You might be thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#Post-2003 -- the objection to which is that it tilts the system against the defendant when the state can apply for another go, because hardly any individual has resources comparable to the Crown Prosecution Service.

As most of the justices said, but Scalia went the extra mile.

Vote: adaliabooks

No, we don't throw out our entire legal framework, we have it work as intended. Which means requiring that the accused have access to an attorney that's capable of providing a vigorous defense. Requiring that prosecutors and the police do proper due diligence to find all the relevant evidence that can reasonably be found would be a huge step in the right direction.

That alone would fix a large portion of the problems in the legal system and that's what they had in mind when they granted a right to an attorney. Not the right to have somebody who passed the bar decades ago and is literally senile and barely any more useful than a potted plant.

I appreciate your considerate reply. Certainly in comparison to others making similar points you are at least retaining a modicum of humility, which given the context is quite appropriate.

It is the case that most people going into politics or law are somewhat arrogant. There are exceptions though. Maybe read my links, check his wikipedia page before judging the man I guess.

You seem to me to have basically prejudged him based on the opinions and propaganda of what I can humorously call your fellow travelers of the left. Or am I wrong?


As to downvotes, imagine Mafia with anonymous voting... happy scum no? There are many other ways to make GOG forums less shitty, but disclosure of up and downvotes would go a long way.

You checked the link? The sons were guilty...

Language changes, but it is possible to determine how. Interpretation of historical texts is not magic and there are artifcts of all sorts helping provide context. So knock off the hyperbole unless you want to say a bunch of historians are basically con men.

Small correction: his dissents were entertaining.

That's not even remotely relevant to any point that I was making.

from senator Elizabeth Warren (and if you are disregarding what follows simply because of a person's name, you're doing it wrong):

"The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can't find a clause that says "...except when there's a year left in the term of a Democratic President."

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk."

You made some weird point about a Supreme Court judge being guilty of murder. I replied that my link about the historical episode of Brutus and his sons indicates the sons were guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the republic. Unless you consider legal executions of guilty people murder I have no idea what else you could have meant. I assumed you just did not read the link.


You said and I quote "originalism hasn't been a viable path to take in at least 200 years. ... it's a matter of reading tea leaves." I see no way this is logically true unless you assume the words and the historical context are completely inaccessible or unreliable.

My reply indicates very clearly that I find your point ridiculously hyperbolic implying I find it very possible and not at all "reading tea leaves" to do a proper historical reading of the constitution, its meaning, and the implicit founders' intent. There are of course limits to History (note the capital letter) but I can probably easily find for you a discussion I had here on GOG on the meaning of the 2nd amendment in the context of the Heller ruling - I assume you know Scalia drafted that ruling and it relied heavily on originalist jurisprudence.

Do you have a different objection to originalism? I don't consider the one you offered so far to be serious, unless you want to go deeper in whatever historiographic points you have of why originalism is somehow comparable to a mystical practice.

Is there anything written anywhere that the senate has to approve the nominee?

So let Obama nominate and let the Repubs do whatever they will do. They're all just playing the rhetoric game, this is groundwork for the future, with both sides trying to win the battle without fighting it where it should be fought.

You all should watch:

Bulworth

and

The Contender

In other words you didn't understand the point I made and/or chose to erect a strawman.

Originalism isn't viable for the simple reason that we can't go back and know what the framers meant beyond the narrow range of issues they wrote about which are relevant to current case law. They weren't omniscient and, for example, a situation where multiple planes are flown into multiple buildings on the same day and the ramifications of that on tracking everybody's private details via telecommunications equipment is not something that they ever expounded upon.

I'm not sure how you can be so dense as to not see the point there. We can't go back and ask them what they think about these kinds of issues and nobody has even directly talked with any of those people in centuries so we don't even have the option of guessing what they meant.

As far as murder goes, you're damn right the term for it is murder. People get convicted for murder over less than what Scalia is on record for. He gets special treatment because he's on the high court, but there's definitely innocent blood on his hands because he's more concerned with his ego than jurisprudence.

I understood you perfectly.

You are now shifting the goalposts by mentioning "beyond the narrow range of issues they wrote about" an trying to limit your argument to that scope. You said nothing of the sort earlier, your reply to me was general. And in fact that still changes nothing. I believe the originalist position is that what is not included, is left to the states.

Therefore all issues are covered - the ones where the position is constitutionally described, or interpreted from context and historical analysis - as well the ones where it is not explicit or implicit, where the power reverts to states to legislate. This is basic US politics... the first ones are those issues where the Supreme Court has the power to overturn legislation as unconstitutiional. The others it has no power to decide... or rather, should have no power... reality is different and more political.


You however seem to have missed my other point completely, and I am more and more certain you did not read the link I posted about the Brutus painting. I'll drop that so as to not confuse matters further. I still have no idea what you are talking about as being murder, and we're talking past each other on that.
Bulworth is a good movie. It's been years since I saw it... I don't think it was a big hit though?

Reported.

Thank you, I don't usually bother posting in thread like this as I don't think it's worth the effort. But when I do I try my best to consider all sides of the story and listen to the points of view of everyone.

I would say my initial impression was not so much based on what others have said here, but just on the label he was given as 'right-wing' or 'conservative' as I find that 99% of the time I'm likely to disagree with and dislike anyone labelled as such (though I'm definitely left leaning, I wouldn't particularly say I was on the left as I dislike a lot of them too). That probably makes me sound quite prejudiced, but I've had enough experience of the conservatives here to know I don't agree with most people who are labelled as such.
I've done a bit more research myself, and can't say my opinion of the man has changed. It's difficult to find unbiased views (particularly in a case like this, and at the moment as there is a lot of new stuff up because of his death) but from what I can see bude and dt's opinion of him seems pretty accurate, more so than the idea that by trying to uphold the constitution as it was originally meant (an absolutely moronic argument if ever I've heard one) makes him some kind of paragon of neutrality and justice. He was a bigot and a racist and clearly not unwilling to use his power to enforce those views.
Evil? Maybe not. Thoroughly unpleasant? Yep, I'd say so.

Yeah, I agree. At least you know who's actually attacking (or supporting) who then. To be honest the fact that bude and dt were being downvoted is why I broke my rule of not getting involved in such topics; not just that they were, but that people were trying to blame it on them being happy at Scalia's death rather then the more likely truth that people were doing it because of their political beliefs or leanings. If you have a problem with something at least come out and say what you're actual problem is rather than hiding behind a thinly veiled excuse.