game becomes impossible.

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

#235

Post by JohnBooty »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #95
aioprisan wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not possible, since a senate confirmation this close to elections is likely to just be punted on for a year.

Well, consider: You're a Senate Republican. Obama nominates a guy who is certainly no Scalia but legitimately isn't the worst . You can hold out and hope that a Republican gets elected, but there's a good chance that'll be Donald Trump, and what kind of a judge is that weirdo going to nominate? You hate that guy and think he's a blemish to the name of the Republican party. Also, there's still a real risk Hilary/Sande…

I hope you're right. And really, a "compromise candidate" is more or less what representative democracy ought to look like in practice anyway.

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

#236

Post by humanrebar »

vonnik wrote: post #203
erikpukinskis wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Gore had won, and I don't know enough about law to have an opinion on the specifics of the case. But I am at peace with it for a simple reason: that election was within the margin of error. We can put a lot of stake into details of state law, but in reality it was a draw. Frankly I think the fairest thing would be a coin flip. In absence of that, I think "play it where it lies" is a fine proxy. I don't think a…

If you consider the recount abstracted from all other phenomena, then this may be a reasonable point of view. But voter suppression by Republicans in the South is well-known and widespread, because the GOP wins more elections when the turnout, particularly black turnout, decreases. Florida has a long history of voter suppression, which has been documented on numerous occasions: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/…

> But voter suppression by Republicans in the South is well-known and widespread, because the GOP wins more elections when the turnout, particularly black turnout, decreases.

The party that tips the scales for its establishment candidate with the superdelegate system can't complain about voter suppression. Clinton ended up with the same number of NH delegates even though Sanders won handily in that primary.

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

#237

Post by [deleted] »

vonnik wrote: post #203
erikpukinskis wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Gore had won, and I don't know enough about law to have an opinion on the specifics of the case. But I am at peace with it for a simple reason: that election was within the margin of error. We can put a lot of stake into details of state law, but in reality it was a draw. Frankly I think the fairest thing would be a coin flip. In absence of that, I think "play it where it lies" is a fine proxy. I don't think a…

If you consider the recount abstracted from all other phenomena, then this may be a reasonable point of view. But voter suppression by Republicans in the South is well-known and widespread, because the GOP wins more elections when the turnout, particularly black turnout, decreases. Florida has a long history of voter suppression, which has been documented on numerous occasions: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/…

[deleted]

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

#238

Post by ikeboy »

stephencanon wrote: post #233
ikeboy wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick look over http://politicalgraveyard.com/offices/pdio3.html says nobody has died in office in a presidential election year in the last century, so the circumstance is itself unprecedented in modern times.

Anthony Kennedy was nominated in November 1987, and confirmed in February 1988 (he replaced Lewis Powell, who retired in 1987). So a couple months earlier, but still very much in an election year. If Saint Reagan did it, it'll be difficult for the GOP to make an argument that this president can't (even if you ignore that the constitution says he can).

The constitution also says they can block it. No need to blame anyone.

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

#239

Post by wildmusings »

geofft wrote: post #207
wildmusings wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting. My own thoughts on this are that we should not be trying to determine intent on improperly filled ballots. In the same way that I'm responsible for getting myself to the voting booth, I am responsible for filling out my ballot properly. If I fail at that, my vote won't be registered. Where ballots aren't sufficiently clear to voters, they should be made so.

Where ballots aren't sufficiently clear to voters, they should be made so. Well there's the problem. What do you do when you have ballots that are objectively unclear, like the infamous butterfly ballot? You can't invalidate the election and have a new one--apart from the logistical problems, the turnout is going to differ significantly based on the media attention and the knowledge that the cancelled ballots were so…

There's nothing that you can do about the butterfly ballots after the fact short of re-running the election, which is out of the question as you state.

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

#240

Post by hackuser »

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

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 predict Scalia's rulings reliably by knowing only the politics of the case, not the law or the facts.

Post reply on HN