Anthony Kennedy said to be retiring

[tinselwolverine]

and you don't get that by replacing Kennedy with a Scalia.

You really don't get anything replacing Kennedy with Scalia...except for maybe getting the brains of all the other eight justices eaten.

Zombie Scalia

 

[Michchamp]

Scalia believed in strict textualism: the plain text of the law controls, without regard to legistlative history, intent, logic or reason, unless of course the plain text of the law didn't benefit the GOP, or Big Business. Then Scalia just ruled however he wanted, consistency be damned.

 

[tigermud]

Screw those over the hill, nipped and tucked, botox injected, fake boobie ex-pronstars.

If McGahn-Trump really wanna make a splash, and go for a young jailbait-looking RW know-it-all femme firebrand, then they should pick Tominatrix Lahren.


If it were up to Donnie Dinkydigits all by his lonesome though, he might pick Faux News "Judge" Jeanine Pirro.

napolitano

 

[Spartanmack]

As you probably expect, I see it differently. I think the lines about "upholding the Constitution" vs "legislating from the bench" are BS, since the justices (on both sides) with the more consistent records went against their supposed take on that in Bush vs. Gore. If I could create a litmus test, it would have something to do with protecting the checks and balances of government and checks against businesses having so much power over their own regulation. Seeing how that's not easy, I'll settle for as split a court as I can get, with people that don't always vote in the same groupings, and you don't get that by replacing Kennedy with a Scalia.

I don't agree - Scalia gets a bad rap because libs hated most of his votes but he broke with conservatives way more than Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayor have broken with leftists. It just so happens when Scalia broke with conservatives, he was being consistent in his philosophy of interpreting the Consititution. You can't say upholding the constitution and legislating from the bench are BS because of Bush v. Gore and even if that's true, the answer isn't settling for a split bench with a couple of wafflers. The answer is find a judge who will do what a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to do.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't agree - Scalia gets a bad rap because libs hated most of his votes but he broke with conservatives way more than Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayor have broken with leftists. It just so happens when Scalia broke with conservatives, he was being consistent in his philosophy of interpreting the Consititution. You can't say upholding the constitution and legislating from the bench are BS because of Bush v. Gore and even if that's true, the answer isn't settling for a split bench with a couple of wafflers. The answer is find a judge who will do what a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to do.

"You can't say upholding the constitution and legislating from the bench are BS because of Bush v. Gore"

Why can't I say that? I mean, I didn't say it the way you wrote it. But either way, sometimes it seems like you go into cable news mode with these responses.

Do you follow what I'm saying? I'm saying it's BS that they use these code phrases to describe their ideology when they don't actually vote according to those ideogolies. If you follow that, why can't I say it?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Scalia believed in strict textualism: the plain text of the law controls, without regard to legistlative history, intent, logic or reason, unless of course the plain text of the law didn't benefit the GOP, or Big Business. Then Scalia just ruled however he wanted, consistency be damned.

You know what? Screw the way lawyers use words. I mean, fawk! I ran into this the other day: "The election may be made with or without traverse." I managed to figure out what they meant using google, but why do they write like this? With the way word use changes over time in addition to the screwy way lawyers use words, trying to interpret what was meant when a word was written or what it means according to today's use is no simple thing.

 

[Michchamp]

You know what? Screw the way lawyers use words. I mean, fawk! I ran into this the other day: "The election may be made with or without traverse." I managed to figure out what they meant using google, but why do they write like this? With the way word use changes over time in addition to the screwy way lawyers use words, trying to interpret what was meant when a word was written or what it means according to today's use is no simple thing.

There are a lot of reasons why.

In law school (law school blows, BTW, but that's another story) they said don't do this; just write in plain English to the extent possible. They said when lawyers use Latin, archaic "Law French" or out-of-date terms, they're just doing it to appear sophisticated and justify their status and superiority on legal matters... i.e. to impress clients and justify their hourly rate.

to be fair though, there are some objective reasons to use latin/law french, like where the phrase is readily understood by lawyers and judges (or at least most of them), AND it's shorter than plain English. Helps get around character or page limits courts may impose on briefs, and reads easier

example:
saying "inter alia" is shorter than "among other things"

Sometimes a latin phrase is so well understood and accepted in legal doctrine that you might screw up by NOT using it, like "mens rea" or "res ipsa loquitur."

the way to cite cases and references in formal briefs or law review articles is also codified, and includes a number of latin terms: supra, infra, id., contra, etc. if you try to do citations your own way, important legal people will throw your writing right in the trash without reading it

Judges can usually just do whatever they want though, since they are in charge. most judges try to write straightforward opinions, knowing their work product is for the public good and will be studied by future lawyers and legislators when they provide counsel or make policy.

but Scalia was pretty notorious for including archaic or obscure words and phrases to "appear smart." In his case, that was probably important... it's important to at least "appear smart" and give your shit opinions a high polish when you're just there to deliver for GOP donors, without regard to concerns over setting bad precedent.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'll buy that. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[tinselwolverine]

There are a lot of reasons why.

In law school (law school blows, BTW, but that's another story) they said don't do this; just write in plain English to the extent possible. They said when lawyers use Latin, archaic "Law French" or out-of-date terms, they're just doing it to appear sophisticated and justify their status and superiority on legal matters... i.e. to impress clients and justify their hourly rate.

to be fair though, there are some objective reasons to use latin/law french, like where the phrase is readily understood by lawyers and judges (or at least most of them), AND it's shorter than plain English. Helps get around character or page limits courts may impose on briefs, and reads easier

example:
saying "inter alia" is shorter than "among other things"

So what does "traverse" mean in the sentence that Gulo cited?

Also I understand traverse to be be an English word anyway; has something to do with travel or moving about, as I understand it.

I don't know that I ever use it or much encounter it.

I'll look it up.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So what does "traverse" mean in the sentence that Gulo cited?

Also I understand traverse to be be an English word anyway; has something to do with travel or moving about, as I understand it.

I don't know that I ever use it or much encounter it.

I'll look it up.

It meant disagreement. I had a number of options to elect from based on the attourney's read of the situation. I could simply select one of the options, or argue that the attorney made a bad read and I had some other option, or if I disagreed in a specific way, I could select an option and argue that the option should be tweaked.

 

[Spartanmack]

"You can't say upholding the constitution and legislating from the bench are BS because of Bush v. Gore"

Why can't I say that? I mean, I didn't say it the way you wrote it. But either way, sometimes it seems like you go into cable news mode with these responses.

Do you follow what I'm saying? I'm saying it's BS that they use these code phrases to describe their ideology when they don't actually vote according to those ideogolies. If you follow that, why can't I say it?

Of course you can say it, you can say anything you want. What I'm saying is, while it's a huge case I think it's too small of a sample size to draw a conclusion one way or the other. My point about Scalia is he wasn't nearly the conservative ideologue the left paints him to be. Maybe he was a textualist ideologue but that doesn't make him conservative - I think that reputation came from the left painting him as such since he didn't fall in line with their ideology on a lot of their causes. I honestly believe Roberts voted for the HCA in large part because of a desire to avoid being tagged as a conservative ideologue. I think he weaseled out of the proper vote thinking (correctly, probably) that the ACA would collapse on it's own and his vote ultimately would be inconsequential.


It's funny to me that only the consistently conservative judges are criticized for their consistency - nobody ever complains that liberal justices never break from party lines.


edit - by nobody I mean no one in the mainstream media criticizes their apparent partisanship.

 

[tinselwolverine]

It meant disagreement. I had a number of options to elect from based on the attourney's read of the situation. I could simply select one of the options, or argue that the attorney made a bad read and I had some other option, or if I disagreed in a specific way, I could select an option and argue that the option should be tweaked.

Well, that could be possibly the stupidest thing I ever read.

A literate person could come up with a myriad of $64 synonyms for "disagreement" that actually means disagreement.

Contention, ire, animus, conflagration, discord, disharmony, disquiet, umbrage, uncongeniality, divergence, controversy...

 

[Spartanmack]

So what does "traverse" mean in the sentence that Gulo cited?

Also I understand traverse to be be an English word anyway; has something to do with travel or moving about, as I understand it.

I don't know that I ever use it or much encounter it.

I'll look it up.

it meant the election will be made whether or not anyone from Traverse city actually voted in it.

 

[tinselwolverine]

it meant the election will be made whether or not anyone from Traverse city actually voted in it.

Well, Traverse City residents could definitely be presumed to have at least one voter in an election.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything more official than Wikipedia (click entry 6, "Politics," in the Contents box near the top of the article) but they do a pretty good job in things like this; and the data originates from here.

Going back to the election of 1884, no less than 808 Democrat residents and 1645 Republican residents have voted in every presidential election; with the exception of 1912, when Republican voting dropped to 899 with the top vote getter in the town actually being Teddy Roosevelt of the Progessive party (nicknamed the Bull Moose party); as he was also for the State of Michigan, taking the state's 15 electoral votes.

 

[Spartanmack]

Well, Traverse City residents could definitely be presumed to have at least one voter in an election.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything more official than Wikipedia (click entry 6, "Politics," in the Contents box near the top of the article) but they do a pretty good job in things like this; and the data originates from here.

Going back to the election of 1884, no less than 808 Democrat residents and 1645 Republican residents have voted in every presidential election; with the exception of 1912, when Republican voting dropped to 899 with the top vote getter in the town actually being Teddy Roosevelt of the Progessive party (nicknamed the Bull Moose party); as he was also for the State of Michigan, taking the state's 15 electoral votes.

That's good data. Maybe teh guy who wrote the law was unaware, or just being thorough - unlikely doesn't mean it's not possible.