Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Went out the door with Tip O'Neill, apparently. :(
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died
361–370 of 382 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 seve…
> the reputation of the GOP as uniquely obstructive in comparison with previous Congresses is purely a construction of media propaganda
I'm pretty sure that's not the case. For example, I know the recent GOP Senators used dramatically more fillibusters than anyone before. Also, I'm pretty that some basic fiscal issues like raising the debt limit weren't politicized before recently.
> somehow the world continued to turn
I think this is a dangerous belief. Actions, especially by the U.S. Senate, have serious consequences for millions to billions of people. The world merely continuing to turn is not a standard; there are serious problems in the world that need to be addressed well, or human welfare in the U.S. and elsewhere will suffer greatly.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say a legal vote is one that is filled out in accordance with the instructions on a legal ballot. From what you're saying, I suspect that's what Scalia meant. If the machine misreads such properly filled-out ballots, that is certainly a problem and a recount would be justified.
No: a legal vote is as defined by Florida election law. As I remember (quite possibly fallaciously) that law held that a vote was to be counted if the intent was clear.
And, contrary to what reporters said, that standard actually wasn't from the section dealing with recounts. It was the standard to be used if a bunch of ballots were damaged before they could be counted by machine; say, in a car accident.
Florida law at the time only mentioned recounts in the context an automatic recount that involved putting the ballots back through the same machines a second time.
Gore's legal team asked for hand recounts, and suggested the "clear intent of the voter" standard. Scalia asked whether the standard should be "can be read by a machine," given that Florida statutes only mentioned recounts that involved machines.
If you still disagree, how would you answer my earlier question: I walk into a polling place, announce my name, clearly yell who I want to vote for, and leave. My intent is clear, should my vote count?
What if I were to mail in a ballot, that wasn't postmarked? My intent was clear, but Gore requested that such ballots not be counted. What does the postmark have to do with intent? Or is intent a necessary, but not sufficient, element?
For the record, the last time I filled out a paper ballot (Calinornia, late '90s), they handed me a special marker and told me to use it, or my vote would not count (they also told me not to mark two spots for the same office, or my vote would not count).
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignoring the fact that every recount had Bush winning and at some point a winner had to be declared since we needed a president.
Nope. What should have happened, if we weren't such a litigious society, is it would have been considered a political question, not a judicial one. Florida's legislature could have decided its Electors alone. And then if Congress considered that decision questionable, the president would have been decided in the House, and the vice president by the Senate. George W Bush would have been president in that case. And Joe…
"What should have happened, if we weren't such a litigious society," Ironic given it was Gore, not Bush, who filed the suits. Bush demanded the initial recount, it swung his way, Gore started filing suits. Many many recounts happened afterwards, I think NBC or CBS (hardly bush allies) had the most famous one for objectivity, and it came back for Bush.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died
#365I 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…
>>> 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 didn't have much respect for the man or the justice. As a justice, his interpretations were always based on a selectively warped view of histor…
[deleted]
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died
#366A 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.
I'm not suggesting that, merely asking if a ridiculous hypothetical situation would be legal. And contrary to your implication, there have been 40 SCOTUS justices who had no prior judicial experience, including several Chief Justices.
source: http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp...
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually one can. Just like the cause of a hanged man's death is the knot the hangman tied. There's a great big sequence of events preceding it for sure.
That's not really an apt analogy; if a hangman refuses to tie a knot, they'll find another hangman. The Supreme Court Justice specifically gets to choose one way or the other.
No, he or she doesn't. Because if they did so arbitrarily then they have likely long since been thrown off the lower benches.
A judge doesn't decide: a judge weighs evidence and then states which interpretation of the law they believe is correct.
If we had a judicial system arbitrated over by people who could simply say "I want this outcome" and make it so, then the country would and should crumble.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glenn Greenwald: “This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power.” “...the key point is this: those who admire t…
That is rich, considering the source.
With respect, this appears to me a content-free reply. Greenwald is making a serious argument in the article I quoted from. Are you being dismissive of the argument or (as it would appear) the source, the author. If the latter, maybe you can more fully explain why and also why dismissing the source dismisses the argument.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree. The stay he supported on the Florida recount was rampant federal interference in a state matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Stay_of_the_Flori... Indirectly, he gave us eight years of incompetence and Iraq, a horrible farce of a war.
No, voting is protected by the Ewual Protection Clause. Here's the argument: http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_pap...
Sort of. Discrimination from voting practices are protected by the equal protection clause, but otherwise, less well known, there is no affirmative right to voting in the Constitution.
A county or municipality could, for example, decide not to participate in a particular vote, which could have discriminatory effect, but without being overtly discriminatory.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 seve…
> the reputation of the GOP as uniquely obstructive in comparison with previous Congresses is purely a construction of media propaganda I'm pretty sure that's not the case. For example, I know the recent GOP Senators used dramatically more fillibusters than anyone before. Also, I'm pretty that some basic fiscal issues like raising the debt limit weren't politicized before recently. > somehow the world continued to tu…
> I think this is a dangerous belief. Actions, especially by the U.S. Senate, have serious consequences for millions to billions of people. The world merely continuing to turn is not a standard; there are serious problems in the world that need to be addressed well, or human welfare in the U.S. and elsewhere will suffer greatly.
Was this also the case when Democrats blocked George W. Bush's judicial nominees for years, or shut down the government half a dozen time under Reagan? You can't have it both ways.