As someone who has been so close to dying myself, I have a distaste for wishing anyone’s death. As I tuned into MSNBC upon hearing of Antonin Scalia’s death, I honestly can’t say that I felt bad in any way. As I listened to Alan Dershowitz finding nice things to say about Justice Scalia, it seemed to me that Mr. Dershowitz was sincere, even if he disagreed with Scalia on most legal positions. I heard someone from Scotusblog talking about how beloved Scalia was to other members of the Court and their feelings about how nice a human being he was. I think that too was probably close to reality and we will soon see many sincere statements about how much Antonin Scalia will be missed and what a loss it is for our country. Scalia will be eulogized endlessly over the next few days, no doubt he will also “lie in State” somewhere, where many mourners from all over the country can pass by his coffin respectfully, some with copious tears.
So yes we shouldn’t speak ill of the dead, especially the famous ones, who exist in the bubble of our nation’s politics. Then again, when we heard of the deaths of Saddam Hussein, or Mohammar Khadafy, were they eulogized because of their personalities? In their time, these were powerful people, who achieved many years of fame on the world stage. There were no doubt many thousands of their supporters who were saddened over the execution of their particular heroes. It is now said that on this news show on MSNBC that Ruth Bader Ginzburg was his closest friend on the Court and from my perspective I don’t doubt that is true. The people who are actors in our legal system are drenched in collegiality, although those who run afoul of it feel quite differently. As I listen to the news people discussing Scalia, they keep repeating how important this person was in the American scheme of things. Garbling Shakespeare though, “I come to Damn Scalia, not to praise him, for Scalia was not an honorable man”. Here is why.
In writing The Law Is A Whore:
I began: “It is often said of our country in glowing terms that “we are a nation of law”. This is connoted to mean that the country dispenses justice fairly. From my perspective that is but a convenient lie we tell ourselves, equivalent to some religious fanatics believing that God wants them to kill people for His greater glory. The reality is that our justice system is broken, perhaps beyond fixing. For the most part our system of justice works to benefit the powerful at the expense of the rest of our citizenry. The proof of this is so apparent that when writing about the failures of our legal system, choosing what to focus on is an overwhelming task, given the proven injustices throughout our American Justice System at the Federal and State levels.”
“The reality is there exists a symbiotic relationship between attorneys in the profession, no matter which side they are on. Law Schools traditionally teach their students to be able to aggressively argue both sides of particular cases. While there is some wisdom in this teaching method, its flip side is that it also presents an equivocal view of what is truly justice. The “Win” and the “Loss” replace the true justice of the matter. Justice is never about “right” or “wrong” and that is our legal system.”
This is why I believe the sincerity of those being interviewed at the time of his death, who say they will miss Scalia. As I write, Lawrence Lessig just said on MSNBC, “He was an incredibly funny human being”. Is “good humor” an excuse for terrible behavior? From my perspective Scalia did terrible things in the name of his Originalism. This is an example of his beliefs: “Justice Antonin Scalia “defended his pro-death penalty stance by claiming that the Bible forgives those who wrongly apply the death penalty to innocent persons on the grounds that the wrongly convicted will have an opportunity to set the record straight in the courthouse of the afterlife.” here. It is thinking like Scalia’s that has infected this country at all levels of society and to my mind represents the height of ignorance, hypocrisy and moral depravity. This on the part of some who claim their beliefs should dominate our country. Imagine the unfeeling cruelty of this man making a statement such as this. His defenders would no doubt say that is was a factor of his religiosity. That might be true in the same way that those Priests who created and prosecuted the Catholic Inquisition could be excused because they did it for God. Perhaps it was merely the “human failings” of mortal men that allowed Antonin Scalia’s Church to protect hundreds of pedophile Priests for so many years, with the idea that Jesus will forgive them if they become contrite for the sins. Scalia’s pious Roman Catholicism, informed all of his judgments with a cruelty and lack of empathy that truly was the measure of this “well-liked” man. Hate the sin and love the sinner, indeed.
Scalia has stated in court hearings involving homosexuality “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home,” he wrote. “They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.” . If you follow the link you will find six other disparaging comment Scalia has made about homosexuality. As for his views on the equality of women there is this: “Leave it to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to argue that the Constitution does not, in fact, bar sex discrimination. Even though the court has said for decades that the equal-protection clause protects women (and, for that matter, men) from sex discrimination. The outspoken, controversial Scalia claimed late last week that women’s equality is entirely up to the political branches. “If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex,” he told an audience at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law, “you have legislatures.” . Yet this is the same Antonin Scalia who argues about Corporations rights and their person-hood in Citizen’s United, arguing that they have the same rights as citizens according to his “originalist” constitutional view. This was also the man who forgot about his whole “judicial philosophy” when he led the Court in assuring George W. Bush’s election in 2000, despite the fact that it trampled the “States Rights” of Florida. Hypocrisy, thy name was Scalia.
Despite his checkered political past as a defender of Presidential prerogatives under Gerald Ford, being outspoken on his views that religion should play a role in the U.S. body politic and his continued defense of corporations against individuals, Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by a Senate with a Democratic Majority. He consistently spoke inappropriately and with partisanship while sitting on SCOTUS. I believe he was a disgrace to the concept of justice, even though he seems to have been such a nice man. His disgraceful behavior was rooted in his religious beliefs, though he used his “originalist” Constitutional views as a cover for what was really his bigotry and bias.
“In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, Originalism is a principle of interpretation that views the Constitution‘s meaning as fixed as of the time of enactment. The originalist enterprise, then, is a quest to determine the meaning of the utterances, the meaning of which cannot change except through formal amendment.[1] The term originated in the 1980s[2] but the concept resonates with formalist theory and is a special example of textualism.” The idea of Constitutional “Originalism” is that the document that underpins our country must be interpreted by discerning the intentions of our Founding Fathers and those intentions are immutable except by amending the Constitution. This idea is not so curiously quite similar to the Biblical exegesis used by Christian Fundamentalists, to justify their various prejudices.
The originalist idea, of which Antonin Scalia being on the Supreme Court can be said to be the greatest champion, has always seemed to me to be a license to interpret via ones own prejudice. The idea that the “intent” of the Founding Fathers, as gleaned through the lens of the beholder, is immutable in discerning Constitutionality is absurd. Our Founding Fathers were for the most part wealthy men in an agrarian 18th century society, among whom many were dependent upon slavery for their economic survival. That these men of more than 200 years ago, should be invested with an almost Godlike prescience in deciding the major issues in today’s America, represents the thoughts of deluded ideologues. Antonin Scalia was no doubt a brilliant man, a highly skilled logician and had a great impact upon our country while on the Court. His advocacy of originalism though, was his rationalization of his own prejudices, foisted upon us by his considerable forensic skills.
I’m sorry for the pain of loss that his family and friends are suffering, I have experienced the sadness and emptiness of that type of loss myself. Yet I can’t in any way mourn the death of Antonin Scalia, because this was a man who in his wake left a multitude of chaos, harmful to many of my fellow citizens and to my country. His concepts unfortunately will live on and their destructiveness will plague this country for many years to come.
See also:
February 14, 2016 at 8:27 pm
Yes, even murderous mobsters have friends and family that grieve for their loss.
I am happy for the countless people that will not be oppressed and marginalized any further than they already have been by this poisoned mind; so good riddance to a bigot in power, it is a day to celebrate a world a tiny bit better today than it was yesterday.
LikeLike
February 14, 2016 at 11:07 pm
Mike
I think the Scalia ‘quotes’ you present here probably are fair representations of his opinion, but I sure wish you were able to link to source material. In particular, I thought the one about sorting out a death penalty error before.God deserves something more than a link to Salon. Was this opinion overheard at a cocktail party or in a speech to Opus Dei or in a SCOTUS opinion?
Sources matter and context matters.
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 4:30 am
Classy.
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 4:36 am
IP,
Good point. I’ll try to track the links down.
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 4:07 pm
IP,
Did the research and as it turns out the “quote” is actually a derivative restatement of an article Scalia wrote in May of 2002. Read the entire article as linked here: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/05/gods-justice-and-ours and make up your mind as to whether it is a fair summary of Scalia’s attitudes on the death penalty. To my mind the actual article is a far more chilling look into the mind of Scalia, than is the “quote”. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/05/gods-justice-and-ours
/also Antonin Scalia on the death penalty in Herrera v. Collins:
“Scalia concurred with the court’s 6-3 Herrera v. Collins decision that such a claim didn’t serve as exclusive grounds for that specific form of relief, the content of his written opinion only vaguely resembled what was implied by that out-of-context quote.
Justice Scalia said that sufficient legal relief already existed for people presenting new evidence of innocence, not that factual innocence was irrelevant. Scalia also said that ruling differently would have imposed an unmanageable burden on lower courts to review newly discovered evidence:
We granted certiorari on the question whether it violates due process or constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a State to execute a person who, having been convicted of murder after a full and fair trial, later alleges that newly discovered evidence shows him to be “actually innocent.” I would have preferred to decide that question, particularly since, as the Court’s discussion shows, it is perfectly clear what the answer is: There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. In saying that such a right exists, the dissenters apply nothing but their personal opinions to invalidate the rules of more than two thirds of the States, and a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure for which this Court itself is responsible. If the system that has been in place for 200 years (and remains widely approved) “shocks” the dissenters’ consciences, perhaps they should doubt the calibration of their consciences, or, better still, the usefulness of “conscience shocking” as a legal test.” http://www.snopes.com/scalia-death-penalty-quote/
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 4:33 pm
I think that he probably did more good than he did harm. When Anubis weighs his heart, he will achieve immortality.
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 4:40 pm
The thing you don’t understand about Scalia is that he was all about the Constitution and rule of law. You rail that he supported the death penalty. The only reason he supported it is that the constitution allowed it and there is no way to constitutional overturn it. He was perfectly OK with states abolishing the death penalty and even stated it was their prerogative. Same with abortion, maybe you could be for or against it but you can’t just make up rights out of whole cloth that aren’t in the constitution. Same with gun rights, it was not even considered that when the 2nd amendment was written that someone could not walk to the local gunsmith and purchase a gun and keep it in their home for whatever reason they wanted. He was not really pro and anti any other these things as a matter of law (although he may have been personally) he stance always was if you really feel that way you either have to construct a statute that will pass constitutional muster or change the constitution its as simply as that.
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 6:08 pm
David,
I suggest you re-read my article with some depth this time. My point is that I believe that Scalia’s whole method of interpreting the Constitution (originalism) was not only incorrect, but allowed him to actually pull rulings from his behind that served his personal prejudice. The best example of this is his vote in Bush v. Gore, which precluded Florida from using its own election laws and was an abrogation of Florida’s States Rights. That is an important test, because Scalia was a strong advocate of States Rights, but it seems only when it suited his bias. However, you may see this differently and that is your right.
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 7:45 pm
David Carter: I think the thing you don’t understand about Scalia is that was his excuse for exercising bigotry, misogyny and racism, and for callously dismissing the a person’s right to life and liberty and justice, as the founders explicitly intended. A trial that concluded a person was guilty and should be put to death is obviously not a fair trial and has not done justice if further evidence surfaces that proves they were innocent all along. It is not “justice” to incarcerate and then kill somebody that has done nothing wrong, and it is not justice to let a person that did commit the crime continue in life and liberty with zero chance of prosecution. That is precisely the type of role the founders intended for the Supreme Court, to perfect the system of law so the innocent are not victimized by their government and the only the guilty, to the best of our ability, are punished. If a proscription of cruel and unusual punishment applies to the guilty, how much more should it apply to the innocent?
Scalia’s devotion to authoritarianism and this ludicrous idea that a guilty verdict has nothing to do with whether or not the guilty party actually committed a crime or not, combined with his claim that it would be too expensive to correct the injustice so it should just be accepted, that resulted in pure evil. Good riddance to bad rubbish, his thinking proves he was a vile, loathsome human being. Like Bill Cosby, being funny or personable doesn’t make up for that.
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 9:19 pm
I think this is where life is imitating art via the Pelican Brief.
Wow what a tangled web this is. Ranch owner is a high powered Democrat donor. This smells bad.
If this had happened to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Cruz was president there would be screams from the left.
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 9:36 pm
bron: Are you aware of any indication Scalia was murdered or died under any suspicious circumstances? It sounded to me like a stroke or heart attack. Or maybe Lucifer just decided it was time for Scalia to pay up.
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 10:10 pm
A 4-4 Supreme Court could be good for unions and voting rights advocates.
So maybe his death is doing us some good already.
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 10:20 pm
MM-Could you be a bigger ghoul?
LikeLike
February 15, 2016 at 11:13 pm
“The only reason he [Scalia] supported it [death penalty] is that the constitution allowed it and there is no way to constitutional [sic] overturn it.” — David
The constitution does not specifically “allow” the death penalty, and as such your conclusion of, “there is no way to constitutional overturn it[,]” is a mistake of deductive reasoning. The eighth amendment does not speak to the death penalty at all.
The eighth amendment specifically states:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Granted that governments, religious or secular, and common people killing another is sadly not unusual. However, I can think of nothing more cruel than killing someone.
The use of coordinating conjunctions in the constitution has always left much to be desired.
If the eighth amendment used “or” instead of “and” in the third phrase I suspect interpretations would be very different.
But really, David, I just wanted to point out that your claim of the constitution “allowing” the death penalty was demonstrably false, given the words of the eighth amendment.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 12:34 am
Cleopatra: I have as much respect for the life of Scalia as he had for the life of an innocent man that he thought should be put to death regardless of guilt because the system, in error, had sentenced him thusly.
The world would be a better place if people recognized sociopathic evil when they saw it. A pretense that a life was valuable when it did more harm to humanity than good is a lie and itself serves evil by pretending that such harm does not really matter. It does matter. I am no ghoul; I grieve the loss of good people, I just do not grieve the loss of bad people.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 1:21 am
A smart woman, Justice Ginsburg, loved Scalia. She knew him better than just about anyone. They spent every New Year’s Eve together for the last couple decades. Those classless people here have no empathy for a liberal icon in Ginsburg who lost who her best friend. Liberals are mean, nasty, classless people. Ginsburg and Scalia are both so much better people than you haters. I doubt you have any close friends like they were. People who differed politically but had the intellect and integrity to realize politics is just politics, not the be all and end all. They exemplify the best in people. You all, the absolute worst.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 1:36 am
“People who differed politically but had the intellect and integrity to realize politics is just politics, not the be all and end all.” — franky
So, what is your argument again, Nick? Must be this:
“Those classless people here have no empathy for a liberal icon in Ginsburg who lost who her best friend. Liberals are mean, nasty, classless people. Ginsburg and Scalia are both so much better people than you haters.” — franky
“You all, the absolute worst.” — franky
These quotes of yours, Nick, seem to contradict your initial argument; doesn’t surprise me though, as you reference intellect and integrity.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 2:20 am
franky: I need no second-hand knowledge of the evil of Scalia, not yours, not Ginsberg’s. I can judge his actions myself. What he was in his private life is far outweighed by the evil man he was in public life; any good he did a few is far outweighed by the harm he has done to millions.
Even serial killers have mothers that mourn their death at the hands of police, but we are better off with the evil people that do harm, dead. That was Scalia. The world is a better place.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 3:23 am
Incredible. Your hate blinds you to even be able to comprehend the simple point I was making. A person, who presumably you respect, Justice Ginsburg, is in pain. She spoke beautifully of her sorrow yesterday. And you heartless, uncaring bastards can’t put aside petty politics and even summon an ounce of empathy for her. Times like this show what you are all about. Thank you.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 3:48 am
“My point is that I believe that Scalia’s whole method of interpreting the Constitution (originalism) was not only incorrect, but allowed him to actually pull rulings from his behind that served his personal prejudice.”
Exactly, and that is the general consensus among the lawyery kind…yet they seem to give him a pass for somehow they feel he was genuine in his misguidance! There was an established and stubborn religious bias in his opinions, and the fact he could get away with it fascinated me for a long time.
I second MM’s point that the world is a better place now that Scalia is not in it, especially for anyone not white, rich, Christian or heterosexual.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 3:59 am
franky,
Who are you addressing your screed to?
“And you heartless, uncaring bastards can’t put aside petty politics and even summon an ounce of empathy for her.” – franky
How do you know this?
You can’t; it is plain that you can’t. It’s just bravado on your part; give it up.
But I guess that you’re the only one with critical thinking skills, which you lament the lack of at every opportunity without convincing others of your claim of possession of same.
I direct your attention to your prior posts in this thread; so aptly defended.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 4:14 am
franky: I don’t put aside humanity for anything. Her grief is her grief. The only reason you feel any “empathy” (which I doubt) is because she is famous. Thousands of people die every day, ten times as many feel grief, and are you consumed 24 hours a day by empathy for their grief? No. Neither am I. I am just not stupid enough to think I am friends with somebody I have never so much as had a conversation with. You are just trolling for sympathy for a cruel sociopath. I’m not falling for it. Good riddance.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 5:10 am
Franky,
So Justice Ginsburg was close friends with Scalia and no doubt she feels tremendous loss, as does his family and other friends. I really don’t care. One metric I use to judge people is seeing how much harm or good they do to others. In Scalia’s case the many friends he may have had, don’t make up for the tens of thousands of people his destructive rulings have affected.
As for his friendship with a Justice who was his liberal opposite, that is exactly the point I’m making when I wrote “The Law is a Whore”. To decide a case whose decision will harm many, yet then go for dinner and argue the law over some Pinot Noir in a fancy restaurant, is merely some lawyerly collegiality, which ignores the suffering of others. Ruth will get over her sadness, or not, meanwhile thousand will suffer due to the work of this egotistical and heartless bastard.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 9:09 am
Before anybody gets to much into conspiracy theories on his death you might want to recall he was 79 y/o and his nickname was “Fat Tony”.
But as long as we’re talking c/t why has “W” suddenly come out of hiding and nobody has seen Dick? (Cheney that is)
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 12:21 pm
pete: I hadn’t noticed W out of hiding, but I would imagine (non-c/t) about now he might feel pressured by family and former contributors to sell his brother as a worthy successor, diss Trump and Cruz, etc. Cheney would likely not be as effective at the good ol’ boy pump and dump as frat boy W.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm
pete: George W. Bush stumps for Jeb in South Carolina.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 4:35 pm
Then there are these three articles:
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/16/shed_no_tears_for_antonin_scalia_let_us_not_praise_the_man_who_gave_us_citizens_united_and_bush_v_gore/
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/16/antonini_scalias_frozen_racial_past_how_his_voting_rights_act_ignorance_excluded_millions/
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/16/antonini_scalias_frozen_racial_past_how_his_voting_rights_act_ignorance_excluded_millions/
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 8:44 pm
” People who differed politically but had the intellect and integrity to realize politics is just politics, not the be all and end all.”
And here I thought politics had a real effect on the lives of people. I thought it was politics that determines how we distribute the goods of society. I thought it was politics that leaves school children hungry, polluted water in Flint, and boat loads of money untaxed outside the country.
Silly me. It is just politics – much like, but not as interesting as the NFL – really?
I take no pleasure in anyone’s death.
But I hope we can find a justice who understands that the law is not just some kind of judicial calculus that can be considered without reference to the real effect on the lives of ordinary people.
.
LikeLike
February 16, 2016 at 9:48 pm
BFM: I agree, “just politics” is “just a few lives ruined, here and there.” It is “just a few dead innocent men wrongly convicted of murder”. Whatever, for Scalia the citizens serve the system, the system did not serve them, the system was more important than anybody it killed along the way.
LikeLike
February 17, 2016 at 3:14 am
Here are two articles that buck the sad narrative at the death of Scalia. One of them, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44233.htm, states exactly what I have been grasping for. You can easily tell when one’s conclusion comes first, and “His supposed juridical brilliance boiled down to starting with the political outcome he desired (invariably reactionary) and then cobbling together pseudo-legal arguments to justify his ruling—often with flagrant disregard for legal precedent and the unambiguous language of statutes and constitutional provisions.”
And the other states what I have felt intuitively but couldn’t layout as effectively as I wished on the other thread about the irrelevancy of worrying about supreme court appointment, for it is just the last facade to hide the decrepit structure.
“This is yet another spectacle, not unlike the carnival-like antics of the presidential candidates, to create division, dissension and discord and distract the populace from the nation’s steady march towards totalitarianism.
Not to worry. This is a done deal. There are no surprises awaiting us.
We may not know the gender, the orientation, the politics, or the ethnicity of Justice Scalia’s replacement, but those things are relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of things.
The powers-that-be have already rigged the system. They—the corporations, the military industrial complex, the surveillance state, the monied elite, etc.—will not allow anyone to be appointed to the Supreme Court who will dial back the police state. They will not tolerate anyone who will undermine their policies, threaten their profit margins, or overturn their apple cart.
Scalia’s replacement will be safe (i.e., palatable enough to withstand Congress’ partisan wrangling), reliable and most important of all, an extension of the American police state.” http://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_people_vs._the_police_state_the_struggle_for_justice_in_the_suprem
LikeLike
February 17, 2016 at 4:24 am
argle-bargle and jiggery pokery
Legal words of wisdom from Antonin Scalia.
“You must put it in the form of a question.”
What are “Legal words of wisdom” from Antonin Scalia, Alex?
LikeLike
February 17, 2016 at 7:17 am
franky spinelli
First, nobody attacked Ginsburg. Nobody. So quit whining about an action that never took place. The subject is Scalia.
Second, your outrage about some phantom attack on Ginsburg, a woman I presume you have never met and will never meet and whom you have never included in your nightly prayers as you do for so many other ‘misbegotten, always lying liberals’ is disgusting. You, who have succeeded in driving a woman you do know, a woman with whom you have exchanged comments for over a year, a woman you have investigated and outed, who you have driven out and gotten her banned from Turley’s Now Right Wing Blog is beneath our contempt and disdain.
Go spread your filth where the morons and insane will appreciate it. Spare us you completely phony ’empathy’ for Ginsburg.
LikeLike
February 17, 2016 at 8:40 pm
One of the things about Senator Joe McCarthy, who wrecked many a life with his communist witch hunts, was that he couldn’t comprehend why people would be angry at him After all he said “tt was just politics”. This destructive alcoholic, who drank two fifths per day, was personally said to be quite a jolly guy. One cannot separate the destruction done by a person, from their personal charm to make them a more sympathetic character.
LikeLike
February 17, 2016 at 10:26 pm
Frankie:
You got little red Annie banned from Turley? How did you do that?
I love reading her posts over at the other site. They are quite humorous. She is the female Tom Tuttle of Tacoma.
I wonder if Turley has his resume at the White House?
LikeLike
February 18, 2016 at 3:31 pm
“filth” is what you just spewed, and others have as well. Apparently, being empathetic is “filth” in the liberal world.
LikeLike
February 18, 2016 at 6:18 pm
No, transparent lies about being empathetic, particularly those like yours intended to manipulate others, are filth in the liberal world. You seem so disconnected from feeling any actual empathy that you mistakenly assumed empathy would trump our principles. It doesn’t. Good riddance to Scalia; Ginsberg may be sad now but she will get over it, and I’d think better off without a malignant tumor by her side.
LikeLike
February 18, 2016 at 6:36 pm
Malignant tumor?
Are you talking about her progressive values?
LikeLike
February 18, 2016 at 8:01 pm
Bron: Talkin’ ’bout Scalia.
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 2:58 am
Maybe we’re talking about different people, I’m talking about Justice Ginsburg. Maybe the foam @ the mouther is talking about Allen Ginsberg. I do note the others have come to realize the unseemly nature of this hate fest and have backed off. But, the spewer of “malignant tumor” just keeps spitting out venom.
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 4:59 am
“I do note the others have come to realize the unseemly nature of this hate fest and have backed off.”
Franky,
Just who has backed off anything? Now you may characterize my post about Scalia as a “hate fest” and I suppose it is. I loathed the man, because despite the “personal charm” some saw him as possessing, I see him as the feckless waste of a good mind. One can be extremely intelligent and erudite, but like Scalia seemed on the surface lacking self awareness, then that intelligence is wasted. In Scalia’s case it was malignant. His “originalist” theory was ridiculous, the fact that some found it compelling, tells a sorry tale about his supporters. Beyond his nutty theory though, his decisions showed a man who was able to cast his theories aside, when it fitted in with his personal and political bias. To me that shows an inauthentic man, or perhaps merely a self serving BS artist. Even in death he was at a luxury spa paid for by someone who had business with SCOTUS. This was one of many instances where this Judge seemed to be “buyable”.
Now human nature is such that those that called him a friend, parent or spouse may grieve for him dearly. Having experienced death of loved ones from an early age, I know well what pain they must feel This would, it seems, include Justice Ginsburg. The fact that she mourns this loathsome human being is quite irrelevant to me. This is true even though she is someone I admire. The reason most people like myself are on the Left, with exceptions, is that we don’t follow a party line and we think independently, despite what those on FOX News would bleat. My approval of Justice Ginsburg is an abstraction, in that I have little idea of her as a person and certainly her life doesn’t intersect with mine. This actually seems to be the case as well with many Republican politicians who were so “touched” by the “loss” of Scalia, that before the end of the day of his death had passed, they were using it as a political football. As Scalia’s son stated they were disturbing a family in grief.
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 5:19 am
And this is merely part of the reasons for my loathing this despicable man: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/justice-scalias-faux-orig_b_9265726.html
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 7:47 am
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/justice-scalia-dead-following-30-year-battle-socia-52356
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 4:22 pm
franky: If by “spewer” you mean MoreMozart, feel free to attribute it thusly. Do you think I won’t catch your passive aggressive subversion?
I am not foaming at the mouth, I have a host of rational reasons for hating Scalia, literally millions if I estimate the number of people for which he has done great harm. The fact he had a few friends should not temper my anger, no amount of respect for the feelings of others should prevent anybody, including myself, from calling an evil sociopath precisely what he is, or was. Letting crimes against humanity slide “out of respect” can only cause them to be more acceptable. Scalia did more harm to humanity in his life than he did good, and good riddance. He deserves all the hate that can be heaped upon his grave.
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 4:40 pm
It was many of a court decisions too late. What I would like answered is why an autopsy was not performed. He was not a resident of Texas and he died in a hotel.
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 4:46 pm
“What I would like answered is why an autopsy was not performed.”
AY,
There have been so many conspiracy theories already, that I hate to add to them. However, I must admit that when the news began to filter in late in the day my thought was that he may have died in bed with someone he wasn’t married to. I’m just saying………….
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 4:48 pm
Here is who I would like to see get the position:
• Judge Jane Kelly of the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a former federal public defender who was confirmed unanimously in 2013.
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 5:41 pm
Scalia’s family have stated they are certain why he died. They say they find the conspiracy theories hurtful. Those wacky theories are primarily from the right. The feelings people have here regarding Scalia hopefully do not apply to his family? Can we agree we don’t wish pain on his family? Or, in your minds are the “sins” of the father also on the child? I am truly trying to understand the depths and width of your hatred of Scalia. I despise many of the rulings of Ginsburg. I have not an ounce of hate for her.
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 5:46 pm
Exactly….
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 5:54 pm
“Scalia’s family have stated they are certain why he died. They say they find the conspiracy theories hurtful.”
The circumstances and handling of Scalia’s death are legitimate questions regardless of who might or might not be offended.
We cannot possibly know whether conspiracy theories have any legitimacy unless we ask some basic questions.
It is not as though it is unheard of for public figures in this country to have their death scenes altered.
BTW, when I go I want to be in the throes of passion with a woman a third my age and I don’t care who knows.
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 8:57 pm
BFM: That is a little selfish, your death could be quite traumatic for the woman in question. Perhaps you could survive until you were alone. I personally would rather be “found”, without a mess, than cause anybody distress or guilt for helplessly watching me die, or feeling they caused my death.
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 9:10 pm
“Perhaps you could survive until you were alone.”
If I have a choice I think I will opt to survive, with maybe an encore.
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 9:12 pm
Franky: >> in your minds are the “sins” of the father also on the child?
I doubt you truly wish to understand anything; but I’ll play along. The sins of Antonin Scalia stay with Antonin Scalia, but the “wishes” or “certainty” of his family are not something I feel obliged to honor. I don’t wish them harm, but the truth is, to me, far more important than their feelings, or anybody’s feelings. If the truth hurts, so be it. Scalia was an awful human being and we are better off for his death, I think he was corrupt, vile and a pox on our society. That is the truth. If his family and friends are not aware of the harm he caused, their blindness is not my fault. The truth is available to all. And if they agreed with him, then they are complicit in that harm, and are themselves enemies of humanity, and I certainly do not owe such people any favors or emotional consideration. So either I am speaking a truth they already know or they are his fellow believers in oppression, bigotry, racism and misogyny that deserve any discomfort my words may cause them.
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 9:18 pm
Now who wants to admit they were fucking that fat fucker?
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 10:29 pm
AY: Leave that poor male escort alone, he was just trying to make a living, and I’m sure he was just thinking a job is a job, and he would soon be able to wash up with a quart of Clorox and go home to his wife and kids.
LikeLike
February 19, 2016 at 11:35 pm
Bunch of tough guys running their mouths on a blog. Pathetic.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 12:41 am
This is fascinating. Right wing wackos think he was murdered by Obama operatives. Left wing wackos think he was fucking a guy. Absolutely fascinating. You haters do realize he most probably ate and drank himself to death, like The Lion of the Senate.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 1:10 am
Scalia was in such poor health that he was considered to be too weak to get the shoulder surgery that he much needed. He had indigestion and was feeling ill after dinner so he retired to his room early. Symptoms of indigestion can mask an impending heart attack. Rural Texas has strange laws regarding autopsies so nothing was done on that end and since the family knew he was in poor health, they saw no reason for an autopsy. Let the man and his family rest in peace. This reminds me of all that Vince Foster crap.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 4:19 am
Yeah, you’re just beating a dead horse, people.
and get that poor hooker some Valium.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 4:35 am
For the record, I always figured he died of heart failure. And I see no reason to let him rest in peace, fuck that guy, he was evil. I own the evil zero respect or mourning.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 12:49 pm
Swarthmore Mom-Exactly. You don’t need to like or respect the man to let him rest in peace or stop these crazy conspiracy theories.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 1:25 pm
Cleopatra: Letting him rest in peace means stop talking about his crimes against humanity and stop talking about the people he harmed with his bigotry and racism and misogyny. He doesn’t get a free pass, as long as he remains in the news, I will speak against him and his policies and hypocrisy and bigotry. It is indecent of you to demand his vile thinking go unanswered. His life is no more important than the lives he ruined, he deserves no special consideration for having died. All living things and all of us will die, it is truly nothing special. The only death to grieve is the end of a life that on balance made the world a better place to live, and Scalia’s life was not one of them; my dog is doing a better job of it than that vile and hateful person.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 1:45 pm
Yes. I’m the “indecent” one. And stop whining that people are “demanding” you stop speaking about him. You can say whatever you want. You can smear him and his family (who according to your airtight logic are “enemies of humanity”) all you want. And I get to call you out for the hyperbolic garbage spewing from your mouth all I want.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 1:58 pm
Rest in peace to me means to stop with the fabrications about his death. Criticize his opinions and the resulting damage all you want.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 2:32 pm
SWM-Agreed. Criticizing his work and opinions (and their impact) is completely different than suggesting he was in bed with another woman or that Obama had him killed.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 2:52 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/opinion/resetting-the-post-scalia-supreme-court.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0 A good take down of Scalia from a renowned court watcher……
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 3:25 pm
“Criticizing his work and opinions (and their impact) is completely different than suggesting he was in bed with another woman or that Obama had him killed.”
Cleo,
I refer you to my post above to see thatis exactly what I did in it. I criticized his opinions with specificity. Now possibly you would like to defend those opinions I criticized and that would send this thread in a different direction which also might be interesting. You will also note that neither you, nor Franky bothered to go in that direction, but instead took issue with the other aspect of my post which was to offer a critique of those who are perpetuating the nonsense that somehow Scalia was a “Great Man” deserving of respect. My intent, which you did seem to glean was to demean this “Great Man” and the hypocrisy of the media presenting his death as our “Nation’s Loss”. While I imagine some might well have thought Scalia to be a “Great Man” and so do mourn his loss, perhaps yourself and Franky, those “mourners” (except for his family and friends) feel instead the loss of a strong partisan for their particular political beliefs. This was proven by the response by some within hours of the news of Scalia’s death, who used the opportunity to play politics.
Let me go even further because my intent here is purposely to ridicule and demean Antonin Scalia, as a counterpoint to his being lionized in “national” eulogy. To my mind Scalia did much harm in this world and I’m talking specifics. The most egregious of course was the decision in Bush v. Gore, which may have directly led to the attack on 9/11, through the negligence of George W. Bush. The invasion of Iraq and the killing of hundreds of thousands innocent Iraqi’s, besides the deaths and maiming of thousands of American military people. That war destabilized he entire Midddle East and led to our current situation by creating ISIS. Bush also began the normalization of the practice of torture which not only violates all international conventions, but degrades who we are supposed to be as Americans. Let’s go beyond George W. Bush though and look at more of this “great man’s” grisly record.
His decision in the Heller case upset more than 150 years of accepted legislation in America for the control of firearms. It directly led to a situation where there are now more guns than people living in this country and where gun deaths have outstripped automobile deaths.
His decision in the “Hobby Lobby” case for the first time gave corporations the right to claim religious freedom for forcing their beliefs onto their employees, This upended long Constitutional traditions and chipped away at our Constitutional separation of Church and State.
As I showed by my quote above Scalia was not at all upset that the wheels of justice might convict and execute an innocent person. He in fact participated in and wrote many decisions that made it harder for people convicted of a crime to appeal, even if they had new evidence exonerating them. For this alone Scalia should be condemned to the final circle of Hell, if indeed Hell exists.
Finally, though by no means a full compendium of Scalia’s evil mischief as a SCOTUS Justice, was the Citizen’s United decision, which essentially bestowed “person-hood” on corporations. The essence of this decision is that money elevates certain individuals above the masses of American voters and strikes a death blow to any vestige of American being a democratic government.
Now if you’d like, I would debate you on all these points about Scalia’s evil, but since this was presented in my post, I would assume you’re not prepared for that debate, nor is Franky.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 3:31 pm
I’m not spreading rumors, I was making a joke. Because I don’t grieve his loss, so I have no problem disrespecting him and making him the butt of a joke. I don’t care what (most likely corrupt) reason he had for visiting the ranch of somebody with business before the court; I assume it was a conflict of interest and that he was following his lifelong pattern of corruption and harm.
As for his family, if they think like HE thought, then they are indeed enemies of humanity. Simply grieving for his death despite the harm they know he committed but because they felt some emotional attachment to him, that doesn’t make them enemies of humanity.
As for “demands”, you are the one making them, to let him “rest in peace,” to call me a “ghoul” long before any conspiracy theory rose just because I said his death might be doing us some good already: That was about his opinions and the resulting damage, in fact I had just said (to bron) I was unaware of any conspiracy. Look here:
SWM said: Criticize his opinions and the resulting damage all you want.
Cleopatra: SWM-Agreed. Criticizing his work and opinions (and their impact) is completely different …
Don’t try to tell me you aren’t demanding silence out of respect for the dead, you have made it clear. And now you are trying to obfuscate that. Good riddance to an awful human. I said the same thing about Saddam, and the same thing about Ghadaffi. The world is better off without all three; and I can think of twenty more deaths I will celebrate if I am lucky enough to be alive when they happen. Only positive lives are precious, they are the only ones that should be mourned, because the good they do has come to an end. Why in the world would anybody mourn the death of a stranger that puts an end to the grief and misery they can inflict upon others?
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 3:35 pm
Now Mike, Scalia has no expectations of privacy. He even stated that the constitution affords you all the rights of privacy you can expect….. Now, let’s talk about all of those executions of innocent people that could have been stopped, if he hadn’t said that they have been afforded all of the due process that they can expect…. So what are these clowns complaining about…. There own mortality ? Fear of there own demise?
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 3:38 pm
Dead or Alive, he is still a pig fucker…
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 6:26 pm
Here is more on what a “treasure” we lost in Antonin Scalia, that shows off his good humor: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Scalia-s-Black-Beemer-by-Greg-Palast-Cruelty_Justice-Antonin-Scalia_Working-Poor-160218-660.html
Scalia was a prime example of the fact that great intelligence doesn’t go hand in hand with empathy, or with even a sense of decency. He had neither quality and so deserves opprobrium, rather than praise.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 9:00 pm
The fascination continues. Thank you for helping me understand just how hateful you all can be. Maybe you should all sing “Let it go” but, you seem to truly relish being hateful.
LikeLike
February 20, 2016 at 9:12 pm
frankly, he is just getting the respect he deserves…. But… As Rhett said, frankly I don’t give a damn….
LikeLike
February 21, 2016 at 5:21 am
Franky,
So your strategy is to avoid actually discussing anything of substance and merely to hurl inane invective upon people who find your supposed piety disingenuous? I had thought you were capable of more than that. At least let us hear your defense of the late, un-lamented Tony S.
LikeLike
February 21, 2016 at 1:51 pm
franky: We don’t relish being hateful, we are just enjoying a world that is a touch brighter because fate has finally removed a source of darkness.
It is not us that was hateful; it was Antonin Scalia that was hateful, and now that he is finally dead and can no longer hurt people, we are glad.
Should we mourn the demises of smallpox and polio, or celebrate those endings because of the harm they did to innocent people? We celebrate the termination of a hateful terror; and that is not us being hateful at all.
LikeLike
February 21, 2016 at 7:30 pm
You would think such metaphysical certitude that your political beliefs are correct would bring joy. But, many here are unwavering in believing you are right, and abjectly miserable. It seems the more positive, joyful people are coming around here less often.
LikeLike
February 21, 2016 at 7:46 pm
Wow frankly, you are here?
LikeLike
February 21, 2016 at 9:26 pm
Franky,
The nature of your comments makes me feel positively joyful!
LikeLike
February 22, 2016 at 6:20 am
LikeLike
February 22, 2016 at 6:41 pm
>> many here are unwavering in believing you are right, and abjectly miserable
That is a claim without evidence. How can you possibly determine if those that agree with me are “abjectly miserable,” or any more so than those that disagree with me? You are just making stuff up, inventing claims without basis.
In fact, psychologically speaking, those that generally agree with me on the definition of good human vs. bad human are those that tend toward altruism, fair outcomes and fair beginnings in the form of socially supported equal access to education, health care and jobs regardless of wealth, income, gender or race. Such people, it turns out, are in fact generally happier than those aggrieved by demands for equality, fair outcomes and fair beginnings.
The evidence for that is in the dozen or so countries that provide such measures for all citizens, and dominate quite heavily at the top when measuring the happiest countries on Earth. Note how many such countries occupy the top 10 (of 156) in the 2015 World Happiness Report. FWIW, the USA is #69 in this list.
Also FWIW, the Nordic Model of Democratic Socialism is the most successful governmental model at creating happy citizens. Because, of course, although the sociopaths and psychopaths have tainted the word “socialism” the vast majority of people have instincts and preferences that are entirely consistent with the Nordic model, and are happiest when that is the ruling paradigm.
To the extent that people are unhappy, it is not because their beliefs in what is right are making them unhappy, but because a money-grubbing minority stands in the way of their happiness and continues to use their powers to oppress them. Slaves are not unhappy because of their belief they should be free, if that were a source of unhappiness then the entire world would be unhappy whether free or not. Slaves are unhappy because every minute of their lives they are subject to unfair, abusive and degrading treatment and can do nothing to correct it.
If people like me are unhappy it is not their belief in fairness that causes it, they are unhappy that others can use force to treat them unfairly and they have no power to stop it.
LikeLike
February 22, 2016 at 6:42 pm
Pete: Down where the goblins go, below, below below …
Scalia will make a fine goblin.
LikeLike