Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Topic: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia (Read 60232 times)

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #125 – 2016-03-27, 19:31:03

I take it Oakdale that you are a visitor to planet Earth?

Every thread on a forum always drifts as well you damn know so no hermit brain thinking please. The mention I made is part of the tradition therefore and shows how silly the legal world can be.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #126 – 2016-03-27, 23:06:38

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-27, 02:20:32

Ah, so to you it only matters if the Act was technically constitutional or not.

Since the law was struck down because it was unconstitutional (the stated reason…), that is indeed the only question: The Supreme Court is not a second legislative branch of government here; at least, it wasn't intended to be… That Scalia recognized this and argued strongly for it is to his credit, I think.
I take it you have an "ends justify means" philosophy of law, and believe that law is just politics by other means?

I find this curious:

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-27, 02:20:32

Because the Constitution naturally foresaw and provided for everything, right?

No; because as Chief Justice Marshall said, a long time ago, "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"

ersi, I think you confuse wisdom and fad…

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #127 – 2016-03-28, 06:15:53

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 23:06:38

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-27, 02:20:32
Ah, so to you it only matters if the Act was technically constitutional or not.
Since the law was struck down because it was unconstitutional (the stated reason…), that is indeed the only question: The Supreme Court is not a second legislative branch of government here; at least, it wasn't intended to be… That Scalia recognized this and argued strongly for it is to his credit, I think.

You still haven't answered if the majority opinion somehow deviates from this. You have been going on and on about religion and certain amendments, giving the impression that religious freedom matters or something like that. Such interpretation of yours goes against what Scalia expressly says: He strongly argues that the Act has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science. So, you are intently misreading Scalia.

How about the majority opinion? Can we have your misreading of that too? Thus far you have been just praising Scalia. How about identifying what is wrong with the majority opinion, if anything?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 23:06:38

I take it you have an "ends justify means" philosophy of law, and believe that law is just politics by other means?

That's why it's quite frustrating to talk to you. You are happy to conjure up some of your liberal stereotype phantom and then deal with that, instead of with the actual argument presented to you.

In my philosophy of law, there are ends and means. Both have to be appropriate. The end or purpose has to be identified as good and proper, and the way to get there should proceed as agreed.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 23:06:38

ersi, I think you confuse wisdom and fad…

You fail at answers, as always. Instead of answering my actual questions, you imagined that my real question was something like why don't you agree with liberals. This is the hallmark of a reactionary wingnut: Avoid agreeing with liberals at all costs. You are doing occasionally pretty well in this area. Not so well in any other area, such as in defining what a liberal is and what it does and why one should not agree with it.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #128 – 2016-03-28, 22:57:34

We're going to have to go back quite a ways to get to the nub of the problem, the difference of opinion, that has led to two paths of interpretation of the religious restrictions and religious freedoms "enshrined" in the 1st amendment…
The most common trope used by the side not favored by Scalia is President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. Are you familiar with it? That "wall of separation" became a battlement, a rampart from which to defend against religion in 1947, with Hugo Black's majority decision (5-4!) in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).
He wrote:

Quote

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

Do you not see problems with this formulation?
First, the second term of art in "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another" is obviously wrong: By such reasoning the teaching of America's Declaration of Independence should be -at least!- censored…
But J. Black misunderstands the matter even more egregiously: Second, the case is about public assistance for ferrying school children to school. All the children whose parents received such assistance are dependents of tax-payers. But some attended "religious" schools… So, J. Black (and the complainer) think they should not receive such public assistance! Whence the origin of the court's switch from the 1st amendment's clear language to an animosity to religion.
By his reasoning, any adherent to any religion can be denied Food Stamps — on that basis! Does that strike you as reasonable?
Such has continued almost unabated since then. Bizarre "technicalities" used to harass anyone who practices any religion… (Well, not "any" really: Only Christians.

) There's a long established "cottage industry" devoted to frustrating and disenfranchising Christians…)

It is this proclivity that J. Scalia (and, earlier, C.J. Rehnquist) wrote against, as being a-historical and illogical: The 1st amendment's guarantee of both religious freedom and disestablishment precludes this sort of dispute… In other words, school children -if granted funds to go to and from school- cannot be discriminated against, because they attend "religious" schools.
The funds are granted to tax-payers who have school-aged children attending school.
What more is there to be considered?

Surely, their religion shouldn't be an issue: Should Jews or Mohammedans or Hindus not get the aid? American Indians? (You get the point, I hope…) But, if not, I'll make it explicit:
Adherence to a religion hasn't yet been made (…except via court decisions!) a crime punishable by second-class citizenship…

The majority opinion buys into trope wholeheartedly, proclaiming that the majorities of both legislative branches of Louisiana are liars… On what basis, I'd ask?

You'd make the case about the "wisdom" of the law, and its effects. But that's not what this case was concerned about. Or was it?

You take this to be politics!
Specifically, I'd ask, where in our jurisprudence is that an acceptable "tactic" for appeals courts?

The case that caught your attention involves what I'd agree is a lame attempt to keep debate about evolution, as a scientific theory, and Intelligent Design… Should children be taught "both sides of the issue"?
What about your No has any support from the 1st amendment?

Nothing, except the animosity to religion evidenced by more than 50 years of activist judges…
No wonder you seek to denigrate Scalia!

(You'd be happier in 18th century France!

Right up until they lopped off your head!

)

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #129 – 2016-03-29, 03:30:15

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-28, 22:57:34

By his reasoning, any adherent to any religion can be denied Food Stamps — on that basis! Does that strike you as reasonable?

And what right-wingnut blog told you this? Clearly the author was on Oxycontin, aka hillybilly heroin. Black was arguing that taxpayer funds could be used to transport children to parochial schools, as long the the funds didn't favor one religion over another. Here's a non-dumbass account of what happened and the full majority and dissenting opinions. In this you'll note Black said in very simple language Measured by these standards, we cannot say that the First Amendment prohibits New Jersey from spending tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of parochial school pupils as a part of a general program under which it pays the fares of pupils attending public and other schools." Therefore, your question to Ersi is invalid and appears to be based on misunderstanding of Black's opinion. The First Amendment (and Black's reasoning) would mean that a person could NOT be denied public assistance on the grounds that he's a Christian of any denomination, a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, some weird sect that worships cabbages or an atheist.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-28, 22:57:34

There's a long established "cottage industry" devoted to frustrating and disenfranchising Christians…)

Not at all. Problematically, the Christians have been having their members of congress do blatantly unconstitutional things at the state, local and Federal levels. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard they were trying to shoe-horn in religious instruction under the guise of science, even though creation "science" has failed to produce any empirical data and thus doesn't qualify as science. While it is true that we don't want the government choosing what's science, you're overlooking that creation "science" only takes into account the teaching of the three Abrahamic religions, but not those of other major religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism and is therefore advancing a religious agenda. However, like the Judeo-christian account of creation, the other religion's account lack an empirical foundation and still have no place in science class.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #130 – 2016-03-29, 04:40:22

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-03-28, 19:30:15

And what right-wingnut blog told you this?

Why do you persist with this silly projection, Sang?

If a grant for transport to and from school can be denied to attendees of Parochial school… Surely, you have enough familiarity with logic to extrapolate? (Black himself did… Or didn't you read the opinion you linked to?

)

The only reason Black gives in his opinion for the discrimination is that the students attend a school that does teach religion, as well… Even you gleaned that!
(And he rightly rejects that, upon 1st amendment grounds.)
It's the section where he writes

Quote

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining [p16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.
(emphasis added)

This is so over-the-top!
And it led to what we've had for more than 50 years now: A constitutional jurisprudence that is frequently hostile to Christianity…

(Ain't it funny, how dicta takes over, after a while?

)

Quote

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.

How does this become "No tax monies can go to believers…" even though they've paid into themselves?
You and I both saw it happen! (Of course, I saw more of it… I'm older than you!

) So, I'll tell you: "Support" became "benefit in any way" — guess why?
You'll find many more cites to this particular part of this decision by other court opinions than any other! And you'll see -if you can but look- that nary a one distinguishes the opinion itself… Which is what would happen, if your contention is correct.
—————————————————————————————
BTW: The "big bang" theory of the origin of our universe would be deemed "religious" by your definition… Should we have to stop teaching it?

—————————————————————————————
This article is likely more to your liking… But it can't help but make my point: The decision was ignored, and some of its rationale was adopted. Gee! I don't know; that seems — kinda, valley-girlish…

(Thanks, for pointing me to this… I'd only read court opinions and drawn my own conclusions: It's nice to know that I'm actually "in the game". I'm not a lawyer, you know?

)

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #131 – 2016-03-29, 05:34:47

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-28, 22:57:34

We're going to have to go back quite a ways to get to the nub of the problem, the difference of opinion, that has led to two paths of interpretation...

So, the nub of the problem is that you have two camps of interpretation. I suggest that the real problem is that in such a situation you pick your camp and get entrenched in it without any regard to the issue at hand. The real problem is this:

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-28, 22:57:34

By his reasoning, any adherent to any religion can be denied Food Stamps — on that basis! Does that strike you as reasonable?

Of course it looks unreasonable to deny Food Stamps from adherents of religion. But you see, I asked you the very same question about another issue - does the Act look reasonable in any way at all? Are legislators free to cook up any silly law they want? Since you didn't even address the issue of its constitutionality (i.e. if the majority opinion was wrongly based/justified/reasoned somehow), your answer is clearly - yes, as long as it's your camp doing it; the libs should be blocked from doing the same. Thanks for being so clear for a change.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #132 – 2016-03-29, 06:59:18

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-29, 04:40:22

And it led to what we've had for more than 50 years now: A constitutional jurisprudence that is frequently hostile to Christianity…

And it never occurs to you that 1) the religious right declared "culture war" on the rest of us - not the other way around 2) What they've been attempting to do really is unconstitutional.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #133 – 2016-03-29, 07:10:13

You're so wrong, ersi!
"By his reasoning, any adherent to any religion can be denied Food Stamps — on that basis! Does that strike you as reasonable?" As usual, you aren't paying attention: He was saying exactly the opposite; and he ruled that way. He happened to mention it, in passing…
Likewise, his remarks about taxes and the 1st amendment have been blown out of proportion: Dicta has become dogma!

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #134 – 2016-03-29, 07:11:57

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-03-28, 22:59:18

And it never occurs to you that 1) the religious right declared "culture war" on the rest of us - not the other way around 2) What they've been attempting to do really is unconstitutional.

No, that didn't occur to me… I was there!
But you've only ever been taught "revisionist" history…

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #135 – 2016-03-29, 07:14:41

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-29, 07:10:13

Dicta has become dogma!

Yes. "The libs are wrong whatever the issue" is your dicta and dogma.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #136 – 2016-03-29, 07:40:53

You're a legal scholar?

Well, compared to you — I am!
(For someone who continually harps on the necessity to define terms, you seem awfully lax about the understanding of common words… Indeed, you twist and turn them however it suits! You're the Donald Trump of Estonia… At least, intellectually!
Have you actually built buildings?

)

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #137 – 2016-03-29, 08:47:51

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-29, 07:11:57

But you've only ever been taught "revisionist" history…

No, I was there to watch them pull some of the crap.

I do find your arguments incoherent You choose to underline "No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa." You're in favor of low taxes and smaller government, yet doing those things would require additional taxes to support religion and getting expanding the government into religion.

You also say silly things like " "No tax monies can go to believers…" even though they've paid into themselves?" What about non-believers in a particular denomination or religion having to pay for the activities of a church/Mosque/Synagogue they don't believe in. Why should a Catholic or Protestant have to pay for a Mormon child's religious instruction in a school run by that sect? Or a Jew having to pay for Muslim's religious instruction? Yes, I've seen a Muslim school here, since unlike you, I go out of the house. You can't tell me you want your tax dollars funding a Muslim's religious instruction through additional taxes. But that's what this argument would require. Since you're claiming that it's tax money "they've paid into themselves" , the best thing is for those believers to do would be to donate the money directly to the religious school and cut out the government middle-man. That school in New Jersey could have held a fund raiser and used the proceeds to purchase a van or bus to pick the kids up, and the donors could write it off their taxes and no government aid would be required.

Tell you what. I'll move to California just so I can open a Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster school just so I can replace actual science class with the "theory" that the FSM created the world and make your tax dollars pay for it.

This way money will go to believers, just not in the religion that you hoped it would.

We'll be sure to claim "sincere belief" and cry "oppression" if the money is denied and then waste plenty of taxpayer money fighting the case up to the SCOTUS, all the while knowing the outcome will be against us.

The key will be rising as big of stink as possible about nothing. We'll open a little spaghetti restaurant next to the school just to claim not to cater to Christian weddings, even though we won't cater at all (that's what Memories Pizza did. They said they won't cater to same sex weddings, but they actually didn't even cater...

)

Here we go again

Reply #138 – 2016-03-29, 11:40:46

Creationism? Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Ah... the good old days!

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #139 – 2016-03-29, 22:43:15

Who the fuck is that antonini scala? a barber turned barbieri turned american opera politician?
Wau, the way of the imigrant, the way of the American, up to the pseudo social scale top.
No patience.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #140 – 2016-03-30, 05:32:49

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-29, 07:40:53

You're a legal scholar? Well, compared to you — I am!

Sure you are, compared to anyone here. Law people are absolutely the most despicable, a notch stronger in the rank of depravity compared to economists and politicians. Economists have an excuse because their science is academically twisted. Politicians have an excuse because some of them used to be common folks before being corrupted by power. Law people have no excuse. They know they should know and do better, and their discipline sort of teaches them how, but after graduation they still do the opposite.

But really, I don't think you are that bad. You are more of a politician: MUST. DISAGREE. WITH. LIBS.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #141 – 2016-03-30, 09:30:56

You have an amazing ability to view the world around you by preconception. But when you want to say I'm wrong you only have your "you're a conservative" trope!

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #142 – 2016-03-30, 11:33:35

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-30, 09:30:56

But when you want to say I'm wrong you only have your "you're a conservative" trope!

And what's your trope? "You're a liberal socialist!" even if the person in question isn't particularly liberal and far from a socialist. I can't speak for Ersi, but I noted some time ago that according to polls, my opinions are pretty much centrist (and provided the links to demonstrate this). It's just that the "conservative" crazy train has gone off the rails on right side of the tracks and appears to not have much concept of the constitution anymore. Creation "science" taught in schools as science? Ridiculous by both academic and constitutional standards. I also see that you're unable to answer why you want additional taxes to transport pupils to parochial schools. You have no answers for anything, just snark and trolling.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #143 – 2016-03-30, 19:21:56

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-03-30, 03:33:35

I also see that you're unable to answer why you want additional taxes to transport pupils to parochial schools.

I didn't say I wanted taxes to provide transport; the New Jersey state legislature did… And one guy sued, because he was miffed that parochial school students weren't discriminated against!
At any rate, J. Black reached the right decision. (You agree with him, right?)
But the dicta has become more important than the decision…

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #144 – 2016-03-31, 03:16:28

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-30, 19:21:56

I didn't say I wanted taxes to provide transport; the New Jersey state legislature did…

You right-wingers don't think things through. To provide transportation to parochial schools as well as public ones would require addition taxation because of the expense, that is unless the state doing into debt is acceptable to you. Of course, you know damn well the reason you're making up wasn't why he sued.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #145 – 2016-03-31, 05:02:45

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-03-30, 19:16:28

You right-wingers don't think things through. To provide transportation to parochial schools as well as public ones would require addition taxation because of the expense, that is unless the state doing into debt is acceptable to you. Of course, you know damn well the reason you're making up wasn't why he sued.

In other words, taxpayers who send their kids to parochial school cease to be citizens… Gotcha!
(Alternately, when the legislature drafted the bill they totaled up all the taxpayers and then subtracted out those who sent their kids to parochial school… Nah!)
You just have your "opinion" and you'll grasp at any partisan straw to support it!

Tell me, one, why any extra taxation would have been required? And, two, why the fellow sued?

(It never fails to surprise me, how some people can see what's in other people's heart! Still, I think at the level of the Supreme Court that the Ouija board should be put away…

That is a reference to the LA "creation" case, I mention; I wouldn't want you to get more confused.)

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #146 – 2016-03-31, 05:21:53

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-31, 05:02:45

Quote from: midnight raccoon on 2016-03-30, 19:16:28
You right-wingers don't think things through. To provide transportation to parochial schools as well as public ones would require addition taxation because of the expense, that is unless the state doing into debt is acceptable to you. Of course, you know damn well the reason you're making up wasn't why he sued.
In other words, taxpayers who send their kids to parochial school cease to be citizens… Gotcha!

All it means is that parochial schools are not public schools. Some people may like them be serviced the same as public schools, but there has to be a good reason.

For example, the govt of Estonia thought for a while it a good idea to prop up private schools (because several prominent members of their party operate private schools in different parts of the country), to force extant school buses, school meal providers and even public school teachers to service them whenever the private schools present an application for such. This turned out a bad idea when Tallinn city mayor (always at quarrel with the govt of Estonia) began using this regulation to move half of the education network in the city to a private basis - formally out of the city's budget, but with a direct cost to the govt. When the national govt understood the situation, the regulation was overturned, of course.

Did the regulation care about citizens?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #147 – 2016-03-31, 05:50:22

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-30, 21:21:53

All it means is that parochial schools are not public schools. Some people may like them be serviced the same as public schools, but there has to be a good reason.

In this case, no distinction was made…in the law.
The complaint was that material support was thereby given to religious schools. As I've mentioned before, by that reasoning, Food Stamps should be denied to Catholic schoolchildren…

As always, you misunderstand how things work here. But I appreciate the insight into Estonian democracy!

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #148 – 2016-03-31, 14:17:55

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-31, 05:02:45

In other words, taxpayers who send their kids to parochial school cease to be citizens… Gotcha!

What the fuck are you babbling incoherently about? Do you even know? I'll bet you forgot that my own sister went to Catholic school. Of course, we handled the transportation issue ourselves since it was the family's decision to send her there instead of public school. Of course, that silliness of yours was an attempt to dodge the issue that money to transport children has to come from somewhere. The other question is why I even bothered answering your gibberish.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #149 – 2016-03-31, 14:51:09

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-31, 05:50:22

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-30, 21:21:53
All it means is that parochial schools are not public schools. Some people may like them be serviced the same as public schools, but there has to be a good reason.
In this case, no distinction was made…in the law.
The complaint was that material support was thereby given to religious schools. As I've mentioned before, by that reasoning, Food Stamps should be denied to Catholic schoolchildren…

As always, you misunderstand how things work here. But I appreciate the insight into Estonian democracy!

News in general and threads on this forum provide a good overview how things work over there. Some glance at your laws, court cases, appeals and, most insightfully, your comments on everything clearly tell that things don't work over there.

For example: This last point was about school transportation. You made a direct and immediate connection to being a citizen. Marvellous.

I begin to understand how you manage to interpret Scalia as saying things he never said. Scalia said that creation is science and you conclude - he is upholding constitutional religious freedoms. Awesome stuff