doublename Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 The supreme court justice Antonin Scalia has died. He was 79. The supreme court chief justice, John Roberts, the Republican Texas governor Greg Abbott and the US marshals service confirmed that Scalia had died. In a statement, Roberts said: “On behalf of the court and retired justices, I am saddened to report that our colleague Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/feb/13/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dead-at-79 Do you GAF? Is the world a better or worse place now? Dead conservative judge with a Dem in the White House... Who's on deck??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Democrats with no concern for civil liberties or the constitution, the prospect of anyone they appoint is scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petina Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 for all the lives he's ruined i see no reason to respect his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doublename Posted February 14, 2016 Author Share Posted February 14, 2016 Democrats with no concern for civil liberties or the constitution, the prospect of anyone they appoint is scary. Republicans respect civil liberties now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Thank fuck this asshole is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 dlete are you suggesting that obama will appoint someone worse on civil rights than scalia, who lamented the voting rights act being renewed in 2006? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hi Guys Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 lol smh at the "we need to wait til the next president is elected to appoint a successor" talk from the conservatives. fuck him. he was scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyramidpanes Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 who was this guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brisbot Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Just after the 5-4 (Republicans won) vote stopping the global warming initiative thing too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 who was this guy? He was a supreme court judge who held conservative views. His 2008 opinion on the second amendment was a victory for the gun lobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autopilot Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 only the good die young Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doublename Posted February 14, 2016 Author Share Posted February 14, 2016 ...or to aweSOME??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Just after the 5-4 (Republicans won) vote stopping the global warming initiative thing too. the ruling halts it until legal challenges are settled, i dont know if or when that will happen. this issue is a good way to combat the disregard of the republicans. the science is pretty basic. you could do a science experiment with middle schoolers to demonstrate that co2 is a greenhouse gas. terms like "global warming" and "climate change" dont do the phenomenon justice. it's climate destabilization. the climates have been stable for thousands of years, now we dont know whats going to happen. all kinds of chain reactions are in store. the fools cheer-leading the climate deniers say the climate changes all the time. well, yeah, on the tens of thousands and millions of years scale. for several hundred years though, it has been pretty stable. we are kicking it into an era of unpredictable change. what will happen to the global economy if coastal cities have to be abandoned in one or two or three hundred years? no insurance companies or government programs can substitute for that kind of loss of value and disruption of infrastructure. cue republicans to say it will spur the private sector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 this news pleases me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDobalina Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 I wish we could emblazon that graph on his toombstone. Funeral attended by hundreds of his closest corporations. Rot in eternity dude, you get to be some future civilization's jet fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Rot in eternity dude, you get to be some future civilization's jet fuel. I'd rather his corpse feeds a tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autopilot Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Don't pretend you all didn't chub up at this new excuse to vomit upon the internet a fresh wave of punditry on American politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubin Farr Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Democrats with no concern for civil liberties or the constitution, the prospect of anyone they appoint is scary. Republicans respect civil liberties now? Yeah really FFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ignatius Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 he was a prick imo. the onion does it nicely "Justice Scalia Dead Following 30-Year Battle With Social Progress" http://www.theonion.com/graphic/justice-scalia-dead-following-30-year-battle-socia-52356?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ignatius Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Don't pretend you all didn't chub up at this new excuse to vomit upon the internet a fresh wave of punditry on American politics. i have enjoyed the resulting humor. personally i feel for Clarence Thomas.. he must feel so entirely lost now that he has no guiding light.. no rudder.. no older brother figure to speak for him when he's supposed to have a thought.. oh right.. he doesn't speak.. hasn't said but maybe two words from the bench in how many years? anyway.. here's a quote or two from the departed "Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached" - Antonin Scalia "in order for capitalism to work... to produce a good and a stable society, traditional Christian virtues are essential" - Antonin Scalia "If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?" AntoninScalia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ignatius Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 also keep in mind.. the republicans will try to block the appointee for as long as they can. the longest it's ever taken is 121 days or something.. obama has 340 days left in office or there abouts.. so if they manage to do it it'll be a precedent and in the mean time they'll go on and on about how it should be the next president who appoints whoever the next SCJ. what a load of crap. helluva time to croak but it'll maybe at least change up the media blob for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Satan has forsaken him. Also, how come dleet is allowed to troll that much, it's all he does. Shameful behaviour from a mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 I really dont think he was a prick. He had a specific idea how a democracy should work and how to interpret the constitution. Imo, he was sincerely a-political. And it's really confusing to see him get all the crap while he's only 1/9th of supreme court, and while interpreting any of his views from a political lens. The irony is, imo, that he did take his job seriously in that he tried to be as a-political as possible. Which is what a judge should do. Again, imo. The current thing about the supreme court being so politicised is more a problem of a disfunctional democracy and less of a supreme court with "the wrong views". Although I'm sure most of you either disagree or dont give a fuck, this youtube might explain a thing or two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ignatius Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 I really dont think he was a prick. He had a specific idea how a democracy should work and how to interpret the constitution. Imo, he was sincerely a-political. And it's really confusing to see him get all the crap while he's only 1/9th of supreme court, and while interpreting any of his views from a political lens. The irony is, imo, that he did take his job seriously in that he tried to be as a-political as possible. Which is what a judge should do. Again, imo. The current thing about the supreme court being so politicised is more a problem of a disfunctional democracy and less of a supreme court with "the wrong views". Although I'm sure most of you either disagree or dont give a fuck, this youtube might explain a thing or two one can be apolotical and still be a prick. i don't think he was apolitical though. or impartial. he was clearly a conservative guy and had conservative ideas. it's why certain people are picked by certain presidents. thankfully, they sometimes surprise us. also obviously some cases that the court hears involve issues that are close to the hearts of the justices and they all have opinions one way or the other. i'm no constitutional historian nor do i study the supreme court but i'm pretty sure you can go back through his history and find places where he and other justices have claimed "i'm for strictly interpreting the constitution" and other times when they've done that only when it suits their interests.. and other times where they've interpreted things with a less strict eye. anyway.. i agree about a "disfunctional democracy". we've got that in droves for quite a while now. but thee social issues are always going to end up in the courts because people disagree with this or that law and challenge things in court cases and then up the chain it goes. i don't see an end to that any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.