Antonin Scalia found dead

[SGOS]

The link didn't work by the time I got to the above, but here's a link that does.  It's fun.  I'm not a big fan of Maher, but he does clever rants.

[josephpalazzo]

Yes, it can be justified.  I don't like Islam (or Christianity either), but bias and prejudice should not enter into a reasoned debate about threat of WMD:  "Bush is right because I hate Muslims?"  It's not relevant, is it?  As I've said, however, I don't really know his motivation for this.  That was speculation on my part.  I only know what he said, and can point to reasoning which I believe was seriously flawed.

As to the matter of WMDs, yes, Bush led America down a road of false propaganda and cherry picked intelligence, for the purpose of furthering a feeble brained neocon ideology that had long advocated an invasion of the Mid East, an ideology  which was abhorrent to two previous administrations, one being Bush's own father, along with the public, until Bush started lying.  But Hitchens responsibility should have been to consider all available intelligence, including much of which was highly credible from both current and previous weapons inspection teams that could find no justification for believing the WMDs were there.

I won't deny Hitchens' prejudice or bias.  Those are common human errors, but as the thinker I believe he was, he was unable to push that aside and instead of demonstrating critical analysis, became an unwitting shill for the administration.  I don't think I'm being unfair in this particular situation.  He has been a guiding light of reason on many important issues for years, and I'm grateful to him for this.  He's allowed to make a mistake, but in this case, it was a big mistake totally out of character.  Yes, that was Bush, not Hitchens that invaded, but I'm talking only about a time when Hitchens failed the art of reason.  The one time when the brightest among us lost his way and got an F- on one exam.  But kudos for the rest of the stuff he has illuminated.  I admire him for that.

There's an interesting article on Hitchens and the evolution of his thinking, which you might be interested. It seems after Rushdie and 9/11, he grew extremely hateful of religion, and Islam in particular. At that point, scrutinizing the evidence of WMD's would not have been the focus of his attention.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hitchens-and-iraq

[josephpalazzo]

If Obama wanted, he could say, "There will be a replacement for Scalia by July. If the Senate chooses to delay their confirmation of my candidates by that time, I will consider that as full consent to whoever I choose."

Because according to the constitution, that is well within his rights.

The President appoints the judge to SCOTUS, but it must be confirmed by the Senate. The danger is that if Obama appoints someone totally unacceptable to the Right- which will be refused by the Senate - then that will galvanize the Right to show up on voting day. The left has a horrible record on showing up to vote. The best strategy for Obama to try is to name someone not controversial, hoping that the GOP will still reject, and this will give ammunition to the Democrats during the election campaign. That's my two cents.

[SGOS]

There's an interesting article on Hitchens and the evolution of his thinking, which you might be interested. It seems after Rushdie and 9/11, he grew extremely hateful of religion, and Islam in particular. At that point, scrutinizing the evidence of WMD's would not have been the focus of his attention.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hitchens-and-iraq

Yes, that was interesting indeed, and true or not (I tend to think it's true), does explain a lot about that startling support of Bush's war.

[Hakurei Reimu]

The President appoints the judge to SCOTUS, but it must be confirmed by the Senate.

Oh yeah. "Advise and consent". Jesus fuck.

The danger is that if Obama appoints someone totally unacceptable to the Right- which will be refused by the Senate - then that will galvanize the Right to show up on voting day. The left has a horrible record on showing up to vote. The best strategy for Obama to try is to name someone not controversial, hoping that the GOP will still reject, and this will give ammunition to the Democrats during the election campaign. That's my two cents.

I didn't say to appoint someone unacceptable. I just wanted Obama to light a fire under them to give him a damn answer in a timely manner, instead of dragging their heels. Probably not gonna happen, but hey...

[drunkenshoe]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hitchens-and-iraq

Hitchens must be the only intellectual in the world who is defended by "But he hated muslims and islam, that's the reason for him turning into a genocidal, right wing jackass, don't you get how all this makes sense with his rationality?!" :85:

In short, somebody smacked his head and he smashed it on the wall.

That's what happens when you promote people beyond where they actually fit. Then you need to write apologies for their apologisms.

[josephpalazzo]

Oh yeah. "Advise and consent". Jesus fuck.
I didn't say to appoint someone unacceptable. I just wanted Obama to light a fire under them to give him a damn answer in a timely manner, instead of dragging their heels. Probably not gonna happen, but hey...

It's more than "Advise and consent", the Senate must confirm through a vote. No confirmation, no appointment. With the GOP in the majority, the appointment is a no go since they told Obama 45 min after the news of Scalia's death they will not confirm anyone he proposes. Of course for the rest of the year, until the election of a new president, it's going to be a circus. Obama will propose, the senate will reject, both sides will point fingers at each other, and the presidential candidates will try to get mileage from all that noise. Which side will win the support of the American people on this issue remains to be seen. However, I do believe the best strategy for the Democrats is what I outlined above.

[Nonsensei]

I asked for examples of secular bigotry, and you gave examples (or really just the one example) of people who are secularists as well as bigots. I would argue that theres nothing inherent about being a secularists that inspires or demands bigotry. Cant even come close to suggesting the same about being religious. The bigotry is practically written down in ancient text.

[josephpalazzo]

... but I think he was only doing what virtually all judges tend to do: interpret the Constitution based on their own personal beliefs.

I don't deny that. Everyone will interpret what they read, be it the constitution or a novel, according their worldview. Scalia is no exception, and it's not a fault on his part. What was a fault is that he professed publicly to interpret the constitution as is, which he didn't, and then doubling down by saying Liberal judges were activists, when he himself was doing the same.

[Solomon Zorn]

The President appoints the judge to SCOTUS, but it must be confirmed by the Senate.

Before the Senate can confirm a nominee, they have to have the opportunity to consider that nominee, and McConnell may have the power to prevent that from happening. The determination out of hand, not to allow any appointment by this president, is unprecedented - many other Justices have been approved in election years. It is dirty politics at it's most despicable. They won the senate, now they are going to bully every other branch of government, even to the point of sabotaging the established process of our government itself, until they get their way.

The danger is that if Obama appoints someone totally unacceptable to the Right- which will be refused by the Senate - then that will galvanize the Right to show up on voting day. The left has a horrible record on showing up to vote. The best strategy for Obama to try is to name someone not controversial, hoping that the GOP will still reject, and this will give ammunition to the Democrats during the election campaign. That's my two cents.

This whole thing is going to galvanize both sides. This has suddenly become THE pivotal election of the early 21st century, to many people. I think the upcoming docket should be on the forefront of the Democrats discussion of the issue, because it is a good selection, of the kinds of things that a new Justice will be deciding for the rest of his or her life.

-Black voters, and college students, will be interested in the upcoming case about affirmative action.

-Women will be interested in the cases about abortion rights, and religious exemptions from the Affordable Care Act.

-Latinos and other families of immigrants will be concerned about the immigration case.

So it could galvanize the left, as much, or more than the right.

[josephpalazzo]

Before the Senate can confirm a nominee, they have to have the opportunity to consider that nominee, and McConnell may have the power to prevent that from happening. The determination out of hand, not to allow any appointment by this president, is unprecedented - many other Justices have been approved in election years. It is dirty politics at it's most despicable. They won the senate, now they are going to bully every other branch of government, even to the point of sabotaging the established process of our government itself, until they get their way.

They're pretty good at playing dirty politics. The Democrats should learn a page from them. They often look like tamed sheep. They embarrassed themselves. 

This whole thing is going to galvanize both sides. This has suddenly become THE pivotal election of the early 21st century, to many people. I think the upcoming docket should be on the forefront of the Democrats discussion of the issue, because it is a good selection, of the kinds of things that a new Justice will be deciding for the rest of his or her life.

-Black voters, and college students, will be interested in the upcoming case about affirmative action.

-Women will be interested in the cases about abortion rights, and religious exemptions from the Affordable Care Act.

-Latinos and other families of immigrants will be concerned about the immigration case.

So it could galvanize the left, as much, or more than the right.

I hope you're right.

[aitm]

Well....now that it turns out he may have been....gasp.. :a102:..

MURDERED......

:96:



that damn Obama is a ninja muslim.....snuck in in the middle of he night and kilted him....rat bastard.

:97:

[josephpalazzo]

Well....now that it turns out he may have been....gasp.. :a102:..

MURDERED......

:96:



that damn Obama is a ninja muslim.....snuck in in the middle of he night and kilted him....rat bastard.

:97:

Stop reading Alex Jones.

[SGOS]

Well....now that it turns out he may have been....gasp.. :a102:..

MURDERED......
:96:
that damn Obama is a ninja muslim.....snuck in in the middle of he night and kilted him....rat bastard.

:97:

I think you could make a better case than Hillary was behind it.  It could just be added to that Whitewater thing, where she supposedly had that other guy bumped off.  Has the autopsy report come back yet?

[Mermaid]

Hillary suppressed the autopsy. He's being disposed of AWFULLY FAST.

THANKS, OBAMA.