R.I.P. Scalia

Zynni

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
144
Location
USA
I'm surprised no one is talking about the passing of Justice Scalia. Or, did I miss it?

I was really sad to hear this news (not to mention a bit suspicious).

Allowing Obama to select another justice is a pretty scary thought.

I guess I should take my other musings to the conspiracy section.
 
Werbung:
I'm surprised no one is talking about the passing of Justice Scalia. Or, did I miss it?

I was really sad to hear this news (not to mention a bit suspicious).

Allowing Obama to select another justice is a pretty scary thought.

I guess I should take my other musings to the conspiracy section.

Or start a thread of them.

As to Scalia, and Obama, why does it scare you? The justices appointed by Republicans have turned liberal for the most part. However, you must understand that this country was founded on Classical Liberalism, and Christianity, both of which are in direct opposition to what we have today on either side of the aisle.
 
It was only a matter of time before he went, he was 79 and probably had another 5 years to go. Justices come and go, and he was the one all knew how he would vote, not because of the legal precedents to guide him, but his opinion. A good justice puts their own views aside and looks at the legal interpretations and applies them without bias. Scalia was renowned for being biased and disputing precedents.
 
It was only a matter of time before he went, he was 79 and probably had another 5 years to go. Justices come and go, and he was the one all knew how he would vote, not because of the legal precedents to guide him, but his opinion. A good justice puts their own views aside and looks at the legal interpretations and applies them without bias. Scalia was renowned for being biased and disputing precedents.

It sounds like you might be a bit biased. ;)

Here's something you might find interesting: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-july-dec12-scalia_08-09/

It explains a bit about how he came to his decisions.

His views were based on the Constitution. That is what a good justice should be using to interpret the law. They should be disputing precedents that don't pass Constitutional muster.
 
It sounds like you might be a bit biased. ;)

Here's something you might find interesting: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-july-dec12-scalia_08-09/

It explains a bit about how he came to his decisions.

His views were based on the Constitution. That is what a good justice should be using to interpret the law. They should be disputing precedents that don't pass Constitutional muster.

If his decisions were based on the Constitution we would not have the Heller decision (individual gun rights); Citizens United (corporations are "people"); Kelos (eminent domain usage for private parties); etc.
 
If his decisions were based on the Constitution we would not have the Heller decision (individual gun rights); Citizens United (corporations are "people"); Kelos (eminent domain usage for private parties); etc.

Well, I'd need to read them through to comment on particulars. I know he's not perfect either.

If I were inclined to do some research right now, which I'm not, I could post a lot worse from the others. We could talk about liberal judicial activism, but we'd be here for a long, long time and barely scratch the surface.
 
Well, I'd need to read them through to comment on particulars. I know he's not perfect either.

If I were inclined to do some research right now, which I'm not, I could post a lot worse from the others. We could talk about liberal judicial activism, but we'd be here for a long, long time and barely scratch the surface.

The Supreme Court lost its way with the Marbury decision back in the early 1803 when Madison challenged it, and Marshall ruled that the USSC had the last say on whether or not a law was Constitutional.

http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madison

"Although the immediate effect of the decision was to deny power to the Court, its long-run effect has been to increase the Court’s power by establishing the rule that ‘it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ Since Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation."

I often have wondered if the decisions by the left leaning parts of the Court are worse then that of the right. Yes, the left gave us rulings like Roe v Wade, however, is that worse then the Court deciding who won an election, or allowing a corporation to seize your property. Both sides long ago perverted the Constitution, and the original intent of the Founders.
 
The Supreme Court lost its way with the Marbury decision back in the early 1803 when Madison challenged it, and Marshall ruled that the USSC had the last say on whether or not a law was Constitutional.

http://www.history.com/topics/marbury-v-madison

"Although the immediate effect of the decision was to deny power to the Court, its long-run effect has been to increase the Court’s power by establishing the rule that ‘it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ Since Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation."

I often have wondered if the decisions by the left leaning parts of the Court are worse then that of the right. Yes, the left gave us rulings like Roe v Wade, however, is that worse then the Court deciding who won an election, or allowing a corporation to seize your property. Both sides long ago perverted the Constitution, and the original intent of the Founders.

Yeah, I have to give you that. Your last line especially, hits the nail on the head.

I was just having a similar discussion with my mother the other day. Between executive orders and the USSC, what do we need Congress for any more? Everyone else is writing law, and it's not their job.
 
Just curious but if SCOTUS is not the arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation, who is ?


Originally it was intended to be the Congress, and the States. SCOTUS was to be the weakest branch of government, and not the legislative branch as it has become. Just as the Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government, the judicial power of the Supreme Court was limited in Article 3, section 2.

James Madison:

“The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

In further regards to the selection of justices, and the failure of McConnell to act, they are relying on what is called the "Biden Rule" from a speech given by Joe Biden while Senator in 1992. Here is what McConnell said in 2001, and 2005:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/19/3751232/mcconell-grassley-scalia-debunked-by-mcconnell/

"Back in 2001, shortly after George W. Bush’s controversial inauguration, however, McConnell argued that the Republican president should be given a free hand to shape the courts. At a June 26 Judiciary Committee hearing, McConnell noted his long support for this principle. “My view then and my view now is that the President won the election, no matter what the margin, and is entitled for the most part to tilt the judiciary in the direction that he feels appropriate.” He added that the “appropriate role of the Senate is largely… to judge the competence and the integrity and the fitness of a judge to be on the bench.”
2. Past Precedent

Another argument the senators make in their recent op-ed is that the Senate has not recently confirmed a nominee this late in a presidential term. “Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term, and the Senate has not confirmed a nominee to fill a vacancy arising in such circumstances for the better part of a century,” they observe.

But the fact that no justice happened to die in the final year of a president’s administration in recent years does not change the fact that since 1900, six justices have been confirmed during a presidential election year. And just one seat was left open for more than 301 days since the court went to nine justices.

Just 11 years ago, McConnell objected to these sorts of procedural delays. In a July 20, 2005 floor speech in support of the John Roberts nomination, he said:

Slow walking the process beyond historical norms and engaging in a paper chase simply to delay a timely up-or-down vote are not hallmarks of a fair process. The Supreme Court begins its new term on October 3. As Senator Frist has pointed out, the average time for a nomination to confirmation for the current justices was 62 days. The average time from nomination to confirmation for President Clinton was 58 days. Justice Ginsburg was confirmed in only 42 days. The Senate has 72 days to complete action on Judge Roberts’ nomination, in time for him to join the Court by the start of its new term, October 3. By any standard, that is a fair goal. What is not fair and what is, quite frankly, a little curious is for some of our colleagues who, before even having heard a single word of testimony, have already come up with excuses as to why we should depart from this historical standard. It is disturbing that they seek to justify so far in advance why the Court should begin its proceedings at less than full strength."
 
between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.



Not seeing what you suggest
 
between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.



Not seeing what you suggest

Where does it say that the USSC has the power to determine the Constitutionality of a law?
 
Werbung:
Back
Top