Scalia is a Scoundrel

My message 9 did that, and by asking you a legitimate question about other judges, the discussion could have gone into more detail in comparing human characteristics of judges. But you didn't answer that question, you responded only by requesting something more than bare links, as if more than a bare link was required before you could answer my question.So in message 12, I complied with your request, easily proving that liberals on the court are far worse than anything you've provided about Scalia, concerning opinionated rulings. But you've provided very little about Scalia's actions that you disapprove of thus far, and you've specifically addressed nothing from my message 12. During work today I was anticipating analyzing some of Anthony Kennedy's methods of choosing his interpretive scheme to fit his desired ends this evening, but I see it's way too soon for that. That's because your guess was wrong. I was giving a general overview of how the opinions of activist, liberal judges are much more involved in their decision making than are the opinions of the more originalist judges like Antonin Scalia.The terms "originalist" and "activist" judges are fairly widely recognized - Wikipedia, not exactly a conservative source, describes them;Originalism - WikipediaandJudicial activism - WikipediaAs you can see, the judges personal opinion is much more involved in liberal judges decisions than in conservative (originalist) judges opinions, like Scalia's.I just genuinely don't understand how those on the left condemn conservative judges for having an opinion of ANY kind, however mild and minuscule compared to their overall decisions, and give a free pass to liberal judges for having opinions that are a huge part in their decisions. I can only guess that it's simply because they like liberal decisions, and don't like conservative ones. But, in condemning conservatives, they act like the opinion itself is the problem. It's a double standard. It works on a quick, surface drive by like a NY Times editorial, and in a love fest among liberals, but as we can see from your inability to answer almost ANY of my questions, it crashes and burns when subjected to a detailed discussion. In other words, crash and burn. If you decide to elaborate more on "Scalia's scurrilous behavior", or answer anymore of my legitimate questions, then we can continue. Otherwise I'm finished in this thread, and I'll check out for awhile. But this place is like the Hotel California, I can check out, but I can never leave.

Hi Marc,You seem to be making up your own topic, so I'll leave you to it. What I said and meant is contained in Message 1, and if you respond to things I actually said in a manner I can make sense of then I'll respond.--Percy

So it seems that if Justice Scalia agrees with the words then they must be interpreted precisely literally, and if he disagrees then they must be interpreted in context. What a scoundrel he is, and a blatant one at that.--Percy

---

Just a note: I find it incredible that liberals can find fault with Scalia’s well balanced dissenting opinion as they accept the twisted and convoluted logic required to make sense of Roberts and the liberal majorities unconstitutional decision. Nuff said on this issue.Edited by Admin, : Reduce message width.

Other than stating your opinion, you didn't say anything that addressed the contradictory behavior of Scalia described in the text you quoted.The forum makes codes available for quoting, see dBCode Help.--Percy

Not quite "nuff".Can you point to an unconstitutional decision that SCOTUS has made or at the least explain how SOCTUS could make an unconstitutional decision?Edited by jar, : NoyNot

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha choke ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha choke ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha choke ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha choke ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha choke ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha choke ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha choke ha ha ha ha ha ha

So yet again you offer no support or evidence or reasoning or anything more than I ask yet again: "how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?"What unconstitutional decisions has the SCOTUS made?

Hi jar They can't.But they made a law. In fact they have made several laws in the last couple of years.They have no authority to make a law that is the congresses job.They can only determine if the laws the congress pass are in accordance with the constitution.The Supreme Court or the President making laws is unconstitutional, and is called tyranny.God Bless,

No.

Well, this is disingenuous. It would be one thing to insist that these four words must take precedence over the legislative intent, but it is quite another thing to insist that they must express the legislative intent. Unless he has completely taken leave of his senses, he must know for a fact that they do not.

That's a nice sound bite. Now let's see you point to a provision of law or the constitution that backs you up.Any court in making a legal determination must interpret the law. Interpretation means a number of things including, but not limited to determining legislative intent when passing the law. Unfortunately for the current bunch in Congress, their current intent does not matter. It is instead the intent of the legislators who enacted passing the law that matters. We can note that not a single Republican voted for ACA.And of course to do their job the Supreme Court (like any other court) must interpret the law. And in fact for an appellate court one might make the case that interpretation of the law is their primary duty. What makes the Supreme Court special is only that the SC gets the last word on the subject. When the Supreme Court interprets the law, their word is binding on Congress and the President.FWIW, the entire law suit pretty much demonstrates how far from correct your position actually is. In the case of the dispute about the ACA, there were no constitutional issues at stake in the entire dispute. So apparently everyone involved in the law suit expected something other than a ruling about whether the law was unconstitutional. In fact, what both sides were expected was that the law would be interpreted according to what was in their legal briefs.Here is a link to article III, if you think that will help you make your case. But quite frankly, I'm just reading the standard wingnut grumbling about a case that did not proceed as you would have wished.Since there were no Constitutional issues involved, the legislature is free to fix whatever they don't like about the SC decision. So why aren't they simply passing a new law that prevents ACA from applying to exchanges established for but not by the States? Because in actuality, no Congressman really wants to do that.Article III | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Except they did not make a law.

Did they?Or, did they say the laws (marriage for example), as made by the state legislatures, must, by constitutional mandate, apply equally to all people and that the constitution does not allow a legislature to exclude any specified group of citizens from the equal protections of the law?Is that what you mean be "making law"?

What the courts do is like writing documentation as opposed to writing software. They can only tell you how to use the software. They can show you the workarounds to do what the developers never intended but only the developers can actually change the code.

Hi NoNukes Which sentence in Section 2 of Article 3 gives the Supreme Court the Authority to interpret the law?It does state:

quote:

---

Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

---

The affordable care act was passed and sold to the public as having a penalty. It would have never passed Congress as a tax.When it reached the Supreme Court the Court said it was a tax and upheld the law since it was a tax.Where did the Supreme Court get the authority to change the penalty to a tax?Section 7 of Article 1 states:

quote:

---

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;

---

Since the House of Representatives did not pass a law that stated the fee was a tax instead of a penalty the court had no authority to change the wording of the law making the penalty a tax.The court can only rule on the fact of the law. There is no place they can change the law passed by Congress.They should have declared the law unconstitutional and sent it back to the Congress for correction.But they knew it would never be changed and they made a political decision to uphold the law. They did not rule according to the Constitution but their political beliefs.God Bless,