Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2016 - 09:40pm PT
|
Thanks, Kris, for that excellent article. To my mind, it accurately reflects his opinions with which I'm familiar. Justice Scalia understood that if we allow words in a statute -- or in a constitution -- to mean what we want them to mean, rather than what they say, we ultimately have no legal protection from tyranny imposed by whoever is currently in power. It grieves me to think we are only one vote away from that tyranny.
John
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2016 - 09:55pm PT
|
"we ultimately have no legal protection from tyranny imposed by whoever is currently in power"
Pretty much describes Scalia to a T, especially with regard to disenfranchisement of poor and black voters.
But hey, they're too dumb for good colleges, so who cares if they're allowed to vote...right?
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2016 - 11:25pm PT
|
ONLY SIX DAYS AFTER SCALIA'S DEATH, THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN A POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE NATION
RACIAL GERRYMANDERING BY NORTH CAROLINA REPUBLICANS IS FINALLY QUASHED
NORTH CAROLINA MUST REDRAW CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS - - - AND DO IT LEGALLY, THIS TIME
2011 Redistricting in North Carolina - Ballotpedia
Supreme Court declines to halt order for North Carolina to redraw congressional districts - Reuters
After the 2010 census, North Carolina neither gained, nor lost any congressional seats. That didn't stop a Republican-controlled legislature from redrawing the congressional districts. The intent, and result, was to gerrymander the districts to disenfranchise and disempower Democratic voters. New districts were drawn with tortuously illogical borders, so as to pack as many Democratic voters into as few districts as possible. This left most the of congressional districts with an artificially-skewed Republican majority.
In the first congressional election held after the redistricting, in 2012, the Democrats won only 4 of the state's 13 Congressional seats, despite winning a state-wide majority of votes for House seats that year. The gerrymandered districts had succeeded in robbing Democratic voters of their political power.
In November, 2011, the redistricting was challenged in North Carolina State Court, which later rejected the challenge and ruled that the redistricting had been performed legally, correctly and properly.
In, December 2015, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld, for a second time, that the redistricting had been performed legally, and that nothing was amiss.
It was not surprising that the North Carolina courts refused to squelch a power grab by a select group of citizens. And, it was not surprising when the Federal government inevitably became involved to overrule the local courts, and to provide the appropriate judicial relief.
On February 5, 2016, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court ruled that the Republicans had engaged in racial gerrymandering, and that the redrawn congressional districts were unconstitutional. The District Court ordered North Carolina to redraw the gerrymandered districts within two weeks.
On February 9, 2016 North Carolina state officials appealed to the United States Supreme Court to stay the lower court's order for redistricting. It was expected that the right-leaning Supreme Court would issue the stay, and allow the Republican-gerrymandered districts to stand, at least through the March 15 primary elections in North Carolina.
On February 13, 2016, conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found deceased in his bed. The Supreme Court's 50-plus years of right-wing, conservative majority dominance ended on that morning. The remaining eight members of the Court would need to vote 5-3 to effect a ruling in a case. A 4-4 vote would have the effect of upholding a lower court's ruling, the same as if the Supreme Court had declined to hear the case at all.
Because the North Carolina gerrymandered congressional districts were so obviously demarcated along political party lines, it was highly likely that a 4-4 vote in the ideologically polarized Supreme Court would result.
On February 16, 2016, the Supreme Court declined to stay the lower court's order. The District Court's order was upheld. North Carolina must redraw the congressional districts, in a legally acceptable manner.
Welcome to the dawn of a new day.
Antonin Scalia,
R.I.P.A.G.R
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2016 - 01:35am PT
|
Justice Scalia understood that if we allow words in a statute -- or in a constitution -- to mean what we want them to mean, rather than what they say, we ultimately have no legal protection from tyranny imposed by whoever is currently in power. It grieves me to think we are only one vote away from that tyranny.
wow, a bit over the top, don't you think John?
And an interesting view on the meaning of words, word meaning changes with time, so much so that some passages in the Constitution are difficult to parse to a modern reader. So difficult, that much time is spent in law school learning what the meaning of those words are...
Without the ability for words to change their meaning little intellectual progress can be made... certainly that is true in science. It is not to say they can mean anything, but to say that as we gather experience we might find that their original meanings do not quite describe those experiences. The second amendment is an example in which the words have a very different meaning now then they once did, and are subject to misunderstanding, though I'm sure that you and others will volunteer to me just how they should be read, devoid of any connection to how they were "meant" to be read when they were written.
The idea of a "dead" Constitution might be appealing to some, but like all dead things, it would cease to be able to directly contribute to its own narrative. There is plenty of room between the idea of a living document, and the reign of tyranny.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2016 - 03:20am PT
|
A Constitutional Originalist can be compared to a Christian Fundamentalist. They both claim to have access to superior wisdom, simply by referring to a sacred, original written source.
Both Originalists and Fundamentalists can invoke literal interpretation of their written sources as justification for perverse corruptions of the doctrines contained within those same sources.
For example, most people in America don't believe that physically beating a woman into subservience is a Christian thing to do. And, neither is subduing a young child by striking him with a club.
But, many Christian Fundamentalists (as seen on TV) invoke the literal words of the Bible, and state that a woman's role is to obey her man. And that if you spare the rod, and you will spoil the child (wife).
The followers of those Fundamentalist preachers may, or may not actually physically assault their families to terrorize them. But, I have personally seen families that were clearly terrorized by a Bible-thumping husband. Just the threat of physical violence, justified by The Word of God is enough to control some people completely.
A majority of the work in the religious, legal and political professions comprises skillfully convincing people that the words in a holy book, statute, or Constitution, mean something other than what another person says they mean.
A lesser part of the work in the legal and political professions comprises skillfully writing statutes and Constitutions in an unambiguous manner in the first place.
If that task was feasible, or even possible, there would be little room for "creative interpretation", which is a euphemism for rhetorically twisting the facts to suit one's particular purpose or agenda.
Differing people will put forth different agendas, but invoke the exact same statute or law in support of their opposing arguments.
The Second Amendment is a great example of this, because the skillful politicians who drafted the Bill of Rights failed to eliminate ambiguity from the written document.
A well-armed militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Gun Control Faction interprets militia to mean the police and the army, but not ordinary citizens. Ergo, citizens have no Constitutional reason to own guns, which are often used to commit crimes. The security of the free state is maintained by a government-mandated, professional standing army. Thus, gun control laws are constitutional, and they protect society.
The Pro-Gun Faction interprets militia to include the citizenry, and especially if it means the citizenry defeating an army under the control of a tyrannical despot. Gun control laws, of any kind, prevent the militia from fulfilling their Constitutional right - nay, their duty - to shoot and kill a despotic tyrant who seizes control, and endangers the security of the free state. So, gun control laws are unconstitutional because they endanger society.
Both of those gun control arguments are based on an Originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment. Both derive their superior wisdom from referencing the original written document, even the exact same word, to prove their point.
The word Originalist has no meaning, whatsoever, as a useful descriptor.
Its role in language is, by turns, as an honorific or as an epithet, depending on the intent of the person using the word.
|
|
DanaB
climber
CT
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2016 - 04:02am PT
|
//The dissent's argument boils down to this: we're afraid of corporate political ads, so we can ban them despite what the First Amendment says about speech.
//
John, do you think it's that simplistic?
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2016 - 04:19am PT
|
In particular, I think that analysis should first determine if the group associates voluntarily or involuntarily, but even that distinction has ambiguity. Our Western-style of government is based on the philosophy of the Social Contract (Locke, Rousseau, etc.). In fact, the first several paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence come straight from the Social Contract playbook.
Philosophically, our form of government is a "voluntary" association. We the People form a government to protect our "inalienable" rights - "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Under the Social Contract, the people agree to the responsibility of abiding by law in exchange for protection.
By definition, we have the right to replace the government with a new government (e.g., revolution) if the government is not living up to it's side of the contract.
In reality, our "association" in modern times is involuntary, as you mentioned.
I would like us to go back to our roots - if you don't abide by our laws, then you have no right to protection of your rights, and you are ejected from our society.
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2016 - 06:49am PT
|
He kept trying to undo 40 years of moving a head...
His son is a priest... Ha ha ha I hope that the rest of the brood never breeds
Glad he is dead. In the history of things he will be seen for the w
O if you Place those letters to greatest position, all in a row next to each other
I'll be said to be offensive. To have gon to far but look at what he did to woman's health care
criminal, should never have been a Supreme anything other than the letter after M+azi he was
The views he tried to ram down our collective throats were so old that a 90 year old disagreed
With what he said
Apple schmeeer
|
|
LilaBiene
Trad climber
Technically...the spawning grounds of Yosemite
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2016 - 03:54pm PT
|
Thanks for posting the link to the article in the Washington Post, Kris. Good stuff.
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 04:33am PT
|
THE LAST TIME A SUPREME COURT VACANCY OCCURRED IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR WAS 1956.
Justice Brennan was confirmed, with only one dissenting vote.
The Republicans want everybody to forget this.
EDIT:
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell are LIARS when they say that there is long tradition of presidents declining to fill Supreme Court vacancies.
In the past 152 years, every Supreme Court vacancy during a presidential election year was quickly filled by the president.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 07:42am PT
|
Sorry, to the victor belong the spoils. There's no prize for second place.
Not my design, just the way it is.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 07:44am PT
|
Being an anti-partisan is just another party which stick to their partisan ideology of anti-partisanship
how many here say the same thing over and over
they're all the same, they're all bad
they're all bought and sold
blah blah
falling on deaf ears
maybe look a little deeper
very few agree
Just look back to the Bush years
it could be a lot worse
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2016 - 03:01pm PT
|
The guilty always have an excuse.
So do we innocents. I'm guilty of calling them "reasons" instead of excuses, but you choose the side that suits you.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2016 - 02:15pm PT
|
THE LAST TIME A SUPREME COURT VACANCY OCCURRED IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR WAS 1956.
Justice Brennan was confirmed, with only one dissenting vote.
The Republicans want everybody to forget this.
Are you aware, Tom, that Justice Brennan was a liberal? Would Obama likely nominate a centrist or conservative? Not unless you define centrist as someone slightly to the right of the Occupy movement and left of, say, Hillary Clinton.
As for the effect of money in politics, I see that Jeb Bush, the Republican candidate with the biggest campaign contributions, by far, bowed out. So much for money being the decisive factor. I don't expect the press, still damning Scalia after his death as cowards do, to pick up on this point.
John
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2016 - 02:32pm PT
|
That is so weak John
The Koch Brothers will spend $860 million
and they will get results
Most the money goes to lower levels
like Governors, Congress and judges
and how will that money be spent
On Smear Campaigns against the Dems
Where is Rubio's money coming from, Kasich, Cruz???
All billionaires and big money interests
And WHY Was your hero spending time at a ranch that has business in front of the Court???
Why do Scalia and Thomas go to Koch Brother functions?
Why did he decide Gore vs. Bush?
Because Scalia was Corrupt as they come, it's as simple as that.
Of Course Obama should appoint a Liberal
Who would Romney Appoint? a conservative
That's the way it works
The people elect the President to represent them
The elected President appoints a justice that represent the electorate
And yes, the tyranny of the five conservative judges has come to a close.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2016 - 02:51pm PT
|
Three Worst Supreme Court Justices...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-singer/three-worst-supreme-court_b_9261632.html
Antonin Scalia, who died last week, was a man of narrow-minded bigotry that he papered over with a theory of jurisprudence he called textualism and original intent.
Scalia claimed, "I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words. I'm not very good at determining what the aspirations of the American people are . . . If you want somebody who's in touch with what are the evolving standards of decency that reflect a maturing society, ask the congress." However, as applied by Scalia, this judicial theory meant that since he was smarter than everybody else and very argumentative, the other justices should agree that words of the Constitution mean want he wants them to mean.
Scalia's closed mindedness extended to religious beliefs that he tried to impose on others through his position on the Supreme Court. It seems not only was he better than everyone else at interpreting the Constitution but also at understanding the Christian Bible. Although he claimed to be a devote Roman Catholic, Scalia rejected the Vatican II reforms of Pope John XXIII and only attended churches that still used the Latin mass. In a 2013 interview Scalia attributed evil in today's world, or at least the things he saw as evil, to the devil who Scalia charged was responsible for a decline in religious belief. According to Scalia, "In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He's making pigs run off cliffs, he's possessing people and whatnot ... What he's doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He's much more successful that way."
One of Scalia's most twisted arguments was his concurring position as part of the Citizens United majority that tossed out a federal law restricting corporate donations to political campaigns. For Scalia, corporations are entitled to the same rights as people including "corporate speech." The Citizens United decision allows wealthy individuals like the Koch brothers and powerful businesses to dominate United States elections through money "donated" to "independent" political action committees.
Scalia claimed his vote was in "conformity" with the First Amendment because "Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals" and corporations as legal "individuals" are entitled to equal protection of the law. Scalia concluded, "to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate."
Some of Scalia's other more outrageous and injudicious statements made over the years include:
On due process: "I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial."
On racial equality: "It does not benefit African-Americans to -- to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less -- a slower-track school where they do well."
On the death penalty, choice, and same-sex marriage: "The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state."
On equal rights for people who are gay: "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?"
Scalia had the ability to be completely blind to his own hypocrisy. He criticized the Court's decision recognizing same-sex marriage because "To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation." However he had no problem when five members of the group of nine determined the winner of the 2000 Presidential election putting George Bush into office.
The other 2 worst are Roger Taney and Henry Billings Brown
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2016 - 04:18pm PT
|
Are you aware, Tom, that Justice Brennan was a liberal?
So was Eisenhower. At least by today's standards. My Bircher buddy says he was a Commie.
|
|
vlani
Trad climber
mountain view, ca
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2016 - 04:21pm PT
|
"In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He's making pigs run off cliffs, he's possessing people and whatnot ... What he's doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He's much more successful that way."
So Scalia believed in Satan? He was a satanist then?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!