Nice to see there's a few right leaning cowards in the bushes. This is a man who proved he was on the wrong side of history and a man not deserving of respect or adoration. He put religion above the upholding of the law and justice.

"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t." Antonin Scalia

For your information, my first post was a joke about Scalia saying: "Could you define the market -- everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli".

But then, some people downvoted it. Oh well, whatever...

I understand that many of these cases are morally debatable, but not really clar cut evil (Well ok except nr. 3). I still don't get why people make this guy out as literally figuratively hitler.

The Constitution does not mention marriage or sexual orientation.

You don't understand the basic structure of our government, or you reject it in favor of an authoritarian federal government, and you wonder why they aren't interested in engaging with you?

Calling somebody who would knowingly send an innocent man to be executed for purely pedantic reasons, isn't evil? That's just one rung on the ladder of evil below actually shooting somebody.
That's why originalism is such an issue. The constitution doesn't need to mention things explicitly for them to be in there. Gay marriage bans are a violation of the 14th amendment and the only way around that would be to completely remove the government from recognizing other forms of marriage between consenting pairs of adults.

Could you point me to the thread where you made this anti-fascist statement. Good God, do we really have neo-nazi sympathizers here?

Maybe it's because you expressed joy over the death of another human being.

Enough of this evil stuff. I would like to remind everyone here WE ALL ARE MORE EVIL than Scalia.

Beause we L.I.V.E, therefore we are E.V.I.L

To continue supporting our LIVES we kill and consume plants, animals, deface nature and whatnot. Each and everyone of us who LIVE is guilty of that. Scalia is dead hence no longer kill and consume plants / animal / mineral and pollute the earth. His body is given back to the earth to nourish new life, thus much holier then we that is still alive.

In the end we careless throw about terms like good and evil with a holier then thou attitude. In truth whatever benefits us is good and whatever harm us is evil, even it is the opposite for others.

I also find it silly how so many people here think they know exactly what is in the man's mind...
If any of you knew an inkling about how the law works; how decisions are based on legal precedents and not on "your" view of what you think is right or wrong. There are many viewpoints on the matter and the "GoG forum legal scholars" are a bit clueless. You throw around these Amendments and claim they have one meaning, then why did slavery continue for years? I can tell you...the words you think you understand were not meant the way you understand them.

There is a legal concept called framers intent. As this applies to the Supreme Court and many of the conservative judges, they interpret a law based on the meaning and intent at the time it was passed. Do you really think the 14th Amendment at the time intended it to be all-inclusive? Of course not. And these judges are often voting based on the intent as a law was passed.

Maybe its because I'm a bit older than many of you, but, if someone dies, you don't like them, its polite to be silent about it. How would you like people to gloat of your death?

Well....when Osama Bin Laden died, many people including Americans gloated over his death like no tomorrow.

And yes, we know what was in the man's mind. He was against progress, desperately fighting to preserve old and ridiculous traditions that hold no value anymore.

This is sad news. I hope anyone Obama tries to shove into office gets blocked with filibuster until 2017 when a new president (preferable Trump at this point) comes to office.

I personally do not care about this whole LGBT crap and believe the Supreme Court decision was not one that protects rights but one that just simply gets government to stick its nose deeper into personal matters and will get to undermine the right of association/disassociation even more. Simply privatizing marriage would have been better.

Scalia seemed to support the right to own guns including semi-auto rifles and shotguns as well as the right to own and play violent video games so that puts him on my good list. My condolences go to his family and friends and to hell with whoever Obama tries to shove into office.

Oh and to anyone who thinks it is good that he died...

lolwut m8? What have you been smoking? What exactly is conservative to you? Point out ONE conservative post of mine please. Since this topic is too far gone, might as well get muddy. If you think anyone who disagrees with you is conservative, you are the person who has acceptance and tolerance problems.
Challenge stands. Point out my ''conservative'' post / opinions.

All I see is a lot of oversimplification of complex legal matters.

Justice is supposed to be blind as all people are created equal. This means that if someone commits a crime they must face the consequences regardless of who they are. It's not supposed to matter if they are rich, poor, famous, unemployed, white, black, brown, gay, straight or politically connected; everyone should be equal under the law. There are many people whose view of the law changes from case to case depending on the identities of either the plaintiffs, defendants or both, unfortunately some of these people are judges. Justice Scalia was not one of these judges, his rulings were always consistent with strict reading of the Constitution. Where the wording led to vagueness of interpretation he relied on clearly laid out intents of those who wrote the words. For matters not covered by the Constitution he would defer to the sovereignty of the states as this is found in both the text and intent of the Constitution. For example, he ruled in favor of the Freedom of Speech regardless of what statements were made (such as flag burning or violent video games) or who was making them. He sided with laws which were properly passed and not strictly forbidden by the constitution, many of the examples quoted here prove that point. For example; Miranda Rights are not a constitutional requirement, they were created by the legal system to address certain abuses by law enforcement and could therefore be overturned or suspended by the same legal system provided the new laws did not violate the 4th or 5th amendments. Using a drug sniffing dog at a police checkpoint has no analog in the Bill of Rights and is within the purview of local law makers, but collecting DNA falls under the Search and Seizure category of the 4th amendment so it cannot be done without a warrant. It never mattered to Justice Scalia who was being represented in the court or what social implications his ruling could have, he was always consistent in his application of constitutional law. This is exactly the type of person everyone should want on the Supreme Court, but sadly there are many out there who would rather have the rule of law show favoritism to certain viewpoints or ideologies; and they have the audacity to claim it is for "fairness" or "equality".