A Tribute Thread to SC Justice Scalia

[NATI BENGALS]

It is a current event. Those are the things that get talked about around here. Did we turn into North Korea and I wasnt informed. I dare you to say something bad about the dear leader.

Give it a month and there wont be much interest in this topic. It will all be about his replacement.

So the group acting butt hurt because not everything said about the man was rainbows , butterflies , and roses... well welcome to the internet. People have opinions. Yea if we were at his funeral manners would be a little better. Just so happens we are on an internet message board.

[*bfine32*]

(02-16-2016, 01:26 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, I'd argue the part of this that makes Scalia look worst of all are his own words.  If compiling a list of a man's quotes makes for ridicule, he should have been less ridiculous when he spoke.  

Unless some of the quotes are not what he said. Many of the quotes in the OP have merit, but when some get "paraphrased" to fulfill a bias then those supporting it show their true colors. But feel free to argue away.

The man was not ridiculous when he spoke, but I do find humor in members of a football message board suggesting he was, simply because they disagreed with his views while lacking the mental capacity to fully understand them.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-16-2016, 01:26 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, I'd argue the part of this that makes Scalia look worst of all are his own words.  If compiling a list of a man's quotes makes for ridicule, he should have been less ridiculous when he spoke.  

Kind of like your mother telling you to wear clean underwear, only with the slant of being a member of SC that will impact the lives of 300M+ people. 

(02-16-2016, 01:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless some of the quotes are not what he said. Many of the quotes in the OP have merit, but when some get "paraphrased" to fulfill a bias then those supporting it show their true colors. But feel free to argue away.

The man was not ridiculous when he spoke, but I do find humor in members of a football message board suggesting he was, simply because they disagreed with his views while lacking the mental capacity to fully understand them.

As in the mental capacity to recognize the earth is more than 5,000 years old. Yeah, I don't have the mental capacity to understand why a person with that belief isn't ridiculed. Apparently the earth just wasn't young enough for him. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-16-2016, 02:05 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: As in the mental capacity to recognize the earth is more than 5,000 years old. Yeah, I don't have the mental capacity to understand why a person with that belief isn't ridiculed. Apparently the earth just wasn't young enough for him. 

I missed his judicial ruling on the age of the earth or why it has anything to do with his interpretation of the constitution, but it does seem important to you.  

[Bengalzona]

(02-16-2016, 01:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless some of the quotes are not what he said. Many of the quotes in the OP have merit, but when some get "paraphrased" to fulfill a bias then those supporting it show their true colors. But feel free to argue away.

The man was not ridiculous when he spoke, but I do find humor in members of a football message board suggesting he was, simply because they disagreed with his views while lacking the mental capacity to fully understand them.

When you want to expound upon his good points and virtues rather than criticize a paraphrase that basically said what he said, the floor has been and still is open.


Need help?

Justice Scalia had many good points.
- He had a great legal mind.
- He could argue against his opponents, such as Ruth Ginsberg, and still remain friends with them (they vacationed together several times I'm told).
- He was sincere in his beliefs.
- He liked opera and pizza and played piano.
- He was married to his wife Maureen for 56 years and they had 9 kids together.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-16-2016, 02:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I missed his judicial ruling on the age of the earth or why it has anything to do with his interpretation of the constitution, but it does seem important to you.  

It means he's a dumb **** and that lack of intellect leaked it's way into your daily life.  Apparently that's not important to you. 

[GMDino]

(02-16-2016, 02:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I missed his judicial ruling on the age of the earth or why it has anything to do with his interpretation of the constitution, but it does seem important to you.  

I'll disagree on this point.

I'm not saying a judge should be fluent in all science, but if someone is a literal interpreter of the bible it would HAVE to affect their daily decisions including ones on the bench.  

That is not something I necessarily want anymore than someone making decisions based on any other holy book literally.

And, of course, that doesn't mean he made bad decisions because of his religious beliefs...just that it would have to be part of his decision making.

[Vlad]

(02-16-2016, 03:02 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: It means he's a dumb **** and that lack of intellect leaked it's way into your daily life.  Apparently that's not important to you. 

Awww, and how did Scalia affect the daily life of poor Vas Deferens?

[Vlad]

(02-15-2016, 04:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have no reason to respect him.  

(02-16-2016, 02:27 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: When you want to expound upon his good points and virtues rather than criticize a paraphrase that basically said what he said, the floor has been and still is open.


Need help?

Justice Scalia had many good points.
- He had a great legal mind.
- He could argue against his opponents, such as Ruth Ginsberg, and still remain friends with them (they vacationed together several times I'm told).
- He was sincere in his beliefs.
- He liked opera and pizza and played piano.
- He was married to his wife Maureen for 56 years and they had 9 kids together.

Are you sure about that Fred?

You forgot about another good point Zona. People like you and Fred should be kissing Scalias nutsack.

He was a fierce defender of criminals.

Still, Scalia’s opinions for the court—and, as ferociously, his dissents—have shaped the landscape of protections afforded to criminal defendants. Charles Ogletree, a famed public defender, adviser to President Obama, and Harvard Law School professor, said of Scalia, a brilliant, colorful, towering giant of the legal community who died suddenly on Saturday at the age of 79, “We are from different worlds, but we both appreciate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” Here are the myriad ways in which Scalia treated the founding document as protections against overzealous police investigations, intrusions on the right of the accused to examine witnesses at trial, and attacks on the right to a jury trial.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/antonin_scalia_was_often_a_friend_of_criminal_defendants.html

“I ought to be the darling of the criminal defense bar,” Scalia once pleaded. “I have defended criminal defendants’ rights—because they’re there in the original Constitution—to a greater degree than most judges have.”

[GMDino]

(02-16-2016, 11:01 AM)Vlad Wrote: Awww, and how did Scalia affect the daily life of poor Vas Deferens?

Citizen United affected everyone a lot more than his dissent on the ACA.

Just as one example.

[*bfine32*]

(02-16-2016, 02:27 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: When you want to expound upon his good points and virtues rather than criticize a paraphrase that basically said what he said, the floor has been and still is open.


Need help?

Justice Scalia had many good points.
- He had a great legal mind.
- He could argue against his opponents, such as Ruth Ginsberg, and still remain friends with them (they vacationed together several times I'm told).
- He was sincere in his beliefs.
- He liked opera and pizza and played piano.
- He was married to his wife Maureen for 56 years and they had 9 kids together.

If your intent for creating this thread was to actually honor the man, as you have suggested, then please accept my apology. If your intent was to besmirch the man's legacy at the most inopportune time then my orginal objection remains; regardless of the validity of any meme. I took it as the latter, given the tone of the memes and ending it with the question: "Does anybody still miss him?".

Perhaps it was just the synic in me that viewed to intent of the message in a negative light. The apology has been extended, only you truely know if it is required.

[*Nately120*]

(02-16-2016, 01:42 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Unless some of the quotes are not what he said. Many of the quotes in the OP have merit, but when some get "paraphrased" to fulfill a bias then those supporting it show their true colors. But feel free to argue away.

The man was not ridiculous when he spoke, but I do find humor in members of a football message board suggesting he was, simply because they disagreed with his views while lacking the mental capacity to fully understand them.

I disagree with any man who makes it his life's work to oppress people.  Forgive me if I happen to let my extreme distaste for his mission cloud the way I see him as a person and/or interpret his words.

It is entirely possible I lack the mental fortitude to see the wisdom behind Scalia's words and actions...but that's why I ascribe to the simply philosophy of freedom and rights for all.  Durp, I'm too dumb to see the nuances in selectively assigning rights to the American populace.  Durrrrr!  Ya got me.

[*bfine32*]

(02-16-2016, 01:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I disagree with any man who makes it his life's work to oppress people.  Forgive me if I happen to let my extreme distaste for his mission cloud the way I see him as a person and/or interpret his words.

It is entirely possible I lack the mental fortitude to see the wisdom behind Scalia's words and actions...but that's why I ascribe to the simply philosophy of freedom and rights for all.  Durp, I'm too dumb to see the nuances in selectively assigning rights to the American populace.  Durrrrr!  Ya got me.

Okey Dokey. I sure you would be happier if everyone shared your awesome points of view. Unfortunately they do not and it appears Justice Scalia was one of them. Fortunately the system is designed to have 9 Justices, that way even if every justice doesn't agree with your POV, if the majority do, then your awesome thoughts are passed.

Folks can hate on Scalia all they want, but the bottom line is he was not a totalitarian and his decension was often vital in determining the Constitutionality of many cases. You know, just in the off-chance that one of your awesome ideas may not be Constitutional. 

Who knows maybe one day all 9 Judge will share you awesome views and you have to dislike any of them.

[fredtoast]

(02-16-2016, 01:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Dokey. I sure you would be happier if everyone shared your awesome points of view. Unfortunately they do not and it appears Justice Scalia was one of them. Fortunately the system is designed to have 9 Justices, that way even if every justice doesn't agree with your POV, if the majority do, then your awesome thoughts are passed.

Folks can hate on Scalia all they want, but the bottom line is he was not a totalitarian and his decension was often vital in determining the Constitutionality of many cases. You know, just in the off-chance that one of your awesome ideas may not be Constitutional. 

Who knows maybe one day all 9 Judge will share you awesome views and you have to dislike any of them.

What does this even mean?

None of us are allowed to disagree with a Supreme Court decision?

If that is not what you mean then please explain.  We all know how the system works.  I just don't see how that means we are not allowed to disagree.

Are you aware that sometimes even the Supreme Court justices themselves disagree with the ruling of a previous court.  If no one ever disagreed with the Dred Scott decision then it would still be good law.

[*bfine32*]

(02-16-2016, 01:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What does this even mean?

None of us are allowed to disagree with a Supreme Court decision?

If that is not what you mean then please explain.  We all know how the system works.  I just don't see how that means we are not allowed to disagree.

Are you aware that sometimes even the Supreme Court justices themselves disagree with the ruling of a previous court.  If no one ever disagreed with the Dred Scott decision then it would still be good law.

Of course you are allowed to disagree with a SCOTUS decision, not sure where I said otherwise and I have said numerous times that I disagree with some of the more recent decisions. I further understand that the Justices often disagree among themselves and the lower court's decisions, most likely why they have a odd number; so a Majority can be reached.

The point is Justice Scalia was vetted and appointed to serve as a SCJ, as were the current other 8. Whether you or I agree with the opinion of every Justice on every case is of little relavence. It is the system that is in place and believe it or not sometimes we can learn something from someone that has a different POV than ours (I realize that it not the case in this forum).

The fact that folks are taking this opportunity to take shots at his legacy or state they have "no respect' for him even before a Burial Ceremony is performed  simply because they disagreed with his interpretation of many cases is juevinile and in poor taste. Death does not make you immune to critcisim as some here are trying to suggest is being implied nor does disagreeing with someone make them immune to compassion and even respect. But hey that's just my opinion, you are entitled to yours

[fredtoast]

(02-16-2016, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  But hey that's just my opinion, you are entitled to yours

(02-16-2016, 01:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Dokey. I sure you would be happier if everyone shared your awesome points of view. Unfortunately they do not

And I am not even going to point out your typo because I know exactly what you mean.  I always think that is silly.

[Vlad]

(02-16-2016, 11:13 AM)Vlad Wrote: Are you sure about that Fred?

You forgot about another good point Zona. People like you and Fred should be kissing Scalias nutsack.

He was a fierce defender of criminals.

Still, Scalia’s opinions for the court—and, as ferociously, his dissents—have shaped the landscape of protections afforded to criminal defendants. Charles Ogletree, a famed public defender, adviser to President Obama, and Harvard Law School professor, said of Scalia, a brilliant, colorful, towering giant of the legal community who died suddenly on Saturday at the age of 79, “We are from different worlds, but we both appreciate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” Here are the myriad ways in which Scalia treated the founding document as protections against overzealous police investigations, intrusions on the right of the accused to examine witnesses at trial, and attacks on the right to a jury trial.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/antonin_scalia_was_often_a_friend_of_criminal_defendants.html

“I ought to be the darling of the criminal defense bar,” Scalia once pleaded. “I have defended criminal defendants’ rights—because they’re there in the original Constitution—to a greater degree than most judges have.”

Freddy?

[GMDino]

Serious question:

Does it matter if people take umbrage with Scalia's decisions before or after he dies?

Respect for the family aside.  They are probably not reading these posts...and if they are smart they never read anything about his decisions due to the hatred that can come from those who disagree.

I mean one thread that was obviously sarcastic with its title and then content isn't dancing on his grave to me.

[*bfine32*]

(02-16-2016, 02:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: Serious question:

Does it matter if people take umbrage with Scalia's decisions before or after he dies?

Respect for the family aside.  They are probably not reading these posts...and if they are smart they never read anything about his decisions due to the hatred that can come from those who disagree.

I mean one thread that was obviously sarcastic with its title and then content isn't dancing on his grave to me.

As I mentioned in my apology if the intent of the thread is to simply discuss his decisions or in your words take umbrage with them. then no. If the intent is to tarnish a man's legacy so soon after his passing, then yes. Also many of the comments here have gone much further than taking umbrage with his decisions



As I said, if the intent was anything other than to tarnish his reputation then i apologize to the OP and those simply wishing to discuss his decisions. If the OP's and anyone else's comments were meant to belittle the person, then I do not.

Now that I've answered yours, kindly answer mine:

Why do you think this thread was created, given there were already two threads discussing his passing?

[fredtoast]

(02-16-2016, 02:06 PM)Vlad Wrote: Freddy?

even as a drimnal defense attorney i disagree with some of Scalia's opinions.  

For example taking a DNA sample from a criminal is no different than taking fingerprints.  It is a valuable tool to protect us all from criminals.  And there is not clear language in the Constitution that says we can not do it.  

I also disagree with his opinion on putting a tracking device on a vehicle.  Police (when they have a valid reason) are allowed to follow people where ever they go in their cars, so I don't see how a tracking device is any different.  It does absolutely nothing to protect any right of the individual.  Of course I think that the police need to have a warrant to do this.  I am not sure if that was the issue in that case or not.