US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[stevenl]

After reading over 200 posts on this thread, I am bemused by something that some of you might be able to clear up.

My question is directed towards the Europeans and Aussies that might have posted on this thread.

Precisely which decisions made by Justice Scalia have had a direct impact on the Europeans and Australians that have contributed?

How have his decisions affected you personally?

Anybody?

Most prominent would be his choice to award Bush the presidency over Gore.

His choice was one of five that voted to stay a decision of the Florida Supreme Court and follow the laws of Florida. He did not single handedly give the election to Bush and your assertion that the election was decided by "his choice" is ridiculous.

Gore lost the election in Florida as was evidenced by the NY Times and other media sources that ultimately decided after a lengthy investigation the election was won by Bush and not Gore.

This is what Justice Scalia said about the decision:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success. The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether "counting every legally cast vote can constitute irreparable harm." One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote." The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires.^[13]"

^{---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------}

Is that all you have?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

Edit in: Pegman, is that all you have as well?

You asked for decisions from him that impacted Europeans and others around the world, this was one of them and IMO the most prominent one which most influenced the way the world looks today.

He did nothing single handedly, what is your point?

Edited February 16, 2016 by stevenl

[thaibeachlovers]

Seems that there are people on here that think it's OK for FIVE people to determine the fate of the nation ( as long as it is determined in a way that THEY agree with- if it's opposed, then it's just terrible ). I can't go along with that. That is almost as bad as being in a dictatorship.

What a completely silly and inflammatory thing to say. These 5 people do not determine anyone's fate. The fate is determined by the laws enacted and any court challenges generally go through a myriad of lower courts before reaching the SCOTUS. Even then, they will only look at the Constitutionality of the law, not whether they agree or disagree with it.

They also pick and chose which cases they will hear.

Indeed they are powerful, but they are hardly a dictatorship and it is not unknown for their rulings to go ignored. I don't recall which President said it, but to paraphrase: "If the Supreme Court doesn't like it, then let them enforce it."

The Supreme Court has no policing ability and no army. They can pass a ruling, but they have no means of enforcing it.

Read post #208 and tell me that the SC didn't allow the man that took the US into an illegal war to win over the actual winner.

If they couldn't interpret the law to their own ends there would be no point in their existence. That they can do so on party lines is an abomination, IMO. Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

[sirineou]

 I don't know. A guy with that profile you would think an autopsy was a automatic. Would there be a religious reason, some Catholic Tenet, that would have the family decline one? Makes one wonder wether he was terminal and popped a couple pills.

Nothing Catholic about it as far as I could recall from my time in Catholic hell. The Vatican is opposed to cremation last I recall but not necessarily against an autopsy.

States that have a mandatory autopsy law include instances of an unattended death, which this by all accounts is what occurred to Antonin Scalia. I reckon however Texas does not have this law.

The family may have its concerns too but offhand there isn't a pressing reason to conduct an autopsy. It would be the local medical examiner anyway unless the family had a change of heart about it.

The local ME is back in Texas and Scalia's remains are now in Washington so short of an official order back in Texas to return the corpse, it seems past the point of no return.

Besides, US Marshals went directly to the ranch as did US Supreme Court Police in addition to local police, sheriff, detectives and the like and those guys can spot a suffocation or a suspicious pills suicide as soon as they arrive.

Something caused this guy's death. If there are no visible signs of what caused it how the hell are these cops going to determine what did? It sounds

I like a Thai investigation to me.

the pillow that was covering his head wasn't a visible sign? So, on appearance he was suffocated, but, no need for an autopsy?

I am not advancing any conspiracy theories,

But I also find it strange that a person of such importance would die unexpectedly, and there is no investigation to with out a doubt determine why? I would think it would be a requirement.

[chuckd]

Seems that there are people on here that think it's OK for FIVE people to determine the fate of the nation ( as long as it is determined in a way that THEY agree with- if it's opposed, then it's just terrible ). I can't go along with that. That is almost as bad as being in a dictatorship.

What a completely silly and inflammatory thing to say. These 5 people do not determine anyone's fate. The fate is determined by the laws enacted and any court challenges generally go through a myriad of lower courts before reaching the SCOTUS. Even then, they will only look at the Constitutionality of the law, not whether they agree or disagree with it.

They also pick and chose which cases they will hear.

Indeed they are powerful, but they are hardly a dictatorship and it is not unknown for their rulings to go ignored. I don't recall which President said it, but to paraphrase: "If the Supreme Court doesn't like it, then let them enforce it."

The Supreme Court has no policing ability and no army. They can pass a ruling, but they have no means of enforcing it.

Read post #208 and tell me that the SC didn't allow the man that took the US into an illegal war to win over the actual winner.

If they couldn't interpret the law to their own ends there would be no point in their existence. That they can do so on party lines is an abomination, IMO. Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

Several newspapers got together and recounted the actual votes. Bush won every recount but one, which the Gore team refused to sanction. Gore won that version by a grand total of three (3) votes out of the entire state.

The Supreme Court handed nothing to Bush. He won the election outright.

A good, informative read about the recount here:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

Article continues here: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm#more

[Credo]

If Bush so clearly won, then why did it go to the Supreme Court?

[Publicus]

 

After reading over 200 posts on this thread, I am bemused by something that some of you might be able to clear up.

My question is directed towards the Europeans and Aussies that might have posted on this thread.

Precisely which decisions made by Justice Scalia have had a direct impact on the Europeans and Australians that have contributed?

How have his decisions affected you personally?

Anybody?

Once again, this is an open general interest public discussion forum which has a common utility in a globalised world. There are no restrictions on membership which would limit participants of the forum reading, posting, replying, commenting etc on any topic posted to the index at any given time or or for any reason.

The domain has rules as proscribed which are the major condition of membership for the purpose of posting. The post has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules of the domain or with the membership, to include the standards or requirements of making posts to topics/threads on one's own choosing.

Moreover, Australia is a formal security treaty ally of the United States as is New Zealand; so are Thailand, South Korea, Japan. Twenty-eight countries of Europe are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Nato, which is a formal national security grouping of allies in war and peace along with everything in between. This gives all residents of these many countries a direct interest and stake in the policies and leaders of the United States, and vice-versa.

So bugger off with the rightwhinging about foreigners commenting on matters originating in or affecting the United States and its actions or inactions, policies, politics, personages, government; its military and intelligence agencies; the society, culture, civilisation, internationally or in the globalised world.

While it's anyone's right to bitch, those who can't take the heat should get out of the focking kitchen. Once and for all.

[lostboy]

After reading over 200 posts on this thread, I am bemused by something that some of you might be able to clear up.

My question is directed towards the Europeans and Aussies that might have posted on this thread.

Precisely which decisions made by Justice Scalia have had a direct impact on the Europeans and Australians that have contributed?

How have his decisions affected you personally?

Anybody?

Lawrence v Texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html In the dissent in the case that decriminalised LGBT people having sex in private, Scalia wrote "Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery."

Scalia is using constructionism to deny human rights as a direct result of his personal bigotry.

Scalia equated LGBT people falling in love with activities that are prohibited for being detrimental to society. He has made a number of similar stupid, bigoted comments on LGBT issues. While many countries approved marriage equality ahead of the US, some western countries still have not. Remarks like those of Scalia, promote bigotry and the ongoing denial of universal human rights to all citizens of a country.

This petty chauvinism of objecting to non Americans commenting on American related issues that clearly have universal significance is pathetic. It demonstrates an intellectual bankruptcy that puts nativist cultural bias over the free flow of ideas and critique.

Edited February 16, 2016 by lostboy

[lostboy]

.

Tell you what. Put on your junior rocket scientist hat and find one post where I have been a racist. I've made over 10,000 so there is plenty of material. Find one.

As far as my comment about Obama, look at the record and then try to defend his actions.

If you don't believe black people can be racists then you are not living in the real world.

The only reason I gave you one of these is because, unlike this last post, you didn't deserve two of them

No need for 1950's accoutrement straight out of Howdy Doody. Are we regressing in our old age? The post in question is neatly embedded as the initiating post in the nested posts above (deleted for space unfortunately). You call the first black President of the United States a racist. Didn't even have to go back to post 9,999.

Minority voices speaking against whites is not racism. it is legitimate protest against oppression. Are minorities racist? By your definition, yes. But you define racism as bigotry. I define racism as systemic; a system that denied opportunities to minorities because of their race. Take a typical comment from Al Sharpton:

“So (if) some cracker come and tell you ‘Well, my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold your pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of. That means their forefathers was crooks.”http://www.infowars.com/the-hilarious-racism-of-al-sharpton/

You should appreciate this coming from one of your right wing sources. You will no doubt, like Infowars.com brand this as racist. I see it as a legitimate protest against the ability of one racial group to control the socio-economic and cultural levers of a society.

It does not matter how many thousands of posts you have made or how many times you fall down laughing. You purposefully choose not to hear the voices of minorities. You substitute scorn for engagement. You believe that mere bigotry overshadows real and actual discrimination against minorities. Your White Privilege blinds you to any sense of comprehension of minority voices. You dare to accuse the first black President of the United States of being a racist. There is no defence of that. You entirely miss the point. You have nothing to contribute on the issue of racism, discrimination or equality of opportunity. These concepts do not enter the metaphor that you call your existence.

Edited February 16, 2016 by lostboy

[lostboy]

Oh, I know what a racist is. We have one in the White House as we speak.

Reverse racism is not a thing. It does not exist in a world where racism is defined as a system of advantages based on race, also known as White Privilege. Non-whites do not benefit from systemic, institutionalised racism, so consequently such people cannot be defined as racist.

White-victimhood now from the extreme white right. The embodiment of crass.

Have you ever heard of a country formerly called Rhodesia, which was the breadbasket of Africa?

After "independence", the name was changed to Zimbabwe.

Do you know what happened there to the white farmers?

Under my structuralist approach to the understanding of racism, laws put in place by the black leadership of Zimbabwe against whites are racist. I do not defend such laws. I do not defend the action of black Zimbabweans against white Zimbabweans, many of whom have left the country. I agree that such laws and actions are racist. Remember though, the interpretation of such events is complex. In this case, you need to include the issue of post colonialism and the redress of injustices that occurred during the colonial period. This is why many black Africans continue to support Mugabe as a liberator, particularly those in the ANC.

I do not believe that your use of the case of Zimbabwe alters the validity of my interpretation of racism.

[lostboy]

Oh, I know what a racist is. We have one in the White House as we speak.

Reverse racism is not a thing. It does not exist in a world where racism is defined as a system of advantages based on race, also known as White Privilege. Non-whites do not benefit from systemic, institutionalised racism, so consequently such people cannot be defined as racist.

White-victimhood now from the extreme white right. The embodiment of crass.

You are correct that "Reverse racism is not a thing", as there is no such thing as "reverse" racism. There is only racism, which can be carried out by any coloured people against any other coloured people, or even people of one colour against people of the same colour but a different race. ie English vs Irish, or even Protestant Irish vs Catholic Irish ( different races, same colour ).

Your concept of racism is narrowly confined to mere bigotry. Racism is more than just one person saying "I don't like that person because they are ..." Cultural chauvinism is common to all people. Much of it is instinctive. Much of it is learned. This type of racism is not what concerns me. This type of racism can be removed by education, awareness and engagement. What concerns me is a system that protects the benefits and privileges of the 'master race' while denying benefits and privileges to minorities; minorities not just based on race but also other disadvantaged or similarly defined groups such as LGBT people, disabled people etc. One minority being racist against another minority does not fit my definition of racism. Both minorities have no control over the instruments of power in a society so they are both victims of racism by the dominant power. The fact that an African American says something nasty about a Latino American or a Vietnamese descended Australian national says something nasty about a Lebanese descended Australian is just cultural bigotry. It is a form of racism but remains at the level of bigotry. Similarly with your other examples.

What is of concern is the use of systems and institutions to deny the equality of opportunity to all persons because of the race or other minority status.

Scalia was a proponent of this, most notably in terms of LGBT issues. People like Scalia hide their bigotry behind the excuse of being strict constitutional constructionists. That is just a cowardly way of avoiding the admission of their own prejudice.

[thaibeachlovers]

.

Tell you what. Put on your junior rocket scientist hat and find one post where I have been a racist. I've made over 10,000 so there is plenty of material. Find one.

As far as my comment about Obama, look at the record and then try to defend his actions.

If you don't believe black people can be racists then you are not living in the real world.

The only reason I gave you one of these is because, unlike this last post, you didn't deserve two of them

No need for 1950's accoutrement straight out of Howdy Doody. Are we regressing in our old age? The post in question is neatly embedded as the initiating post in the nested posts above (deleted for space unfortunately). You call the first black President of the United States a racist. Didn't even have to go back to post 9,999.

Minority voices speaking against whites is not racism. it is legitimate protest against oppression. Are minorities racist? By your definition, yes. But you define racism as bigotry. I define racism as systemic; a system that denied opportunities to minorities because of their race. Take a typical comment from Al Sharpton:

“So (if) some cracker come and tell you ‘Well, my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold your pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of. That means their forefathers was crooks.”http://www.infowars.com/the-hilarious-racism-of-al-sharpton/

You should appreciate this coming from one of your right wing sources. You will no doubt, like Infowars.com brand this as racist. I see it as a legitimate protest against the ability of one racial group to control the socio-economic and cultural levers of a society.

It does not matter how many thousands of posts you have made or how many times you fall down laughing. You purposefully choose not to hear the voices of minorities. You substitute scorn for engagement. You believe that mere bigotry overshadows real and actual discrimination against minorities. Your White Privilege blinds you to any sense of comprehension of minority voices. You dare to accuse the first black President of the United States of being a racist. There is no defence of that. You entirely miss the point. You have nothing to contribute on the issue of racism, discrimination or equality of opportunity. These concepts do not enter the metaphor that you call your existence.

I define racism as systemic; a system that denied opportunities to minorities because of their race.

The Oxford dictionary does not agree with you. They mention NOTHING to do with systemic or system.

Where your claim that only whitey is racist falls down, is that in countries with non white ethnicity, those people are just as racist as whitey in white majority countries.

The most racist people I have ever met were not white.

Edited February 16, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[chuckd]

After reading over 200 posts on this thread, I am bemused by something that some of you might be able to clear up.

My question is directed towards the Europeans and Aussies that might have posted on this thread.

Precisely which decisions made by Justice Scalia have had a direct impact on the Europeans and Australians that have contributed?

How have his decisions affected you personally?

Anybody?

Lawrence v Texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html In the dissent in the case that decriminalised LGBT people having sex in private, Scalia wrote "Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery."

Scalia is using constructionism to deny human rights as a direct result of his personal bigotry.

Scalia equated LGBT people falling in love with activities that are prohibited for being detrimental to society. He has made a number of similar stupid, bigoted comments on LGBT issues. While many countries approved marriage equality ahead of the US, some western countries still have not. Remarks like those of Scalia, promote bigotry and the ongoing denial of universal human rights to all citizens of a country.

This petty chauvinism of objecting to non Americans commenting on American related issues that clearly have universal significance is pathetic. It demonstrates an intellectual bankruptcy that puts nativist cultural bias over the free flow of ideas and critique.

You have admitted to being Australian.

"How have his decisions affected you personally?"

After all your rhetoric, please answer the question.

[chuckd]

.

Tell you what. Put on your junior rocket scientist hat and find one post where I have been a racist. I've made over 10,000 so there is plenty of material. Find one.

As far as my comment about Obama, look at the record and then try to defend his actions.

If you don't believe black people can be racists then you are not living in the real world.

The only reason I gave you one of these is because, unlike this last post, you didn't deserve two of them

No need for 1950's accoutrement straight out of Howdy Doody. Are we regressing in our old age? The post in question is neatly embedded as the initiating post in the nested posts above (deleted for space unfortunately). You call the first black President of the United States a racist. Didn't even have to go back to post 9,999.

Minority voices speaking against whites is not racism. it is legitimate protest against oppression. Are minorities racist? By your definition, yes. But you define racism as bigotry. I define racism as systemic; a system that denied opportunities to minorities because of their race. Take a typical comment from Al Sharpton:

“So (if) some cracker come and tell you ‘Well, my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold your pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of. That means their forefathers was crooks.”http://www.infowars.com/the-hilarious-racism-of-al-sharpton/

You should appreciate this coming from one of your right wing sources. You will no doubt, like Infowars.com brand this as racist. I see it as a legitimate protest against the ability of one racial group to control the socio-economic and cultural levers of a society.

It does not matter how many thousands of posts you have made or how many times you fall down laughing. You purposefully choose not to hear the voices of minorities. You substitute scorn for engagement. You believe that mere bigotry overshadows real and actual discrimination against minorities. Your White Privilege blinds you to any sense of comprehension of minority voices. You dare to accuse the first black President of the United States of being a racist. There is no defence of that. You entirely miss the point. You have nothing to contribute on the issue of racism, discrimination or equality of opportunity. These concepts do not enter the metaphor that you call your existence.

You lost what little credibility you have when you quoted Al Sharpton as your racial guru.

[thaibeachlovers]

After reading over 200 posts on this thread, I am bemused by something that some of you might be able to clear up.

My question is directed towards the Europeans and Aussies that might have posted on this thread.

Precisely which decisions made by Justice Scalia have had a direct impact on the Europeans and Australians that have contributed?

How have his decisions affected you personally?

Anybody?

Lawrence v Texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html In the dissent in the case that decriminalised LGBT people having sex in private, Scalia wrote "Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery."

Scalia is using constructionism to deny human rights as a direct result of his personal bigotry.

Scalia equated LGBT people falling in love with activities that are prohibited for being detrimental to society. He has made a number of similar stupid, bigoted comments on LGBT issues. While many countries approved marriage equality ahead of the US, some western countries still have not. Remarks like those of Scalia, promote bigotry and the ongoing denial of universal human rights to all citizens of a country.

This petty chauvinism of objecting to non Americans commenting on American related issues that clearly have universal significance is pathetic. It demonstrates an intellectual bankruptcy that puts nativist cultural bias over the free flow of ideas and critique.

You have admitted to being Australian.

"How have his decisions affected you personally?"

After all your rhetoric, please answer the question.

Everything America does affects Oz, NZ etc, ergo, if Scalia made something happen in the States, he affected us.

If he had a hand in electing GW, he is part responsible for IS, as GW created the conditions for IS to be formed.

[Chicog]

I am not advancing any conspiracy theories,

But I also find it strange that a person of such importance would die unexpectedly, and there is no investigation to with out a doubt determine why? I would think it would be a requirement.

His doctor said that he had a history of high blood pressure and heart problems.

He was apparently considered "too weak" to undergo rotator cuff surgery.

Myocardial infarction would have been an easy diagnosis without having to chop him up. I would imagine that it was confirmed with a non-invasive procedure such as a scan.

[lostboy]

No need for 1950's accoutrement straight out of Howdy Doody. Are we regressing in our old age? The post in question is neatly embedded as the initiating post in the nested posts above (deleted for space unfortunately). You call the first black President of the United States a racist. Didn't even have to go back to post 9,999.

Minority voices speaking against whites is not racism. it is legitimate protest against oppression. Are minorities racist? By your definition, yes. But you define racism as bigotry. I define racism as systemic; a system that denied opportunities to minorities because of their race. Take a typical comment from Al Sharpton:

“So (if) some cracker come and tell you ‘Well, my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold your pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of. That means their forefathers was crooks.”http://www.infowars.com/the-hilarious-racism-of-al-sharpton/

You should appreciate this coming from one of your right wing sources. You will no doubt, like Infowars.com brand this as racist. I see it as a legitimate protest against the ability of one racial group to control the socio-economic and cultural levers of a society.

It does not matter how many thousands of posts you have made or how many times you fall down laughing. You purposefully choose not to hear the voices of minorities. You substitute scorn for engagement. You believe that mere bigotry overshadows real and actual discrimination against minorities. Your White Privilege blinds you to any sense of comprehension of minority voices. You dare to accuse the first black President of the United States of being a racist. There is no defence of that. You entirely miss the point. You have nothing to contribute on the issue of racism, discrimination or equality of opportunity. These concepts do not enter the metaphor that you call your existence.

I define racism as systemic; a system that denied opportunities to minorities because of their race.

The Oxford dictionary does not agree with you. They mention NOTHING to do with systemic or system.

Where your claim that only whitey is racist falls down, is that in countries with non white ethnicity, those people are just as racist as whitey in white majority countries.

The most racist people I have ever met were not white.

The Oxford English dictionary does agree with me. You may refer to its entry on institutional racism http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/institutional-racism. In any case, why do you look to other sources to validate your opinions. I merely offer a construct in which to understand the concept of racism. Such constructs are accepted methodologies in critical analysis. Not all constructs remain valid but they are a tool to help achieve understanding.

I am a member of a minority but not based on race. I have been subject to personal and institutional discrimination. My construct helps me transfer my personal experience to other minority experiences. You may download an interesting article on construct validity from Harvard at https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3708469/Rosenthal_QuantifyingConstruct.pdf?sequence=1 to understand the methodology.

I do not claim that only whites are racist under structural racism. Whatever ethnicity controls the socio-economic and cultural levels of power in a society can be guilty of racism. I addressed this with reference to Zimbabwe in response to another poster.

My contention is that in white dominated society, non-whites cannot be accused of being racist against whites because they have no access to the institutions that oppress them. What you call racism is what I call bigotry which conforms to your selected definition of racism from OED i.e. "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/racism. It just so happens that that I do not need that definition in my construct because I am trying to understand the causes of such beliefs as a result of structural or institutionalised racism. You may want to google metaracism, aversive racism and books by Joel Kovel.

Edited February 17, 2016 by lostboy

[lostboy]

After reading over 200 posts on this thread, I am bemused by something that some of you might be able to clear up.

My question is directed towards the Europeans and Aussies that might have posted on this thread.

Precisely which decisions made by Justice Scalia have had a direct impact on the Europeans and Australians that have contributed?

How have his decisions affected you personally?

Anybody?

Lawrence v Texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html In the dissent in the case that decriminalised LGBT people having sex in private, Scalia wrote "Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery."

Scalia is using constructionism to deny human rights as a direct result of his personal bigotry.

Scalia equated LGBT people falling in love with activities that are prohibited for being detrimental to society. He has made a number of similar stupid, bigoted comments on LGBT issues. While many countries approved marriage equality ahead of the US, some western countries still have not. Remarks like those of Scalia, promote bigotry and the ongoing denial of universal human rights to all citizens of a country.

This petty chauvinism of objecting to non Americans commenting on American related issues that clearly have universal significance is pathetic. It demonstrates an intellectual bankruptcy that puts nativist cultural bias over the free flow of ideas and critique.

You have admitted to being Australian.

"How have his decisions affected you personally?"

After all your rhetoric, please answer the question.

You keep asking me to answer questions I already answer. I found a case. I quoted the case, I explained how Scalia's points of view can influence people in other countries. What else do you want? I am sure as an old Texan you know the phrase that you can lead a horse to water...

Unless this is classic baiting. Is your point that SCOTUS' jurisdiction is only in the USA and not in other countries etc. Being a bit of a strict constructionist yourself I think. I think my words are sufficiently clear in terms of responding to your goad. I won't explain them again. You may choose to express dumb insolence on this matter.

[lostboy]

No need for 1950's accoutrement straight out of Howdy Doody. Are we regressing in our old age? The post in question is neatly embedded as the initiating post in the nested posts above (deleted for space unfortunately). You call the first black President of the United States a racist. Didn't even have to go back to post 9,999.

Minority voices speaking against whites is not racism. it is legitimate protest against oppression. Are minorities racist? By your definition, yes. But you define racism as bigotry. I define racism as systemic; a system that denied opportunities to minorities because of their race. Take a typical comment from Al Sharpton:

“So (if) some cracker come and tell you ‘Well, my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold your pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of. That means their forefathers was crooks.”http://www.infowars.com/the-hilarious-racism-of-al-sharpton/

You should appreciate this coming from one of your right wing sources. You will no doubt, like Infowars.com brand this as racist. I see it as a legitimate protest against the ability of one racial group to control the socio-economic and cultural levers of a society.

It does not matter how many thousands of posts you have made or how many times you fall down laughing. You purposefully choose not to hear the voices of minorities. You substitute scorn for engagement. You believe that mere bigotry overshadows real and actual discrimination against minorities. Your White Privilege blinds you to any sense of comprehension of minority voices. You dare to accuse the first black President of the United States of being a racist. There is no defence of that. You entirely miss the point. You have nothing to contribute on the issue of racism, discrimination or equality of opportunity. These concepts do not enter the metaphor that you call your existence.

You lost what little credibility you have when you quoted Al Sharpton as your racial guru.

Hook, line and sinker Chuck. I knew you would be easy to catch on this one. Your own racism blinds you to everything in the face of the name of Al Sharpton. You are congenitally unable to make your brain interpret any other words or statement.

Is it not boring being so predictable?

Am happy to elaborate on my reasoning in that post at any time if you are ever able to keep an even keel.

[sgtsabai]

We have some right wingers on here that constantly resort to the old, "I'm not (can't) winning the argument so I'll attack the person, change the subject, reverse the subject". Common tactic, I know it well and still fall for it at times. Although I do get some enjoyment out of watching them squirm....lol. Yea, I like to give tit for tat and then some. Yes, not conducive to a logical, rational argument, but since when have right wingers, bigots, racists, homophobic, dominionists, misogynists, well you know Republicans, been logical or rational? In the mean time a real interesting battle is developing and hard to believe but the fate of the nation could hang on it. While we know Republicans still can't accept a black man in a white house, he really was elected to serve 4 full years, not 3. Republicans might be well served by playing along and pretending to decide on a nomination. Then again, Bernie will certainly nominate someone who is not a center right person like Obama will. If they play into the Democrats hands by refusing to do their Constitutional duty, as they have for 7 years, there will be less Republicans to block a nomination. A quandary.

[sgtsabai]

An interesting take on what the Republican choices are and the consequences: https://ourfuture.org/20160217/what-republicans-risk-by-obstructing-obamas-supreme-court-nomination?utm_source=progressive_breakfast&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pbreak

[chuckd]

After reading over 200 posts on this thread, I am bemused by something that some of you might be able to clear up.

My question is directed towards the Europeans and Aussies that might have posted on this thread.

Precisely which decisions made by Justice Scalia have had a direct impact on the Europeans and Australians that have contributed?

How have his decisions affected you personally?

Anybody?

Lawrence v Texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html In the dissent in the case that decriminalised LGBT people having sex in private, Scalia wrote "Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery."

Scalia is using constructionism to deny human rights as a direct result of his personal bigotry.

Scalia equated LGBT people falling in love with activities that are prohibited for being detrimental to society. He has made a number of similar stupid, bigoted comments on LGBT issues. While many countries approved marriage equality ahead of the US, some western countries still have not. Remarks like those of Scalia, promote bigotry and the ongoing denial of universal human rights to all citizens of a country.

This petty chauvinism of objecting to non Americans commenting on American related issues that clearly have universal significance is pathetic. It demonstrates an intellectual bankruptcy that puts nativist cultural bias over the free flow of ideas and critique.

You have admitted to being Australian.

"How have his decisions affected you personally?"

After all your rhetoric, please answer the question.

You keep asking me to answer questions I already answer. I found a case. I quoted the case, I explained how Scalia's points of view can influence people in other countries. What else do you want? I am sure as an old Texan you know the phrase that you can lead a horse to water...

Unless this is classic baiting. Is your point that SCOTUS' jurisdiction is only in the USA and not in other countries etc. Being a bit of a strict constructionist yourself I think. I think my words are sufficiently clear in terms of responding to your goad. I won't explain them again. You may choose to express dumb insolence on this matter.

Uh, those are dissenting opinions, which means he was in the minority and his opinion did not prevail.

Have any of his dissenting opinions kept you from marrying the person of your choice or had any other direct impact on your life?

Now try and find a majority opinion he wrote that affects any laws in Australia, Thailand or anywhere else outside the US.

And just for the record, if you believe any laws in Australia have ever had any impact on me personally or if I even care what you people do with your laws, you are far off the mark.

I simply don't care what you folks do but please don't try and tell me a dissenting opinion made by a US Supreme Court Justice affects the laws of Australia or any other country.

[chuckd]

No need for 1950's accoutrement straight out of Howdy Doody. Are we regressing in our old age? The post in question is neatly embedded as the initiating post in the nested posts above (deleted for space unfortunately). You call the first black President of the United States a racist. Didn't even have to go back to post 9,999.

Minority voices speaking against whites is not racism. it is legitimate protest against oppression. Are minorities racist? By your definition, yes. But you define racism as bigotry. I define racism as systemic; a system that denied opportunities to minorities because of their race. Take a typical comment from Al Sharpton:

“So (if) some cracker come and tell you ‘Well, my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold your pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of. That means their forefathers was crooks.”http://www.infowars.com/the-hilarious-racism-of-al-sharpton/

You should appreciate this coming from one of your right wing sources. You will no doubt, like Infowars.com brand this as racist. I see it as a legitimate protest against the ability of one racial group to control the socio-economic and cultural levers of a society.

It does not matter how many thousands of posts you have made or how many times you fall down laughing. You purposefully choose not to hear the voices of minorities. You substitute scorn for engagement. You believe that mere bigotry overshadows real and actual discrimination against minorities. Your White Privilege blinds you to any sense of comprehension of minority voices. You dare to accuse the first black President of the United States of being a racist. There is no defence of that. You entirely miss the point. You have nothing to contribute on the issue of racism, discrimination or equality of opportunity. These concepts do not enter the metaphor that you call your existence.

You lost what little credibility you have when you quoted Al Sharpton as your racial guru.

Hook, line and sinker Chuck. I knew you would be easy to catch on this one. Your own racism blinds you to everything in the face of the name of Al Sharpton. You are congenitally unable to make your brain interpret any other words or statement.

Is it not boring being so predictable?

Am happy to elaborate on my reasoning in that post at any time if you are ever able to keep an even keel.

You really don't know as much as you think. Check out the life and times of Al Sharpton.

You might learn a bit in the process.

Tawana Brawley, Duke lacrosse team, Crown Heights Riots, etc.

[stillbornagain]

I think Samantha Bee said it best:

“What better way to honor America’s greatest champion of original intent than by wiping your obstructionist ass on the very document he holds so dear?”

[Jingthing]

Not sad about it and not feeling guilty not to feel sad:

When I heard about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death, I didn't feign sadness. My reaction was too inconsiderate to repeat here, but like many people the justice spent his life trying to suppress — namely women and LGBT people — I shed a tear, but it wasn't one of sadness.

Losing Scalia is one step toward moving past our country’s homophobic and sexist past. It means we’re nearer to a world where people like him aren’t keeping down people like me. So I don’t know why it’s impolite to be happy.

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/2/17/dear-straight-people-were-entitled-our-feelings-scalia

[lostboy]

Lawrence v Texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html In the dissent in the case that decriminalised LGBT people having sex in private, Scalia wrote "Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery."

Scalia is using constructionism to deny human rights as a direct result of his personal bigotry.

Scalia equated LGBT people falling in love with activities that are prohibited for being detrimental to society. He has made a number of similar stupid, bigoted comments on LGBT issues. While many countries approved marriage equality ahead of the US, some western countries still have not. Remarks like those of Scalia, promote bigotry and the ongoing denial of universal human rights to all citizens of a country.

This petty chauvinism of objecting to non Americans commenting on American related issues that clearly have universal significance is pathetic. It demonstrates an intellectual bankruptcy that puts nativist cultural bias over the free flow of ideas and critique.

You have admitted to being Australian.

"How have his decisions affected you personally?"

After all your rhetoric, please answer the question.

You keep asking me to answer questions I already answer. I found a case. I quoted the case, I explained how Scalia's points of view can influence people in other countries. What else do you want? I am sure as an old Texan you know the phrase that you can lead a horse to water...

Unless this is classic baiting. Is your point that SCOTUS' jurisdiction is only in the USA and not in other countries etc. Being a bit of a strict constructionist yourself I think. I think my words are sufficiently clear in terms of responding to your goad. I won't explain them again. You may choose to express dumb insolence on this matter.

Uh, those are dissenting opinions, which means he was in the minority and his opinion did not prevail.

Have any of his dissenting opinions kept you from marrying the person of your choice or had any other direct impact on your life?

Now try and find a majority opinion he wrote that affects any laws in Australia, Thailand or anywhere else outside the US.

And just for the record, if you believe any laws in Australia have ever had any impact on me personally or if I even care what you people do with your laws, you are far off the mark.

I simply don't care what you folks do but please don't try and tell me a dissenting opinion made by a US Supreme Court Justice affects the laws of Australia or any other country.

You don't play fair Chuck. You keep changing the rules. I know what you mean. You know what I mean.

[chuckd]

You keep asking me to answer questions I already answer. I found a case. I quoted the case, I explained how Scalia's points of view can influence people in other countries. What else do you want? I am sure as an old Texan you know the phrase that you can lead a horse to water...

Unless this is classic baiting. Is your point that SCOTUS' jurisdiction is only in the USA and not in other countries etc. Being a bit of a strict constructionist yourself I think. I think my words are sufficiently clear in terms of responding to your goad. I won't explain them again. You may choose to express dumb insolence on this matter.

Uh, those are dissenting opinions, which means he was in the minority and his opinion did not prevail.

Have any of his dissenting opinions kept you from marrying the person of your choice or had any other direct impact on your life?

Now try and find a majority opinion he wrote that affects any laws in Australia, Thailand or anywhere else outside the US.

And just for the record, if you believe any laws in Australia have ever had any impact on me personally or if I even care what you people do with your laws, you are far off the mark.

I simply don't care what you folks do but please don't try and tell me a dissenting opinion made by a US Supreme Court Justice affects the laws of Australia or any other country.

You don't play fair Chuck. You keep changing the rules. I know what you mean. You know what I mean.

Yeah, well you know what they say...Life's a bitch and then you die.

[lannarebirth]

Good article written by Scalia clerk:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/17/im-a-liberal-lawyer-clerking-for-scalia-taught-me-how-to-think-about-the-law/

[thaibeachlovers]

Lawrence v Texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html In the dissent in the case that decriminalised LGBT people having sex in private, Scalia wrote "Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery."

Scalia is using constructionism to deny human rights as a direct result of his personal bigotry.

Scalia equated LGBT people falling in love with activities that are prohibited for being detrimental to society. He has made a number of similar stupid, bigoted comments on LGBT issues. While many countries approved marriage equality ahead of the US, some western countries still have not. Remarks like those of Scalia, promote bigotry and the ongoing denial of universal human rights to all citizens of a country.

This petty chauvinism of objecting to non Americans commenting on American related issues that clearly have universal significance is pathetic. It demonstrates an intellectual bankruptcy that puts nativist cultural bias over the free flow of ideas and critique.

You have admitted to being Australian.

"How have his decisions affected you personally?"

After all your rhetoric, please answer the question.

You keep asking me to answer questions I already answer. I found a case. I quoted the case, I explained how Scalia's points of view can influence people in other countries. What else do you want? I am sure as an old Texan you know the phrase that you can lead a horse to water...

Unless this is classic baiting. Is your point that SCOTUS' jurisdiction is only in the USA and not in other countries etc. Being a bit of a strict constructionist yourself I think. I think my words are sufficiently clear in terms of responding to your goad. I won't explain them again. You may choose to express dumb insolence on this matter.

Uh, those are dissenting opinions, which means he was in the minority and his opinion did not prevail.

Have any of his dissenting opinions kept you from marrying the person of your choice or had any other direct impact on your life?

Now try and find a majority opinion he wrote that affects any laws in Australia, Thailand or anywhere else outside the US.

And just for the record, if you believe any laws in Australia have ever had any impact on me personally or if I even care what you people do with your laws, you are far off the mark.

I simply don't care what you folks do but please don't try and tell me a dissenting opinion made by a US Supreme Court Justice affects the laws of Australia or any other country.

He wasn't in the minority when they elected GW, and WE got Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS and all the rest, so don't say HE never affected US.

[thaibeachlovers]

After reading over 200 posts on this thread, I am bemused by something that some of you might be able to clear up.

My question is directed towards the Europeans and Aussies that might have posted on this thread.

Precisely which decisions made by Justice Scalia have had a direct impact on the Europeans and Australians that have contributed?

How have his decisions affected you personally?

Anybody?

Lawrence v Texas https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html In the dissent in the case that decriminalised LGBT people having sex in private, Scalia wrote "Texas Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003) undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroin, and, for that matter, working more than 60 hours per week in a bakery."

Scalia is using constructionism to deny human rights as a direct result of his personal bigotry.

Scalia equated LGBT people falling in love with activities that are prohibited for being detrimental to society. He has made a number of similar stupid, bigoted comments on LGBT issues. While many countries approved marriage equality ahead of the US, some western countries still have not. Remarks like those of Scalia, promote bigotry and the ongoing denial of universal human rights to all citizens of a country.

This petty chauvinism of objecting to non Americans commenting on American related issues that clearly have universal significance is pathetic. It demonstrates an intellectual bankruptcy that puts nativist cultural bias over the free flow of ideas and critique.

Scalia was correct. If the State can legally deny me the right to take my OWN life with a Dr's help, they can deny anything they choose. I know that wasn't the example, but I don't want to get into murky waters with my right to use drugs, be a prostitute, or work as long as I am able.

If people don't like it, they should vote in people that support THEIR cause and change the law, not go running to the SC over things that are not in the SC's domain.

As has been previously mentioned, the SC is there to interpret the law and not make it, and, moreover, within the limits of the constitution.

[sirineou]

Update!!

Scalia still dead