IGX

Scalia's dead.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, the outspoken leader of the Supreme Court's conservative bloc, was found dead at a Texas ranch Saturday morning.

I already read that Hillary had him killed.

Wonder what his Italian wake will be like...

JohnDoe wrote:Wonder what his Italian wake will be like...

Very complicated man with a very complicated legacy as a jurist. Possibly the most influential American legal figure of the last...oh, twenty-five years or so.

He was acerbic and combative in his opinions -- often needlessly so, to the point of alienating fellow justices who would have otherwise voted with him. But privately he was capable of forming deep and seemingly fast friendships with a whole range of folks on the left -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg most famously, but she wasn't the only one by any means.

He was a racist, full stop. But, by championing the rights of criminal defendants to a fair trial, he may have done as much for black men as any other Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall.

I was only able to attend one Supreme Court argument during his tenure (I do law for a living; I'm not standing in line to see other people do law unless I'm paid to be there) -- he was flat out funny (and yes, Clarence Thomas really does fall asleep during arguments).

I could go on. Maybe I'll leave it at this: There's much about his jurisprudence that I find despicable. But, in the end, I'm more than a little sad to see him go. He was a character.

Congratulations President Obama! Now follow your Left, follow your Left.....
The portrait posted by DDL says it all!

Bud Charniga's grape ape wrote:
He was a racist, full stop. But, by championing the rights of criminal defendants to a fair trial, he may have done as much for black men as any other Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall.

I'm too lazy to do the research and I'm ignorant of law outside of speeding tickets and getting DWI's so would you mind expanding on this a little? I promise to use the info you provide to hassle my lefty buddies.

The short version is Scalia, for all his delusionals on social issues was a fan of due process. Something we kinda opted out of enforcing the war on drugs.

hideouse wrote:

Bud Charniga's grape ape wrote:
He was a racist, full stop. But, by championing the rights of criminal defendants to a fair trial, he may have done as much for black men as any other Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall.

I'm too lazy to do the research and I'm ignorant of law outside of speeding tickets and getting DWI's so would you mind expanding on this a little? I promise to use the info you provide to hassle my lefty buddies.

What BD said, but I can give you a few examples.

OK, let me try to do a two-minute primer on hearsay exceptions and the Confrontation Clause.

The Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment says that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Hearsay statements are, in both criminal and civil trials, (1) out of court statements; (2) made by someone other than the person testifying in court; and (3) offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay statements are generally inadmissible unless they fall within one of a series of exceptions. Let me try to give you an example.

Proto is murdered. TerryB is the accused. I'm called to testify.
(1) I testify "I saw TerryB kill Proto." Not hearsay, because there's no out-of-court statement; I'm just saying what I saw. Now, my own credibility is still at issue -- that is, I could be lying about what I saw -- but I'm on the stand and the defense can try to impeach me. So there's no Confrontation Clause problem.
(2) I testify "TerryB told me that he killed Proto." Hearsay, but it's admissible hearsay because it falls within an exception for admissions. Even though it's hearsay, it's thought to be fairly reliable, because Terry's probably not going to lie about killing someone if it incriminates him. The Confrontation Clause analysis is the same as in (1) above: I'm on the stand, and TerryB can "confront" me.
(3) I testify "Shaf told me that TerryB killed Proto." Hearsay, and it's probably inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause. If Shaf is accusing TerryB of killing Proto, TerryB has a right to "confront" Shaf in court.

OK. So far so good? Well, leading up to and during Scalia's tenure, for the previous oh, fifty years or so, the Supreme Court had signed off on or created a raft of new hearsay exceptions that applied in criminal trials. A lot of evidence was coming in against the accused, which the accused had no ability to "confront." This wasn't a left-right issue, by the way; the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts were all equally prone to this. The Confrontation Clause had become practically a dead letter; if there was hearsay evidence against you, and the prosecutor was halfway competent, it was probably going to come in under an exception.

Scalia authored a series of 5-4 decisions which basically got rid of a lot of those "new" hearsay exceptions, and gave life back to the Confrontation Clause. (Again, these often weren't right-left issues. The other 4 in the majority would often be something like Thomas-Breyer-Sotomayor-Kagan.)

Apart from the Confrontation Clause: The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people should not be subjected to "unreasonable" searches or seizures. Scalia authored a series of decisions -- again, often 5-4 -- that provided that it was unreasonable, for example, for police to use thermal imaging to search your house without a warrant. Or for police to search your car without a warrant after a routine traffic stop. Stuff like that.

Interesting. Shame this sort of info is not more widely reported, but I suppose it would't sell ads during "Maury".

Bud Charniga's grape ape wrote:Very complicated man with a very complicated legacy as a jurist. Possibly the most influential American legal figure of the last...oh, twenty-five years or so.

He was acerbic and combative in his opinions -- often needlessly so, to the point of alienating fellow justices who would have otherwise voted with him. But privately he was capable of forming deep and seemingly fast friendships with a whole range of folks on the left -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg most famously, but she wasn't the only one by any means.

He was a racist, full stop. But, by championing the rights of criminal defendants to a fair trial, he may have done as much for black men as any other Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall.

I was only able to attend one Supreme Court argument during his tenure (I do law for a living; I'm not standing in line to see other people do law unless I'm paid to be there) -- he was flat out funny (and yes, Clarence Thomas really does fall asleep during arguments).

I could go on. Maybe I'll leave it at this: There's much ab is jurisprudence that I find despicable. But, in the end, I'm more than a little sad to see him go. He was a character.

That was semi-insightful when I read the same quote elsewhere online yesterday.

Scalia supported first amendment protection for video games
http://www.polygon.com/2016/2/14/109886 ... ideo-games

Protobuilder wrote:
That was semi-insightful when I read the same quote elsewhere online yesterday.

can't tell if complement or sick burn

If the Dems get to appoint another Jew to the SCOTUS (3 out of their current 4 are kosher already) is that it for gun ownership in the United States? It seems that the European model is a major project for the American left, and one major part of that operation looks set to be put in place. Thoughts?

Bud Charniga's grape ape wrote:

Protobuilder wrote:
That was semi-insightful when I read the same quote elsewhere online yesterday.

can't tell if complement or sick burn

I quoted you on the facial books. I thought it was by far the fairest summary I'd read of the dozens of people trying to be even handed.

So why is he a racist?

Turdacious wrote:So why is he a racist?

Probably because of his upbringing.

Bud Charniga's grape ape wrote:

hideouse wrote:

Bud Charniga's grape ape wrote:
He was a racist, full stop. But, by championing the rights of criminal defendants to a fair trial, he may have done as much for black men as any other Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall.

I'm too lazy to do the research and I'm ignorant of law outside of speeding tickets and getting DWI's so would you mind expanding on this a little? I promise to use the info you provide to hassle my lefty buddies.

What BD said, but I can give you a few examples.

OK, let me try to do a two-minute primer on hearsay exceptions and the Confrontation Clause.

The Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment says that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Hearsay statements are, in both criminal and civil trials, (1) out of court statements; (2) made by someone other than the person testifying in court; and (3) offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay statements are generally inadmissible unless they fall within one of a series of exceptions. Let me try to give you an example.

Proto is murdered. TerryB is the accused. I'm called to testify.
(1) I testify "I saw TerryB kill Proto." Not hearsay, because there's no out-of-court statement; I'm just saying what I saw. Now, my own credibility is still at issue -- that is, I could be lying about what I saw -- but I'm on the stand and the defense can try to impeach me. So there's no Confrontation Clause problem.
(2) I testify "TerryB told me that he killed Proto." Hearsay, but it's admissible hearsay because it falls within an exception for admissions. Even though it's hearsay, it's thought to be fairly reliable, because Terry's probably not going to lie about killing someone if it incriminates him. The Confrontation Clause analysis is the same as in (1) above: I'm on the stand, and TerryB can "confront" me.
(3) I testify "Shaf told me that TerryB killed Proto." Hearsay, and it's probably inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause. If Shaf is accusing TerryB of killing Proto, TerryB has a right to "confront" Shaf in court.

OK. So far so good? Well, leading up to and during Scalia's tenure, for the previous oh, fifty years or so, the Supreme Court had signed off on or created a raft of new hearsay exceptions that applied in criminal trials. A lot of evidence was coming in against the accused, which the accused had no ability to "confront." This wasn't a left-right issue, by the way; the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts were all equally prone to this. The Confrontation Clause had become practically a dead letter; if there was hearsay evidence against you, and the prosecutor was halfway competent, it was probably going to come in under an exception.

Scalia authored a series of 5-4 decisions which basically got rid of a lot of those "new" hearsay exceptions, and gave life back to the Confrontation Clause. (Again, these often weren't right-left issues. The other 4 in the majority would often be something like Thomas-Breyer-Sotomayor-Kagan.)

Apart from the Confrontation Clause: The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people should not be subjected to "unreasonable" searches or seizures. Scalia authored a series of decisions -- again, often 5-4 -- that provided that it was unreasonable, for example, for police to use thermal imaging to search your house without a warrant. Or for police to search your car without a warrant after a routine traffic stop. Stuff like that.

So Counselor, if you will, how and where does any of that approach racist?

That is, specifically, the not racist part.


This is racist, full stop. It could be true, but it's definitely racist.

“There are – there are those who contend that 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.

“One of – one of the briefs pointed out that – that most of the – most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re – that they’re being pushed ahead in – in classes that are too­­ too fast for them."

Blaidd Drwg wrote: it's definitely racist.

“There are – there are those who contend that 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.

“One of – one of the briefs pointed out that – that most of the – most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re – that they’re being pushed ahead in – in classes that are too­­ too fast for them."

The context is Affirmative Action, isn't it? Which is a program that places black students into competition with others (whites, asians, etc.) who have performed better in testing and grading in high school. And this often places them into situations where they are over their heads and more likely to fail & drop out.

I don't read this passage as saying anything but that students with lesser qualifications are more likely to thrive in "slower-track" schools, among their academic equals.

johno wrote:
The context is.....

.....that to a liberal, anyone that doesn't agree with gay marriage is a racist.

johno wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote: it's definitely racist.

“There are – there are those who contend that 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.

“One of – one of the briefs pointed out that – that most of the – most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re – that they’re being pushed ahead in – in classes that are too­­ too fast for them."

The context is Affirmative Action, isn't it? Which is a program that places black students into competition with others (whites, asians, etc.) who have performed better in testing and grading in high school. And this often places them into situations where they are over their heads and more likely to fail & drop out.

I don't read this passage as saying anything but that students with lesser qualifications are more likely to thrive in "slower-track" schools, among their academic equals.

I dont disagree with the logic. It's still racist. Own that shit but don't play a fool, it's beneath you.

Let's be extra clear here....I'm racist as hell. Most of us are, it's natural and normal.....but the sweeping generalizations he consistently made (especially on the voting rights act) are racist. Full stop. I don't fault him terribly but I do think it's pure silliness to argue it's not what it is.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Let's be extra clear here....I'm racist as hell. Most of us are, it's natural and normal.....but the sweeping generalizations he consistently made (especially on the voting rights act) are racist. Full stop. I don't fault him terribly but I do think it's pure silliness to argue it's not what it is.

So he was in favor of things that effectively re-disenfranchised minorities (literacy tests with double standards, etc...)? Not familiar with his opinions in that area.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

johno wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote: it's definitely racist.

“There are – there are those who contend that 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.

“One of – one of the briefs pointed out that – that most of the – most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re – that they’re being pushed ahead in – in classes that are too­­ too fast for them."

The context is Affirmative Action, isn't it? Which is a program that places black students into competition with others (whites, asians, etc.) who have performed better in testing and grading in high school. And this often places them into situations where they are over their heads and more likely to fail & drop out.

I don't read this passage as saying anything but that students with lesser qualifications are more likely to thrive in "slower-track" schools, among their academic equals.

I dont disagree with the logic. It's still racist. Own that shit but don't play a fool, it's beneath you.

So you're diluting the term racist to the point it's meaningless? Am I understanding your logic correctly? What is the level of unacceptable racism?