goDel Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 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. Yeah, well, that was exactly his point, in a way. After seeing the video I realised he was not some inconsistent prick who just went into the direction his personal politics send him. Perhaps he was a conservative, but when it comes to law he was an outspoken originalist as opposed to interpreting the constitution as some living document. Even though I'd personally prefer the living document kind of thinking, I do agree with him when he argues that precisely this way of interpreting legal texts could open the door to political outcomes. Outcomes which should have been made by the democratical process, not the judicial. He was very clear about this. It's ok to disagree. I just think it's really sad and juvenile to read about the hate after his death. It doesn't really matter because this is a music forum, so people aren't really invested in it. But is it really that difficult to show 'some' respect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candiru Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bechuga Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 All I know about him is this: [youtubehd]7qrYegn5mtg[/youtubehd] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxien Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Term limits for SCJs. I'd suggest about 10-12 years, then they're gone. sent from a tippytappy flatpad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr lopez 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. its appalling and a perfect representation oh how watmm has completely lost the plot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braintree Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Term limits for SCJs. I'd suggest about 10-12 years, then they're gone. sent from a tippytappy flatpad I've always been confused by the fact that supreme court justices have a lifetime job. It seems like there should be SOME kind of limit. Satan has forsaken him. Also, how come dleet is allowed to troll that much, it's all he does. Shameful behaviour from a mod. its appalling and a perfect representation oh how watmm has completely lost the plot I think delet was suggesting that the Democratic party doesn't really care about civil liberties as much as they might seem since they have very strong ties to corporations. They just want to look like they're progressive. I don't think he's suggesting that Republicans have a better track record on civil liberties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny O Flannagin Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Term limits for SCJs. I'd suggest about 10-12 years, then they're gone. sent from a tippytappy flatpad I've always been confused by the fact that supreme court justices have a lifetime job. It seems like there should be SOME kind of limit. This. In the months leading up to his death, was he really fit to make judiciary decisions? Edit: was he ever fit to make judiciary decisions? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 BTW this dude's name sounds like a Slavic comedy duo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braintree Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 http://usuncut.com/news/scalia-hunting-trip-was-a-gift/ In late 2015, the Supreme Court declined to hear an age discrimination suit (Hinga, James V. Mic Group, LLC) against a subsidiary of the manufacturing company J.B. Poindexter, which is owned by John B. Poindexter. Poindexter also owns the 30,000-acre Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas, where Scalia was vacationing when he died last weekend. According to the Washington Post, Scalia didn’t pay for his flight to the ranch, or for his room at the luxury ranch. His food and beverages were also free. Poindexter maintains that Scalia wasn’t given any preferential treatment, as the 36 people staying at the ranch that weekend were all staying for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Term limits for SCJs. I'd suggest about 10-12 years, then they're gone. sent from a tippytappy flatpad I've always been confused by the fact that supreme court justices have a lifetime job. It seems like there should be SOME kind of limit. Some retire, there's no obligation to continue serving. I have no idea what the process is if a Justice becomes senile/incompetent though. There's way too much scrutiny and the standards are too high for me to worry about it. I find far more institutions of power in the US more concerning TBH he may have been a clever dude in some ways depending on your perspective. it would be a stretch to paint him as apolitical, though. maybe sometimes he went against the grain and was hard to predict (honestly don't know enough to know if this is true). but i think it's fair to say that if you're a lefty you're pretty much allowed to dislike the fact that he was in a position to push beliefs that you personally would be against, that's just how politics works. he was for sure a political figure, at the very least his placement is made under some extremely political circumstances. it's hard to separate him from that fact i think. Exactly. Smart and interesting Justice but dude was a right-wingers dream, even if he was being a strict constitutionalist he was very key to a lot of rulings (and dissents) that were heralded by the most vile in the GOP and their lobbyists. 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. Yeah, well, that was exactly his point, in a way. After seeing the video I realised he was not some inconsistent prick who just went into the direction his personal politics send him. Perhaps he was a conservative, but when it comes to law he was an outspoken originalist as opposed to interpreting the constitution as some living document. Even though I'd personally prefer the living document kind of thinking, I do agree with him when he argues that precisely this way of interpreting legal texts could open the door to political outcomes. Outcomes which should have been made by the democratical process, not the judicial. He was very clear about this. It's ok to disagree. I just think it's really sad and juvenile to read about the hate after his death. It doesn't really matter because this is a music forum, so people aren't really invested in it. But is it really that difficult to show 'some' respect? Yeah I respected the guy but didn't like him. He was a very colorful writer and speaker. I mean some of this stuff he wrote is objectively entertaining to read. The main fault to this was it often made his decisions come off as a lot more immature and snarky than the logic behind them. Some of his same-sex marriage/homosexuality related rulings were pretty immature. Also, I do think there is a need for conservative judges but he was not the ideal one by any means, prefer Anthony Kennedy by a longshot. I didn't mind the too soon jokes about Scalia though mostly because I actually had to hear from a relative, multiple times, that Scalia was killed by smothering to allow Obama to appoint Eric Holder. I hope they were trolling but I think they were half-serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Eric Holder? My god...that's almost as ridiculous as the idea that Obama should join the supreme court. Had to lol three times when the Hills (hillary!) supposedly mentioned Obama joining the SC would be a great idea. That's basically giving O a kick in the nuts by implying he has no leadership qualities and is way too professorial. And the shit smells worse if you consider the idea thatthe Hills thinks herself it would actually be a stupid idea, seeing that roughly half the country just don't trust him. And any sane person wouldn't want to jeopardize one of the final sanctities of the us system. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDobalina Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 ^ Not trying to derail the thread (and I'm sure there are big juicy kernels of truth in the linked story), but the rise of these "news sites" that are nothing more than propaganda aggregators telling people what they want to hear is disturbing. Seriously, "U.S. Uncut?" wtf. Not a single bit about its management/ownership/backing to be found, hmmm. Pretty sure News Corp owns a ton of these puppet sites to lob hit pieces and other conservative bullshit to further their agenda, which in turn get payola'd on to yahoo and other cesspools of the interwebz under the pretense of legitimate news. Not that "legitimate" news sites are much better at delivering unbiased information but still Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Term limits for SCJs. I'd suggest about 10-12 years, then they're gone. sent from a tippytappy flatpad I've always been confused by the fact that supreme court justices have a lifetime job. It seems like there should be SOME kind of limit. Satan has forsaken him. Also, how come dleet is allowed to troll that much, it's all he does. Shameful behaviour from a mod. its appalling and a perfect representation oh how watmm has completely lost the plot I think delet was suggesting that the Democratic party doesn't really care about civil liberties as much as they might seem since they have very strong ties to corporations. They just want to look like they're progressive. I don't think he's suggesting that Republicans have a better track record on civil liberties. Cheers. The political left right divide as it stands in modern times is a charade, we as people have a lot more in common than we have that separates us, I'd hope that most people have figured that out by now on their own. So the politicians of both parties all work for the same shadow power, that being the mega banks and their corporate interests, this is why people are running to bernie and trump, the former funding his campaign through small donors, and trump self funding. Bernie did vote for the act that caused the 2008 crash though, and he's an Israel firster, and trump seems pretty naive, and has mentioned that Iran is an enemy, so whether he'll stand up for basic rights and make America great again, is debatable. You could always vote McAfee. As for Scalia, there's quite a few things coming before the court that he as a strict constitutionalist would have opposed, from carbon taxes to placing massive restriction on firearms. He was found with a pillow on his head in a still made bed most uneventful heart attack ever, there was no autopsy performed which I believe is against Texas state law, the decision was made without a medical professional present only the sheriff, he was immediately embalmed, two of the justices of the peace that they rang were unable to assist in the decision making because they were unable to attend the scene which is required, the third JP was happy to declare death by natural causes over the phone and she has prior record of covering up a suspicious death, the person who owned the ranch is a big democratic donor that has attended the White House on five occasions and received an award from obama, Scalia was invited to the ranch for free, told that it was part of a yearly program to bring people of note there, he would not otherwise have been at the ranch, then immediately after the embalming they flew the body out of state. All in all, despite the fact that he was 79 and his medical conditions (what old person doesn't have something that the doctor wants to prescribe to you), he was overweight (this doesn't mean that he was unhealthy), it's all looking a bit shady, but what isn't these days. There is speculation that it was made obvious to send a message to others what happens if you don't get with the pogrom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Ah i see now. they did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Ah i see now. they did it. -sie- No Chen, it was a clever plan to get the 'terrorists' to keep using iphones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Ah i see now. they did it. -sie- No Chen, it was a clever plan to get the 'terrorists' to keep using iphones. When the man's own son is convinced that he died of natural causes, mayhap it's time to let this particular beauty slide? http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/scalia-death-conspiracy-theories-family-reaction-219376 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 First, Higgs Boson denialism. Now, Obama killed Scalia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Obama doesn't do much besides play golf, practise lay-ups, and read teleprompters. He's not the cause of these unanswered questions, and they are unanswered, there is no get out clause to the justified suspicion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Okay, then can you walk me through your 'justified suspicion' of the existence of the Higgs Boson? I'm fascinated by how someone could be conspiratorial about such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bechuga Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I aint seen no Higgs Bullshit. Therefore, it don't exist. Deny THAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Okay, then can you walk me through your 'justified suspicion' of the existence of the Higgs Boson? I'm fascinated by how someone could be conspiratorial about such a thing. Mental illness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxien Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I was following Mistabishi (musician) on Facebook and he started posting some 'gravitational waves are made up' shit last week after the announcement and like forcefully berating anyone who thought otherwise. Needless to say I don't follow him anymore. That's some RDJ level conspiratorial belief bullshit. Just, why would scientists wait decades after they were first suggested to be discovered to try and cash in on that thing in particular? Makes no sense. sent from a tippytappy flatpad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I was following Mistabishi (musician) on Facebook and he started posting some 'gravitational waves are made up' shit last week after the announcement and like forcefully berating anyone who thought otherwise. Needless to say I don't follow him anymore. That's some RDJ level conspiratorial belief bullshit. Just, why would scientists wait decades after they were first suggested to be discovered to try and cash in on that thing in particular? Makes no sense. sent from a tippytappy flatpad makes plenty of sense. Eventually when everyone else is on board with it then you'll have to question your own worldview, until then, well i guess you'll have to keep being frustrated by these outlier people that see things before everyone else. A good analogy is that our society and the whole medical profession managed for decades to demonize fats and anyone that suggested otherwise, and it was all initially based on one study from the late sixties and later an influential book by the idea's main proponent. Then it was off and running, with other scientists jumping on the bandwagon, producing work that was also as shaky to back up the claim. Through that an whole industry and way of treating patients built up, with most medical professionals assuming that the system that provided them with knowledge couldn't fault them, could it. And so, money for alternative concepts was squeezed off and those making counter claims marginalized or worse shunned, dooming countless heart patients to an early grave on their statins and their low fat diets and driving the obesity epidemic we now are left with. Now there is another polar shift, within the space of the last ten years we are seeing a giant rethink and they are realising that it's sugar, specifically fructose, and refined carbohydrates that are the main enemy, something that they have had data on the books to suggest, for the whole time that they went in the wrong direction. So to anyone that follows a popular orthodoxy and uses that as their only justification for holding a position, you need to reassess your attachment to this state of mind. If it wasn't for the outliers, those able to see a bigger picture and take on board a variety of ways of thinking, we'd still be sacrificing virgins to Mars or something equally distasteful. The problem with changing orthodoxies in astro physics is that the field is not grounded like the medical one so more immune to criticism and change, it's insular and very egotistical, it's adherents are treated like modern day wizards of the mind and noone for the most part, understands their prosaic prevarication in the form of astronomical models fuelled by dense mathematics, which insulates them from criticism. But criticized they must be, they are wrong, very wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braintree Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Twatting, lousy, smartypants physicist cunts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxien Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Astrophysics and all of the sciences are literally based on reproducible results. It's not about following a status quo or an orthodoxy. If a group of scientists comes out tomorrow and says they performed the same experiment that came out of Seattle/Baton Rouge but with different results, everything will be questioned and pored over. That is exactly how and WHY science works. Just cause you and I don't have the knowledge or finances to replicate the results ourselves does not mean that they are not valid. sent using magic space waves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.