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

281–290 of 382 posts

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

#281

Post by dhj »

wildmusings wrote: post #135
nbadg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely to be correct re: nomination, though it's difficult to know how the election will effect the confirmation process, and vice versa. Kagan was nominated May 2010 and confirmed August 2010; Sotomayor was nominated May 2009 and confirmed August 2009. I'm inclined to expect a nomination sooner rather than later, potentially of a candidate with very strong Democratic support. If Republicans oppose the nomination,…

> 5. Citizens United was 5-4 with Scalia supporting the decision (this is what created superPACs), so potentially this could result in a limitation of corporate personhood I think that phrasing is deceptive. The question isn't whether corporations are people with rights, but whether people retain their rights when they coordinate the exercise thereof through a corporation, which includes non-profit groups. It should…

> whether people retain their rights when they coordinate as a corporation.

You are incorrect. Citizens United was decided based on the notion of corporate personhood -- the notion that corporations themselves have rights as if they are a person. There are very succinct and upheld limitations on individual monetary contribution to campaigns.

However CU broke that by giving people the ability to launder political money through a corporation.

Also, most non-profits (those 501c3s that want tax exemption) can not do any sort of campaigning. Those that do are subject to taxes.

CU said specifically that corporations are people that can "say" (aka spend) whatever they want to get their message across. People can make individual donations to support this effort essentially getting around existing campaign restrictions.

Money does not equal speech and there was a good reason monetary donations were restricted. By removing the restrictions they have reduced the ability of the average person to be heard because they now have to buy a bigger megaphone than the billionaires.

You really do need to read up on corporate personhood and election law. Let me guess... FOX News fan?

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

#282

Post by waterlesscloud »

dhj wrote: post #281
wildmusings wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 5. Citizens United was 5-4 with Scalia supporting the decision (this is what created superPACs), so potentially this could result in a limitation of corporate personhood I think that phrasing is deceptive. The question isn't whether corporations are people with rights, but whether people retain their rights when they coordinate the exercise thereof through a corporation, which includes non-profit groups. It should…

> whether people retain their rights when they coordinate as a corporation. You are incorrect. Citizens United was decided based on the notion of corporate personhood -- the notion that corporations themselves have rights as if they are a person. There are very succinct and upheld limitations on individual monetary contribution to campaigns. However CU broke that by giving people the ability to launder political mone…

GP is correct, you are incorrect.

It's right there in the SCOTUS decision itself, spelled out clearly and unambiguously.

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

#283

Post by vonnik »

dang wrote: post #172
im3w1l wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 noth…

Fwiw, the Tweet I quoted was a joke, an attempt at humor referring to Scalia's relation to the Constitution's intent. Because of course the founding fathers are not burning in hell. And of course, hell doesn't exist.

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

#284

Post by rdancer »

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

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

#285

Post by shawn-butler »

pvg wrote: post #183
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The president can use a recess appointment. It would probably end up looking worse than blocking a nomination for 11 months so it seems unlikely, if technically possible.

He would have like 8 or 9 days to do this. Senate will be back from recess on 22 Feb.

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

#286

Post by [deleted] »

leephillips wrote: post #243
geofft wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"objectively unclear, like the infamous butterfly ballot" I saw a reproduction of this ballot in the newspaper at the time and I remember wondering what the problem was supposed to be. It seemed perfectly clear, but journalists were jumping on the bandwagon of calling it confusing.

[deleted]

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

#287

Post by rdancer »

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.

Atheists are a puny minority. Deal with it. Religious freedom is precisely allowing people whose beliefs we're not comfortable with deciding about our lives. (Or not, if you also believe in limited government.)

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

#288

Post by rdancer »

davidbhayes wrote: post #108
ktamura wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. While my beliefs have often diverged from the Justice's, his writing has been riveting to read and inspired me to improve my own. America has lost a towering intellectual, and for that, I mourn today.

…you seem to have missed the joke…

...or they just refrained from interpreting and contextualizing...

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

#289

Post by krallja »

tptacek wrote: post #94
sangnoir wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have a duty and obligation to oppose Which is why they are likely to put up token opposition - enough to placate their supporters. Everyone panders to the center when election time comes, because that's where most of the voters are. This is why the rhetoric is extreme during the primaries, but is significantly toned afterwards.

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.

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

#290

Post by rdancer »

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.

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 matter.

You do a terrific job moderating HN, and I respect your decisions. Godspeed!

Post reply on HN