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

331–340 of 382 posts

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

#331

Post by rdancer »

nindalf wrote: post #324
rdancer wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was closer to 80%, and on a question of disapproval of[1], not illegality. I may disapprove of your misquoting stats, but that doesn't mean I want you to go to jail for it. Also the majority of population lived in a state where interracial marriage was legal since before 1940, and by 1967 the only states that have miscegenation laws were the ones apt to fly Dixie. It was not so much about dragging against inertia,…

My apologies, I misread the the Gallup graph because the one I saw didn't have 1968 marked. Anyhow, my point stands. It would not have been legalised if the bench voted like the general population did.

No, that doesn't follow at all. Loving was a criminal case. The poll is about "disapproval". Again, I disapprove of your lack of logic at this small hour, but I would never want you to go to jail over it ;-)

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

#332

Post by ck2 »

ianamartin wrote: post #133

I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man. He's always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two intelligent, educated people with reasonable minds may legitimately come to different conclusions about the same set of facts. I also found when reading transcripts of oral arguments that Scalia was really terrifically funny pretty often. Once, I was doing some computer repai…

What did you think of him hunting and killing moose with Vice President Cheney days before he voted on a case suing him?

You are allowed not to respect him even if you don't think he was an idiot.

There are plenty of evil non-idiots.

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

#333

Post by rdancer »

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…

> If you deny, capriciously, justice to wrongfully convicted humans, it is not just something you write about.

The quote is from a concurrence on a certiorari Herrera v. Collins[1], and Justice Scalia was indeed "just writing" about it. The certiorari was granted, so he didn't "deny justice".

Dang is right, I got it wrong, and my conclusions are hogwash—for which I apologize.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZC1.html

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

#334

Post by rdancer »

rdancer wrote: post #314
emmelaich wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I do find him refusing to do it in cases when he could remedy manifest injustice with a stroke of a pen capricious.

The certiorari was granted, and I'm a terrible person for writing it was refused; see further up-thread.

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

#335

Post by DrScump »

themartorana wrote: post #198
tptacek wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's the Senate Majority Leader and the official spokesperson for Republicans in the Senate. The fact that he said it right away , after two GOP Senators who are also viable Presidential candidates said it as well, is a pretty strong indication of what's going to happen.

McConnell is a blow-hard, and is looking for a rally-point for the party. I'm sure he believes this is what Scalia would have wanted. But the idea that the "American People" wouldn't have a say with an Obama appointment is absurd. He was elected with a clear majority and Presidents are elected for four years, not four years minus whenever the next presidential race gets going. I know you've expressed elsewhere (edit:…

But that's exactly what the Democrat-controlled Senate did after Justice Abe Fortas resigned in disgrace in 1969. They knocked down Nixon's first two nominees, and Fortas wasn't ultimately replaced by Blackmun until a year later[0][1][2].

[0] - Several Wikipedia pages say May 12, but:

[1] - this one says May 17: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_th...

[2] - this page says June 9: http://supremecourthistory.org/timeline_blackmun.html

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

#336

Post by DrScump »

tptacek wrote: post #251
pvg wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Senate can prevent recess appointments by not recessing.

And not recessing means sitting Senators cannot campaign. Which party likely benefits from that?

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

#337

Post by DrScump »

geofft wrote: post #74
udfalkso wrote: post #3

A judge quoted in the article said, "my educated guess is nothing will happen before the next president is elected." Presumably he's talking about selecting a replacement to the supreme court. Is this accurate? How long does this process typically take?

Ted Cruz has already called for the process to get delayed for the next president. (Which seems ridiculous to me, since that's not in line with either Cruz's or Scalia's commitment to constitutionalism and the rule of law, but hey.) https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/698634625246195712 The Senate had been (apparently) filibustering presidential appointments quite a bit more of late, both Democrats against Bush and Re…

How's that again?

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

#338

Post by DrScump »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #145

A dumb hypothetical because this will never happen, but: could Obama nominate himself to replace Scalia? And if the Senate somehow approved him, would he have to resign the presidency to take his spot on the bench? I don't see anything in the eligibility requirements to be President or a judge of the Supreme Court that would suggest an incompatibility. Is there relevant case law?

You're suggesting that he appoint to SCOTUS someone who has never been a judge at any level, even municipal court?

That has happened once at the state level. It didn't end well.

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

#339

Post by acjohnson55 »

hackuser wrote: post #255
barney54 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Senator McConnell has announced that the Senate won't take up a Supreme Court nomination this year. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIYaMiW4AIU4ZB.jpg

> 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.

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

#340

Post by mikecb »

DrScump wrote: post #336
tptacek wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Senate can prevent recess appointments by not recessing.

And not recessing means sitting Senators cannot campaign. Which party likely benefits from that?

No, they have been using a pro forma procedural motion for years that effectively means they are never in recess, but there are untested ways that the President can force a formal recess.
Post reply on HN