Antonin Scalia, a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, has died:
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - one of most conservative members of the high court - has died. Justice Scalia's death could shift the balance of power on the US high court, allowing President Barack Obama to add a fifth liberal justice to the court. The court's conservative majority has recently stalled major efforts by the Obama administration on climate change and immigration.
Justice Scalia, 79, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. He died in his sleep early on Saturday while in West Texas for [a] hunting trip, the US Marshall service said. Justice Scalia was one of the most prominent proponents of "originalism" - a conservative legal philosophy that believes the US Constitution has a fixed meaning and does not change with the times.
Justice Scalia's death is, unsurprisingly, now being widely reported.
From the San Antonio Express News:
According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.
[...] The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation. Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.
A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.
A gray Cadillac hearse pulled into the ranch last Saturday afternoon. The hearse came from Alpine Memorial Funeral Home.
Most major news outlets are covering this story, including CNN [video autoplays], The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC.
Related Stories
President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the deceased Justice Antonin Scalia. While Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed to block the nomination until after the 2016 elections, President Obama is attempting to portray Garland as a centrist who has achieved bipartisan support in the past and should be given a fair hearing:
President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court is already making telephone calls to senators, hoping to win a confirmation hearing. Merrick Garland will start making in-person visits to the Capitol on Thursday. That's the normal order of business for a high-court nominee. But with many Senate Republicans insisting they won't consider Garland's nomination, the White House is also taking its case to the American public.
The PR campaign for Garland includes a dedicated Twitter handle (@scotusnom), a feel-good biographical video and a litany of details designed to humanize the well-regarded appellate judge. Not only did Garland graduate with honors from Harvard, the White House noted, he sold his comic book collection to help pay the tuition.
"I'd like to take a minute to introduce Merrick to the American people," the president said in the Rose Garden. He highlighted Garland's record as a prosecutor who helped bring Oklahoma City bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to justice, and a jurist who's won praise from conservatives including John Roberts and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight argues that the Republican Senate may be passing up an opportunity with the relatively center-left nominee Merrick Garland. If betting markets are to be believed, a Democrat (likely Hillary Clinton) has a much better chance of becoming President than a Republican (likely Donald Trump), possibly with a Democratic-controlled Senate in tow. Blocking the nomination could also hurt the Republican Party politically in November, at least according to wishful Democratic strategists as well as polls showing that a majority of Americans want the nominee to be considered. If the Senate refuses to hold confirmation hearings now, they could ultimately vote in a more liberal justice in 2017, and more down the line.
Profile at NYT. Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mendax on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:37PM
Well, not quite. But as he was the man of whom I aimed the most vile and vitriol toward, I won't shed any tears that he's gone. I won't celebrate the fact that he's dead, but I will celebrate the fact that his malevolent presence is no longer on the SCOTUS.
Read some of his opinions. Some of them are vile and do a disservice to the practice of law... more than lawyers already have done in the long history of jurisprudence.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:38PM
so is it plausible the current president will get a new nomination approved? Congress has been phenomenally ineffective since this president was elected, which I guess is a new low standard to beat!!
Any experts out there?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:42PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:45PM
Greater miracles have been known to happen. A lot depends upon who Obama appoints.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:51PM
Some pro-wallstreet neocon no doubt.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:26AM
It won't matter. No matter who he nominates Republicans will object, just as a knee-jerk reaction. I'm convinced that Obama could nominate the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and social conservatives will scream that it is some sort of a trap. *Sigh!* This is going to be a long, tedious election year. I just hope the country can survive long enough until Obama leaves office.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:13AM
I'm convinced that Obama could nominate the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and social conservatives will scream that it is some sort of a trap.
Why is it relevant to us that you're convinced of something that can't be falsified? Plus, while social conservatives are a tough audience, most of the damage has been inflicted by the Obama administration. For example, there's the famous "bitter clinger" [huffingtonpost.com] speech:
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Among other things, that was a big, condescending fuck you to the rural social conservatives, comparing them to racists and anti-immigrants, traditional Democrat bogeymen. Even though the insult was apparently unintentional, it still displays a tunnel vision towards religious beliefs heaping them in with the worst evils that the Democrats can imagine. It's condescending because it implies that people "clinged" to religion here because they lost their jobs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:32PM
That's funny. Technically, if I really want to work at it, I suppose the description could apply to me and the town where I live. I don't get upset by the description though (it's not a "big condescending fuck you" to me), because frankly - I have to work at it to believe for moment that he's really talking about me.
Most people I know that get upset by this old speech are those who were already looking for a reason to get pissed off, and this was a handy thing to grab. (Sorry - "cling on to.")
He's right - there are lots of places that have fallen through the cracks, and were either ignored or penalized by the various administrations over the years. So when "everybody's again' 'ya, whattre 'ya gonna do?" Same thing all small towns have done over the years - cling together, support each other (except for "those" people who live over on that side of town. They may look and sound like us, but they're not really "US" are they?). It causes insular thinking - and naturally you're going to turn against things being imposed from the outside. Regardless of who is in the White House (or the Governor's Office), regardless of whether or not it'll be a benefit or a hindrance down the road. It didn't come from my town, my people, and therefore I'm suspicious and somewhat against it.
Grow up. Seriously. The world isn't against YOU, because frankly you're not important enough for most of them to even realize that you're out there. My town's small. I like it. I'm happy here. I wish more people could figure out how to live without allowances (sorry - "tax breaks and incentives"). At the same time, I am an adult with a fully functioning brain and a reasonable chance of recognizing the self-pity trap of "it ain't my fault everbudy's poor and hard-done by here. Must be the guvmint's fault. They're comin' to take our gunz and our wimminz. And dont' get me started about them furriners. I don't mind immgrants, some of my best friends is immgrants. But THOSE immgrants ain't from around here. They's driving down wages and takin' our jobs."
... or am I laying it on a bit too thick there? Just trying to distill some of the discussions I've had occasionally during family gatherings.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:14PM
That's funny. Technically, if I really want to work at it, I suppose the description could apply to me and the town where I live. I don't get upset by the description though (it's not a "big condescending fuck you" to me), because frankly - I have to work at it to believe for moment that he's really talking about me.
Are you a social conservative? Are you someone who just needs a job to keep from bitterly clinging to deeply held religious beliefs or other ugly behaviors that San Franciscans tut-tut about?
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:47PM
so is it plausible the current president will get a new nomination approved?
I find it extremely unlikely that Mitch McConnell [wikipedia.org] will allow a vote on a SCOTUS nomination before the election.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Touché) by Thexalon on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:12AM
I wouldn't be surprised if he rushed through an Obama nominee if he learned that the next president was going to be Bernie Sanders, though.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:47AM
My thought as well :)
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:13AM
Had Scalia passed in another couple of months you would be correct. As is, no way the surrender caucus doesn't live up to their name. Can't you just hear Senator McCain's sanctimonious blithering now about the President's absolute right to have his nominees voted on?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:03AM
Congress has been phenomenally ineffective
That's a feature, not a bug.
Or to put it in other words, nobody's property or liberty are safe while Congress is in session.
The US system of three powerful branches of government struggling against each other was by design a way to keep any highly centralized power from running amok. The other two branches are supposed to put on the brakes.
President tries a power grab, Congress and courts should stop it.
Congress tries a power grab, President and courts should stop it.
And so on.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:13AM
I cede your point, but would like to suggest the current status quo, is not checks and balances as intended.
It's one bunch of rich guys arguing how they are going to ripoff the publics money.
That's why toxic subjects get no tractions. Easier to argue it's someone's fault than change the system.
But I do agree, checks and balances is better than what came before...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:50AM
note that the OP said "was", thus indicating a past tense. :)
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:16AM
Congress, by doing nothing, achieves de facto power. Courts can't directly force Congress to act. Nor can the President, either by keeping Congress in session until they legislate or executive actions that compels Congress to react to something anything. Dept of Justice (acting independently of Office of President), by way of Supreme Court finding them in general contempt, can't either. Congress has a high wall, but they can override Presidential vetoes, and ultimately control the money the President spends.
Look how much constitutional tension there is charging active Congress members with crimes...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:05AM
No, that's not the intention. The GOP has been behaving like petulent children for years, anything short of 100% of what they want is not good enough. Years back that grand bargain over the deficit was only 90% of what they wanted, despite them having lost the elections, and that wasn't good enough.
3 branches are about checks and balances. We have a bicameral legislature so that things don't get rushed through and originally so that politicians couldn't be as easily bought. Not to enable a bunch of self-entitled asses to hold the government hostage until they get their way even as pressing issues get kicked down the road.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:33AM
Congress has been phenomenally ineffective
That's a feature, not a bug.
Don't confuse failure to govern for good governance.
For decades internet geeks have been falsely attributing the quote "the government that governs least governs best" to Thomas Jefferson. He never said it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @11:07AM
Don't confuse failure to govern for good governance.
Don't confuse success in governance with good governance either.
For decades internet geeks have been falsely attributing the quote "the government that governs least governs best" to Thomas Jefferson. He never said it.
And because Jefferson didn't say it, it must not be true.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:43PM
He did say [blogspot.com] that lawyers don't produce anything of value and that he was concerned that there were no so goddamn many of them.
He also suggested [huffingtonpost.com] a revolt against the government in response to unreasonable tax hikes.
If he wasn't already an old unhealthy bastard I'd surmise that Hillary's Hit Squad™ or Baraq Hussein Sotero's Bag Boys™ had 'im put down during a hunting trip of their own.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:49PM
Surely Scalia would have liked it if only the rich entrenched power brokers had access to legal help.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:31PM
Quick, to the Ouija board!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:06AM
Where was Dick Chaney at the time and does he have witnesses?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:11PM
The best witnesses money can buy.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:47PM
"I've never killed a man but I've read many an obituary with great satisfaction." Or something like that.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/05/darrow-obituary/ [quoteinvestigator.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:50PM
"I won't celebrate the fact that he's dead"
I will. When a man devotes his life to what he has, HE is the one who decided his passing should be celebrated. Never feel ashamed at a feeling of elation when a tyrant passes...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:33AM
I'll raise a glass tonight. (But I'm saving the rest of the bottle for Kissenger.)
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:04AM
Cannot agree more.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:29AM
As long as you don't mind when people cheer when someone you like or admire dies then I guess it's all good, albeit in somewhat bad taste.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:08AM
People admire Scalia? The man was a psychopath that would rather send known innocent people to be slaughtered than to admit that the law isn't perfect and sometimes requires some common sense. I mean seriously, anybody that morally bankrupt ought not be allowed out in public, let alone in a position where they're literally holding people's lives in the balance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:38AM
People admire Scalia? The man was a psychopath that would rather send known innocent people to be slaughtered than to admit that the law isn't perfect and sometimes requires some common sense.
No he firmly did admit that the law wasn't perfect and despite acknowledging that fact, he still was happy to send innocent people their deaths. That's even worse.
“Like other human institutions, courts and juries are not perfect ... One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly.”
Kansas v Michael Lee Marsh, 2006 [supremecourt.gov]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @11:11AM
No he firmly did admit that the law wasn't perfect and despite acknowledging that fact, he still was happy to send innocent people their deaths. That's even worse.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @11:09AM
The man was a psychopath
No, he wasn't. Words have meaning.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:59PM
Of course he was most attorneys are. At least the ones that are successful at it. You seea lot of psychopaths showing up in business as well as the legal system.
Also psychopath isn't s technical term. Somebody that would conduct himself like Scalia did is fairly described as psychopathic.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:09PM
Also psychopath isn't s technical term.
Actually, yes, it is. Not only is it a technical term, the people [hare.org] who designed the scales of psychopathy urge us not to use the term without proper training.
The potential for harm is considerable if the PCL-R is used incorrectly, or if the user is not familiar with the clinical and empirical literature pertaining to psychopathy.
And I don't agree that Scalia "conducted himself" in a manner that could be described by the term, psychopathy. You're just hurling an empty slur.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:18AM
No I don't, in fact they do already and there is nothing anyone can do about it and nor should they be able to.
Also your definition of taste is your own personal opinion and thus matters as much as any one person's opinion does - not that much.
Personally I have always found it ridiculous that when someone dies all of a sudden they must be spoken of as a saint or its "bad taste". People are what they are and dying changes nothing except that you are dead.
Speaker for the Dead.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:38AM
That's based upon a misunderstanding of why we don't generally speak ill of the dead. We generally don't speak ill of the dead because they aren't there to defend themselves which means that the rumors about them are likely to be wrong and we're likely to reinforce a set of bad choices based upon what they did in life.
It's not because there's something wrong with speaking ill of the dead, it's that it's not generally good for us personally to do so.
That being said, there are definitely times when it's the only healthy thing to do, like in this case the deceased was a pretty horrible person as far as his professional life goes. People who commit suicide likewise shouldn't be put up on a pedestal, a more human view of them is best for everybody involved, even if they did some horrible things.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:27AM
We often speak about people when they are not there to defend themselves all the time. Since when has ANYONE expected Scalia to turn up on these forums to defend himself in a comment? I STILL fail to see how their status of alive or dead is relevant.
I also think you assume far too much introspection into the behaviours of the average person on this subject.
"likely to reinforce a set of bad choices based upon what they did in life"
Because pointing out what they did wrong will encourage people to do it so they too can be held accountable when they die as opposed to having everyone ignore their bad actions? Yes, that makes absolutely perfectly logical sense.
"there are definitely times when it's the only healthy thing to do,"
And then you unwind your argument by giving almost arbitrary examples where its ok because...well just because it "makes sense" (to you) and is "healthy".
Honestly, that is a product of dishonest thinking and a generally dishonest social norm.
A person is what they were and your opinions on them are as valid whether they are alive or dead. I have no problem with people feeling they have to lie to themselves due to a person's death (freedom and all that), just don't try to shit all over people who are just calling it as they have always seen it with the exceptionally weak and irrelevant argument of "because they are dead you have to respect them no matter what".
Anyways. It matters not. We shall all say what we want anyhow...at least until people like Scalia run the world and nobody is allowed to!
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:59AM
First off, the fact that somebody is still alive means that it's possible to go to the source on it, not that one does. But, if there's allegations about him having sex with donkeys now, that's not something that's likely to be resolved. Previously, he could at least defend himself in court and get to some sort of resolution on the matter.
Once somebody is dead, there's nothing you can do to enforce any sort of accountability on them. I'm curious why you'd think otherwise. All it does is breed ill will that does have a very real impact on the lives of people that are still here. My grandmother was a sociopath, being angry at her and spreading a lot of talk about her is largely a waste of energy. People went along with it and they'll refuse to acknowledge it whether or not anybody speaks ill of her. That's how people are.
As I said, there are times when it is appropriate to do so, but they're restricted to times when we're trying to avoid repeating the past. Just because you choose to deliberately misread what I've posted doesn't change the fact that there are occasionally times when speaking ill of the dead is appropriate. But it doesn't mean that the cultural aversion to badmouthing the dead is wrong or that my argument has unwound, it just means that your logic sucks.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:41PM
Not really. I think you are just trying to reverse reason a truism and doing a bad job of it. I find your arguments weak but you don't believe they are.
Its fine, there is no requirement for us to agree and cultural norms that are blindly followed do not always exist for good reasons.
We will just have to beg to differ.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:03AM
As long as you don't mind when people cheer when someone you ...
No... Stop....
There is a HUGE difference between someone like Scalia and some nobody like myself or yourself. Scalia was a public figure. His actions, or inactions resulted in major changes to people's lives. Cheering that some nobody died is tasteless. But cheering that some public figure is dead, whose actions could have affected your life for the last 2 decades, well, sorry, but that comes with the job.
Scalia was not a saint. He was not some do-gooder. Some of his actions ruined people's lives.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-scalia-so-called-torture-ok/ [cbsnews.com]
So I'm sorry, but Scalia removal through old-age from the SCOTUS is a good thing. Having someone there that believes torture is a-ok, is just bad. It's bad for US. It's bad for everyone.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by julian on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:10AM
He used almost half of his life and his considerable intellect and force of personality actively making our country worse for millions of people, and took a perverse pleasure in it--as most moralizing ideologues do. I'm not sad to see his time on the Supreme Court, or on Earth, come to and end.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @10:57AM
"You're looking at me as though I'm weird. My god! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the devil! It's in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the devil! Most of mankind has believed in the devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the devil."
(6 October 2013)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:15AM
None of the witches have died. Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan are all pretty horrible. (particularly Sotomayor, who is openly racist and has pretty much said that she doesn't give a shit about previous rulings or the actual written text of our constitution)
Scalia was the second best. Only Thomas is better, firmly refusing to "reinterpret" our constitution to satisfy the latest fad.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:20AM
Up is down, war is peace, north is south, Thomas is best. </sarc>
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:42AM
You liberals can't stand him because he's black.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:34AM
You liberals can't stand him because he's black.
He's dark skinned, he's not black.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:12AM
You sound like one of those annoying fans that gets angry whenever the ref makes a call against your favorite team. So much vitriol here against Scalia, and not one actual reference to a legally incorrect ruling.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:24AM
What legally incorrent ruling?
The Supreme Court isn't the last possible appeal because it is infallible.
It is infallible because it is the last possible appeal.
-- hendrik
(Score: 3, Informative) by mendax on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:20AM
You asked for it, you got it. In Brown v. Plata [wikipedia.org], Scalia wrote a scathing dissent [supremecourt.gov] (starts at p.59 of the PDF). He wrote something which I took great offense at, given that I work with prisoners in California and elsewhere via the mail:
The gyms in California prisons don't have weight training equipment in the gyms because they were all filled with bunks due to the overcrowding. Furthermore, many prisoners have chronic diseases such as hepatitis C and HIV because of IV drug use and prison tattooing. Others have very serious mental health issues thanks to the closure (due to Ronald Reagan when he was governor) of state mental hospitals
Another example of Scalia's callous attitude toward the law is Overgefell v. Hodges [wikipedia.org], in which the right to same-sex marriage was affirmed. Scalia wrote another scathing dissent [supremecourt.gov] (starts at p. 69 of the PDF). The best of the bullshit he wrote can be found here. It's great stuff.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:05AM
Both left and right would be pissed at the legally proper ruling on same-sex marriage.
In the USA, we have several kinds of law. We have statute law, which is the normal sort of stuff put in place by state legislatures. We also have common law, an ever-shrinking body of law that is left over from English courts back in England. Statute law takes priority, but we don't have statute law for everything.
In the common law, there can be no same-sex marriage. Any state legislature could change this via statutory law, and a few did exactly that.
Agreements made in one state must be recognized in every other state. If two dudes from Alabama get married in Massachusetts, they are still married when they go home. It looks like DOMA was unconstitutional, since it allowed states to refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states. It should however be perfectly fine for a state to refuse to let same-sex marriages be created within that state.
As you can see, neither the left nor the right would be happy with the correct ruling. Ultimately I think the left would effectively win. They would have to fight the battle state by state. They'd prefer to shove a ruling down Alabama's throat of course, because otherwise it might take 40 years to get what they want.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:52AM
In the common law, there can be no same-sex marriage. Any state legislature could change this via statutory law, and a few did exactly that.
In other words, and I want to be sure I am getting you right, you have no understanding of law whatsoever? Please do not tell me you are a member of the bar, anywhere.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:14PM
and not one actual reference to a legally incorrect ruling
I read a bunch of them too. Finally, someone mentioned his support for waterboarding. It's like pulling teeth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:48PM
There are 3 others up there that need to go too. They are nothing more than party line hacks just as he was. Each of them trumpeting the deepest darkest crap from the party they belong to. Instead of looking at thru the eyes of the constitution and if it is legal or not. You know their job.
I for one hope for a middle of the road sort of guy who is neither democrat or republican. If you look at many of the votes they are many times basically 'party line' votes. I have no love for this sort of vote at all. These guys are lifetime and should set aside their agendas and help their fellow Americans out instead of trying to set policy. They should strike many things and hand it back to congress to straighten out. Instead they are trying to legislate morality.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:45PM
Why some folks will rejoice.
However, this man had a wife and nine children. I think it's sad that a wife has lost her husband and children have lost their father. He led a long, full life and has gone the way of all life.
I didn't and don't agree with Justice Scalia's politics, and often, his jurisprudence.
At the same time, although it's likely that the court without Justice Scalia will produce rulings which are more in line with what I believe, maybe we could acknowledge his humanity for just a moment, rather than dancing on the tears of his family.
Just sayin'.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:49PM
He believed in original construction, and that the constitution meant what it said in words.
If you celebrate a constitution formed only of "whims of the moment", you could well get your wish, and live to regret it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:52PM
He believed in original construction, and that the constitution meant what it said in words.
That's a half-truth at best. Much of his jurisprudence on the SCOTUS reflected his personal and political beliefs and had zero to do with "original construction."
But it's a pretty story. maybe you should read it to your kids at night.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:56PM
And maybe you should review his actual record and try to tone down the hate.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:02AM
try to tone down the hate.
And this by you is hate?:
However, this man had a wife and nine children. I think it's sad that a wife has lost her husband and children have lost their father. He led a long, full life and has gone the way of all life.
[...]
maybe we could acknowledge his humanity for just a moment, rather than dancing on the tears of his family.
Really? Are you so entrenched in your political divisiveness that you can't even see what's written on a screen?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:04AM
Yeah, whatever. He had an agenda. For example, he would not uphold peyote use in Native American religious practices despite sincerely held religious belief, but let Hobby Lobby use sincerely held religious belief (in this case the same as his) to get out of covering the pill.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/scalia-v-scalia/361621/ [theatlantic.com]
Anyway, here's a complete list of his decisions with links to the text:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?Scalia [cornell.edu]
And yes -- I'm count myself amongst those glad to read his obit.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:08AM
Yeah, whatever. He had an agenda. For example, he would not uphold peyote use in Native American religious practices despite sincerely held religious belief, but let Hobby Lobby use sincerely held religious belief (in this case the same as his) to get out of covering the pill.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/scalia-v-scalia/361621/ [theatlantic.com]
Anyway, here's a complete list of his decisions with links to the text:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?Scalia [cornell.edu]
And yes -- I'm count myself amongst those glad to read his obit.
And while all that is true, and we may revile his views and his actions. He was still human, and I still have empathy for his family, who did and said none of those things.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Insightful) by r1348 on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:18AM
I believe we must summon a Speaker for the Dead.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:41AM
Good idea, were it possible--I suspect that we need a Speaker for divisive figures more than for most.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:16AM
I'm not so sanguine that the passing of a dick like Scalia doesn't brighten my mood.
As for his family, my empathy is balanced by the far greater number he harmed and unless demonstrated otherwise, I'll presume his family was supportive of him.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:56AM
Because if they weren't, they should have killed him earlier, right?
</troll>
(Score: 2) by naubol on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:17AM
Publically eulogizing him as an awful man may heal many more wounds than the wounds they inflict on his family.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:11AM
People who react with this kind of hate are just as bad as the ones over whose death they're rejoicing.
Typical though, of immature, entitled people. Sad.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:22AM
That's the problem with using hypocrisy as a defence, it means both sides are bad. And since one side is reacting to the actions of the other....
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:40PM
Heh. The best part of that argument is that if you follow that logic through your hate of those rejoicing at his death means you are even worse than them!
Unless, of course, you're not actually following that logic. Last I checked, logic doesn't mean "back at you".
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:24PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:32AM
Amen. They talk about the brilliance of his "legal logic". "Legal logic" is an oxymoron - that's why no mathematician goes into lawyering.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:52PM
Much of his jurisprudence on the SCOTUS reflected his personal and political beliefs and had zero to do with "original construction."
Except as original construction was part of his personal and political beliefs. I note elsewhere [soylentnews.org] that he did a spirited defense of the interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right (rather than a collective right). That includes some typical analysis of similar phrases elsewhere in the Bill of Rights which is as well as analysis of similar legal documents of the era. That's all original construction approaches.
Second, not every case is relevant to original construction. Just because a lot of his jurisprudence doesn't mean he wasn't applying original construction when he could.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:11AM
The founding fathers never intended for the constitution to be a dead document like Scalia wanted and allowing reinterpretation served us very well over the interceding time period. A document that was literally as written completely without any contemporary interpretations would be thousands of pages long and completely impossible for the layperson to even roughly understand.
It also ignores the complexities of reality where two similar cases can have differing results and situations where the constitution doesn't give specific guidance.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:37AM
Your wrong of course.
The founding fathers intentionally wrote a framework rather than prescription.
But that doesn't mean the framework was intended to be rewritten by every fad blowing in the wind. The amendment process is intentionally difficult. The role of government is not to rewrite the constitution with every new administration. There is noting but tyranny down that road.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Reziac on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:57AM
The people who want to change the Constitution assume that they'll also be the ones enforcing it, and that it will always be enforced according to their vision and within their perception of consequences. Never, ever do they consider the result of a changed Constitution being enforced by parties hostile to their beliefs, let alone consider any unintentional consequences.
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:26AM
Well, no, I'm not wrong and your post is bullshit.
You're confusing changes to the constitution with changes in the interpretation of the constitution and those are completely different things. The problem with Citizen's united is that they changed the definition of person to include things which are definitely not people and that could be fixed in the near future if the court gets competent jurists rather than right wing ideologues appointed to it.
The founding father's intended for the Supreme Court to be the final say on the interpretation of the laws and the constitution which is exactly what you're decrying here. They aren't rewriting the constitution, they're adjusting the interpretation to match the current climate. Trying to guess what exactly the founding father's meant with the verbiage they used isn't always easy. You have people that still insist that the 2nd amendment grants individual gun ownership rights when that's almost certainly not what they had in mind and doesn't even make sense from a historical point of view.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:18AM
**sigh**
Words develop new meaning with time, and old meanings go out of style. The militia is every male from roughly age 12 to 60. It doesn't mean the national guard. The word "regulated" means accurate, capable, and similar. It doesn't mean restricted by law. Even if this were not so however...
You need to be good with English grammar. The sentence construction works like this: "Because we think X is important, the right to Y is allowed." Note that the first part is merely a justification. It has no bearing on the law. It's no different from the first part of "Because blind people suffer, they get a tax credit of $XXXX per year." (which is NOT a law requiring blind people to suffer or making the discount only available to those who do)
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:09PM
Bullshit. Then why can't I own a rocket launcher? It's because the second amendment was never intended to be an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Also that's a restrictive clause. It's not a matter of explanationtion, it's a restriction. What's more it definitely did have a bearing before the right rewrote it in order to suit their agenda. It is a group right so that the states could have armed police and guard troops.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:41PM
By our constitution, it looks like you can in fact own at least a hand-held rocket launcher if not more. (do you "bear" a truck-mounted one or even a silo?) We probably should have put a stop to rocket launchers via a constitutional amendment, but instead we let judges get away with reinterpreting our constitution to deal with the issue.
It's wishful thinking, or a failure to understand English, that leads some to think that the 2nd amendment starts with a restrictive clause. That just isn't how English works.
Where our constitution reserves rights to the states, it actually says so. This isn't the case with the 2nd amendment. You might as well say that the 1st amendment is a collective right so that states can, via their senators, speak their mind.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:52PM
You have people that still insist that the 2nd amendment grants individual gun ownership rights when that's almost certainly not what they had in mind and doesn't even make sense from a historical point of view.
Which is a silly claim to make. After all, individual gun ownership was universal to all the states and came with the colonies. It was used to help enforce the individual right to self defense. And the Second Amendment clearly states that there is a right to keep and bear arms. Everywhere else such a right is stated in the Bill of Rights, it is always an individual right not a collective right.
Second, what's a collective right and how can we have collective rights without individual rights? For example, what does it mean to you to have a collective right to keep and bear arms? What does that collective right mean for the individual?
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Sunday February 14 2016, @07:53PM
You have people that still insist that the 2nd amendment grants individual gun ownership rights when that's almost certainly not what they had in mind and doesn't even make sense from a historical point of view.
Sorry, virtually every constitutional scholar disagrees with you.
The pre-existing right to gun ownership by citizens was PRECISELY what the 2nd amendment had in mind. And having just overthrown one dictatorship, and not wanting another, it made perfect sense historically to preserve the right to bear arms. (In fact there is a well reasoned school of thought that the 2nd Amendment preserves the right of people to keep and bear ANY similar weapons that an individual soldier might carry into battle.)
Further, you betray a very broken understanding of the constitution by your phrase "the 2nd amendment grants individual gun ownership rights". The second amendment, like all amendments, restricts the government from abridging a right. It does not grant a right. The rights precede the government. This is probably at the root of your misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution limits and controls Government. Not People. You've managed to fundamentally miss the point all these years,
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:45AM
> But that doesn't mean the framework was intended to be rewritten by every fad blowing in the wind.
Do you understand what you are doing by framing it as an extreme?
You say "framework" but then, without a single example, you talk as if any modernization is a "fad blowing in the wind" and "whims of the moment" - you base your argument on the extreme case of some non-existent hypothetical. You make it a choice between black and white when the entire world lives in the greys. Your position is based on something that doesn't exist. In that way you invalidate your argument from the very start.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:00PM
You say "framework" but then, without a single example, you talk as if any modernization is a "fad blowing in the wind" and "whims of the moment" - you base your argument on the extreme case of some non-existent hypothetical.
Well, let's look at an example [soylentnews.org] then.
The problem with Citizen's united is that they changed the definition of person to include things which are definitely not people and that could be fixed in the near future if the court gets competent jurists rather than right wing ideologues appointed to it.
150 years of law on corporate personhood are ignored here.
You have people that still insist that the 2nd amendment grants individual gun ownership rights when that's almost certainly not what they had in mind and doesn't even make sense from a historical point of view.
Except of course, there was widespread individual firearm ownership, historically to the origins of the pre-US colonies. That's a huge support for individual gun ownership and use rights. It's also worth noting that there are a number of other times when "the people" are granted rights by the Bill of Rights. Each of these times, the right was an individual one not a collective one. This incidentally is an argument [soylentnews.org] that Scalia made!
Next, Scalia turns to the language of the Second Amendment, once again arguing along the same lines as the libertarian individualists. He begins his analysis by dividing the amendment into two clauses: the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”), and the operative clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”). Scalia believes the prefatory clause simply announces the purpose of the Amendment and does not limit the operative clause (District of Columbia v. Heller 2008, 3). He writes that while “this structure…is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose” (District of Columbia v. Heller 2008, 3). For Scalia, the prefatory clause may offer clarification regarding the operative clause, but it in no way restricts its meaning. After defining several key phrases found in both clauses, Scalia offers a conclusion regarding the meaning of the structure of the amendment.
Scalia begins his analysis of the operative clause with an examination of the phrase “the right of the people.” The Bill of Rights uses the phrase three times: in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause, in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause, and in an analogous phrase in the Ninth Amendment (District of Columbia v. Heller 2008, 5). According to Scalia, each of these examples refers to the protection of an individual right, not a collective right. The use of the words “the people” by themselves is found three additional times in the Constitution, each regarding the reservation of power, not rights (District of Columbia v. Heller 2008, 6). The phrase “right of the people,” when used in its entirety, always refers to an individual right. “The people” used in these six examples has been read to describe the entire political community. Therefore, according to Scalia, the amendment does not just protect a subset of people, in this case the militia consisting of adult white males. Instead, it protects the rights of all Americans.
Not only does Francis in this post, reinterpret the Constitution to fit his whims twice, he reinterprets history as well in order to reach the desired conclusion. Unfortunately, we don't agree on what should be the law, not everyone is virtuous, and our interests are not identical. So extending this sort of subjective, fleeting reinterpretation of law and history to current law is sure to be disaster.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday February 14 2016, @07:38PM
It's also worth noting that there are a number of other times when "the people" are granted rights by the Bill of Rights.
That too is a fundamental mistake of understanding the US Constitution.
The bill or rights, or rather the entire constitution does not GRANT rights to the people.
The people are assumed to have these rights, and the constitution restricts the government from taking them away.
It was precisely because this was misunderstood that Amendment 10 was added:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Many states (5 or 38%) ratified with conditions (demands, really) that amendments be added to make perfectly clear that specific things left unsaid in the original constitution be added to the Constitution, (not changing any of the original text, simply adding the bill of rights). Even at that early date, people understood the likelihood of a federal power grab and over reach.
To that end, almost the first order of business was the construction by congress from those demands, the first 12 amendments to the constitution and the submission of those to the states.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @10:04PM
The bill or rights, or rather the entire constitution does not GRANT rights to the people.
The people are assumed to have these rights, and the constitution restricts the government from taking them away.
It was precisely because this was misunderstood that Amendment 10 was added:
That's pretense. We've seen that Amendment 10 is toothless and that the presence of the Bill of Rights has turned out to be necessary to preserve those rights which we supposedly have automatically.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday February 15 2016, @01:51AM
Well you are exactly correct.
There was argument at the time (Federalist Papers) that the bill of rights was unnecessary, because the body of the constitution would itself prevent government from usurping all rights and powers.
Turns out what little freedoms we have today are almost wholly dependent on and hang by a thread from those first ten amendments, each of which is watered down daily. What should have been a mere redundancy turned out to be an absolute necessity.
One wonders if we would not be better off has the Original First amendment had also passed. The Original Second Amendment did pass. In 1992, as the 27th.
The First amendment [teachinghistory.org] would have limited the size of a US Representative's constituency to about 40,000 people. Had it passed the house would be composed of 8074 representatives.
Of course that's too big to get anything done. Oh, wait......
It might also be too big to bribe.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @11:33AM
The founding fathers never intended for the constitution to be a dead document like Scalia wanted and allowing reinterpretation served us very well over the interceding time period.
The obvious rebuttal is twofold. First, which reinterpretation gets to be selected? And second, how do you keep the tyrants from reinterpreting the Constitution in a way that suits them?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:41AM
> If you celebrate a constitution formed only of "whims of the moment", you could well get your wish, and live to regret it.
Conversely if you believe in a constitution frozen in time you could well get your wish and die because of it.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent"
-- dissent in Troy Anthony Davis's Petition for Habeas Corpus, 2009 [supremecourt.gov]
Yeah, he really did argue that proof innocence is not enough to stop someone from being executed. Hard to top that for evil.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:57PM
He is a political hack who used cases, read "other people's lives," as stepping stones to enact his political will. Therefore it is almost expected for people to do the same to him. I give his humanity the same amount of regard as I saw him giving to that of others. Too bad I can't tell his family to their faces, the same way he had on many occasions.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:32AM
There's no hate like radical left wing hate...
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:43AM
...except reactionary right wing hate...
:)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:33AM
Except I don't hate him for his politics, I hate him for what he did. There are people even worse on the other side and I hate them even more.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:57AM
It's not like his wife/children are left unable to support themselves in this world.
Besides, everybody dies at a point, that's as sure as taxes.
As the human empathy has limits (otherwise anyone would go crazy for the amount of suffering/death in this world), I prefer to direct it towards others
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:12AM
I think it's sad that a wife has lost her husband and children have lost their father.
It's not like his wife/children are left unable to support themselves in this world.
Besides, everybody dies at a point, that's as sure as taxes.
As the human empathy has limits (otherwise anyone would go crazy for the amount of suffering/death in this world), I prefer to direct it towards others
Whether or not his family is left destitute, they've lost a loved one. That, to me at least, is sad. Do you have an understanding of that? Or is everyone and everything to you just a means to an economic end?
I don't tell other people how they should think or feel. However, I don't believe that empathy is a limited resource. I've lost my parents and several siblings. I miss them, and do understand how such a loss can hurt. As such, I do feel for those who now need to go on without someone who was an important part of their lives.
I don't especially mourn Scalia's passing. He wasn't a good guy. But my antipathy for him doesn't extend to his family.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:05AM
I'm reminded of a story...
R.I.P. Justice Antonin Scalia--for fair or foul, you made a mark on your country.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:29AM
Is it better?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:47AM
Yes, I do.
I think the world is a bit poorer, no matter which human dies. And this includes the children dying because of war in Yemen [wikipedia.org] or Syria, or famine in Ethiopia or anywhere else: not only the humanity is losing them but it also loses their potential.
Scalia's family has my sympathy but not my empathy. Scar or mark on his country, at least Scalia had his chances. Those children haven't and won't.
Do you have an understanding of that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:04AM
Yes, I do.
I think the world is a bit poorer, no matter which human dies. And this includes the children dying because of war in Yemen or Syria, or famine in Ethiopia or anywhere else: not only the humanity is losing them but it also loses their potential.
Absolutely. I agree completely.
Scalia's family has my sympathy but not my empathy.
So you feel bad for them, but don't understand their loss or pain?
I guess you've never lost anyone close to you. You should count yourself lucky. Sadly, even if you haven't yet, you will. Obviously that assumes that you care about others.
Scar or mark on his country, at least Scalia had his chances.
And I could say the same about you. Or me. Or just about everyone else on this site. Your point?
Those children haven't and won't. Do you have an understanding of that?
Absolutely. It's a travesty.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:35AM
I understand their loss and pain, this is why they have my sympathy (generated by the intellectual/analytical side of my brain and past life experiences). I just don't have enough empathy to feel for them after I feel for the dying kids.
I have. While a teenager. And it was my kid brother. Probably this is why I'm only sorry for the death of an old man and feel deep sorrow for the death of kids.
As I would, if somebody asks me. And I don't give a dam' if you are saying this about me (and I won't speak for others).
Two actually:
* don't require me or expect me (or other SN community members) to have empathy for Scalia's family and don't try to make me (or anyone else) guilty for not having it; (clod I may be, but) I'm not insensitive - just limited in my capacity to feel for all the loses on this planet.
* and definitely, don't climb a high horse over the others - they may not be insensitive either, even if they don't feel for Scalia family's loss.
(and don't tell me you didn't mean any of the above. Read your posts and see if, on a cursory reading, these interpretations can be excluded)
Sorry, can you rephrase? It's a what? In what sense?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:40AM
So you feel bad for them, but don't understand their loss or pain?
I understand their loss and pain, this is why they have my sympathy (generated by the intellectual/analytical side of my brain and past life experiences). I just don't have enough empathy to feel for them after I feel for the dying kids.
empathy (n) [merriam-webster.com]:
the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone else's feelings
sympathy (n) [merriam-webster.com]:
the feeling that you care about and are sorry about someone else's trouble, grief, misfortune, etc. : a sympathetic feeling
Your point?
Two actually:
* don't require me or expect me (or other SN community members) to have empathy for Scalia's family and don't try to make me (or anyone else) guilty for not having it; (clod I may be, but) I'm not insensitive - just limited in my capacity to feel for all the loses on this planet.
I don't require or expect anything from anyone. As I explicitly said [soylentnews.org]:
* and definitely, don't climb a high horse over the others - they may not be insensitive either, even if they don't feel for Scalia family's loss.
Believe what your like. I will do the same. If advocating for simple kindness and respect for human dignity is getting "on my high horse" then I'm guilty as charged. I have my own beliefs and sense of ethics. I don't really care if others agree. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to keep my mouth shut just because you (or anyone else) doesn't like what I have to say. Don't like it? Ignore me. Or respond to me. Or do whatever you like. That's your choice, not mine.
(and don't tell me you didn't mean any of the above. Read your posts and see if, on a cursory reading, these interpretations can be excluded)
I think I just did. And I have read my posts -- heck, I even wrote them. If you took what I said as anything beyond my expression of my thoughts and ideas, the fault lies either with your comprehension, my exposition or both.
Again, as I explicitly stated, I don't attempt to prescribe how others should think, feel or speak. I do, however, feel free to use speech to express how I think and feel.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:53AM
I'm cool with that. Heck, I respect that, even.
Most probable with both, methinks. Ta
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:58AM
I honestly would not be surprised if his family, or at least his children, were actually almost as happy about his death as some of the posters here are. Just because they are in his family doesn't automatically mean they loved him.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:01AM
All right, I can go along with that. I'll refrain from dancing on his grave--at least, until he's buried in it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @10:37AM
However, this man had a wife and nine children. I think it's sad that a wife has lost her husband and children have lost their father.
As far as they're concerned [wikipedia.org] their spouse/daddy just got a promotion. Heck, they surely believe he'll sit right next to Their Lord, deciding who gets in and who goes to Hell.
Maybe they'll throw him a departure party?
(Score: 2) by xpda on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:10AM
The big question is whether the Senate will approve an appointment by Obama, or wait until someone like Trump or Cruz appoints a justice more conservative than Scalia. I have said that I'd never vote for Hillary Clinton, but this could change my way of thinking.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:31AM
What's that, you say you don't want to live in a country where horrific levels of conservative religious bigotry continue to be enshrined in law by a Supreme Court stacked with ultra-conservative judges, and voting for Hillary Clinton, as much as you may dislike her, is the only way to vote against the current ultra-neo-conservative Republican insanity and make sure that doesn't happen?
You don't say.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by schad on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:50AM
"Who might this person, as President, nominate for SCOTUS?" That's a question you should always ask yourself. SCOTUS appointees are almost always the most significant contribution a president makes to his legacy. 20 years from now Bush 43 will be a vague (and probably unpleasant) memory at most. But John Roberts will quite possibly still be Chief Justice, still having a huge impact on the country. Especially if we get a Republican president next, and he manages to roll back ObamaCare in its entirety, what will be Obama's legacy? Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
You could do a lot worse than casting your vote based solely on who you think a candidate would nominate.
Of course, in this election cycle you are pretty much fucked. Libertarian-leaning centrist here. I've always either thrown away my vote (voting for a third party) or held my nose and optimistically voted (R) (and then been bitterly disappointed). This election I may vote for Sanders, because he's the least-terrifying option of the whole lot. While I genuinely believe that he would lead the country to economic ruin, so would all the other guys. Bernie would at least keep us comfortable while everything collapsed over us.
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:10AM
I would say that the Republican controlled Senate will not even entertain nominees presented by Obama until the outcome of the election in November.
If a Republican wins, Obama's nominee will never see the light of day. If either of the Democrats win, I would think it is a crap shoot as to if Obama's nominee get approved.
I would wager that ALL candidates start getting asked about who they might nominate for the open seat.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:10AM
You missed something important. The Senate is in recess for the next nine days. Can we say Recess Appointment?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:04AM
God, I really, really hope not!!! Much as I loathe Republicans in Congress for their stone-walling the past seven years, it would just further fuck up things if Obama were to make a recess appointment of a Supreme Court Justice. It would be just the worst possible legacy he could leave us with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:50AM
Honest no trolling, but why is that? Obviously there is no way to get anything through. The gridlock has to be broken no matter the consequences and this occasion is as good as any.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 14 2016, @11:34AM
Supreme Court Justices often take longer than Obama has left to get confirmed. Holding off until after the election would not put the Senate in novel territory, time-wise. Appointing a Justice during recess in your last year as President, however, would be quite uncommon and extremely bad form. There's an excellent posting over the nuts and bolts of recess appointments over at the SCOTUS blog [scotusblog.com] if anyone wishes to read up.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:48PM
Because it would set a horrible precedent. And this will be a precedent that will long outlive us. Obama's name would be cursed by everyone for generations to come. Remember, there will eventually come a time when a Republican is again in the Whitehouse. Do you really want to give them a precedent to side step the Senate's constitutional authority to "advise and consent" on judicial appointments? Really?!?
Quite possibly, but I would much rather have nothing get through than have a really bad precedent set that will stay with us for generations to come.
Yes, the gridlock will eventually have to be broken. No, this should not be done "no matter the consequences". And, while a line in the sand sometimes has to be drawn, this is not the occasion for it. Honestly, you seem to have a very limited scope of vision. It's time you looked beyond your own nose to see the much larger world around you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:58AM
"originalism" - a conservative legal philosophy that believes the US Constitution has a fixed meaning and does not change with the times.
Also known as the ability to read plain English.
I favor another amendment: "And we really mean it!"
Perhaps I would expand on the simplicity of "And we really mean it!" by explaining "Whenever another law disagrees with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. And whenever a historical court decision disagrees with the plain wording of the Constitution, the Constitution wins." In other words, none of this gradual warping by piling interpretation on interpretation and holding upon holding.
Of course, power hogs would ignore it all, just like the rest of the Constitution.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:25AM
They ignore such plain English that no possible Amendment could contain them other than the following, and it would reign in the entire government.
It shall be an affirmative defense in the trial of an assassin of any elected official that they were violating their Oath of Office by failing to uphold the Constitution. Once this defense is invoked the jury shall be instructed as follows: Guilt of murder is now settled. You must now decide the question of failure to uphold the Oath of Office. The accused may speak in their own defense, the State will bring in expert witnesses. Should the jury return a verdict the official had indeed violated their Oath the accused must be set free and awarded $1M USD (inflation adjusted). Otherwise the accused is to be put to death within 72 hours and the normal prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is waived. The jury is to prescribe the method and is encouraged to be a creative as they feel the case warrants in handing out a sentence as this is the best way to discourage the widespread, indiscriminate use of this law.
(Score: 4, Informative) by darnkitten on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:53AM
Hey--- I remember something like that!
H. Beam Piper-- Lone Star Planet/A Planet for Texans, [archive.org] 1958, which was a takeoff on an essay by H.L. Mencken-- The Malevolent Jobholder, [mencken.org] 1924, which itself referenced Prussian law.
...Of course that was in Piper's Libertarian phase, before he became disillusioned and increasingly authoritarian in his writing. "Flower Festivals, all around the galaxy, without end." [gutenberg.org]
-
jmorris, I googled your "amendment," above, and couldn't find it. If I may ask, did you write it--or if not, what's the source? I'd love to add it to my quotes file...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:19AM
I have used something similar in the past, including on the 'other' site. Didn't intentionally copy anyone else directly but there aren't many totally new ideas in political science either so not shocked to see 90+ year only references to similar ideas.
Basically going with the Founders ideas that we should keep a bit of Revolutionary spirit. Since too much of anything tends to go bad wanted to temper it a bit. So shoot a rat bastard who ignores their oath but it is all or nothing, Patriot or Traitor judged by a jury of your peers forced to either turn you loose with a sack of cash or make an example of you in the negative way. Most people tend to want stability in their society so unless it was a very cut and dry case they would be assumed to want to have the assassin taken out back and executed in some very grisly way, especially if the only other option is not only turning a stone killer loose but also handing them a sack of cash and declaring them a Patriot, thus all but certain to encourage copycats. But knowing that law was on the books would tend to make government officials take their oath a bit more seriously.
If this amendment passed tomorrow the only thing keeping Hillary Clinton alive the next 24 hours would be her current status as a private citizen. (only current government officials, no mention of previous ones)
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:32PM
I'd recommend reading through "Lone Star Planet" [archive.org]--It's still a fun read about a society based around your concept, and was one of my first exposures to Libertarian sci-fi, way back in Junior High.
I was intrigued by the idea until I realized that with the resentful divisiveness, bitter hatreds and unquenchable anger (and the hotheads) on both sides of partisan politics in real life and with the Judiciary just as willing to play politics as the other branches (as well as with the passions that the folks in my town bring to municipal issues), that every seat of government, from local on up, would turn into a shooting gallery with every election, and that every faction would be able able to find a judge/jurors to back their action...
And as to your Hillary comment, Lone Star Planet covers that as well (if she were to get elected)--
Actually--I'm still intrigued by that idea (among others), but am wary of any political theories being put into practice, given humanity's success/failure ratio in the last few centuries.
And--I'd recommend reading Piper [gutenberg.org] in general--he could have been one of the Grand Masters of sci-fi, if he had had the time to develop. Most of his works are available on Project Gutenberg.
Finally--If I were to quote your amendment, how should I credit you?
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday February 14 2016, @11:20AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:40PM
No Amendment required. States have both of those powers. On paper.
So long as standing U.S. Government policy is massive war crimes against civilian populations for daring to try leaving this "Free Country" it isn't likely anyone is going to try. The only way would be some improbable plan that had a State or group of leave and on day one be able to invoke the MAD Doctrine. Not likely a State can both have WMD and a viable threat to be able to weaponize and deploy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:28AM
Where's that '-1, I have no brain' mod when you need it?
Or less succinctly, you're saying that you want to live in a society that's less free and would embrace slavery, child abuse, violence against women, all manner of bigotry and rampant corporate corruption.
What's more, your suggestion that "Whenever another law disagrees with the Constitution, the Constitution wins" is the reason we (at least after Marbury v. Madison [wikipedia.org]) have the Supreme Court.
You're spouting ignorant bullshit that someone smarter than you told you is true. You sound like a moron. I suggest you attempt to get a clue.
What you envision is not a society I want to live in. Fortunately, more people agree with me than agree with you.
(Score: 2) by goody on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:29AM
** except when it comes to the Second Ammendment and that stuff about well-regulated militias
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:50AM
that stuff about well-regulated militias
What stuff is that?
Oh, you mean the part where it says a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state?
You do realize, don't you, that the phrase about a well-regulated militia being necessary does not cancel the separate phrase shall not be infringed or the application of that phrase to the people (not just the militia)?
Again... reading skills... plain English... not that difficult for those who know the language.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:06AM
Justin Case, you're wasting your time.
The "progressive" movement preaches lofty goals like "tolerance," "diversity," and "keep an open mind," but in truth, they're every bit as tyrannical and coldblooded as any of the institutions they wish to replace.
They've already decided on their goals; things like the Constitution mean nothing to them.
Rational argument means nothing to them either.
(Score: 2) by goody on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:49PM
Tolerance, diversity, and open-mindedness don't include agreeing with the opposition when it goes against your values or is just plain wrong, like when conservatives claim non-acceptance of their intolerance of gays is intolerance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:40PM
"Not agreeing" is far and away different from "enforcing conformity under threat of death". All law is ultimately backed by the threat of death.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:15AM
Taken with the historical context the 2nd amendment was there to ensure that what has become the national guard would have access to the necessary weapons to wage war. Hence why they get to have most of the same hardware that the military does. They can have RPGs and amphibious assault ships that civilians are legally barred from owning.
If the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment were correct and that it granted an individual right to keep and bear arms, then the only thing barring us from having those things would be the ability to pay for them. In short, the amendment doesn't apply the way the NRA thinks it does otherwise we'd have an amendment removing or amending the rights for the sake of our own safety.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:46AM
At the time the constitution was written, "the militia" was every person who owned a gun and "well regulated" meant able to shoot safely and accurately.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:55PM
At the time it was written they were using flintlock rifles, they had no standing army and most of the country had no full-time police force. They were also likely to be deputized or expected to take part in military operations as needed.
The requirements were lower because the weapons were less dangerous, not because they intended for those to be the requirements forever.
At any rate, if they meant to create an individual right to have firearms, they should have said a person's rather than the people's.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:31PM
I guess Francis is a-okay with licenses being mandatory for Internet access - after all, all the founders had at the time was mechanical presses and ink quills.
Francis may not have heard of 10 USC 311 [findlaw.com]: are you a male able-bodied US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45? Congratulations, you are part of the official US militia! Now, where do I pick up my Stinger and Javelin missile launchers and M4A1 rifle?
Even if it weren't for 10 USC 311, the authority US government has is given to it by delegation derived from the authority of the individual citizen. If the individual citizen can't do a thing, neither can the person delegate such authority to any other [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:47PM
The requirements were lower because the weapons were less dangerous, not because they intended for those to be the requirements forever.
I see no expiration date or other exit condition. They did provide a mechanism to change the Constitution should it become necessary. We haven't followed that procedure yet WRT the 2nd amendment.
(Score: 2) by goody on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:01PM
Right, "plain English", from the 18th century with two recorded versions and a questionable comma; text which legal minds much more qualified than us have been arguing about for decades.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:11AM
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of the nation, the right of the people to keep and eat cereal, shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to eat cereal: a well-balanced breakfast, or the people?
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:30AM
But what if they aren't eating it for breakfast?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:02AM
I would like to appoint Bane [youtube.com] as head of the Bureau of Cereals, Strawberries, and Breakfasts!
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:03AM
"Whenever another law disagrees with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. And whenever a historical court decision disagrees with the plain wording of the Constitution, the Constitution wins."
And even laws that agree with the Constitution should contain sunset clauses, so they can be more readily discarded if they prove not beneficial.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:52PM
At least one Founder appears to agree with you on this. Jefferson was of the opinion that US government should be totally redone every twenty years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:12AM
Also known as the ability to read plain English.
The problem with that idea is that English, like every other language, changes. Words shift denotations and connotations over time. And while looking at 250 year old dictionary might help with the denotations, the cultural shifts between the mid 1700s and the mid 1900s make working out the connotations difficult. Context-sensitive languages are a pain that way.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:25AM
I was hoping that Obama would leave office without appointing any justices. Who wants to bet that this Muslim leaning administration won't try to appoint a Muslim to the Supreme Court? Some withered imam will be "interpreting" US Code according to the Quran.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:20AM
You are the worst kind of christian. One who cares nothing for the teachings of Christ, only to claim him for your team so you can cloak yourself in righteousness when attacking others.
Titus 1:15 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
Matthew 6:1 Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 15:8 This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me
Proverbs 26:24 Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips and harbors deceit in his heart
James 1:26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.
John 13:35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
1 Corinthians 15:2 And by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:37AM
And, you are talking nonsense. Proverbs 12:15 Islam is oppressing Christianity around the world today, and fools are welcoming Islam to the United States. Islam is not my "neighbor", Islam is a political movement with the trappings of religion.
If you are a Christian, I wonder if you've ever read this scripture - Revelation 3:16
Be careful with that politically correct bullshit. Jesus Christ would have puked over PC.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:54AM
Islam and Christianity are two sides of the same rotten coin. Christianity has mercifully been defanged by some 300+ years of Enlightenment thought; at the base, though, they are the same religion bar how bad they are at counting. I am disappointed in your apparently lack of historical knowledge here, especially because you don't seem to be a stupid person.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:03AM
So, despite your dislike for Christianity, you admit that it is far less poisonous that Islam? You get a gold star beside your name on the bulleting board today.
Now, look a little deeper. Christianity's saviour taught love and forgiveness. Islam's conquering general taught murder and rape. Two sides of the same coin? If/when you understand the differencec dictated by those simple facts, you may be qualified to make some comparative analysis.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:01AM
"So, despite your dislike for Christianity, you admit that it is far less poisonous that Islam?"
Way to twist what I said. If you had been paying closer attention, or paying attention AT ALL, you would notice that the take-home point here is the precise opposite: Christianity is JUST AS TOXIC AS ISLAM. The difference is, we've had a lucky few centuries of Enlightenment thought to neuter it.
"You get a gold star beside your name on the bulleting board today."
You get an F-- and a "see me after class" for the above, for the below, and for your utterly failed and entirely unearned attempt at patronizing me, Runaway. Just...lie down and shut up before you choke on your own foot.
"Now, look a little deeper. Christianity's saviour taught love and forgiveness. Islam's conquering general taught murder and rape."
...you have got to be, in the most literal sense of the word, God-damned kidding me. No he didn't. Not in the final analysis. He taught "Get yer shit together, Yahweh's coming and he's pissed!" All that love and forgiveness stuff was a) purely for the Israelites ("I am come but to the lost sheep of Israel," "It is not meet to take the childrens' bread and feed it to dogs") and b) a means to an end, in other words, "straighten up and look budy, the boss is coming!"
Anyone who doesn't kiss Yahweh's ineffable ass, by proxy through Yeshua, gets to spend eternity on fire. Where's the forgiveness and love there? Jumping Buddha, that is literally infinite Hitlers. Not even Godwinning there: that is an endless, inescapable concentration camp that's all crematoria and no chimney built for the express purposes of warehousing and tormenting what amount to Yahweh's political prisoners.
Even Islam is more merciful than that, in that some branches of it speculate that Muslims will eventually be let our of Jahannam.
You failed your research, and failed it badly. As usual.
"Two sides of the same coin? If/when you understand the differencec dictated by those simple facts, you may be qualified to make some comparative analysis."
You are so far out of your depth here it's an open bet as to whether drowning or barotrauma will get you first. I have never been so disappointed in you, and THAT is saying volumes.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:37AM
Who the fuck modded this Flamebait?! If you disagree, mod it Disagree and show me evidence that the views therein are historically incorrect.
But of course you can't. You know that, and you hate it. So all you can do is sling mod-mud. Pathetic! It doesn't make you any less ignorant or any less evilminded for that matter.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Tuesday February 16 2016, @05:02AM
The tone of your comment says more than the actual words you used. So much anger, hatred, and vitriol. Yet you call others "evilminded."
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're open to reasonable discussion. On to your words.
Whose final analysis are you referring to in claiming that Christ did not teach love and forgiveness? Since you don't seem to understand the historical or theological context of the two quotes of Christ you reference, it must not be a comprehensive one. Even a cursory reading of Acts would reveal that God's love is indeed for all mankind, not only the Jews. Yet you call others "ignorant."
You seem to be confused about a very basic issue: you seem to think that Christ cannot teach love and forgiveness while warning about the coming judgment. You seem to think that God cannot be both angry and loving, just and merciful, at the same time. Even basic human experience teaches that this can be the case. Have you never seen a parent who was angry at a child, yet still loved it? A parent who punished a child, yet still loved it? A parent who relented in punishing a child who deserved punishment? Or from the other perspective, a parent who loved a child, yet still punished it, because it deserved it?
It's the same old story, going all the way back to the Creation story: humans want to be God. They are affronted that God would set any kind of standards or make any demands of them. "Who is this being, this 'God,' who would tell me what I may and may not do? Who is this 'God' who would pass judgment on me and sentence me to eternal damnation? How dare he! Am I not as capable of understanding as he? Am I not as capable of reason and judgment? What gives him the right to dictate to me? What gives him the right to punish me? How dare he allow evil and misery to exist! What a contemptible being! I refuse to submit to such a being! He can damn me to hell if he wants, but I won't submit to him!"
At your peril, sir; at your peril.
You could, instead, choose humility. Recognize that good and evil do exist. Recognize that you have indeed sinned. Recognize that God is at once just and merciful. Recognize that God doesn't want you to perish and suffer eternally. Recognize that God allowed Christ to suffer and die on your behalf, and offers you the gift of forgiveness and eternal life. Recognize that it's your choice whether to repent.
Recognize that we don't deserve mercy; that we don't deserve eternal life. But God loves us enough to offer it to us anyway. And recognize that, if you choose not to accept that gift, it does not make God unloving or unforgiving--it simply means that you chose to reject his offer.
And if you are intellectually honest, whether you believe in Christ or not, you will recognize that there is no comparison between Christianity and Islam. If you are intellectually honest, you will recognize that Christianity != people who committed horrific acts in the name of Christ, because those acts did not comport with Christ's teachings. Conversely, compare the teachings of Islam with the actions we witness today.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:00AM
The tone of your comment says more than the actual words you used. So much anger, hatred, and vitriol. Yet you call others "evilminded."
"Serpents! brood of vipers! how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna?" - Matthew 23:33. Ooooooops. Better not tone troll Jesus...
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're open to reasonable discussion. On to your words.
Likewise, though given the following content of your post I'm not sure I should assume such charitable things of you.
Whose final analysis are you referring to in claiming that Christ did not teach love and forgiveness?
My own. You may wish to try this thing called "critical thought" sometime. It works wonders in the real world.
Since you don't seem to understand the historical or theological context of the two quotes of Christ you reference, it must not be a comprehensive one.
Ahh, context. That was the "free space" at the center of the Bingo card.
Even a cursory reading of Acts would reveal that God's love is indeed for all mankind, not only the Jews. Yet you call others "ignorant."
This is what we call a contradiction, dear boy. You assume, like a Muslim, that a later verse abrogates an earlier one. Sorry, that doesn't take back or change what the man said before in reference to the woman asking him for help. And has it occurred to you that since we have no writings Yeshua left behind that things like Luke-Acts (same author, as I understand it) may be propaganda pieces rather than honest attempts at historical recording? So yeah, I call people ignorant when they're ignorant. Like you.
You seem to be confused about a very basic issue: you seem to think that Christ cannot teach love and forgiveness while warning about the coming judgment. You seem to think that God cannot be both angry and loving, just and merciful, at the same time.
Hey, did you know if you murder enough strawmen they all wait for you in hell? I hear they take patronizing little shitstains like you and hang you upside down while they stuff you full of hay from the anus down. They take bets on how long it takes before the stuff starts coming out your nose...
Even basic human experience teaches that this can be the case. Have you never seen a parent who was angry at a child, yet still loved it? A parent who punished a child, yet still loved it? A parent who relented in punishing a child who deserved punishment? Or from the other perspective, a parent who loved a child, yet still punished it, because it deserved it?
Base, maudlin appeal to emotion. And a false analogy on so many levels it's not funny. No parent is in charge of the universe, no parent is omniscient, no parent is omnipotent, no parent is eternal, no parent is unbound by causality, etc etc etc. I know you neo-Scholastic types like to hide behind your bleating insistence that "God is incommunicable and can only be comprehended analogically," but for that to work (and how, pray tell would you know if it's working...?) the analogy actually has to be valid. This is not.
It's the same old story, going all the way back to the Creation story: humans want to be God.
Please tell me you are not a believer in the literal, coarse language of the Creation story. Even Origen wasn't. Also? I don't want to be God. It seems like a thankless job. ...although if I were God you can bet I wouldn't be stepping on my own crank every two weeks...i wouldn't, for example, confuse everyone's language and then have my Bible be written in a smattering of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that then got wrung out through Latin and English. Oops.
They are affronted that God would set any kind of standards or make any demands of them.
Are you sure you don't think you're God? Because you sure seem to claim omniscience or at the very least telepathy for yourself...what arrogance.
"Who is this being, this 'God,'
Details are a bit sketchy but he appears to be an Ugaritic god of war, storms, etc etc, much like the Ba'alim he was surrounded by. Also, he apparently had a wife, as evidenced by those inconvenient "To YHVH and His Asherah" stelae those damn archaelogists keep diggin' up...not that you'd know anything about that! :) YHVH certainly does not seem to meet the definition of God. If he's actually real he's some kind of evil spirit, or maybe even an alien, who the hell knows? Not you at any rate.
[Strawmanning parody of non-believer redacted]
There are laws against public masturbation you know.
At your peril, sir; at your peril.
1) "Ma'am" 2) You don't frighten me 3) If you keep this up Santa is going to leave you a stockingful of coal.
You could, instead, choose humility.
*ka-THOOM!* Ow, ow, ow, fucking ow...damn it, man, warn me before you do that so I can calibrate my irony meter! Do you have any idea how expensive 500 milli-Gottfried fuses are?!
Recognize that good and evil do exist.
You seem to have missed an earlier post of mine where I state that I am a moral realist. You probably think I'm an atheist too, don't you? If my poor sarcasmotron hadn't just exploded that would do it, too: divine command theory cannot and does not ground morality. You don't have morals: you have marching orders.
Recognize that you have indeed sinned
Recognize that you floozle the glaborbizzle. Nonsensical? Yeah. Same there. Here's a hint, Sunny Jim: "sin" is a fake disease made by hucksters who want to sell you a snake-oil cure.
Recognize that God is at once just and merciful.
Why, because he says he is? Man, your frontal lobes must have about 30 years' worth of dust on them if you can type this with a straight face.
Recognize that God doesn't want you to perish and suffer eternally
...er...so, if he doesn't want that he doesn't have to cause it? The guy's absolutely sovereign after all. Nothing stands in the way of his will. If he truly doesn't want anyone to suffer, it's on him to make sure they don't. You seem to think something is forcing his ineffable hand in the creation of Hell. That's...interesting. And theologically troubling.
Recognize that God allowed Christ to suffer and die on your behalf, and offers you the gift of forgiveness and eternal life.
So let me get this straight....Yahweh decides to kill his son, who is also himself, to stop himself from throwing his creations, whom he knew would sin before he created them, into the hell he freely chose to create, for the sins he knew they would commit before he created them, because a talking snake told a woman made from the "rib" (ahem) of a man to eat from a tree he knew they would eat from before he placed it in the garden right where they could get at it. And if we kiss his ass juuuuust right, and tell him we're reeeeeeally sorry, we maaaaaaaaay not have to spend eternity on fire. But most of us will anyway. Yeah. Makes perfect sense.
Besides which, punishing someone for someone else's supposed crimes is pointless anyway. Punishment by definition is done to change peoples' future behavior, and if you could read a word of Koine Greek you would know this. The famous verse in Mt. 25:46, "and these shall go away into eternal punishment," says neither eternal not pointless punishment in Koine: the word translated eternal is "aionios" or "age-during," and the punishment is "kolasis" or chastisement. Had it meant eternal it would have said "aidios," and had it meant punishment in the vengeful, animalistic sense you love so much, it would have said "timoria."
You do know, don't you (who am I kidding of course you fucking don't) that most of the early church fathers were Universalist? Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil the Great, the list goes on and on. I really don't think it's a coincidence that only the Latin center taught endless torment, and I would bet it's because Latin simply does not have the subtlety of Koine.
Recognize that we don't deserve mercy; that we don't deserve eternal life. But God loves us enough to offer it to us anyway. And recognize that, if you choose not to accept that gift, it does not make God unloving or unforgiving--it simply means that you chose to reject his offer.
This is not a gift. This is blackmail. Now, I'd agree you don't deserve mercy, or even life at all, let alone eternal life. You're a gibbering, deluded maniac, and a potentially dangerous one if you ever start hearing voices. You sold your soul to this demon; you placed your humanity, your conscience, your morals, in the red-hot hands of your Moloch idol Yahweh, in the vain hope that kissing the ass of the literal Platonic ideal of the psychopathic narcissist will keep you safe from its sadistic excesses for all eternity. You stupid, naive fool...
And if you are intellectually honest, whether you believe in Christ or not, you will recognize that there is no comparison between Christianity and Islam.
Eeeeeexcept they have the same God, the same eschatology, the same idea of endless hellfire for infidels, the same psychosexual hangups, the same apocalyptic insanity...need I go on?
If you are intellectually honest, you will recognize that Christianity != people who committed horrific acts in the name of Christ, because those acts did not comport with Christ's teachings.
Ahh, I was wondering when the No True Scotsman would come up :) So, Tomas de Torquemada would like a word with you, as would the witch burners. You would think your omnipotent, all-knowing, omnipresent, eternal deity would have told any of these people committing said "horrific acts" (your words) to bloody well knock it off. But...nothing. Not in over 1800 years of Christian crimes. Not one word.
Conversely, compare the teachings of Islam with the actions we witness today.
Seems to me like the average Muslim is a much better Muslim than the average Christian is a good Christian :) Now that you've gotten this off your no doubt sweaty, heaving, pasty chest, I've got something for you to consider, if you have either the intellectual capacity (maybe you do) or the self-awareness (hahahahahahaha...): Your God is the ultimate abusive spouse and parent
No, really. Think about the things an abuser says to a victim in a relationship: "You're worthless without me." "You owe me everything you have." "You do what I tell you or I will make you suffer." "If you ever try to run away I will hunt you down." These are, to a concept if not to a word, the things you regurgitated all over this fair forum above.
I will not, however, give you the benefit of the doubt I extend to people who cannot or will not leave an abusive relationship, and believe you me, boy, I have seen and helped more of them than you have had honest conversations with yourself in the dark, dripping cavern of what I will charitably refer to as your mind.
No: you think you're going to get on this thing Yahweh's good side by kissing its ass. You threw away everything that makes you human, knowing full well what you did. You actually think that in all of eternity a being as narcissistic, sadistic, and megalomaniacal as Yahweh will never, ever, not once, decide to torment and rend you for any reason or no reason at all. Stupid, naive fool! If your Yahweh actually exists, you are as Hellbound as any infidel; it may just take a few aeons longer.
Sweet dreams, Ralph. Death will dispel these delusions, and you will be faced with your own personal hell when the realization of what you are and what you have done sandblasts your raw soul. The light will burn you worse than any flame ever could.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Thursday February 18 2016, @06:24AM
Well, friend, your post is so emotionally loaded that I can only conclude that you are very angry at God. A lot of people are. In my opinion, that is the case for mainly two reasons:
1. Failure to understand who God is.
2. Failure to understand who oneself is (i.e. failure to humble oneself).
I'll try to respond to some of your reasonable points while leaving out the emotion, personal attacks, and vitriol:
There are a few problems with your interpretation here.
1. You assume that the quip Jesus made to the woman was intended to provide, or could reasonably be construed to provide, a complete picture of this theological issue. This is not the case. You are extrapolating far too much from this minor anecdote.
Jesus may have actually said more before, during, or after that incident, which could provide additional context, but it is not recorded. Also, we do not know exactly what purpose the author thought the anecdote would serve. You are in fact twisting this anecdote to serve your own purpose.
2. You assume that later passages which seem relevant must abrogate, rather than add to, the earlier ones. This is not the case. The stories in Acts and the rest of the NT provide a more complete picture of God's plans for the gentiles. And, in fact, the OT, especially in Genesis before the Abrahamic covenant, also indicates that God loves all humanity.
I can see how you would interpret that as an appeal to emotion, but it's not intended that way. It's simply an analogy. God is typically referred to as a father figure in the Bible, and being the Creator, it's a sensible analogy. No, of course a human parent is not omnipotent, etc, but that does not invalidate the point of the analogy, which is that God created us and loves us. That's all.
I honestly don't think that's even relevant. To me, the point of the Creation story is simply that God created, and that humans are sinful. The point of the Creation story is not to say how God created, or how many of this or that at what time he created, etc. It's not a modern historical account; it's an ancient Creation story. Most of the problems people have with it are caused by burdening it with expectations which it was not intended to bear.
Well, you aren't God, you are a finite human being. So what you think you would or wouldn't do if you were God is not relevant.
I'm not making any such claim. I'm simply making an observation about human behavior throughout history. I'm hardly the only one; even atheists recognize that humanity expresses the desire to be effectively godlike, omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, immortal, etc.
he appears to be an Ugaritic god of war, storms, etc etc, much like the Ba'alim he was surrounded by. Also, he apparently had a wife, as evidenced by those inconvenient "To YHVH and His Asherah" stelae those damn archaelogists keep diggin' up...not that you'd know anything about that! :) YHVH certainly does not seem to meet the definition of God. If he's actually real he's some kind of evil spirit, or maybe even an alien, who the hell knows? Not you at any rate.
There are two main problems with your thinking here: 1) The assumption that, since other pagan gods were believed to have existed at that time, that YHWH must be just another one of them. 2) The assumption that, since ancient peoples' understanding of who YHWH was differs from our understanding or the full biblical account, it must be our understanding or the biblical account that are incorrect, and what the ancients believed was correct.
This isn't logical. In fact, even Abraham was henotheistic. God appears to have worked with his people to gradually bring them into knowledge of him.
As an aside, I've actually had the privilege of studying under a respected biblical archaeologist. Of course, I'm far from an expert (and even he would be so humble as to say the same of himself).
1) "Ma'am"
Okay. Is "Azuma Hazuki" a feminine name? I don't know much about Japanese names.
2) You don't frighten me
I'm not trying to. I'm just trying to find and spread the truth, and encourage others to do the same.
You could, instead, choose humility.
*ka-THOOM!* Ow, ow, ow, fucking ow...damn it, man, warn me before you do that so I can calibrate my irony meter! Do you have any idea how expensive 500 milli-Gottfried fuses are?!
I like your sense of humor--at least, when you're not being nasty with it. :)
Having said that, why do you think I'm arrogant? Just because I think I know some of the truth doesn't mean I claim to know everything, or claim to know the things I know with perfect certainty or complete understanding.
You seem to have missed an earlier post of mine where I state that I am a moral realist. You probably think I'm an atheist too, don't you?
I haven't followed your comments, no. I'm not sure exactly what you do believe, but you seem to either not believe in God, or believe that he's not worth following.
divine command theory cannot and does not ground morality. You don't have morals: you have marching orders.
Regarding morality, I disagree: without an external source, we have no definition to go by. If you want to call God's commands and standards "marching orders" or "moral values" or whatever, it really doesn't matter. They are what they are.
"sin" is a fake disease
I disagree. Sin is self-evident. Just look at the world around you. Just look inside yourself.
made by hucksters who want to sell you a snake-oil cure.
What snake-oil cure? Jesus? Sadly, there are many, many people who misrepresent Christ, and many who do it for personal gain. Those people will receive their just reward when the time comes, because God is just, and he warns against misleading others (e.g. Mt 18:6).
But the fact that some people choose to falsely represent Christ for their own gain does not change who Christ is or what he said. Thankfully, we have the Bible, and we can read the truth for ourselves. Through study and prayer, we can discern those who speak truth from those who lie (e.g. Mt 7:16,20).
Recognize that God is at once just and merciful.
Why, because he says he is?
Yes, but also because he has demonstrated it and continues to demonstrate it.
Recognize that God doesn't want you to perish and suffer eternally
...er...so, if he doesn't want that he doesn't have to cause it? The guy's absolutely sovereign after all. Nothing stands in the way of his will. If he truly doesn't want anyone to suffer, it's on him to make sure they don't. You seem to think something is forcing his ineffable hand in the creation of Hell. That's...interesting. And theologically troubling.
This is probably the strongest argument against God: that suffering exists and that eternal torment is promised to those who do not repent. How could a truly loving God allow or cause these things?
I don't claim to fully understand this myself. My best explanation at this time is that God is holy and just. He loves us and wants us to be saved, and that's why he sent Christ to die for us. However, at the same time, he is holy and just, and those who do not repent will suffer the consequences. Whether this is due to God causing it, enacting it, allowing it, etc, who can say but God himself. I am not privy to the cosmological order; I am a mere finite human being.
But I need not understand everything in order to follow God. I need not be God to believe God. It may be hard for me to understand why he allows suffering, but I can surely understand that he sent Christ to die for me, to redeem me, and I can understand that he loves me. And so I can trust him without being him or being on his level.
Besides which, punishing someone for someone else's supposed crimes is pointless anyway. Punishment by definition is done to change peoples' future behavior, and if you could read a word of Koine Greek you would know this. The famous verse in Mt. 25:46, "and these shall go away into eternal punishment," says neither eternal not pointless punishment in Koine: the word translated eternal is "aionios" or "age-during," and the punishment is "kolasis" or chastisement. Had it meant eternal it would have said "aidios," and had it meant punishment in the vengeful, animalistic sense you love so much, it would have said "timoria."
This is interesting, because I have studied ἡ κοινὴ. According to Danker (2000), αἰωνιος, especially as translated in Mt 25:46, means "pertaining to a period of unending duration, without end" (33). Regarding κόλασις, it may mean "infliction of suffering or pain in chastisement" or alternately, and specifically in Mt 25:46, "transcendent retribution" (555). τιμωρία is simply translated "punishment", typically referring to that inflicted by God, without any additional connotation (1006).
You do know, don't you (who am I kidding of course you fucking don't) that most of the early church fathers were Universalist? Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil the Great, the list goes on and on. I really don't think it's a coincidence that only the Latin center taught endless torment, and I would bet it's because Latin simply does not have the subtlety of Koine.
I'm far from an expert on early church fathers, however, considering how the gospel was already being corrupted within a few decades of Christ's death, I would not consider their opinions binding or canonical.
And if you are intellectually honest, whether you believe in Christ or not, you will recognize that there is no comparison between Christianity and Islam.
Eeeeeexcept they have the same God, the same eschatology, the same idea of endless hellfire for infidels, the same psychosexual hangups, the same apocalyptic insanity...need I go on?
No, just because Islam claims to have the same god does not make it so. In fact, the god portrayed in Islamic holy texts is far from the God portrayed in the Bible, and what Mohammed taught is far from what Christ taught. In fact, they are so different that to consider them the same is ludicrous.
Ahh, I was wondering when the No True Scotsman would come up :) So, Tomas de Torquemada would like a word with you, as would the witch burners.
It's not a No True Scotsman fallacy. Examine the texts, read what is taught in the Bible and by Christ, and compare that to the actions of these people. They do not match up. If I rob a bank and claim that Azuma Hazuki told me to do it, that does not mean that you told me to do it, it only means that I said you did.
You would think your omnipotent, all-knowing, omnipresent, eternal deity would have told any of these people committing said "horrific acts" (your words) to bloody well knock it off. But...nothing. Not in over 1800 years of Christian crimes. Not one word.
What do you mean, "not one word"? The Bible contains many, many words. That some people have chosen to act wrongly and claim biblical support for their actions does not make it so. And that God does not seem to choose to reveal himself through visions and incarnate flesh and speak to us verbally anymore does not mean that he endorses said actions, nor that he has done nothing in response to them.
Seems to me like the average Muslim is a much better Muslim than the average Christian is a good Christian :)
That may be the case, but it is not relevant to the matter of whether God exists and whether what is written in the Bible is true. If humans are as fallible as the Bible indicates them to be, it's no wonder that they do so poorly, despite having the Bible available.
No, really. Think about the things an abuser says to a victim in a relationship: "You're worthless without me." "You owe me everything you have." "You do what I tell you or I will make you suffer." "If you ever try to run away I will hunt you down." These are, to a concept if not to a word, the things you regurgitated all over this fair forum above.
That seems clever, but it's misleading. In the case of such a relationship, both the abuser and the victim are human beings. In contrast, God is God. You say, "You're worthless without me," but God says, "You are so valuable to me that I will send my innocent son to die for you." You say, "You owe me everything you have," but God says, "Even though you can never make restitution for your sins, I will pay the debt for you." You say, "You do what I tell you or I will make you suffer," but God says, "I don't want you to suffer. Follow these guidelines and your suffering here on earth will be greatly reduced. And I will send my son to save you from eternal suffering." You say, "If you ever try to run away I will hunt you down," but Jesus said, "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age," (Mt 28:20) and they said of him, "if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself" (2 Ti 2:13).
you think you're going to get on this thing Yahweh's good side by kissing its ass.
No, God loves us because he created us, and I am saved from my sins because Christ died for me, and I washed away my sins calling on his name.
You threw away everything that makes you human, knowing full well what you did.
I am just as human as I have ever been and will be in this lifetime. Nevertheless, I am redeemed because of the blood of Christ, not because of anything I have done.
You actually think that in all of eternity a being as narcissistic, sadistic, and megalomaniacal as Yahweh will never, ever, not once, decide to torment and rend you for any reason or no reason at all.
I know that I am saved because I have washed my sins away, calling on his name (Ac 22:16), and he purifies me (1 Jn 1:19).
Stupid, naive fool! If your Yahweh actually exists, you are as Hellbound as any infidel; it may just take a few aeons longer.
Not according to Yahweh. :)
Death will dispel these delusions, and you will be faced with your own personal hell when the realization of what you are and what you have done sandblasts your raw soul. The light will burn you worse than any flame ever could.
Death will truly dispel all of our delusions and illusions. We will all be faced with the truth. For some of us, it will be a day of rejoicing. For others, it will not. The light does not burn what has been cleansed.
I pray that you will open your heart to the truth, friend. Feel free to contact me if you want to talk some more.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 18 2016, @05:52PM
Last time all I did was respond to your canned, hollow strawman-apologetic army. This time I'm going to start dissecting the foundations of your belief. I don't expect you to be either intelligent or, more pertinently, honest enough with yourself to understand most of it, and that's okay; this is mainly for the benefit of anyone else who is watching. You are a lost cause, and I look forward to hearing your spirit scream in agony when it's revealed to the rest of the universe, entirely exposed, for what it is.
Well, friend, your post is so emotionally loaded that I can only conclude that you are very angry at God. A lot of people are.
And based on the emotional content of some Star Wars posts I can only conclude that a lot of people are mad at Darth Sidious. Which seems odd in that he doesn't exist, but makes sense when you remember that characters in stoies are intended to provoke this response. tl;dr: normal people are capable of separating fantasy from reality, yet still able to hate an evil character. Which Yahweh is.
1. Failure to understand who Yahweh is.
See the above post re: Ugarit. I know who Yahweh is (and stop calling him God; I know God and Yahweh is not it).
2. Failure to understand who oneself is (i.e. failure to humble oneself).
Aha, see, i had the ol' irony-tron ready for you that time :) This time I'll just laugh rather than pick burned bits of metal off the floor.
There are a few problems with your interpretation here. 1. You assume that the quip Jesus made to the woman was intended to provide, or could reasonably be construed to provide, a complete picture of this theological issue. This is not the case. You are extrapolating far too much from this minor anecdote. Jesus may have actually said more before, during, or after that incident, which could provide additional context, but it is not recorded. Also, we do not know exactly what purpose the author thought the anecdote would serve. You are in fact twisting this anecdote to serve your own purpose. 2. You assume that later passages which seem relevant must abrogate, rather than add to, the earlier ones. This is not the case. The stories in Acts and the rest of the NT provide a more complete picture of God's plans for the gentiles. And, in fact, the OT, especially in Genesis before the Abrahamic covenant, also indicates that God loves all humanity.
This, dear friend, is a contradiction...and I must point out that you are the one twisting this combination of texts to your own end here, not me. All I am doing is pointing out the contradiction; you, on the other hand, are blithely ignoring it. And I notice that you have decided to completely ignore the possibility that Luke-Acts' later insistence on the matter is conversion-propaganda. Really, your religion ought to be called Paulianity, considering how much influence Saul of Tarsus had on it.
I can see how you would interpret that as an appeal to emotion, but it's not intended that way. It's simply an analogy. God is typically referred to as a father figure in the Bible, and being the Creator, it's a sensible analogy. No, of course a human parent is not omnipotent, etc, but that does not invalidate the point of the analogy, which is that God created us and loves us. That's all.
Except that no, the analogy does not in ANY way match actual fatherhood. A much closer one would be the "potter" analogy in Romans. "Butbutbut Yahweh's ur daddeh~!" is, as I said, a maudlin, base appeal to emotion.
And here we see yet another infuriating thing about you and your kind: you think the way to answer a serious objection to something you said is...say it again, louder. What's that Einstein said about the definition of insanity again?
I honestly don't think that's even relevant. To me, the point of the Creation story is simply that God created, and that humans are sinful. The point of the Creation story is not to say how God created, or how many of this or that at what time he created, etc. It's not a modern historical account; it's an ancient Creation story. Most of the problems people have with it are caused by burdening it with expectations which it was not intended to bear.
Missing the point again...and if this is the case, why didn't your Yahweh, not once in a good 1700+ years, ever boom down from the clouds "IT WAS NOT SIX DAYS AS YOU UNDERSTAND DAYS. STOP BURNING PEOPLE FOR SAYING OTHERWISE?"
As to "sin," we've been over this before: "sin" is a bogus disease invented by the priestly class to sell you a lifetime subscription to a snake-oil cure. There is good, and there is evil, but "sin" as such does not exist.
Well, you aren't God, you are a finite human being. So what you think you would or wouldn't do if you were God is not relevant.
True, I'm not, but it very much is relevant. Why? Because some woman you don't know from Eve could do a better job. Yahweh isn't God either, and one of the things that disqualifies him is how he's constantly tripping over his own dick over things like this. You would think a guy who's omniscient would have seen certain things coming. And it's odd how he "repents [him] that [he] made mankind." Especially because a later verse says "YHVH is not a man that he should change his mind, nor son of man, that he should repent." Oops!
I'm not making any such claim. I'm simply making an observation about human behavior throughout history. I'm hardly the only one; even atheists recognize that humanity expresses the desire to be effectively godlike, omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, immortal, etc.
Only the people who haven't thought this through or, like you, do not understand the meaning of these words. Infinite existence is infinite torture for a finite mind...which I will discuss later. Suffice it to say that Heaven is a much worse problem than Hell for Christianity :)
There are two main problems with your thinking here: 1) The assumption that, since other pagan gods were believed to have existed at that time, that YHWH must be just another one of them. 2) The assumption that, since ancient peoples' understanding of who YHWH was differs from our understanding or the full biblical account, it must be our understanding or the biblical account that are incorrect, and what the ancients believed was correct. This isn't logical. In fact, even Abraham was henotheistic. God appears to have worked with his people to gradually bring them into knowledge of him. As an aside, I've actually had the privilege of studying under a respected biblical archaeologist. Of course, I'm far from an expert (and even he would be so humble as to say the same of himself).
And there you go ignoring the actual content of what was said again. At least you know Abraham wasn't a Second-Temple Jew. Look closer: stelae bearing the inscription "to YHVH and his Asherah." Those are not Abrahamic-era relics; they are very close to the Exile in terms of age.
And at this point I would like to digress to point out something important, and extremely damaging to your theology: An omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, absolutely sovereign being unchained by spacetime and causality does not bargain with created reality.
What does this mean? It simply means that every time you say "Yahweh gradually did this" or "Yahweh used X to achieve goal Y," you are spitting in your God's face. And this is only the tip of the iceberg: a being with the above attributes, perfect and self-sufficient, cannot have any goals or values in the first place and indeed would never have created anything outside of itself. I realize this is probably much too subtle for you, but it's one of the best of all possible counter-apologetics and it's a real doozy. If you were honest with yourself, just reading that should deconvert you.
You're not, of course, so you need it beaten out of you :)
Having said that, why do you think I'm arrogant? Just because I think I know some of the truth doesn't mean I claim to know everything, or claim to know the things I know with perfect certainty or complete understanding
The very fact that you don't understand why people call you arrogant is most of the reason people call you arrogant.
Regarding morality, I disagree: without an external source, we have no definition to go by. If you want to call God's commands and standards "marching orders" or "moral values" or whatever, it really doesn't matter. They are what they are.
You disagree because you do not understand how morality works. You also do not understand emergent behavior, or "supervenience" as the philosophical types perfer.
Far from needing an external source of morality, I would argue that morality and morals cannot exist or be grounded in an external source. You are falling into the Euthyphro Dilemma, and no apologist has ever offered a coherent escape; their claims that "Yahweh says what is good according to his nature" are not escapes but rather impaling themselves even more firmly on the second horn.
I disagree. Sin is self-evident. Just look at the world around you. Just look inside yourself.
See above.
What snake-oil cure? Jesus? Sadly, there are many, many people who misrepresent Christ, and many who do it for personal gain. Those people will receive their just reward when the time comes, because God is just, and he warns against misleading others (e.g. Mt 18:6). But the fact that some people choose to falsely represent Christ for their own gain does not change who Christ is or what he said. Thankfully, we have the Bible, and we can read the truth for ourselves. Through study and prayer, we can discern those who speak truth from those who lie (e.g. Mt 7:16,20).
Aaaaaaand the point goes sailing leisurely over your head at Mach 3.4, trailing massive sonic booms in its wake...
Yes, but also because he has demonstrated it [mercy and justice] and continues to demonstrate it.
Uh, no, no he hasn't. He has not demonstrated either, and in fact has demonstrated the precise opposite dozens of times in the Bible alone. You make me sick; that you can say this with a straight face just tells me how completely morally disabled you are!
This is probably the strongest argument against God: that suffering exists and that eternal torment is promised to those who do not repent. How could a truly loving God allow or cause these things?
No, it's not the strongest argument by far. I'd put this at number 4 or 5 at most. There are much bigger problems than that.
I don't claim to fully understand this myself. [masturbation]
Then shut up until you do.
But I need not understand everything in order to follow God. I need not be God to believe God. It may be hard for me to understand why he allows suffering, but I can surely understand that he sent Christ to die for me, to redeem me, and I can understand that he loves me. And so I can trust him without being him or being on his level.
Keep telling yourself that. In light of what we do know about his character, I find this dangerous and stupid in the extreme.
This is interesting, because I have studied ἡ κοινὴ. According to Danker (2000), αἰωνιος, especially as translated in Mt 25:46, means "pertaining to a period of unending duration, without end" (33). Regarding κόλασις, it may mean "infliction of suffering or pain in chastisement" or alternately, and specifically in Mt 25:46, "transcendent retribution" (555). τιμωρία is simply translated "punishment", typically referring to that inflicted by God, without any additional connotation (1006).
You apparently didn't study very closely then. Where do you think we get the word "aeon" from in English, idiot? Who were you studying under, Augustine of Hippo? Because he made that same mistake. If by "studying Koine" you mean "I picked up Strong's and followed my finger," turn in your Koine Kard.
By definition "aion" and its derivatives mean "pertaining to an unknown duration of time, appropriate to the thing described."
Then there's this bit from Philo: "“It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and everlasting punishment [kolasis aiónios] from such as are more powerful.”
As to kolasis and its relatives: again, this means reformatory punishment. Here is an example from Plato: "For the natural or accidental evils of others, no one gets angry or admonishes or teaches or punishes (kolazei) them, but we pity those afflicted with such misfortunes. For if, oh Socrates, you will consider what is the design of punishing (kolazein)the wicked, this of itself will show you that men think virtue something that may be acquired; for no one punishes (kolazei) the wicked, looking to the past only, simply for the wrong he has done. That is, no one does this thing who does not act like a wild beast, desiring only revenge, without thought. Hence, he who seeks to punish (kolazein) with reason, does not punish for the sake of the past wrong deed, but for the sake of the future, that neither the man himself who is punished may dow rong again, no any other who has seen him chastised. And he who entertains this thought must believe that virtue may be taught, and he punishes (kolazei) for the purpose of deterring from wickedness."
From Beecher: "There were at least six theological schools in the church at large. Of these six schools, one, and ONLY one, was decidedly and earnestly in favor of the doctrine of future eternal punishment. One was in favor of the annhilation of the wicked. Two were in favor of the doctrine of universal restoration on the principles of Origen, and two in favor of universal restoration on the principles of Theodore of Mopsuestia."
I'm far from an expert on early church fathers
Boy THAT'S for Goddamn (heh) sure...
however, considering how the gospel was already being corrupted within a few decades of Christ's death, I would not consider their opinions binding or canonical.
You are not qualified to speak of this, and it betrays your ignorance for all to see. Did you know it took until the mid-sixth century for Justinian to anathemize Universalism? Plenty of Origen's other ideas, for example, had been anathemized before, but Justinian specifically had to call a council for this one. In the mid sixth-century.
And contrary to your idiocy regarding "aionios" above, Justinian had to add the word "ateleutelos" to "aionios" to describe said punishment. In the sixth century!
You are not qualified to speak of these things. Educate yourself, and until you do, shut the hell up.
No, just because Islam claims to have the same god does not make it so. In fact, the god portrayed in Islamic holy texts is far from the God portrayed in the Bible, and what Mohammed taught is far from what Christ taught. In fact, they are so different that to consider them the same is ludicrous.
You...have never read the Koran have you? And they ARE the same God, much as you hate the idea. You should, but of course do not, know this.
I'd agree Mohammed diverges from Jesus on some points, but on others he's precisely the same, and it's those similarities that count if you ask me. It's interesting to see how knee-jerk you are about this; I must point out to you that your responses tell the people reading this far more about you than you perhaps suspect, none of it good.
That seems clever, but it's misleading. In the case of such a relationship, both the abuser and the victim are human beings. In contrast, God is God. You say, "You're worthless without me," but God says, "You are so valuable to me that I will send my innocent son to die for you." You say, "You owe me everything you have," but God says, "Even though you can never make restitution for your sins, I will pay the debt for you." You say, "You do what I tell you or I will make you suffer," but God says, "I don't want you to suffer. Follow these guidelines and your suffering here on earth will be greatly reduced. And I will send my son to save you from eternal suffering." You say, "If you ever try to run away I will hunt you down," but Jesus said, "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age," (Mt 28:20) and they said of him, "if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself" (2 Ti 2:13).
You're floundering in the deep here, sunny Jim :)
First of all, the "debt" here is meaningless. You cannot, in any way, harm, frustrate, stymie, offend, or trick an omniscient, omnipotent being. Here's a clue: when the guy doing the saving is the guy you're being saved from, this is not a gift; it's a racket. Despite my screen name, I am Italian enough to know a protection racket when I see one and this is bloody well it.
Second: none of the verses you quoted neutralize what I said. They are some degree of irrelevant or actually lies, depending. The fact that you do not see this, that you think the answer to someone pointing out the problems with your belief is to quote their originating verses, speaks very badly of both your honesty and your brainpower.
So, objection overrulled :) Yahweh is still the Platonic ideal of the abusive husband or father, and believe me, boy, I have seen enough cases of both to know of which I speak.
No, God loves us because he created us, and I am saved from my sins because Christ died for me, and I washed away my sins calling on his name.
Yahweh does not love you; he is using you to stroke his ego. And, again, when the guy doing the saving is the guy you need to be saved from, you are being gaslit and manipulated.
I know that I am saved because I have washed my sins away, calling on his name (Ac 22:16), and he purifies me (1 Jn 1:19).
No, you do not know this; you believe it. There is a difference. You wanna know why you get called arrogant? Because you don't seem to know the difference. For bonus funsies, you are blaspheming by arrogating the attributes of God (omniscience specifically) to yourself, because belief == knowledge only for an omniscient being!
Not according to Yahweh. :)
*siiiigh* You know, if I were Yahweh, I'd throw you into hellfire just for being an ignorant, smug, greasy, ass-kissing little brownnoser. READ why I said you're gonna burn if Yahweh is actually real. You think the guy's just going to tell you everything?!
Death will truly dispel all of our delusions and illusions. We will all be faced with the truth. For some of us, it will be a day of rejoicing. For others, it will not. The light does not burn what has been cleansed. I pray that you will open your heart to the truth, friend. Feel free to contact me if you want to talk some more.
1) I am not your friend, and if we ever met in person i would very likely injure you.
2) You got one thing right: death dispels illusions. You don't seem to understand the situation you're in though...
3) Okay, you can pray for me; I'll think for you. That way we can both do what we're good at. Isn't division of labor grand?
...allrighty. Now that I've addressed your oily, snivelling, elementary-school dreck, let's get serious about deconstructing your beliefs. I have a few things for you to consider, if you have both the honesty (doubtful) and the smarts (maybe?) to grapple with them.
First: in light of your God's attributes, specifically his perfection, self-sufficiency, aseity, eternality, and utter freedom from causality/spacetime, can you explain to me:
Second: How does "substitutionary atonement" work? How, in other words, can punishing someone for someone else's supposed crimes absolve the alleged criminal of said crimes?
Third: Does Yahweh command what is good because those things are, of themselves, good, or is what Yahweh commands good simply because he commands it? Remember my warning above about the Euthyphro Dilemma; the response you will try for this ("Neither: Yahweh commands according to his nature which itself is good") is not an escape, but falls back onto the second horn of the dilemma.
Fourth: The evidential problem of evil: given Yahweh's attributes, there should be no evil, however you choose to define evil (and your kind defines it as "anything Yahweh doesn't like"). Yet there is evil, and gratuitous evil at that. Explain this.
Fifth: I already know your answer to #4: "humans have free will." If you feel really fancy-pants you might cite Plantinga's "transworld depravity" argument, i.e., "it is logically impossible for any significantly-free essence to be free of sin in any possible world." Given a free-will theodicy, explain:
Sixth: How can you know anything, anything at all, in your worldview? The very laws of logic are putty in Yahweh's hands according to you, and there are incidents in the Bible (Ezekiel 14:9, 1 Kings 22:19-23, all the times in Exodus where Yahweh "hardens Pharaoh's heart") wherein your God infringes on our free will and/or deceives us. This being the case, how do you know that at any given time you are not being utterly deceived to the very core of your being by Yahweh?
I realize I am most likely casting pearls before swine (hardy har har), but again, this isn't so much for your benefit as for anyone who comes across this. You are already beyond redemption and you will burn and scream and howl as the light of truth flays your soul for all to see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:07AM
Man, I wish you Christians and Muslims could hook up in the middle of the Sahara and duke it out. And for whoever wins, I hope you die of thirst on the hike out.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:09AM
If/when you understand the difference dictated by those simple facts, you may be qualified to make some comparative analysis.
If you look at the actual reality of what has been done in the name of both religions you will see little to differ between them. What ISIS is doing has biblical precedent, just read about Moses having his people slaughter the Midianites, keeping only the virgin females alive as sex slaves. When any religion gains political power it is a recipe for trouble.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:09AM
The Samaritans were, and still are, a group that follows an alternate version of the Torah. It has slightly different 10 commandments and the site of the high holy place is Mt. Gerizim rather than the temple in Jerusalem. They claimed to have been left behind during the Babylonian captivity and that the Jewish people who returned were following a corrupted version of the scriptures. Mainstream Judaism said that these were pretenders to their heritage.
The hatred between these groups was deep since they both claimed to be following the true version of a single scripture. Not long before Jesus' time, there was an incident where Samaritan's defiled the temple in Jerusalem with human bones.
So you have to ask yourself, what kind of resolution to irreconcilable differences do you believe in? Is it an imperative that the more righteous group win out, by crushing or suppressing their enemy? Or are both groups neighbors to each other? Is it more important to be right or merciful? What kind of world do you choose to believe you live in?
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:15AM
Islam may not be your neighbor, but muslims are. At least that is the way I interpret this. [biblegateway.com] Maybe some day you might want to give some of Jesus' teachings a try?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:58AM
> If you are a Christian, I wonder if you've ever read this scripture - Revelation 3:16
"So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."
Of course I have and it is totally in line with your false christianity that you would just randomly quote a line to be insulting when the actual meaning in context is an indictment of your behavior. Your strength in faith ("hot") is not determined by your hate for others different from you, it is determined by how well you follow Christ's teachings. Something you consistently fail out. You are the coldest of the cold. You are the one spit out.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 14 2016, @10:17AM
ROFLMAO - I really don't think you understand the scripture, or the context.
Who was the "most loved" man of God? It seems to me that he was a very violent person. The man even committed murder. He had to be restrained from committing suicide when he was confronted with the evidence of his guilt. Still, he was the "most loved" of God. He was a man who most of today's "Christians" would condemn. No lukewarm, politically correct "Christian" would associate with him, that much I'm sure of.
I make no claim to being a King David. Hell, I wouldn't even like him very much, if we ever met in person. But, I'm a hell of a lot more like David than I am like today's "Christians".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:02PM
King David? As in David and Goliath? Pretty sure he wasn't Christian.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:30PM
I'm pretty sure that the Bible is pretty unequivocal on that point. David was the "most loved man of God". Are you suggesting that Jehovah, or Yahweh, from the Old Testament is a different God than the Father of Jesus Christ? If so, then what was the point of Christ being born? You can't talk about Christianity, unless you're also ready to talk about Judaism and the patriarchal lineage. Without King David, there would be no Christian Church.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 15 2016, @10:15AM
Haven't read most of the Bible, so I really don't know what it says about David. Or Jesus. But didn't Jesus say something about changing the rules?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 15 2016, @10:27AM
Kinda sorta, yes. But, not exactly. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law. But, the law is still the law. The law wasn't set aside, or superseded, or anything like that. Jesus fulfilled the law. If you're seriously trying to understand that, it's important to understand that Jesus is supposed to return, and to rule. And, he ain't going to be such a nice guy. The law will be enforced with an iron fist. You think we've seen despots in our history? On, ho, Baby, when the Messiah returns, he's going to rule like no man has ever been capable of ruling. The law - stricter, and more rigidly enforced than any period in Jewish history, or today's Islam. Pick up the smallest little thing to which you don't hold title - and you can expect an omniscient ruler to take your hand off immediately.
The law remains the LAW.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:02AM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:18AM
Whoa, wait a minute. Who said that I admired David? I didn't say that. No one said that. You just made it up out of thin air. I specifically said that I probably wouldn't want to be around him. I have only pointed out that David was the "most loved of God". How does that infer admiration on my part?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:33AM
Sorry, that based on a hazy memory of your statement 'But, I'm a hell of a lot more like David than I am like today's "Christians".' For some odd reason I assumed that comparison meant a certain level of admiration for him.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:46AM
That statement is more an acknowledgement that I'm not perfect, but in comparison to the lukewarm politically correct people who claim to be Christians, my failings don't look so bad. You've gotta go back to the verse about spitting out the tepid "faithful". It's a pretty clear statement that God prefers a person who is passionate about his beliefs.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:09AM
A blinding revelation is served upon his plate
That behind the greatest love is a hurricane of hate
And God help the critic of the dawn
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:15AM
Sorry, but at this point I believe there are a lot of perfectly capable American judges/lawyers WHO HAPPEN TO BE MUSLIM who would end up doing a much better job than ultra-conservative "Christian" bigots like you and Scalia. I'm so tired of this kind of endless racism and other bigotry of American conservatives that I almost wish we already had a Supreme Court judge WHO HAPPENS TO BE MUSLIM, just to watch you rant about it. Because despite what you believe it wouldn't be the end of the fucking world.
You know, when someone endeavors to stand up straight instead of leaning way the fuck to the right, it doesn't make them "left-leaning". That's just how they appear from your distorted right-leaning perspective on the world. Break free of the illusion.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:28AM
Does the flag on a public building go to half-staff?
I saw the flag outside the SCOTUS building is at half-staff, but, as it is the weekend, and as I seem to have misplaced the bookmark for US flag proclamations, I don't know whether I need to lower my building's flag or not. Anyone have a reliable site for US flag proclamations or know the protocol for a Supreme Court Justice?
Please, no replies on whether or not Justice Scalia "deserves it" to this post--I'm just asking for a point of protocol, and I'm sure one of my fellow Soylentils either knows the answer or can direct me to it.
Thanks in advance!
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:48AM
Only the president or a state governor [usflag.org] can order it.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:16AM
Yes--I am aware of that--but I lost some of my bookmarks, and can't find my usual link to see if the President has issued a proclamation yet, as one would assume a Supreme Court Justice would be one of the "principal figures of the United States Government" mentioned in your link...
There are a couple of places that track half-staff proclamations. I still have my bookmark for State proclamations, but lost the Federal one I used.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:26AM
The protocol is to do as you wish because it is a (still nominally) free country.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:35PM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:45AM
Should I feel at all bad that my first thought at reading this headline was to shout "YEHAAAA!!"?
No one in my household will be mourning Scalia's departure from this realm.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:50AM
With eight judges left "alive", there's a much greater possibility of tie votes. According to a writer on answers.com, the lower court's decision stands when that happens.
https://www.answers.com/Q/What_happens_in_the_case_of_a_tie_vote_in_the_Supreme_Court [answers.com]
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:19AM
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ... while in West Texas for [a] hunting trip ... a private party with about 40 people...
Holy. Fucking. Shit.
What were they hunting!? An entire heard of Buffalo? A pack of Woolly Mammoths? Whatever it was, I hope 39 people is enough to handle it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:23AM
> What were they hunting!?
The most dangerous game. Cheney got some publicity for his part in the hunt it a few years back when the game survived to tell the world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:41PM
40 people? Faw no problem
Invite a few friends their family and a bit of yours and poof 40 people. Probably out of that 40 maybe 3-5 were actually 'hunting'. The rest would be the usual hanging out and slinging gossip about people they know.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:38AM
Or puppet or whatever. So Thomas has someone to ask what his opinion should be.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:04AM
No. Stop. Some people deserve no respect whatsoever, not after they do things like this. Scalia was the textbook case of Lawful Evil alignment given entirely too much political power. He's an object lesson for our generation on why INT without WIS is not enough to make for a good figure of authority and civil power.
"Butbutbut he was one of the finest legal minds of a generation!" Horseshit. That is not a compliment, not when you really think about it. The guy oiled and slithered his way around the plain meaning of words to enforce his agenda, while claiming at the top of his lungs to be doing the opposite. No one with three sparking neurons to rub together was fooled by that...unfortunately this seems to exclude a good half the adult population of the United States :/
Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. He's set us back by decades, not least with this Citizens United crap. And I won't ever forgive him for his ruling that essentially boiled down to "innocence is no protection from judicial punishment." That's "my rulings, right or wrong." That kind of blind, bullheaded narcissism is deadly to any democratic system of government. Authoritarian to the core, this one.
tl;dr: Good riddance to bad rubbish and may he rot.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:01PM
Hear! Hear!
Well said, and I hereby nominate you to deliver his eulogy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:10AM
Must be thinking "uh-oh, I miscalculated [nymag.com]" right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:40AM
Al Sharpton in the Supreme Court, with Trump in the White House, we be rolling, mofos!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:44AM
If Trump's elected he'll nominate Cruz, who would be a more articulate Scalia.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:33PM
Cruz in the Supreme Court, boy that would be weird. And unprecedented?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Funny) by snufu on Sunday February 14 2016, @11:44AM
Justice Thomas is being questioned on suspicions of "throwing Justice Scalia down an energy shaft."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:18PM
Russian blogsphere is asking if polonium tests are being performed.