SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(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.