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: 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.