41–50 of 382 posts
Let's remember him as the man who opposed marriage equality and help to appoint George W. Bush president. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/13/supreme-court-jus... "Maybe, in death, Scalia will meet the original Constitution framers and find out their true intent. Assuming they too are burning in hell" -- https://twitter.com/lindsaygoldwert/status/69863873479173324...
Tangential, but if you're sat there going "Marfa, that rings a bell" (he died in Marfa) - this is probably why. Temperature inversion that reflects headlamps, apparently. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfa_lights
However, he's still a terrible person, and here's the quote yours spawned from:
“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.”
edit: This was originally in reply to a misquote that has now been deleted. Mods have now made it a parent comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Won't they be under an awful lot of pressure considering it will be obvious they are obstructing normal business?
No. Look what happened when Bush was president, and the democrats stalled the election of supreme court justices. The republicans control 53 senate seats, and can refuse to confirm any justice till they know the outcome of the presidential election. If Trump wins, they'll stall until he takes office. If Sanders or Clinton wins, then they will grudgingly confirm who Obama chooses with some limits.
There have been a great deal of 5-4 decisions since Sotomayor's nomination that in the future could easily fall the other way.
Let's remember him as the man who opposed marriage equality and help to appoint George W. Bush president. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/13/supreme-court-jus... "Maybe, in death, Scalia will meet the original Constitution framers and find out their true intent. Assuming they too are burning in hell" -- https://twitter.com/lindsaygoldwert/status/69863873479173324...
Dancing on a dead mans grave is sadly what I have come to expect for the foot soldiers of love and equality.
Surely we don't know him personally, but as a Justice, he was a smart but horrendous man and I couldn't be more grateful he's no longer occupying a seat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Won't they be under an awful lot of pressure considering it will be obvious they are obstructing normal business?
No. Look what happened when Bush was president, and the democrats stalled the election of supreme court justices. The republicans control 53 senate seats, and can refuse to confirm any justice till they know the outcome of the presidential election. If Trump wins, they'll stall until he takes office. If Sanders or Clinton wins, then they will grudgingly confirm who Obama chooses with some limits.
Both Roberts and Alito went through on timelines similar to judges nominated by Reagan, H.W., and Clinton.
The only nomination from Bush that faced extreme opposition was that of Harriet Miers, and that was from conservatives, not the democrats.
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?
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,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I rarely (I would say never but that would make me a fool) agreed with the man but his dissents were usually well written, worth reading and understanding. For better or worse, he represented the view point of many in America.
Intelligence is no excuse for harm. And Scalia harmed many, in a multitude of ways, over decades in the court, through his plausible misconstrual of the constitution and the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426
Well it's your site, so you can do what you want, but allowing these political threads is, in my opinion at least, really dragging down the quality of conversation across the site. It attracts users whose main contribution is willingness to initiate and prolong political flamewars.
As for this post, experience has taught us that when a story crosses a certain magnitude, there's no stopping it from getting discussed on HN, so we may as well have a single thread.