Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 17): As for Scalia, I won't gloat too much, but I will say I am glad the world has one less racist asshat in it.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 23): The man was obese and smoked. His passing at 79 is not unexpected - it's an accomplishment!

Quoting luckyone (Reply 53): I celebrate his silence and the fact that I no longer have to listen to this pompous windbag come unhinged every time he doesn't get his w

WOW the disrespected user list gets longer and lonnger..the super tolerant liberal win of A-net..I remember when Alexander Haig died some users were in glee of his time in hell for known reason except they hated the man...please when Judge Ginsberg passes it will be completely to celebrate!!!

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97): I have my doubts after he nominated head nodding liberal lap dogs Sotomayor and Kagan

Hmm aparently Scalia thought enough of Kagan as to literally request her by name.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinio...est-from-justice-scalia/index.html

Show that ur as informed as you think you are...

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97): The vile posts from the left were predictable in this thread.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97): I have my doubts after he nominated head nodding liberal lap dogs Sotomayor and Kagan.

You're certainly not doing much to decrease the vility...

Quoting Klaus (Reply 98): And the completely partisan way especially the Republicans are handling the nomination process gives very little hope of that ever changing in the future.

Your description of the German system is very close to how the US system is supposed to work, and indeed how it worked for a long time. As a matter of fact, that is exactly how Republicans want it to work, generally speaking. Democrats have heavily politicized the court as well (if not more). Look at what happened to Robert Bork - unquestioningly one of the most qualified jurists ever to be nominated, but Democrats crucified him for his views on abortion - namely that Roe v Wade overstepped constitutional bounds. If the Court restricted itself to pure originalism and did not try to pass "remedies", then the politics would be removed and the impetus would go back to Congress to find solutions by passing appropriate laws. But that is not what Democrats want.

Oh, and by the way. I believe that Obama is the first POTUS to have previously, while in the Senate, voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, based purely on political criteria. So he can hardly complain if the GOP returns the favor (not that I advocate that).

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 96): I assume that he wanted to hold on until a Republican president got elected, who would then appoint a rightwing successor.

And yet he's the one who suggested Elena Kagan - hardly a conservative - be nominated to the court in the first place.

Quoting charlienorth (Reply 100):

My political persuasion has nothing to do with my dislike for Justice Scalia--I disliked him because he's an asshole and a delusional zealot who took pleasure in being an asshole. Period. I've publicly stated on this board alone that I think Joe Biden is an ass, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are race pimps, John Kerry's an idiot, that Bernie Sanders is one-dimensional, delusional and basing his campaign on policies that are akin to asking for a pony for Christmas, and that John McCain would've been a better president than Obama. Take the knee-jerk broad stroking about politics somewhere else. It will not hold water here.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 105): Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 96): I assume that he wanted to hold on until a Republican president got elected, who would then appoint a rightwing successor. And yet he's the one who suggested Elena Kagan - hardly a conservative - be nominated to the court in the first place.

Oh, I also want to note that Mrs. Ginsberg should be retired as well. She is almost 90 now.

Jan

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 103): Your description of the German system is very close to how the US system is supposed to work, and indeed how it worked for a long time. As a matter of fact, that is exactly how Republicans want it to work, generally speaking.

It's difficult to reconcile that claim with what's actually happening on the ground in the USA for the past years.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 103): Democrats have heavily politicized the court as well (if not more). Look at what happened to Robert Bork - unquestioningly one of the most qualified jurists ever to be nominated, but Democrats crucified him for his views on abortion - namely that Roe v Wade overstepped constitutional bounds.

The qualifications a judge needs don't just involve knowing existing laws and the constitution. Among them also needs to be the conviction to serve the population impartially and without prejudice.

The latter was sorely lacking with Robert Bork – he supported segregation and discrimination against women and effectively proposed a police state unrestrained by essential civic rights.

If you can't find anything wrong with all that and actually believe that it could only have been sheer political motivation to oppose him, that would be rather telling, but not about those who opposed his nomination.

If you insist on your perspective, where would be a supposedly "liberal" nominee with comparably outlandish motivations, particularly by declaration as their respective judicial opinions?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 103): If the Court restricted itself to pure originalism and did not try to pass "remedies", then the politics would be removed and the impetus would go back to Congress to find solutions by passing appropriate laws. But that is not what Democrats want.

Actually, it's the Republicans who are almost completely blocking any legislation – have you looked at the legislative statistics of this and the preceding sessions of Congress, by any chance?

It is perfectly obvious who's doing the obstruction there, and it's not the Democrats.

Quoting luckyone (Reply 106): Take the knee-jerk broad stroking about politics somewhere else. It will not hold water here.

Funny...in this moveon.org of aviation that seems to be all we have.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 108): The qualifications a judge needs don't just involve knowing existing laws and the constitution. Among them also needs to be the conviction to serve the population impartially and without prejudice. The latter was sorely lacking with Robert Bork – he supported segregation and discrimination against women and effectively proposed a police state unrestrained by essential civic rights.

You are severely distorting his positions - but that is hardly surprising, and typical of the propaganda war the left has always played (and played well, anyone would admit).

Quoting Klaus (Reply 108): Actually, it's the Republicans who are almost completely blocking any legislation – have you looked at the legislative statistics of this and the preceding sessions of Congress, by any chance?

Those stats are meaningless, because the Republicans in Congress (under Boehner) have been abandoning bills that they know will be vetoed and they know they don't have the votes to overcome the veto. The attitude was "why bother". That is an attitude that Paul Ryan has promised to reverse (because Republican voters are demanding it). Pass the bills and let Obama veto it - at least it's on the books that we tried to pass the bill.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 107): I also want to note that Mrs. Ginsberg should be retired as well. She is almost 90 now.

From all accounts, she's sharp as a tack and remains a brilliant legal mind, even if I disagree with her most of the time.

If she wants to continue working, enjoys the work, and performs well, why should she retire?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 111): Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 107): I also want to note that Mrs. Ginsberg should be retired as well. She is almost 90 now. From all accounts, she's sharp as a tack and remains a brilliant legal mind, even if I disagree with her most of the time. If she wants to continue working, enjoys the work, and performs well, why should she retire?

Well, from the perspective of forced retirement at 65-70 as in most professions (unless selfemployed, though this rule gets increasingly challenged by people who want to continue to work, at least in Germany. The working contract with the company I just left, had a clause that the contract will automatically expire when I reach 65. The new contract for the new job I will start in two week's time doesn't have such a clause anymore).

Jan

[Edited 2016-02-14 15:27:11]

I believe that a replacement for Scalia should be made as soon as possible. Several of the other SCOTUS members are older that Scalia was at the age of his death and if and of those Justices die or become physically or mentally disabled in the next 3-4 months, it could cause further imbalance in the court and further delays on important pending decisions.

I would like to see someone for Scalia's replacement not from the parts of the USA of those currently on the SCOTUS. No more Catholics or active Christians. Not a graduate of 'ivy league' colleges or law schools and from instead from top rated State schools. Not from the DC or Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Not from a corporate law firm, instead maybe someone from academia or mainly worked in public service. A woman should be considered to balance the court to more closely be 50-50 women, just like real life. No one with connections to ideological organizations like Scalia was to the conservative Federalist Society and the like for 'liberals as well. Not in favor of dismissing Roe v. Wade or labor/worker rights. Supportive of reasonable government regulations and against narrowing our privacy rights. If a judge, someone supportive of GLTBQ, minority, woman's and the general public, not a puppet to corporations or police, questioning as to the death penalty.

The right thing for the Senate to do would be to at least have a hearing and put any Obama nominee to a vote. If they fail to allow this to happen, then they are no better than Harry Reid. The outcome of the 2014 election can be at least partly attributed to the disgust at the Democratic held Senate and the refusal to even bring House legislation up for discussion and a vote. It would be a mistake on the part of the Republicans to follow this pattern.

With that said, I seriously doubt Obama will nominate a moderate. When I say moderate, I mean someone who would be acceptable to most Americans. It would have to be someone who is not viewed as being too far to either right or left if such a person exists.

What I expect from Obama is a garden variety liberal justice who will continue to advance his agenda. Some people are already suggesting he will make a "novelty" nomination by introducing someone who is the first of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. to serve on the bench. An advantage to doing so would be to drum up support, because any opposition to said person could be labeled as racist, bigot, etc. Then again, Obama could nominate someone based on their ability to fairly interpret the Constitution and not have their own personal agenda. i know, I know, dream on.

Quoting nonrevman (Reply 114): The right thing for the Senate to do would be to at least have a hearing and put any Obama nominee to a vote

   I can tolerate a vote of "no" to a nominee by a Republican Senate (even if they are overly qualified for the USSC), but I cannot tolerate a non-vote/stall until after the election. I want it on the record that the Senators voted no to a nominee rather than be pouting little children.

Quoting nonrevman (Reply 114): I seriously doubt Obama will nominate a moderate

538 disagrees with you (and this article was written well before Scalia's passing although it has an updated note at the top upon news of his death):

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ng-another-sotomayor-anytime-soon/

I just wish conservatives would judge Obama based on what he's actually done rather than a warped viewpoint of what he could do. You'd find he's not all that bad of a guy.

Edit: deleted the second link because it basically contained the same information as the 1st link.

[Edited 2016-02-14 16:51:02]

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 104): Oh, and by the way. I believe that Obama is the first POTUS to have previously, while in the Senate, voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, based purely on political criteria. So he can hardly complain if the GOP returns the favor (not that I advocate that).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidh...e-court-block-on-cl_b_9200952.html





I guess the Supreme Court plays hardball with a 5 to 4 majority as on this matter of climate change. I guess we need a Liberal Justice for some Justice. A first time for everything when it comes to a Conservative majority. Obama should nominate someone agreeable to both sides? I guess Obama is not the only one setting precedent.

[Edited 2016-02-14 17:29:18]

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 107): Oh, I also want to note that Mrs. Ginsberg should be retired as well. She is almost 90 now.

GinsbUrg. You're German, man!  

Quoting charlienorth (Reply 100): please when Judge Ginsberg passes it will be completely to celebrate!!!

Another one who can't spell. Tell me, what did Justice GinsbUrg do to you personally or try to do to you personally?

Because as for Justice Scalia, he tried to throw me in prison and then he tried to stop my marriage and then he tried to annul my marriage. So yeah, it's quite personal for me.

I can't think of a single thing that Justice Ginsburg has done to harm anyone.

Quoting wingman (Reply 92): This is all going to come down to Hillary winning the nomination and the White House, or losing it to Sanders and handing the election to the GOP. Whatever the case we might be about to witness a watershed moment in our history.

i agreed with everything you said, up until you said if Hillary wins the election she will win the white house.. NO

if Hillary wins the nomination, there will not be a high turn out. Our youth hold the key, that's who elected Obama. That is why we had a large turn out. Hillary SNL skit with her singing t i can't make you love me. says it all.

PAY ATTENTION

[Edited 2016-02-14 17:53:28]

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 103): Your description of the German system is very close to how the US system is supposed to work, and indeed how it worked for a long time. As a matter of fact, that is exactly how Republicans want it to work, generally speaking. Democrats have heavily politicized the court as well (if not more). Look at what happened to Robert Bork - unquestioningly one of the most qualified jurists ever to be nominated, but Democrats crucified him for his views on abortion - namely that Roe v Wade overstepped constitutional bounds. If the Court restricted itself to pure originalism and did not try to pass "remedies", then the politics would be removed and the impetus would go back to Congress to find solutions by passing appropriate laws. But that is not what Democrats want.

Your constitution doesn't explicitly mention unborn children, does it ? So it's up to interpretation. Republicans should propose an amendment to the constitution if that's really something they want. It has happened in other countries, Hungary for example. Interestingly enough, the laws allowing abortion (since 1953 !) there haven't been changed yet.

In a country where personal freedom is a fundamental value (the USA), it seems only logical to allow abortions for women. The laws about drugs, however, don't follow that logic, same for alcohol, and others.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 119): Your constitution doesn't explicitly mention unborn children, does it ? So it's up to interpretation. Republicans should propose an amendment to the constitution if that's really something they want. It has happened in other countries, Hungary for example. Interestingly enough, the laws allowing abortion (since 1953 !) there haven't been changed yet.

It does mention life, and according to laws in many states and countries, if you cause the death of an unborn fetus (not as part of an abortion, but say if you beat up the woman) you will be charged with homicide, so the concept of treating the fetus as a living human being is hardly something unusual.

I happen to be pro-choice (for a number of reasons, as intensely distasteful as I find it), but in my opinion, I think that it should be up to the pro-choice crowd to propose a constitutional amendment that says that the right to life does not extend to the unborn.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 120): I happen to be pro-choice (for a number of reasons, as intensely distasteful as I find it), but in my opinion, I think that it should be up to the pro-choice crowd to propose a constitutional amendment that says that the right to life does not extend to the unborn.

We have Roe versus Wade as established Law, we do need anything else to be written as far as I am concerned. Why open that door again?

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 107): Oh, I also want to note that Mrs. Ginsberg should be retired as well. She is almost 90 now.

She is 82...not quite "almost 90" unless if a 12 year old is "almost 20"  

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 121): We have Roe versus Wade as established Law, we do need anything else to be written as far as I am concerned. Why open that door again?

"Established Law" is bullshit. There needs to be a real law, passed by the legislature, that defines the issue and what is allowed/not allowed. Only then will the issue cease to be a constant issue raising its head every election.

Of course the Democrats don't want it to be settled. The issue is polarizing and as long as it is so they can count on the feminists mobilizing for them. If the issue was settled with a reasonable compromise, women might not vote for Dems as much as they do.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 123): "Established Law" is bullshit

Established law is what it is. Ruled on over and over. You are typical, let us open the door to all the bullshit and see what walks in. There is no need, and with a new Liberal Supreme Court it will be a dead issue.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 120): according to laws in many states and countries

Yes, but those laws aren't from the 18th century.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 123): "Established Law" is bullshit. There needs to be a real law, passed by the legislature

It is Federal Law. Are you suggesting it should be by state law? Of course you are. The Religious right would love that to death. As I said typical rhetoric.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 123): "Established Law" is bullshit. There needs to be a real law, passed by the legislature, that defines the issue and what is allowed/not allowed. Only then will the issue cease to be a constant issue raising its head every election.

I was going to wear a blue shirt tomorrow, but I can't find the real law that lets me do this. Can you help me out?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 123): There needs to be a real law, passed by the legislature, that defines the issue and what is allowed/not allowed.

And there already has been. And it is REPUBLICANS who keep insisting it is an issue that has not been legislated. Because religion (read: Christianity) is under attack in the United States. Even though no Christian churches have been burned to the ground and no Christian churches have been shuttered by government decree. It is more fear and hate rhetoric by the right.

For anyone who studied law in the United States whether you hated or loved his decisions his passing is taken with a heavy heart, for most of us at least. I did not agree with everything he had to say, but he said what he believed. He is undoubtedly one of the top 10 most influential figures in United States legal history and students across the country will continue to read his decisions for centuries to come.

I see so many people talking about politics, his replacement, and his decisions, and honestly, I think he would not mind that at all.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 128): Even though no Christian churches have been burned to the ground and no Christian churches have been shuttered by government decree.

Actually, a few Christian churches even in recent years have been burned to the ground. In almost all of these cases they were predominantly African-American churches being torched by White Supremacists. Now, I will not charge that all White Supremacists are Republicans, but I will argue that a vanishingly small minority are Democrats...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 120): I happen to be pro-choice (for a number of reasons, as intensely distasteful as I find it),

Wow, we agree on something. Mark that one down in the calendar. I also despise abortion but remain pro-choice.

Now, I'd like to turn everyone's attention to an interesting article in the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/13/if-republicans-block-obamas-supreme-court-nomination-he-wins-anyway/?postshare=8441455474776535&tid=ss_fb-bottom

Quote: Of course, the justices will also continue to hear future arguments, but upcoming closely decided cases — such as the abortion case out of Texas also widely predicted to lead to a 5 to 4 vote — will now be tied, 4 to 4. In this term’s contentious, controversial docket, split decisions are inevitable. The court can reargue the pending cases and hear the upcoming ones, but they will be too divided to decide anything truly sweeping. Unresolved cases will stack up. That means only Congress and the White House can resolve the deadlock. And Obama has the power there, even though Republicans control the Senate. By Saturday evening, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had already said the vacancy shouldn’t be filled until the next president is in office, 11 months from now. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” he said. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” But the GOP might soon reconsider if they see the implications of refusing to allow Obama to replace Scalia: A divided court leaves lower court rulings in place. And the lower courts are blue. Nine of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals have a majority of Democratic appointees. That means liberal rulings conservatives were hoping the Supreme Court would overturn remain law. So if Scalia had cast the deciding vote on a case before he died, but the court rehears it and divides 4 to 4, that would leave the lower court decision in place. That’s what would happen with a proposal to apportion Congress in an entirely new way that would heavily favor Republican districts, which was argued recently. The lower court (in this case a district court which went directly to the Supreme Court for technical reasons) tossed the plan out; conservatives had been hoping the justices would restore it.

Basically, with 2/3 of the lower courts being liberal-dominated, it takes a conservative Supreme Court to overturn those lower court rulings. In other words, the default state for a lower-court ruling is for that ruling to be upheld and it takes a majority ruling from SCOTUS to overturn such a ruling. In a 4-4 split, a hung court would simply uphold the lower court ruling. And with a POTUS who is liberal, that means that most of the cases are being brought by Conservative interests. Either way, the GOP loses.

But there is one way the GOP can cut their losses and that is to approve a moderate appointee. If they do not, then the Senate goes to the DNC at the next election. On the GOP field, the two most likely nominees at this point are Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump. Neither has a very good chance at winning a national election even against a comparatively weak DNC challenger. So with a DNC President and a DNC Senate, a real radical could be ushered into the halls of the Supreme Court in Justice Scalia's place if the GOP does not approve a more moderate candidate now. Is the GOP willing to assume that risk? I would honestly advise them that they would be foolish to.

Quoting flymia (Reply 129): I see so many people talking about politics, his replacement, and his decisions, and honestly, I think he would not mind that at all.

It would be fascinating to hear his opinion on whether postmortem threats of obstructionism by the GOP are appropriate. I expect he would say something along the lines of 'these Senators who have lost familiarity with the provisions of Article II ought to re-read it until they fully comprehend the job description of the POTUS.'

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 39): How horrible that you're all finding some happiness in this! You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97): The vile posts from the left were predictable in this thread.

Oh look the straight white christian males with guns have thoughts...on the guy that reinforced everything that benefited straight white christian males with guns. Everyone else can pound sand and...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22): Then...CHANGE THE LAW.

Now imagine if he said similarly vile things about christianity, or guns, or heterosexuals--we'd never hear the end of it. Fox can't even handle a half time show without losing its mind and it has no real consequence unlike a Supreme Court ruling.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 117): I can't think of a single thing that Justice Ginsburg has done to harm anyone.

I can't think of much of anything from any of the other current justices that comes close to the nasty, backward proclamations from Scalia.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 99): Not really. There is a need for the Court to live in the era they are serving in. Remember Separate But Equal? And look at Women's Suffrage. The USSC should have been able to look at the disgrace of women not being able to vote and have had the collective testicles to say that the ban was, in itself, against the concept of all men being created equal and killed that ban. Same with slavery.

Of course there was no legal or moral justification for slavery or denying women suffrage - and a stricter application of the text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would have ensured that. But more important was the belief that the law, including the Constitution, must be updated and that there should be a revolutionary rebuilding of core facets every few generations. Even though they were flawed, the Founding Fathers would have been gobsmacked to see a continuation of the system they formed so many centuries later.

We're debating application of a document that should have been replaced a few times by now, but the political process it defined has been "cracked" - figured out, solved, unraveled. It aimed to prevent external influences from gaining undue power within the system, but has been taken over by internal influences and by a failure to adapt to the modern age and the changes to the political process that are supposed to ensue. Instead there is gridlock and manipulation to benefit those with the power and connections. And the people are left to squabble over Side A's few talking points versus Side B's talking points. And judges need to decide either to apply the Constitution as written or as they deem it would be written now. Neither is ideal. Neither is right.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 99): Or determine that there are areas where the Constitution failed to properly address issues.

Maybe it's my classical liberalism coming out, but the default position is always freedom from influence. If a topic does not have an applicable law or a law that is compatible with the Constitution, then how can one deduce a limit on freedom is the result? Without endorsing anything else they've said, it is correct when one poster says "change the law!" Unfortunately this does indeed lead to a position where Citizens United is okay, even if I don't agree with it. That's why the law needs to be changed and the issue addressed through legislation. As I've said again and again, it isn't the court's place to make up for how broken Congress is.

But then I'm one of those folks (as you can guess) who believes there needs to be a widescale overhaul of the governance of the United States (and most other nation states). Proportionate representation; a federal government that handles only national topics such as defense, foreign policy and currency; states that are bound to federal rights legislation but are responsible for their own application of services; no more dictating how people live their lives under the guise of 'interstate commerce' and threats of ending highway financing.

It won't happen, but if we're gonna debate judicial activism it only seems right to propose alternate solutions that focus on the underlying issue.

Quoting opethfan (Reply 133): That's why the law needs to be changed and the issue addressed through legislation.

And when it is, people sue and keep litigating until the law goes their way.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 75): Any Republican who does not tow the line in that regards is going to get labeled a RHINO, if they're lucky

It's "toe" not "tow," and "RINO" (Republican In Name Only)  

Quoting ual777 (Reply 85): running a public character assassination campaign against Bork in 1987.

....by showing people the things he'd written/said, himself, in his own words? Interesting.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97): The vile posts from the left were predictable in this thread.

Cut the B.S.
Are you seriously naive enough to sit there and pretend that the EXACT same won't happen from the right when an aged liberal (e.g. RBG) dies/retires?

Quoting charlienorth (Reply 100): please when Judge Ginsberg passes it will be completely to celebrate!!!

Wow, that didn't even take three posts.
Q.E.D. folks.

Quoting nonrevman (Reply 114): An advantage to doing so would be to drum up support, because any opposition to said person could be labeled as racist, bigot, etc

And likely with good reason.

Quoting nonrevman (Reply 114): i know, I know, dream on.

Indeed, because Obama hasn't already put up nominations that went on to have UNANIMOUS support from even Republicans, once they were actually voted on.

....oh, wait.  

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 130): Wow, we agree on something. Mark that one down in the calendar. I also despise abortion but remain pro-choice.

Put me in the same category. I think abortion is wrong, but I'll support a person's right to have one.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 132): Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 39):How horrible that you're all finding some happiness in this! You should be ashamed of yourselves.Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 97):The vile posts from the left were predictable in this thread.Oh look the straight white christian males with guns have thoughts...on the guy that reinforced everything that benefited straight white christian males with guns. Everyone else can pound sand and...

Spare me; I'd be calling out anyone on the right gleefully celebrating the passing of someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

It's just not done in polite society.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 136): I'd be calling out anyone on the right gleefully celebrating the passing of someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

That's a silly false moral equivalency. When has RBG vilified entire groups of people on the basis of backwards archaic thinking? What would people realistically celebrate in RBG's passing? Her support for the mentally disabled? For women?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 136): It's just not done in polite society.

Neither is calling for the extermination of whole groups of people, but that ship has sailed. There's a reason many are angry at people like Scalia, and just because it doesn't affect you doesn't mean it's not legitimate. People are just acting out in the limited way they can; it's not like they're taking over a bird sanctuary 

[Edited 2016-02-14 23:23:39]

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 136): Spare me; I'd be calling out anyone on the right gleefully celebrating the passing of someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Well, hope you're ready to settle in for a marathon of admonition then... because you're in a dream world if you believe the rightwing isn't going to do just that.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 137): Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 136):It's just not done in polite society. Neither is calling for the extermination of whole groups of people

Please cite examples of Justice Scalia specifically calling for the extermination of whole groups of people.

I'll wait.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 138): Well, hope you're ready to settle in for a marathon of admonition then...

Hell yes. I don't care what your political affiliation is; if you celebrate the death of someone just because they happened to have a different set of political beliefs than you, I'm going to call you out.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 139): Please cite examples of Justice Scalia specifically calling for the extermination of whole groups of people.

I don't think anybody will produce any. But you will find plenty of examples of vacuous, backward logic used to discriminate the freedom to have sexual and romantic relationships with same-sex partners:

During oral arguments in Lawrence, the attorney challenging the Texas law argued that it was "fundamentally illogical" for straight people to be able to have non-procreative sex without being harassed by the state while same-sex couples did not have the right to be "free from a law that says you can't have any sexual intimacy at all." But Scalia pointed out that gays and lesbians could just have sex with people of the opposite sex instead. "It doesn't say you can't have—you can't have any sexual intimacy. It says you cannot have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex." Later on in his dissent, Scalia argued that Americans' constitutional right to equal protection under the law wasn't violated by the Texas law for that reason. "Men and women, heterosexuals and homosexuals, are all subject to [Texas'] prohibition of deviate sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex." That should sound familiar: It's the same argument defenders of bans on interracial marriage used to make, arguing that the bans were constitutional because they affected whites and blacks equally.

Scalia's dissent in Romer is a long lament over the supposed "special rights" being granted to people on the basis of sexual orientation. In one section, he complains that banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in hiring amounts to granting gays and lesbians special treatment that Republicans, adulterers, and Cubs haters don't get. He writes "[A job] interviewer may refuse to offer a job because the applicant is a Republican; because he is an adulterer; because he went to the wrong prep school or belongs to the wrong country club; because he eats snails; because he is a womanizer; because she wears real animal fur; or even because he hates the Chicago Cubs."

Not content to analogize laws singling out people on the basis of sexual orientation to laws banning murder, Scalia suggested in his dissent in Romer that the relationships of same-sex partners were comparable to those of roommates. "[Colorado's ban] prohibits special treatment of homosexuals, and nothing more," Scalia wrote. "[I]t would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the 'life partner' of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee." Like his "flagpole sitting" comment, this remark goes far beyond the law in expressing Scalia's basic animus towards same-sex couples, implying that what they experience together cannot even properly be considered love.

Scalia decided to take the "moral disapproval" argument up a notch in his dissent in Lawrence, writing that the Texas ban on homosexual sex "undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are 'immoral and unacceptable,'" like laws against "fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity." Scalia later tees up "prostitution" and "child pornography" as other things he thinks are banned simply because people disapprove of them.

What a #%$&@ freedom-hating demagogue.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 139): Please cite examples of Justice Scalia specifically calling for the extermination of whole groups of people.

Never said he did. But it is a favorite past time of the GOP and christian right, whether it's the muslims or LGBT community, to call for their outright destruction. And how do you suppose Scalia's "set of political beliefs"--your words--that LGBT are illegal, threats to democracy, reprehensible, akin to prostitutes, heroin addicts, murderers, and on and on, contribute to the national conversation? Do you suppose it results in more or less abuse?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 140): Scalia later tees up "prostitution" and "child pornography" as other things he thinks are banned simply because people disapprove of them.

What a great guy!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 130): Is the GOP willing to assume that risk? I would honestly advise them that they would be foolish to.

What you're suggesting would require them to apply logic and reason and to look beyond next week. I think that's three things they don't do well.

I see the nutjob centre of the GOP are wondering if it was murder?


http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...es-surround-justice-scalias-death/

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 143): I see the nutjob centre of the GOP are wondering if it was murder? http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...es-surround-justice-scalias-death/

I bet we hear more of this as the GOP realizes how their rhetoric, on not allowing a nomination committee for any of Obama's appointees, has put the Senate and GOP into a very bad position for the next 9 months.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 101): Hmm aparently Scalia thought enough of Kagan as to literally request her by name. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinio...est-from-justice-scalia/index.html Show that ur as informed as you think you are...

According to David Axelrod. Riiiight....

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 143): I see the nutjob centre of the GOP are wondering if it was murder?

Why do you say "center", Herr Goebbels?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 141): But it is a favorite past time of the GOP and christian right, whether it's the muslims or LGBT community, to call for their outright destruction.

Perhaps I have missed this - when has this occurred among anything remotely resembling the mainstream?

Quoting sccutler (Reply 147): Perhaps I have missed this - when has this occurred among anything remotely resembling the mainstream?

Google is your friend.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...d-cruz_us_56af973ae4b09214b14ef5f1

Quoting sccutler (Reply 147): Perhaps I have missed this - when has this occurred among anything remotely resembling the mainstream?

This sort of propaganda, along with BestWestern's charge that conspiracy theories about Scalia's death are widely held held by Republicans, is just constant. Goebbels would be proud.