Antonin Scalia found dead

[TomFoolery]

Some people are simply too evil to mourn.

I don't know that he was necessarily evil. He was just a man in a position of power that had vastly different opinions to mine, opinions that were often discriminatory or regressive. I would say the same about Andrew Breitbart and Jerry Falwell. People I might "forget" to brake for if I saw them crossing the street and plead it was accidental in court, but certainly not on the level with Hitler or Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden didn't really have a whole lot of power in the last decade of his life either. He was more of a symbol hiding away in the mountains of Pakistan like a little bitch.

[Baruch]

Why the fuck she hasn't retired while Obama could replace her with another liberal, I can't fathom. This next election is going to change things a lot more than superficially. It is so important to keep the republicunts out of the White House this time.

Obama isn't a liberal.  I don't think anything Obama has done is liberal.  Neither was anything the Clinton's did liberal.  The Democrat support for LBGT was just like their support for Blacks ... cynical.  And minorities grasping at straws have been taken to the cleaners by the Democrats, again and again.  The Republicans are worse deliberately, so that the Democrats can keep their house slaves at home.

[josephpalazzo]

I don't know that he was necessarily evil. He was just a man in a position of power that had vastly different opinions to mine, opinions that were often discriminatory or regressive.

The thing that most annoyed me  about Scalia is that he constantly professed to interpret the constitution as is, which is a legitimate position, but what he was really doing is interpret the constitution according to his own conservative beliefs. And as such he was at least an intellectual fraud, at worst a hypocrite in the highest degree. He consistently bashed liberal judges for being activists when he himself was the greatest activist as a conservative judge. And whenever he would be on the losing side of a case, he would delve into writing long dissent, basically portraying himself on a higher moral ground than those judges who disagree with him. The guy had an inflated ego that could make Donald Trump look like an amateur.

[TomFoolery]

The thing that most annoyed me  about Scalia is that he constantly professed to interpret the constitution as is, which is a legitimate position, but what he was really doing is interpret the constitution according to his own conservative beliefs.

But isn't that how everyone operates? You take an old document (Constitution, Bible, etc.) and try to explain why it suits your personal beliefs or modern behavior? To be perfectly honest, I've very often thought decisions handed down by the court had little Constitutional basis, even if I wholeheartedly agreed with the content. The right to privacy = the right to an abortion? That's a stretch, but I could easily argue both sides from a Constitutional standpoint, even if I only agree with one side from a personal standpoint.

And whenever he would be on the losing side of a case, he would delve into writing long dissent, basically portraying himself on a higher moral ground than those judges who disagree with him. The guy had an inflated ego that could make Donald Trump look like an amateur.

So, basically, he was a judge.

[Nonsensei]

I don't know that he was necessarily evil. He was just a man in a position of power that had vastly different opinions to mine, opinions that were often discriminatory or regressive. I would say the same about Andrew Breitbart and Jerry Falwell. People I might "forget" to brake for if I saw them crossing the street and plead it was accidental in court, but certainly not on the level with Hitler or Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden didn't really have a whole lot of power in the last decade of his life either. He was more of a symbol hiding away in the mountains of Pakistan like a little bitch.

The man adjudicated based on his religion, in a country where that is expressly forbidden, to the detriment of many and for the satisfaction of the ignorant.

[chill98]

Scalia wasn't all bad or wrong.  Thomas (imo) is a far worse jurist.  And while I Hate some of the rulings from SCotUS, I think we forget he wasn't always on my wrong side:

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/liberals_find_common_ground_with_scalia/

[TomFoolery]

Scalia wasn't all bad or wrong.  Thomas (imo) is a far worse jurist.  And while I Hate some of the rulings from SCotUS, I think we forget he wasn't always on my wrong side:

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/liberals_find_common_ground_with_scalia/

True, true. I always figured Thomas copied his answers off of Scalia like a 5th grade spelling test. I'm imagining a conversation that went something like...
"Come on, man, just let me peek."
"I studied for hours to write this opinion. Do your own work."
"At least give me a hint!"
"If I do, I'll only be letting you cheat yourself."
"Pleeeeease!"
"Ugh, this is why I hate group projects."

[TomFoolery]

The man adjudicated based on his religion, in a country where that is expressly forbidden, to the detriment of many and for the satisfaction of the ignorant.

So is religious bigotry worse than secular bigotry? If the end result is the same, I won't argue one is worse if it stems from religion. Granted, many conservatives are deeply religious, but some of them are just assholes.

[Nonsensei]

So is religious bigotry worse than secular bigotry? If the end result is the same, I won't argue one is worse if it stems from religion. Granted, many conservatives are deeply religious, but some of them are just assholes.

I'm afraid you'll have to give me an example of "secular bigotry".

[josephpalazzo]

But isn't that how everyone operates? You take an old document (Constitution, Bible, etc.) and try to explain why it suits your personal beliefs or modern behavior? To be perfectly honest, I've very often thought decisions handed down by the court had little Constitutional basis, even if I wholeheartedly agreed with the content. The right to privacy = the right to an abortion? That's a stretch, but I could easily argue both sides from a Constitutional standpoint, even if I only agree with one side from a personal standpoint.
So, basically, he was a judge.

Hmm, I think you're being too generous in regard to Scalia. The guy interpreted the 2nd amendment as an individual's right to possess a firearm when it doesn't. Only if you ignore the subordinate clause can you arrive at that decision, but the subordinate clause was put there for a purpose, and that was not: "yes, go ahead, 'ignoring me' is an option".  That was not a faithful interpretation of the constitution, but strictly an application of his own conservative beliefs, regardless that for 230+ years, the subordinate clause was always taken into consideration. Similarly, with money=free speech decision, another decision to favor his rich friends. You can't defend that as being an honest interpretation of the constitution within your core beliefs. Free speech is what comes out of your mouth, not your pockets.

[Baruch]

I'm afraid you'll have to give me an example of "secular bigotry".

Counterargument ... so you are saying being secular immunizes one from being an asshole?  I will believe that, when I believe that one being religious automatically means one is an asshole.  I can name one ... Hitchens.  Hitchens was a Trotsky-ite who later fell in love with George W Bush's anti-Muslim crusade.  He can't be described as a religious bigot ... but I think he qualifies (as do many anti-Muslims on the Left) as a secular bigot.

[Baruch]

I agree that some recent decisions ... like Citizen's United are horrendously wrong.  Enough wrong that I can no longer support the SCOTUS as a bulwark against tyranny.

The trick about "bearing arms" is that really applies to the Fed/State/individual situation of 200 years ago.  It should have been re-written, not re-interpretted.  But Congress is worthless, so they don't amend the Constitution when they need to, they let the SCOTUS do that thru interpretation, and then bitch about what is decided.

[TomFoolery]

I'm afraid you'll have to give me an example of "secular bigotry".

All you have to do is Google it and you'll return a surprising number of results of people who are both secular and against gay marriage, abortion, universal suffrage, etc. Their rationale and motivations often differ greatly from their religious counterparts, but the result is still the same.

http://secularright.org
http://atheists.org/cpac

While not all conservatives are bigots and not all conservatives are religious, neither are all atheists tolerant and accepting of the rights of others either.

[TomFoolery]

Hmm, I think you're being too generous in regard to Scalia. The guy interpreted the 2nd amendment as an individual's right to possess a firearm when it doesn't. Only if you ignore the subordinate clause can you arrive at that decision, but the subordinate clause was put there for a purpose, and that was not: "yes, go ahead, 'ignoring me' is an option".  That was not a faithful interpretation of the constitution, but strictly an application of his own conservative beliefs, regardless that for 230+ years, the subordinate clause was always taken into consideration.

There are an overwhelming number of people who interpret the second amendment differently than I do and believe it's just as valid today in 2016 as it was in the eighteenth century. The point I'm trying to make is a "faithful" interpretation is still an interpretation.

I'm not defending him and I honestly can't think of many important decisions he made that made me want to scream, "Hell yeah!" but I think he was only doing what virtually all judges tend to do: interpret the Constitution based on their own personal beliefs. As I pointed out, there are plenty of liberal judges who ruled on decisions that I actually was pleased with but felt that the Constitution basis for said decisions was actually pretty lacking. And when those judges die, conservatives rail on about how they butchered the interpretation of the Constitution to bypass Congress just like you're arguing Scalia did.

[Baruch]

Unfortunately "originalism" with the Constitution means misogyny and slavery and genocide and classism.  That is what founded the US ... not Gandhi.  The only reasonable way to be an American at any time, is to face the music, but try to make things better.  Our brokenness as a people, weakens both our domestic and our foreign policy ... because people inside and outside can point and say ... what a bunch of ignorant assholes!  They are my ignorant assholes though ... so I stick with them.  And I don't get too bent out of shape, that the other 95% of humanity has problems too.