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 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.