Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scalia is a Scoundrel
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 16 of 108 (761371)
06-30-2015 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
06-30-2015 7:55 AM


Your post, on the other hand, could be paraphrased as, "This link says the liberals on the court are just as bad."
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.
I can only guess that Marc was trying to argue that Ginsberg was contradictory in arguing both for and against referencing laws or decisions of other nations in Supreme Court decisions, but the speech excerpts Mark chose don't support that interpretation,
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 - Wikipedia
and
Judicial activism - Wikipedia
As 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.
I don't know that there's any effective way to have a discussion with a free-association style.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 06-30-2015 7:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 07-01-2015 8:19 AM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22693
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 17 of 108 (761401)
07-01-2015 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by marc9000
06-30-2015 7:28 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by marc9000, posted 06-30-2015 7:28 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1470 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 18 of 108 (762913)
07-17-2015 9:20 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 07-17-2015 9:39 PM Archangel has not replied
 Message 20 by jar, posted 07-17-2015 9:48 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22693
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 19 of 108 (762917)
07-17-2015 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Archangel
07-17-2015 9:20 PM


Archangel writes:
Nuff said on this issue.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Archangel, posted 07-17-2015 9:20 PM Archangel has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 20 of 108 (762918)
07-17-2015 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Archangel
07-17-2015 9:20 PM


how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
AA writes:
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.
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

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Archangel, posted 07-17-2015 9:20 PM Archangel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 9:59 PM jar has replied
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2015 1:02 AM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1557 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 108 (762921)
07-17-2015 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
07-17-2015 9:48 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 07-17-2015 9:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 07-17-2015 10:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 22 of 108 (762923)
07-17-2015 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
07-17-2015 9:59 PM


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

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 07-17-2015 9:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 140 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 23 of 108 (762935)
07-18-2015 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
07-17-2015 9:48 PM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
Hi jar
jar writes:
Can you point to an unconstitutional decision that SCOTUS has made or at the least explain how SOCTUS could make an unconstitutional decision?
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,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 07-17-2015 9:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2015 1:32 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2015 2:10 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 27 by jar, posted 07-18-2015 8:43 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 28 by AZPaul3, posted 07-18-2015 9:01 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 07-18-2015 12:06 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 108 (762936)
07-18-2015 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
07-18-2015 1:02 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
But they made a law. In fact they have made several laws in the last couple of years.
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2015 1:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 108 (762937)
07-18-2015 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
06-26-2015 12:19 PM


It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words "established by the State." And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words "by the State" other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 06-26-2015 12:19 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2015 12:04 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(5)
Message 26 of 108 (762938)
07-18-2015 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
07-18-2015 1:02 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
They can only determine if the laws the congress pass are in accordance with the constitution.
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 Institute
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2015 1:02 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2015 12:14 PM NoNukes has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 27 of 108 (762946)
07-18-2015 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
07-18-2015 1:02 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
Except they did not make a law.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2015 1:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 28 of 108 (762955)
07-18-2015 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
07-18-2015 1:02 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
But they made 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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2015 1:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 29 of 108 (762965)
07-18-2015 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
07-18-2015 1:02 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
ICANT writes:
But they made a 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 07-18-2015 1:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 140 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 30 of 108 (762966)
07-18-2015 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NoNukes
07-18-2015 2:10 AM


Re: how can the Supreme Court make an unconstitutional decision?
Hi NoNukes
NoNukes writes:
And of course to do their job the Supreme Court (like any other court) must interpret the law.
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,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2015 2:10 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2015 5:34 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024