StrangeSox Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) I don't think you could read his comments or opinions in cases like lawrence and not come to the conclusion that he believes that gay acts are immoral. Yeah, he's gone on about the "gay agenda" before. Scalia wants that issue to be a "States Rights" issue for the same reason racists want the Civil Rights Act to be a "states rights" issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:32 AM) It's funny because of his whole supposed judicial philosophy that explicitly claims he doesn't do that. I don't think someone like Thomas, for example, is the same as Scalia in that sense. I agree with probably even less of what he says, but he's at least consistent. Scalia simply makes s*** up as he goes to justify his conclusions and even tosses in tangential political rants into dissents at times. That's because he actually writes opinions. To be a judge, unless you get a case with facts that specifically fit with another previously decided case (which never happens with the Supreme Court) you have to mold the law to justify the opinion. There is no other way to do it. His judicial philosophy is to not expand powers that haven't been recognized by legislatures. I'm sure he's not 100% consistent on that, that would be very difficult to do, but in the vast majority of cases he sticks with that in his decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Thomas doesn't actually write opinions and dissents? Yeah, every judge has to look at the facts of the case before him, but that doesn't mean that no judge could possibly be a hack. Scalia is, in my opinion, a hack, unlike the rest of the Justices, including the other conservative ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) I don't think you could read his comments or opinions in cases like lawrence and not come to the conclusion that he believes that gay acts are immoral. "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change". Yeah, again it's the problem with 9 people in robes deciding what the nation should think, as opposed to letting people do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 06:42 PM) "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change". Yeah, again it's the problem with 9 people in robes deciding what the nation should think, as opposed to letting people do it. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:39 AM) Thomas doesn't actually write opinions and dissents? Yeah, every judge has to look at the facts of the case before him, but that doesn't mean that no judge could possibly be a hack. Scalia is, in my opinion, a hack, unlike the rest of the Justices, including the other conservative ones. Not as many no. I can't even remember the last majority opinion he wrote. And that's great, I disagree. I think he's relatively consistent and a good judge, even if I don't always agree with his decisions or how he justifies the decision. Edited December 28, 2012 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:44 AM) Not as many no. I can't even remember the last majority opinion he wrote. And that's great, I disagree. I think he's relatively consistent and a good judge, even if I don't always agree with his decisions or how he justifies the decision. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:46 AM) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?Thomas Of social significance. When's the last time he took on a social issue? Read any book on the court and you'll find that everyone understands that he's a smart guy, but not someone that is often chosen by the other justices to write a controversial opinion. I'm sure he's done it at some point, but it's not as frequent as the other justices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I wasn't speaking specifically of social issues. Scalia is a hack in all fields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:51 AM) I wasn't speaking specifically of social issues. Scalia is a hack in all fields. And so SS decreed! Ugh, I don't know why I engage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 You've used that lame line twice in the last few days now. I'm not sure why you're taking my stated opinions as declarations of fact. Do I need to preface everything with a lengthy disclosure that what follows is only an opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:53 AM) You've used that lame line twice in the last few days now. I'm not sure why you're taking my stated opinions as declarations of fact. Do I need to preface everything with a lengthy disclosure that what follows is only an opinion? Because it comes off that way. You may not agree with Scalia, but to say he is "a hack in all fields" is ridiculous. The guy is a Supreme Court justice...you don't reach that position by being "a hack in all fields." When people say dismissive crap like that in such absolute form, it's just over the top ridiculous and pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 12:05 PM) Because it comes off that way. You may not agree with Scalia, but to say he is "a hack in all fields" is ridiculous. The guy is a Supreme Court justice...you don't reach that position by being "a hack in all fields." When people say dismissive crap like that in such absolute form, it's just over the top ridiculous and pointless. Yep. Same as the "all anti-gun regulation arguments are stupid" line you had the other day. It's pointless having a debate with you when you come from that kind of position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 12:08 PM) Yep. Same as the "all anti-gun regulation arguments are stupid" line you had the other day. It's pointless having a debate with you when you come from that kind of position. you mean the one where I had been talking about wayne lapierre's dumb arguments and never said "all anti-gun regulation arguments are stupid?" That one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 12:05 PM) Because it comes off that way. You may not agree with Scalia, but to say he is "a hack in all fields" is ridiculous. The guy is a Supreme Court justice...you don't reach that position by being "a hack in all fields." When people say dismissive crap like that in such absolute form, it's just over the top ridiculous and pointless. I'll paid attention to some supposed decorum about hyperbole once kap stops posting here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 06:05 PM) Because it comes off that way. You may not agree with Scalia, but to say he is "a hack in all fields" is ridiculous. The guy is a Supreme Court justice...you don't reach that position by being "a hack in all fields." When people say dismissive crap like that in such absolute form, it's just over the top ridiculous and pointless. I think Scalia veered into hack territory after his celebratory book tour and ACA screed which featured large political tangents that were not even a part of the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 01:52 PM) I'll paid attention to some supposed decorum about hyperbole once kap stops posting here. It's just a pet peeve of mine...I get the point, but I just think when you go to that level of absolutism, it rises to the level of completely ridiculous. It's the same as saying so and so "sucks at baseball." It just doesn't have any meaning anymore. So why say it? Just my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 12:52 PM) I'll paid attention to some supposed decorum about hyperbole once kap stops posting here. Blaming a guy who posts somewhere around once a month? Now that is pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 States' rights arguments make me want to vomit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) For what it's worth, Scalia is a Templar. But seriously, the document is well over 200 years old, maybe it shouldn't be taken as literally as people want and viewed in the context of the current times and not the late 1700s? Edited December 29, 2012 by Quinarvy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 There's actually ways to amend and alter it! Crazy! I'm not sure that function was intended for you and your liberal friends to create a despotic federal government, but hey... there's a process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 States' rights arguments make me want to vomit. So people living in Montana and Idaho should be bent to the will of those from NYC and Chicago? The need for states' rights is greater now than its ever been with the formation of mega-cities and the increasingly disperate ways-of-life the modern era has brought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 29, 2012 -> 05:34 AM) So people living in Montana and Idaho should be bent to the will of those from NYC and Chicago? The need for states' rights is greater now than its ever been with the formation of mega-cities and the increasingly disperate ways-of-life the modern era has brought. You've done a great job of explaining why Chicago, New York, etc., should be allowed to ban handguns (or hell, all guns), ban concealed carry, and keep track of dealers who are supplying weapons and ammunition to their cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 28, 2012 -> 11:44 AM) Not as many no. I can't even remember the last majority opinion he wrote. And that's great, I disagree. I think he's relatively consistent and a good judge, even if I don't always agree with his decisions or how he justifies the decision. I think bmags was talking about no matter how consistent he is letting states decide how to treat gays...Scalia himself is pretty clearly no fan of gays. You quoted one line from Lawrence, but not the one about the "so-called homosexual agenda." That's not exactly reeking of impartiality. Scalia is a really, really smart guy -- as Shack said, he couldn't be a SCOTUS justice if he weren't. But he also comes off as a bitter old man who's angry the times are changing and the rising tide is against him, not with him. More to the point, he comes off as a condescending jerk half the time because he doesn't seem to respect the validity of his opponents, or their arguments. Edited December 29, 2012 by farmteam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 QUOTE (farmteam @ Dec 29, 2012 -> 12:14 PM) I think bmags was talking about no matter how consistent he is letting states decide how to treat gays...Scalia himself is pretty clearly no fan of gays. You quoted one line from Lawrence, but not the one about the "so-called homosexual agenda." That's not exactly reeking of impartiality. Scalia is a really, really smart guy -- as Shack said, he couldn't be a SCOTUS justice if he weren't. But he also comes off as a bitter old man who's angry the times are changing and the rising tide is against him, not with him. More to the point, he comes off as a condescending jerk half the time because he doesn't seem to respect the validity of his opponents, or their arguments. That is like 90% of the SCOTUS justices in our history though...the position was created for some bitter old condescending crusty jerk or jerkette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts