Antonin Scalia: RIP

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 61 - 80 of total 483 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Feb 14, 2016 - 12:17pm PT
The Scalia "quote" sounded suspicious to me, so I took a few minutes to see what was going on. Here it is:

The Scalia "quote" about evolution is a fabrication, unless you think that every time you say what someone else said, then that's a quote attributable to you.
The "quote" is from Scalia's summary of testimony of a witness.
Anyone who cares can read about it here:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3232659778662846156&q=edwards+v.+aguillard&hl=en&as_sdt=4006&as_vis=1

This is what Scalia said about his summary of the witness's testimony:
Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his supporters, I wish to make clear that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy.


As far as I can tell from quick Internet searching, the fabricated "quote" comes from a website that apologized for it (although then went on to say there's a "larger point" about Scalia being wrong. Maybe, but that's not much of an excuse to make up a "quote" from someone when in fact it's just a summary of someone else's testimony (and Scalia explicitly noted that he did not necessarily agree with the summary).


Scalia is wrong. “Creation science” has no educational value. The assumption that creationism constitutes a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is simply false. Religious myth and superstition have no place in the science classroom. Teaching children creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is a form of child abuse and should not be tolerated.
(H/T Daily Kos)
(Update: Several diligent readers have complained that the above quote taken from Scalia’s dissent is unfairly attributed to Scalia and taken out of context since Scalia prefaced the quoted remarks by claiming to be only paraphrasing the arguments being made in favor of teaching creationism. The readers’ complaints have merit, and the author wishes to apologizes for any confusion. However, the larger point still stands: Scalia was wrong to defend the teaching of creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution.)


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/06/scalia-commencement-speech-supports-young-earth-creationism/
Dave Davis

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Feb 14, 2016 - 01:18pm PT
The snarkiness and attempts at humor Scalia often exhibited in writing and giving his opinions often struck me as more form over substance. In other words, perhaps a little more refined version of what Donald Trump does. Glad to see him go from the bench, but not in this manner as I believe he probably had some good attributes as well. On a personal level his best friend on the court was Ruth Bader Ginsberg and he was also close to Elena Kagan. I disagreed with the man vehemently, but I have people among my friends that I do as well. Ultimately the guy was still a husband, father, grandfather and friend to many people. I find it ironic that he and the President have a similar background- Harvard law and teaching at the University of Chicago. In my fantasy world Congress won't let the nomination through and the next Pres. appoints Obama. There would be some poetic justice...
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Feb 14, 2016 - 01:26pm PT
Blah,
you're right Scalia was quoting. However he is using the pretense of quoting someone else so he could claim he was not there to judge whether creation science is correct. He wouldn't have quoted such silliness if he didn't think it was relevant.
He claims it only matters if the Louisiana politicians believed it was correct, which is complete nonsense.
Creationism is not science, and Scalia's many pages of quotes to the contrary do not change that.

"But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point. Our task is not to judge the debate about teaching the origins of life, but to ascertain what the members of the Louisiana Legislature believed. The vast majority of them voted to approve a bill which explicitly stated a secular purpose; what is crucial is not their wisdom in believing that purpose would be achieved by the bill, but their sincerity in believing it would be."

It is said that Scalia has some history of using his dissents as political treatise.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Feb 14, 2016 - 01:45pm PT
Another case of nomination within 1 year of the next election:
"Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy on November 11, 1987 and he was then confirmed by the DEMOCRAT led Senate to fill the vacancy on February 3, 1988, which is 9 months before the the 1988 election.

At that point Reagan had already chosen 2 new Justices and elevated another to Chief.

During his 1980 campaign, Reagan pledged that, if given the opportunity, he would appoint the first female Supreme Court Justice. That opportunity came in his first year in office when he nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Potter Stewart. O'Connor was approved by the Senate by a vote of 99-0 on September 21, 1981.

In his second term, Reagan elevated William Rehnquist to succeed Warren Burger as Chief Justice.

After deciding to elevate Rehnquist to Chief Justice, Reagan considered both Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia to fill the vacant seat left by Rehnquist's elevation, but ultimately chose the younger and more charismatic Scalia. Scalia was approved by the Senate by a vote of 98-0 on September 17, 1986.

Summer/Fall 1987 Reagan nominated Bork to replace the retired Justice Powell. Bork was not confirmed. Then Ginsburg was nominated, but he withdrew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Supreme_Court_candidates#Anthony_Kennedy_nomination
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Feb 14, 2016 - 02:36pm PT
From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the 'applesauce' and 'argle bargle'—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his 'energetic fervor,' 'astringent intellect,' 'peppery prose,' 'acumen,' and 'affability,' all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

"My colleague Nino Scalia was devoted to his family, friends, our Court, and our country. He left an indelible mark on our history. I will miss him and the dimming of his special light is a great loss for me. My thoughts are with Maureen, his children, and his grandchildren."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor


"Nino Scalia will go down in history as one of the most transformational Supreme Court Justices of our nation. His views on interpreting texts have changed the way all of us think and talk about the law. I admired Nino for his brilliance and erudition, his dedication and energy, and his peerless writing. And I treasured Nino’s friendship: I will always remember, and greatly miss, his warmth, charm, and generosity. Maureen and the whole Scalia family are in my thoughts and prayers."
Justice Elena Kagan
dugillian

Trad climber
Vancouver
Feb 14, 2016 - 02:55pm PT
My friend has this to say about the fat ass kicking the bucket and it brightened my day..."The Great Magnet is trying to balance out the Universe since it f'd up a few weeks ago with Bowie, Alan Rickman and Glenn Frey."
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Feb 14, 2016 - 03:01pm PT
Thanks Larry.

From a book I still enjoy

You have seen the private side of tenderness which all but the worst men have. As a king, it is the other side, the outer, that concerns us here.

Supreme Court Justices are the Kings that America should never have had.
Risk

Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
Feb 14, 2016 - 03:08pm PT
What will likely be most amusing is how the republicans will attempt to minimize their downside of Scalia's passing. Reducing their downside of his passing for them to zero is impossible. Under every scenario, they come out worse than if Scalia still lived. Start with:

Scalia was described as the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court's conservative wing.
SC seagoat

Trad climber
Santa Cruz, Moab, A sailboat, or some time zone
Feb 14, 2016 - 03:19pm PT
So when do the conspiracy theories start?


Susan
Happiegrrrl2

Trad climber
Feb 14, 2016 - 03:50pm PT
I have to admit that I "wondered" about his "being found dead" and no mention of what. I realize they need to do an autopsy, but with any found dead" headline, one just wonders.
Norton

Social climber
Feb 14, 2016 - 03:53pm PT
just read a report that said there will be no autopsy and that he died of an apparent
heart attack while sleeping, "natural causes" is listed
zBrown

Ice climber
Feb 14, 2016 - 04:18pm PT
So when do the conspiracy theories start?

Do you think Putin had him poisoned?

rottingjohnny

Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
Feb 14, 2016 - 04:37pm PT
First Vincent Foster and now Scalia...Clintons were behind it...Scalia knew too much about Benghazi..
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Denver CO
Feb 14, 2016 - 04:57pm PT
The report I read said he "finally succumbed to his own poisonous bile."
Crimpergirl

Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
Feb 14, 2016 - 05:35pm PT
Nice article, worth the peek. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html
looking sketchy there...

Social climber
Lassitude 33
Feb 14, 2016 - 05:41pm PT
I sincerely believe that we should consider this unfortunate event simply part of God's plan. If that is the case, isn't it reasonable to view this as His intention for a change in the Court?
rbord

Boulder climber
atlanta
Feb 14, 2016 - 05:45pm PT
If Obama nominates a good candidate, in this game of political football, and this Senate rejects her, as part of the defense that they've already committed to playing, can the next president renominate that same person to the newly elected Senate, or would she be disqualified from consideration for this vacancy, since the previous Senate already rejected her?
Winemaker

Sport climber
Yakima, WA
Feb 14, 2016 - 05:48pm PT
Nice of the Repubs to proactively reject ANY possible nominee to the Court. Just a mind experiment, but if Obama nominated Ted Cruz would the Repubs be so determined that they not consider anyone? They should have at least seen who would be put forward and judged him/her on merit. Well, at least the Repubs haven't injected politics into it.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Feb 14, 2016 - 06:16pm PT
Anyone who has been paying attention has known for a while that if Obama proposed the Republican agenda word for word.. the republicans would instantly become liberals in order to oppose him.

They are complete f*#king sellout peices of sh#t.

Obama should not nominate anyone so the people can make their voice heard in the election

OH REALLY MUTHERF*#KERS!! WHAT DO YOU THINK WE DID WHEN WE ELECTED OBAMA JUST FOR THIS POSSIBILITY?
crankster

Trad climber
No. Tahoe
Feb 14, 2016 - 06:23pm PT
The President's elected term is 4 years, not 3.
Messages 61 - 80 of total 483 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta