A Tribute Thread to SC Justice Scalia

[Bengalzona]

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



"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."



"I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion."

"The mere possession of monopoly power, and the concomitant charging of monopoly prices, is not only not unlawful, it is an important element of the free-market system. The opportunity to charge monopoly prices - at least for a short period - is what attracts 'business acumen' in the first place; it induces risk taking that produces innovation and economic growth." (Love the triple negative there!)





Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/1405186

Anybody missing him after reading some of that?

[Benton]

gotta admit, hr had me at orgies.

[Bengalzona]

(02-15-2016, 01:43 AM)Benton Wrote: gotta admit, hr had me at orgies.

Now that I think about it, it only makes sense that we should put someone to death who is factually innocent! I mean, the court said so, right?

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2016, 01:49 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Now that I think about it, it only makes sense that we should put someone to death who is factually innocent! I mean, the court said so, right?

http://www.snopes.com/scalia-death-penalty-quote/

Quote:However, that's not all of what he said. Although Scalia concurred with the court's 6-3 Herrera v. Collinsdecision that such a claim didn't serve as exclusive grounds for that specific form of relief, the content of his written opinion only vaguely resembled what was implied by that out-of-context quote.

Quote:Justice Scalia said that sufficient legal relief already existed for people presenting new evidence of innocence, not that factual innocence was irrelevant. Scalia also said that ruling differently would have imposed an unmanageable burden on lower courts to review newly discovered evidence:

Kick dirt on his grave if you want I suppose.

[Bengalzona]

(02-15-2016, 01:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: http://www.snopes.com/scalia-death-penalty-quote/



Kick dirt on his grave if you want I suppose.

But, as the Snopes article points out, he did actually say: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2016, 02:13 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: But, as the Snopes article points out, he did actually say: "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."

http://news.lawreader.com/2008/08/30/barry-miller-widely-published-scalia-quote-re-innocense-is-inaccurate-we-have-to-agree/

Quote:LawReader user Barry Miller has brought to our attention a widely published misquote of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia.  We have no idea how this quote arose, but upon review we conclude it is nothing more than an edited version and not the actual words of Scalia.

The following quote is widely published and is attributed to Justice Scalia:
 
“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.”
 

The quote is attributed to the U.S. Supreme Court case of:  Herrera v. Collins 506 US 390 1993 .
 

Miller called this issue to our attention, and we have investigated the facts, and we conclude that he is correct.  Miller noted that he does not necessarily agree with Scalia, but he does feel he should be accurately quoted and quoted in context.   We agree.
 

The misquote is generally correct but these are not the exact words of Justice Scalia, and as Miller points out they are out of context when read without an understanding of the reasoning behind this issue.

This is what he said

 "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."

Kick away...

[Bengalzona]

(02-15-2016, 02:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: http://news.lawreader.com/2008/08/30/barry-miller-widely-published-scalia-quote-re-innocense-is-inaccurate-we-have-to-agree/


This is what he said

 "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."

Kick away...

And as your article says, "The misquote is generally correct..."

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2016, 02:41 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: And as your article says, "The misquote is generally correct..."

Quote:The misquote is generally correct but these are not the exact words of Justice Scalia, and as Miller points out they are out of context when read without an understanding of the reasoning behind this issue.

Less than I expected from you. 


This guy that knows more about law and the Constitution that you, I, the guy that wrote the article, the guy that created the meme you quoted gave an affirmation of a SCOTUS decision and you guys throw this propaganda out the day after he dies because.....

[BmorePat87]

When you take profound quotes regarding the constitution out of context, they can sound silly.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(02-15-2016, 02:53 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: When you take profound quotes regarding the constitution out of context, they can sound silly.

which also comes down to a general misunderstanding of exactly what the judges do.
In most of these cases for the quotes he was often having to play devil's advocate or simply attempting to show the flaws in the other parties. 
It's what they are supposed to do.

We don't claim that lawyers who defend rapists and murderers think those acts are okay...why do we project these things on judges? 

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 02:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: http://news.lawreader.com/2008/08/30/barry-miller-widely-published-scalia-quote-re-innocense-is-inaccurate-we-have-to-agree/


This is what he said

 "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."

Kick away...

I'll kick tons of dirt on the grave of any man who says that an innocent man with new proof of his innocence should be executed anyway.

That is pure evil.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-15-2016, 02:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: http://news.lawreader.com/2008/08/30/barry-miller-widely-published-scalia-quote-re-innocense-is-inaccurate-we-have-to-agree/


This is what he said

 "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."

Kick away...

Do you even know what you are quoting there?


The way that reads to me isnt some almighty power quote. Sounds ignorant to me. Just like the one you are trying to debunk.

You rep dude because he is Christian  and Republican. 

Anybody trying to use their power to bring their religion into my government wont be missed.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-15-2016, 03:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I'll kick tons of dirt on the grave of any man who says that an innocent man with new proof of his innocence should be executed anyway.

That is pure evil.

Exactly what i got out of it.

Oh you have absolute proof of your innocence. Sorry bro judge has ruled, we got more important things than your life to do. You should have had political cronies or big money or something. Because........ ... ...

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2016, 03:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I'll kick tons of dirt on the grave of any man who says that an innocent man with new proof of his innocence should be executed anyway.

That is pure evil.

Nobody ever accused you of knowing the rule of law.  

But feel free to go with the sound bite;  instead of what the SCJ has actually saying.

Unlike Zona, I expected this from you. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2016, 03:16 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Do you even know what you are quoting there?


The way that reads to me isnt some almighty power quote. Sounds ignorant to me. Just like the one you are trying to debunk.

You rep dude because he is Christian  and Republican. 

Anybody trying to use their power to bring their religion into my government wont be missed.

I have zero idea if he is a Republican; however, I hope he is a Christian.

I also have zero idea how this equates to bringing one's religion into your government. 

These folks interpret the Constitution based on their learned interpretation.

Many times I have disagreed with a decision made by SCOUTUS, but never once questioned their motivation for doing so.

The recently passed was a conservative and interpreted the Constitution and lower court decisions as such. But the usual suspects will look to a sound bite to belittle him because....  

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 03:26 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nobody ever accused you of knowing the rule of law.  

But feel free to go with the sound bite;  instead of what the SCJ has actually saying.

Unlike Zona, I expected this from you. 

Wait, what?

Yu are trying to claim that Scalia never said that an innocent mane with new proof of his innocence should be executed anyway?

Then what did you think he was saying?

As for the rule of law I am probably the only one here who even knew what the issue was in Herrera v Collins.

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 03:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The recently passed was a conservative and interpreted the Constitution and lower court decisions as such.

Actually he did not.

If you believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution then point out where it says that corporations are people and money is speech.  Cause i have read the constitution and I didn't see anything like that.

Scalia was a hypocrite and a shill for religious organizations and big business.

You know noting of his actual opinions and just love him because you agree with his political beliefs.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-15-2016, 03:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have zero idea if he is a Republican; however, I hope he is a Christian.

I also have zero idea how this equates to bringing one's religion into your government. 

These folks interpret the Constitution based on their learned interpretation.

Many times I have disagreed with a decision made by SCOUTUS, but never once questioned their motivation for doing so.

The recently passed was a conservative and interpreted the Constitution and lower court decisions as such. But the usual suspects will look to a sound bite to belittle him because....  

Sure sounds like a load of shit. Many disagreements with the Supreme court rulings huh? But they are all just so good you never question why? Yea... I never say BS either.

You are talking about "the recently passed" like he was a saint and quoting him basically saying tough shit if you have evidence proving innocence if you have already been convicted. Acting like its something great.

I really wasnt looking for a sound bite. I just read what you posted. And I wouldnt want anybody making the final call on laws if that was their mentality.

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2016, 03:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You know noting of his actual opinions and just love him because you agree with his political beliefs.

Where exactly did I pledge my love for Scalia?

I just find it in poor taste what you and the other usual suspects are trying to do.

The guy gave profound statements on the rule of law (regardless what you say, you are not the only one that knows what that means), yet his conviction to the rule of law and interpretation of the Constitution makes him an easy target for those that feel they have gained from his passing. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2016, 04:00 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Sure sounds like a load of shit. Many disagreements with the Supreme court rulings huh? But they are all just so good you never question why? Yea... I never say BS either.

Really I don't, but I cannot blame you for making assumptions.

SCOTUS recent decisions on SSM and Obamacare where issues I disagreed with, but nowhere did I state they were wrong. 

I have further stated that Obama should nominate Scalia's replacement. Guess I'm just conservative because I consider pissing on the guy's grave to be in poor taste.