Not sure who this is either, but why do you think he doesn't deserve a say? He's obviously been reading the forums or else how did he find this thread. But does he lose his right to free speech because he is a lurker? Or because he is disagreeing with you? How does his newness affect the point he made through his link?

Of course he could be someone who is a regular and afraid to lose rep due to the thought police here.

If not, welcome to the forums, drmfro! Don't let some of the stuffy regulars push you away.

Still waiting.

Funny that...

Check the very first post in this thread. I do see a mention to not being sad. Do you see the mention to being happy? Because being happy is pretty synonymous to being full of cheer, and being cheerful and being cheering are also pretty darn close...

As they say... none so blind blah blah...

You posted immediately after, and pretty much agreed with the OP. You did not make the semantic distinction then that you are making now. You did not point out any difference of opinion, as you are doing now.

So can we both agree the reply to dtgreene should be: "Yes, it is bad that you're happy about his death." How different would this have gone had you said then "I feel bad for his family. There are lots of sad grandkids right now."

Opportunity missed... and after that headfirst dive you did in post 2 you can expect it will be a while before folks give you a break with the downvotes in this thread. In my experience a dispassionate discussion might do the trick. You seem to have strongly formed opinions on the morality and legacy of this guy.

Is that a discussion you actually want to have substantially?
Good post. Paragraph breaks would be nice though. ;)

Scalia will leave a strong legacy of originalism, or whatever it is properly called.

A couple quick links:
Scalia's legacy
Wisdom in dissent

See my reply to budejovice above. Your being happy at someone's death probably has something to do with it...

Bingo. Instead of considering objectively what some folks in this thread did wrong, you want the downvotes to align with your political preferences... you're a part of the problem.

You are a funny guy tiny, but the day I see you non ironically post anywhere:

"Would some of you please do what you can to negate the dereps being given to [someone]?

Fuck, I feel like we've been invaded by the fucking [DNC]."

that is the day I will actually gain a lot of respect for you.

How about having your own sons executed for conspiracy? Is that evil?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lictors_Bring_to_Brutus_the_Bodies_of_His_Sons

It's like you guys can't accept other people's principles, like for example to uphold the letter of the law. Deontological moral positions do not concern themselves with consequences - by definition.

Your black or white consequntialist manichaeism is no better than the deontological variety.

Scalia was a major jerk, but I'm going to genuinely miss reading his opinions. While I generally disagreed with him on most topics, his opinions were virtually always highly entertaining. He had no hesitation whatsoever to speak his mind completely, openly, and often scathingly. Plus, the guy could WRITE.

I don't know anything about the man other than what has been said here and a few articles in the internet about his death, but this here:

If that's not evil I don't know what is.

And to those trying to say that being happy at someone's death is wrong, you only say that because you happen to support his beliefs. I'm sure if some important liberal figure (Obama? I don't really know who is on which 'side') where to die you would have a different view.

I will freely admit I was glad when Margaret Thatcher died, even though she was long past the time she was involved in politics, because I think she was an evil bitch who did a lot of harm to a lot of people.

I was glad when Gadafi was killed, and would be glad if Kim Jong Un died too.
That's not to say this judge was as bad as any of those people, but to say it is wrong to be glad if someone is dead is an overly simplified view of life and morality.

You do know that he never said that. Not at all. It's a common misquote of the man. But I guess don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, right? Guess the mass media slandering of a dead person is all fine and good by you considering you don't like the guy. Just as completely oversimplifying the court decisions or placing one side of these disputes as "Evil" as if that makes any kind of a point.

The correct quote
"There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. In saying that such a right exists, the dissenters apply nothing but their personal opinions to invalidate the rules of more than two thirds of the States, and a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure for which this Court itself is responsible. If the system that has been in place for 200 years (and remains widely approved) “shocks” the dissenters’ consciences, post, at ____, perhaps they should doubt the calibration of their consciences, or, better still, the usefulness of “conscience-shocking” as a legal test."

Basically stating the truth that no law exists forcing a court to re-open a case after conviction and all appeals have been exhausted. Again, people ignorant about the rules of law.

So how do you feel now calling Scalia "evil" over a quote he never made? Remorseful? Or do you now double-down picking out something else you disagree with him over.

Funny how you and every other liberal fruit loop in this thread wants to paint anyone who disagrees with them as some sort of conservative. Fact is, I've never voted for a Republican presidential nor gubernatorial candidate and I believe I have voted in every such election in the last 30 years.

While I may not agree with many of his decisions, I respect his right to have a differing opinion. Some people just don't get it and have to turn everything into "us vs. them".

Hm, never heard of this Scalia guy. Read the (german) Wikipedia article bout him. Must have been an interesting person. He had the point of view, that the constitution "is as it is" and that a judge has to follow it word by word and not has the right to make his own interpretation of it.
He made some astounding verdicts, for example:
He said that one has the right to burn the US flag, because it`s an expression of his/her opinion and that it is allowed by the freedom of speech.
That`s a thing you won`t expect from a conservative/right wing judge.

That's actually pretty much exactly what you should expect from a traditionally conservative American position. If a flag is dirty, you burn it. If a flag is worn, you burn it. And if you're protesting peacefully in accordance with your 1st amendment rights, you can safely burn it. It's people who express excessive nationalism who freak out about burning a flag; and those can be on either side of the aisle, though nationalism gets conflated with patriotism which is recently thrown about more by the hawkish sort, who tend to be right leaning. So I get why you'd find it odd. Just, in a less mixed-to-homogenization world, you ought not be.
EDIT: typo

Fair enough, but I think the actual quote boils down to the same thing. He specifically says 'evidence of innocence' not just evidence. So even though it could be proved someone is innocent, just because they have exhausted their rights of appeal they should still be put to death? Nice. Because following the letter of the law is far more important then justice or truth or equality.

I have no remorse, it seems fairly clear to me that he was evil.

Having a different opinion is fine; having the power to force that different opinion (and actively doing so) on millions of people to the detriment of their own lives is not.
I freely admit I don't know the facts about Scalia, though I feel comfortable from what I've read that I wouldn't have liked him or agreed with him, but I dislike that people are saying bude and dt are being downvoted for supposedly being happy at is death, rather then because the downvoters disagree with their political views. If you are going to downvote them, at least have the guts to come out and say why.

Warehall has you covered on the topic of taking quotes out of context and demonization due to political partisanship.

I can say very easily that my moral views regarding wishing anyone dead, or being happy anyone died are simple indeed. The only exception I make is war, and I don't include culture wars in that. What you are doing here is precisely a mild yet similar form of demonization, where you take ideological enmity and conflate it with actual "live or die" enemies.

We can agree to disagree, but for the record this goes to show that your side of the culture wars is quite hateful itself, despite often trying to act as if they are morally superior. And yes, I am atributing you a motive of hatred, because really, you might believe it is just and righteous to be happy at someone like Thatcher dying, but I can only see it as a manifestation of disproportionate hatred towards a fellow human.


As a less passionate comment, let me point one other thing you're IMO arguing wrong. You used an example of Obama to compare to Scalia. I have no doubt several people would be happy if Obama died, just like for other heads of state: you yourself mentioned Thatcher, and the hatred towards other conservatives is obvious: Reagan, Bush, etc... etc...

But if you consider actual figures comparabel to Scalia, then you would get a bit more perspective. So here's a question, can you even imagine a thread like this happening if any of the "ultra liberal" * in the court died? Because I can't... be it Kennedy, Sottomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg or Breyer... does not matter, and I am 99% sure of that. Says something to the culture in GOG, and to the culture overall IMO.

* PS: did you notice how the OP considers anyone that disagrees with him ultra conservative? Like, conservative is not enough anymore...

Reported.

Are you actually saying the rule of the law is always less important that justice, truth or equality? Are you for vigilante justice and lynch mobs if the accused is guilty? Are you for disclosure of evidence before judgement and regardless of innocence or guilt?

I say bullshit. You are doing what you are accusing others of, you dislike conservative positions and are rationalizing to support that.

The man's job was to make that kind of judgements affecting millions. Either you are saying being a supreme court judge is evil inherently, or you are saying taking a specific political / moral orientation to the job is evil. I expect you're the second. Kind of hypocritical :)

Unless you expect angels to come down from the sky and reveal the light to us, we should accept justice by our equals, according to predefined rules. It's that equality you just mentioned... it's worth nothing unless you tolerate differences of opinion, even in those with more power than you.

For the record, I have not downvoted anyone in this thread. I upvoted a few though.

No, it's basic human decency.