It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionUS Supreme Court Justice Scalia apparently found dead(145 posts)(145 posts)
(145 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 15, 2016
avatar
Brasas: Bulworth is a good movie. It's been years since I saw it... I don't think it was a big hit though?
definitely give it another watch

it certainly wasn't a big hit...how could it be? with speaking so much Truth in so many ways

I would also wager (if I wagered) that the people downvoting dt and budejovice's posts or are opposing their expressions here cheered at the deaths of Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. but, that's just speculation, of course...hypocrisy tends to go along with such people, generally
Post edited February 15, 2016 by drealmer7
Posted February 15, 2016
avatar
bad_fur_day1:
avatar
WBGhiro: Just listen to something else othet than Linking Park once in a while that will fix it.
Missed by a mile. :P Also it's Linkin Park. If you had said Nine Inch Nails, that would've worked. :)

Your right though, I'm much too cynical to have constructive political discussions. I should be kept away from anything that needs any kind of morals. Just ignore everything I say people. I'm a no gooder.
Posted February 15, 2016
avatar
drealmer7: I would also wager (if I wagered) that the people downvoting dt and budejovice's posts or are opposing their expressions here cheered at the deaths of Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. but, that's just speculation, of course...hypocrisy tends to go along with such people, generally
There you go again equating political opponents with Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. Why don't you bring up Hitler while you are at it because "obviously" equating people you don't like to these people "shows how evil they are".

The fact that this man served his country as a Supreme Court judge, seemed to consistently act according to the legal traditions he was brought into office to uphold, and was legitimately approved by the President and the Congress. Yet you keep trying to justify why its okay to cheer his death.

I see a lot of other strong opinions which don't appear downvoted in this thread, but the first two posts where DT stated, "Is it bad that I am happy that he died?" and the 2nd post where Bude posts, "He was pretty evil." Both completely tactless posts given the man's recent death. But in your infinite wisdom, let's double-down and attempt to paint anyone who disagrees as a hypocrite or ultra conservative.

Please, give me the long list of people Justice Scalia has killed or ordered to be killed to justify your comparison to Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden...
(chirp chirp)

Personally I'm sick of the petty politics from the extremists on the fringes of either party. No wonder this country and this government is dysfunctional when so many seem to want to literally cheer for the other side's deaths.
Post edited February 15, 2016 by RWarehall
Posted February 15, 2016
high rated
avatar
dtgreene: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php
http://nypost.com/2016/02/13/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dead-at-79/
http://gawker.com/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-reportedly-found-d-1758968327

I can't bring myself to feel sadness for this. Is it bad that I am happy that he died?

Edit: For those unaware, the US Supreme Court consists of 9 Justices, who are appointed by the president and serve for life. The only way for one to be removed from the bench is for the Justice to either voluntarily step down or to die. Scalia was one of the 4 ultra-conservative Justices, who voted against things such as same sex marriage. There are 4 liberal Justices and then there's Kennedy, who is (or rather, was) the swing vote.
Consider this: While he might not have been a proponent of gay marriage, he WAS a proponent for the protection of video games as free speech and was quoted multiple times defending them as the same as books, movies, magazines and any other form of entertainment medium as an expression of art.
Posted February 15, 2016
It is about showing similarities of how I view them, yes. I can't help if others fail to see the comparison because they think there is too much disparity between the people. I personally do not think there is actually that much disparity. Different methods is all. Different degress on the same field. Subversion, manipulation, perpetuation, and the power/position to do so.

Anyway, I never said anything about evil.

I'm quite sure that Scalia has had a MUCH MUCH MUCH higher degree of negative influence on our lives than the others mentioned. But, to make it simpler, yes, I think Scalia was part of the Dark Side. As dark as some hold him to be? maybe not. as Light sided as others think he was? highly doubtful.

patriotism and nationalism and the inability to recognize or admit to serious flaws in the system and the people in place perpetuating it is holding us back and destroying the world.

I also value animal lives more than I value human lives...soooo....
Posted February 15, 2016
avatar
adaliabooks: I have to disagree with that.. I think that anyone making a decision like that has to take morality into it (whether they are a judge or jury or whatever), that's surely the point of their job?
No. The point of juidiciary's job is to interpret existing law, in case there is any argument over it. Only. Without looking at its consequences, moral or otherwise (that's the legislature's job, who should look at the consequences of the laws they create, something they seem to forget about).

Think about it: the alternative is that the legislature becomes completely irrelevant. It won't matter who's in the house of representatives because any law they make can be overriden by the judiciary who'll declare it "immoral". The juidiciary will have way too much power.

Separation of powers was made for a reason*, and you really don't want to change it just because it happens to suit your view now.

*digression in post below

EDIT:
I'd much rather live in a state where doing X is illegal and heavily punished (even though I strongly disagree about it) but clearly stated that it is so, than one where the legality and punishing depends on the whim of a judge. Caught doing X? Well, let see whether today's jury thinks it moral or not. In the first case you can do your best to have the legislature change the law. In the second you never know where you stand.
It's a really sad state of affairs where the US Supreme Court has become a third legislative chamber rather than what it was originally appointed to be. Montesquieu's trias politica seems to be completely forgotten.
Post edited February 15, 2016 by ZFR
Posted February 15, 2016
avatar
bad_fur_day1: I have an amazingly strong urge to watch Tauto get murdered with an axe. For the love of god mods, can you please delete this human scum.
avatar
Tauto: Reported.
Reported for reporting.
Posted February 15, 2016
avatar
qwixter: Reported for reporting.
Reported for reporting for reporting for reporting for reporting.

...Did I do that right?
Posted February 15, 2016
*As a digression:
Another reason we need separation of powers is because we need different people to do each job, and really shouldn't mix them.

In the judiciary wisdom and experience is required, which is why elderly people are desirable. Plus they should hold their post for life, which in principle makes it much more difficult to bribe or threaten them. On the other hand, the "post for life" is an important reason why they shouldn't have any legislative powers: we don't want them to think they're gods who make any laws and are completely untouchable.

In the executive young people are desirable. People who are much likely to take quick action and make dynamic decision.

The legislature should be somewhere between the two. On one had we need don't want young inexperienced people making rash decisions but rather need people with wisdom so they can foresee the consequences of the laws they make, on the other we don't want grumpy grandpas who refuse to make any changes to the law because that's "how it was done back in their days".

Either way, congrats dtgreene. Your thread is the one that made me break my "no posts in political threads on gaming forums rule". I've managed to avoid the temptation for 6 years, despite some threads where I really wanted to.
Hopefully for the last time. Experience tells me nothing good comes out of it and it's generally not worth the time.
Post edited February 15, 2016 by ZFR
Posted February 15, 2016
Liberals celebrating this, are the reason I'm reluctant to call myself a liberal. There's a serious douche bag syndrome going around with liberals right now. Don't be a liberal douche bag.
Posted February 15, 2016
avatar
ZFR: *As a digression:
Another reason we need separation of powers is because we need different people to do each job, and really shouldn't mix them.

In the judiciary wisdom and experience is required, which is why elderly people are desirable. Plus they should hold their post for life, which in principle makes it much more difficult to bribe or threaten them. On the other hand, the "post for life" is an important reason why they shouldn't have any legislative powers: we don't want them to think they're gods who make any laws and are completely untouchable.

In the executive young people are desirable. People who are much likely to take quick action and make dynamic decision.

The legislature should be somewhere between the two. On one had we need don't want young inexperienced people making rash decisions but rather need people with wisdom so they can foresee the consequences of the laws they make, on the other we don't want grumpy grandpas who refuse to make any changes to the law because that's "how it was done back in their days".

Either way, congrats dtgreene. Your thread is the one that made me break my "no posts in political threads on gaming forums rule". I've managed to avoid the temptation for 6 years, despite some threads where I really wanted to.
Hopefully for the last time. Experience tells me nothing good comes out of it and it's generally not worth the time.
The good that comes out from this is letting people like me who know nothing about Scalia nor how the legal system work and why it is like that have a more informed judgment. So thank you for that.
Posted February 15, 2016
except ZFR's statement is full of fallacy

older doesn't mean wiser

younger doesn't mean hastier

old to me means more likely to be "stubborn set in their ways thinking they know better than anyone younger than they are and not budging their views no matter how much things in the world have changed."

older leans towards more likely being of the mentality that women should be pregnant at home in the kitchen while mr. man earns a living

I don't want those people making JUDGEMENTS about ANYTHING
Posted February 15, 2016
avatar
OneFiercePuppy: Short explanation: legal rights change as the society which is governed changes. See: every federal law passed since 1789.

Hyperbolically-inappropriate analogy: it was once a protected right for white people to own black people. We even had a tussle about that, once.

Mollifying addendum: Since benefits are given to those in a marriage, denying license based on who someone is causes them a legal harm. Though the path is wending, the benefits of marriage were considered basic; denying someone those benefits had to be done on a case by case basis, instead of as a group, which is considered discriminatory. Basically, the essence of the person cannot be considered when deciding to permit something - only the things they do and the effects the permission will have.

Thus, you may not consider marriage a right, but the people who make the rules do. And their opinion is more valuable than yours.

EDIT: Also, you may find the text of the ninth amendment illustrative of why your entire argument is flawed.
Owning slaves was never a right.. I think you misunderstand what a right actually is if you believe that. Your entire argument at that point is flawed because you don't have the right to own anything. You have the opportunity, but a right is something that cannot be denied you. The entire argument about legal harm is false. It causes legal inequality, which is not harm. Legal inequality is basically "He has that so I want it too." In basic terms, people were not being treated fairly on the basis of sexual orientation, an area the law hadn't really addressed at all up to that point. I'm not arguing that the result is absolutely the correct one. There's no reason gay people can't be married, or that a man can't marry a shoe, should he so desire. However, it's the process of getting there where people claimed that rights were being trampled upon that really makes me wonder. Mine is more a postulation on the journey rather than the destination, which I think pretty much any grown adult can agree is the correct one. Why should straight people be the only ones who have to suffer with marriage?
Posted February 15, 2016
avatar
drealmer7: except ZFR's statement is full of fallacy

older doesn't mean wiser

younger doesn't mean hastier

old to me means more likely to be "stubborn set in their ways thinking they know better than anyone younger than they are and not budging their views no matter how much things in the world have changed."

older leans towards more likely being of the mentality that women should be pregnant at home in the kitchen while mr. man earns a living

I don't want those people making JUDGEMENTS about ANYTHING
While the older / younger statement is debatable, what about his statement about how the court / judge should work?

That the judge should only follow the law even it may be wrong because the alternative is to give too much power to the judge and the outcome of innocence / guilty lies on the judge mood / moral?

One can fight to change the legislation if it is wrong and everyone have a fair chances to avoid things that lead to punishment. If we let the judge change the law on their whim we have hardly any guarantee what is right suddenly becomes wrong or the robber that rob us suddenly is able to go scoot free because the judge decide it is not moral to jail the breadwinner of a family and let the family goes hungry.

Do you agree with ZFR regarding how the court / judge should work?
Posted February 15, 2016
low rated
avatar
ZFR: In the executive young people are desirable. People who are much likely to take quick action and make dynamic decision.
The original authors of the US Constitution didn't seem to think so.

From Article II, Section 1:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
A President must be at least 35 years old. Compare that to 25 years for the House and 30 years for the Senate.

You can find the US Constitution online here (and probably many other places as well):
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionUS Supreme Court Justice Scalia apparently found dead(145 posts)(145 posts)
(145 posts)