Inconsistency is the biggie. Look at the right wing lunatics hating on the court now after swearing by them in previous cases.
The court is the guide, how they rule is how our nation goes. If a certain member is left or right leaning, as they always are, then so be it, the people know what to expect and understand who put them in place and what they get from that.
But when a member equivocates then there are no boundaries, nothing is sacred.
The one time opinion on Bush v Gore was as slanted of a look at the law that could be tolerated and was then ruled to not have any precedential value because of that useless throwaway opinion. Corporations are people is so ridiculous that it was just accepted but the inner sting rots the citizenry. These rulings ultimately hurt the partisanâs own constituency and promote nation damaging us vs. them attitude of always backing your team even when outlandishly mistaken.
The inconsistencies make everyone unhappy and leave everyone in a suspended state of turmoil. Whomsoever it is that Scalia feels that he is leading now, rather than being just a simple judge of the law are just devotees of argle bargle and tumultuity. Not legaltarians.
I donât wish to get too dime store Freud, but this jerk is totally unaware of his inconsistencies. One would expect this from some person of ordinary intelligence, but no one questions that this man has considerable intellect.
Just shows how bigotry and bias will trump intelligence and reason. The caricature of him as an old get-off-my-lawn, bigoted old man is, alas. right on the money.
I had a number of Scalia types as co-workers over the years. Their private conversations are peppered with with all the hate words for blacks, Hispanics, gays, Jews and women. I recall one Scalia type in particular who routinely referred to Jews as âthem Christ-killers,â gays as âqueers,â and women as âcuntsâ. You can fill in the blanks on blacks and Hispanics.
Scalia should have known that science has nothing to say about âquestions of ultimate origins.â
I canât tell from the quote if that is a paraphrase of what Steven Jay Gould wrote or not, but even if it was, that is a horseshit statement.
It is a truism in science that nothing is ever absolutely known, just things known to varying degrees of confidence. Lifeâs origins are likely to remain unknown to any great degree of confidence; the same goes with the origin of the universe. Just because things canât be known absolutely doesnât mean all possible explanations are equally likely. Science has a lot to say about which proposed explanations are unlikely, as there are still many consequences can be considered.
I think Roberts will do it IF Scalia gets worse- and I mean being openly defiant, incoherent or showing up in his underwear for a hearing, but youâre right. I donât think that Roberts will do it before 2017, though he might do it after even if a Democrat is in office.
That is, in fact what Gould says. Dawkins has consistently criticized Gould for this type of thinking. However, the point is not whether you accept Gouldâs statements about the limitations of science, but about Scaliaâs confusion.
Scaliaâs latest ranting is poison. In a time that is more âus versus themâ than in my lifetime, this highly âintelligentâ fool is pouring fuel of dissent onto the fire because he is unhappy about the marriage equality decision. A decision that to me, is one of the more clear ones to decide as they did.
Agree with much of what you say, but I think it is very important to draw the line at your statement that âfor practical purposes, any writing Thomas does is actually Scalia.â Whatever we may think of Thomasâs views, behavior, etc., our side should retire this notion that Thomas is some kind of puppet for Scalia. They share many views and thus vote together with great frequency (as do, say, many of those on the left), but Thomas (aided by his clerks, as all Justices are) actually goes out of his way to write quite lengthy opinions developing his own view of the lawâa view which you and I might 100% disagree with but one that is very much his own. If Thomas was simply Scaliaâs puppet, he wouldnât bother. Finallyâand I am not at all saying that this is behind your particular commentâit makes me uncomfortable how quick many are to go along with the idea that the one African-American Justice is the one who isnât smart enough to do any thinking for himself.
Local NPR had a discussion with a couple of lawyers about these cases. They wouldnât even discuss Scaliaâs dissents, though. Said his dissents were all political (for RW talk radio), and no legal. Sounds about right.
(and for practical purposes, any writing Thomas does is actually Scalia)
No, AHC is correct. Thomas does not just parrot what Scalia says (and it is rather patronizing to say so), he has a distinct legal philosophy. Itâs completely insane, but it isnât the same kind of outright partisan hocus pocus as Scalia. Thatâs why Thomas writes so few decisions (basically only unanimous ones), so many separate dissents, and is almost invariably the one in any 8-1 decision.
Alito is much closer to Scalia philosophically, which makes it noteworthy that they not only wrote separate dissents here but split on another recent case.
Scalia has become more than a mere hypocrite â heâs become a complete fraud. In his dissent in the last ACA decision, he wrote that federal subsidies were the âobvious intentâ of Congress in the ACA, yet in his dissent in this latest decision, suddenly he claims that thereâs no basis for the majorityâs view that Congressâ intent regarding federal subsidies was clear. Scaliaâs not just inconsistent â heâs willfully dishonest and deceitful.
The below works, although only for one iteration, apparently. I canât get alternative codes Iâve seen online to work, though, including ones more flexible.
< open angle bracket, followed by words âthis is bigâ, then by a > closed angle bracket.
This is big
Same code with the big preceded by a / slash returns to normal size.
Just in this case, it really changed the meaning of what you said.