
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has died - cgtyoder
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html
======
ianamartin
I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man. He's
always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two intelligent,
educated people with reasonable minds may legitimately come to different
conclusions about the same set of facts.

I also found when reading transcripts of oral arguments that Scalia was really
terrifically funny pretty often.

Once, I was doing some computer repair work for an attorney who was
interviewing Scalia extensively for a book about Supreme Court oral arguments.
It was late in the day, and all the other staff were gone.

The phone rang, and the attorney asked me if I would answer it since I was
close, and tell whoever it was that he was busy. I picked it up and the voice
on the other end said, "let me speak to x." I said he wasn't in. The voice
says, "I know he's in. Let me speak to him _please_." I tried to deflect
again, and he finally says, "This is Justice Scalia. I guarantee you your boss
wants to talk to me."

Without thinking I piped up and said, "Oh, Justice Scalia! You won't believe
who just walked in the door! Just a second."

Apparently Scalia thought that was hilarious and told the guy to pay me extra
for popping off to a Supreme Court justice like that.

Edit: as a quick sidenote, I'd encourage everyone to actually read the oral
arguments and the full opinions for important cases as they come up. The media
is absolutely terrible about over simplifying or just straight up not getting
the issues correct.

You will find that there is a hell of a lot of thought that goes into
opinions, and there is much less predetermined ideology than the way these
things often get painted.

~~~
sandworm101
>>> I usually disagreed with Scalia, but I have tons of respect for the man.
He's always struck me as one of the best examples of the idea that two
intelligent, educated people with reasonable minds may legitimately come to
different conclusions about the same set of facts.

I didn't have much respect for the man or the justice. As a justice, his
interpretations were always based on a selectively warped view of history. As
a man, he issued a steady stream of insults against all sorts of people.
Specifically, he said of lawyers like me (the not-harvard crowd) "You cannot
make a purse out of a sow's ear". And he regularly talked down to anyone he
though not ivy enough to share the room. That sort of disrespect isn't
forgotten. Nobody should ever take joy in the death of another, but I will not
miss his voice on the court.

~~~
ErikVandeWater
I won't comment as to Scalia's version of history, but I will provide more
context for the "sow's ear" comment:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/us/12bar.html?_r=0)

This comment referred specifically to getting a clerkship, and he also admits
one of his favorite clerks went to Ohio State.

In general it seems, he had a lot of bark, but no real malice, otherwise why
would he be good friends with other justices, including _of all people_ Breyer
and Ginsburg?

~~~
sandworm101
>>but no real malice

Watch his many interviews re torture. The guy was no humanitarian.

------
rrggrr
Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint, who believed that the
further the Courts stretched interpreting law, the more vulnerable the Courts
become to the animosities of the Executive and Legislative branches. The
Judiciary, Scalia understood, was the least powerful and most vulnerable of
the three branches of government, and its strength and influence rests in its
artful and judicious use of its very, very limited authority. A few Scalia
quotes that illustrate this:

>There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes
insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.

>If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you
flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade
your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your
fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility.

>“This Court holds only the judicial power—the power to pronounce the law as
Congress has enacted it. We lack the prerogative to repair laws that do not
work out in practice, just as the people lack the ability to throw us out of
office if they dislike the solutions we concoct.

>“Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that ‘established
by the State’ means “established by the State or the Federal Government,’ the
Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as ‘inartful drafting.’
… This Court, however, has no free-floating power ‘to rescue Congress from its
drafting errors.’”

~~~
bradleyjg
_Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint, who believed that the
further the Courts stretched interpreting law, the more vulnerable the Courts
become to the animosities of the Executive and Legislative branches._

I don't think that's accurate. There is a position, albeit more in the academy
than on the bench, that holds that judges should only in the rarest of
circumstances hold that the actions of the other branches are
unconstitutional. Scalia can't fairly be described as being an adherent of
that school.

Rather Scalia was foremost an originalist, it's a school of legal thought that
he helped pioneer as a law professor. Today judges and legal scholars needs to
grapple with originalism -- agree or disagree you need to speak to it. And
with Balkin and Amir's spin on it, to borrow a quote, we are increasingly all
originalists now. It's can be hard to believe it now but it wasn't always like
this. When Scalia was going to law school no one was poring over the diaries
of the founders or the records of the reconstruction congress looking for
clues.

Scalia was by no means the sole person responsible for the rise of
originalism, nor the purest advocate for it, but he was certainly a major
major contributor to it. That's what he will ultimately be remembered for, I
think.

~~~
tome
> I don't think that's accurate. There is a position, albeit more in the
> academy than on the bench, that holds that judges should only in the rarest
> of circumstances hold that the actions of the other branches are
> unconstitutional. Scalia can't fairly be described as being an adherent of
> that school.

My understanding was that Scalia himself explicitly claimed to be following
this philosophy. What makes you say otherwise?

~~~
bradleyjg
The evidence says otherwise. Scalia voted to strike down laws or held
executive actions unconstitutional many times over the course of his career.
At some point "the rarest of circumstances" has to have some bite. I'm sure he
would have argued that he was compelled to do so by the text of the
constitution and by the flagrant unconstitutionality of those laws/actions,
but I don't think that's a good answer. He may have wished that circumstances
would have allowed him to be an avatar of judicial restraint but regardless
that's not what happened.

------
danso
RIP Justice Scalia. Didn't agree with him on * many things but he seemed like
a relatively principled judge, as far as they go.

(edit: Actually, can't think of too "many" things off the top of my head where
I fully disagreed with him. I did enjoy reading his written rulings)

In the coming days, it'll be interesting to see retrospectives on how Justice
Scalia ruled on such issues as tech privacy and censorship. For example, in
Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), Justice Scalia wrote the
majority opinion which said that "video games qualify for First Amendment
protection"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass%27n)

edit: More context on the ruling if you don't feel like clicking through: The
7-2 opinion struck down a California law that banned the sales of video games
to minors, which had been signed into law by (of all the ironies), Republican
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Basically, the court saw video games as art:

> _Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games
> communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary
> devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features
> distinctive to the medium (such as the player 's interaction with the
> virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection._

As described by Wikipedia:

> _Scalia 's decision also stated that the current self-moderated industry
> standards like the ESRB are operated effectively to regulate the sale of
> more mature games to minors, and that "filling the remaining modest gap in
> concerned-parents' control can hardly be a compelling state interest"
> requiring a law to enforce._

The two dissents were Justice Breyer (considered a liberal justice) and
Justice Thomas, who is seen just as much of the conservative base as Scalia
is. According to Wikipedia:

> _Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissented, each authoring a
> separate dissent. Justice Thomas, in his dissent, considered that
> historically, the Founding Fathers "believed parents to have complete
> authority over their minor children and expected parents to direct the
> development of those children," and that the intent of the First Amendment
> "does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access
> speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians."_

Justice Alito and Roberts, the 2 other conservative members of the court,
concurred with Scalia's opinion, but had reservations about being too lax in
regulating the content of video games:

> _" There are reasons to suspect that the experience of playing violent video
> games just might be very different from reading a book, listening to the
> radio, or watching a movie or a television show," referencing the book
> Infinite Reality which highlights the psychological effects of virtual
> reality, and argued that the decision "would not squelch legislative efforts
> to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing
> social problem._

------
teawithcarl
In 1992, I saw Scalia in person preside over a three-judge panel (including
two other federal district judges) at Harvard - at the Ames Moot Court, the
famous moot (fake) court for the very best two teams of third-year law
students.

He did an excellent job over the two day proceedings. It was fascinating to
watch in person.

In a parallel event in the evening, I watched Scalia take questions in an open
air pavilion lawn (with no security whatsoever, just an open event on campus).
At one point an audience member asked him, "What's the most difficult area of
law for you personally to judge?"

After seriously furrowing his brow and mind, he finally and sincerely
proffered up ... "Indian (Native American) law".

My take on his answer - he found that area of law truly difficult as a strict
constructionist.

------
liquidise
This will likely result in a major political shift of the court. Even if Obama
places a staunch centrist, it will be a net left swing, as Scalia was perhaps
the second most conservative justice beside Thomas.

There have been a great deal of 5-4 decisions since Sotomayor's nomination
that in the future could easily fall the other way.

~~~
barney54
Senator McConnell has announced that the Senate won't take up a Supreme Court
nomination this year.
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIYaMiW4AIU4ZB.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbIYaMiW4AIU4ZB.jpg)

~~~
dlandis
That's not really what that quote says. It sounds more like he is expressing
an opinion about what should happen.

~~~
tptacek
He's the Senate Majority Leader and the official spokesperson for Republicans
in the Senate. The fact that he said it _right away_ , after two GOP Senators
who are also viable Presidential candidates said it as well, is a pretty
strong indication of what's going to happen.

~~~
themartorana
McConnell is a blow-hard, and is looking for a rally-point for the party. I'm
sure he believes this is what Scalia would have wanted.

But the idea that the "American People" wouldn't have a say with an Obama
appointment is absurd. He was elected with a clear majority and Presidents are
elected for four years, not four years minus whenever the next presidential
race gets going.

I know you've expressed elsewhere (edit: in this thread) that Republicans have
already made it clear that they won't do an appointment this presidency (and
you're probably right that they're trying to set themselves firm in this as
quickly as possible), but I can't imagine a scenario where Obama doesn't put
forth a nomination post-haste. I also cannot imagine 11 months of blocking a
SCOTUS nomination and leaving the court with 8 members.

~~~
DrScump
<I also cannot imagine 11 months of blocking a SCOTUS nomination and leaving
the court with 8 members.>

But that's exactly what the Democrat-controlled Senate did after Justice Abe
Fortas resigned in disgrace in 1969. They knocked down Nixon's first _two_
nominees, and Fortas wasn't ultimately replaced by Blackmun until a year
later[0][1][2].

[0] - Several Wikipedia pages say May 12, but:

[1] - this one says May 17:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_th...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States)

[2] - this page says June 9:
[http://supremecourthistory.org/timeline_blackmun.html](http://supremecourthistory.org/timeline_blackmun.html)

------
udfalkso
A judge quoted in the article said, "my educated guess is nothing will happen
before the next president is elected."

Presumably he's talking about selecting a replacement to the supreme court. Is
this accurate? How long does this process typically take?

~~~
nbadg
Unlikely to be correct re: nomination, though it's difficult to know how the
election will effect the confirmation process, and vice versa. Kagan was
nominated May 2010 and confirmed August 2010; Sotomayor was nominated May 2009
and confirmed August 2009. I'm inclined to expect a nomination sooner rather
than later, potentially of a candidate with very strong Democratic support. If
Republicans oppose the nomination, that could be used as political leverage
against them during the election.

Edit for some further thoughts: I could see this play out several different
ways. Dems could potentially stall on the nomination, to maximize the
"gamesmanship" rhetoric leverage of any Republican opposition to the
nomination. But if the nominee were confirmed by June, the whole thing might
be largely forgotten by the election in November. So potentially, we could see
a very quick confirmation. This definitely is a massive boon to the Democratic
party; they've just been handed a wildcard and have every ability to choose
exactly how to play it.

I'm no fan of dehumanizing death, but Scalia's death will have enormous
ramifications. Keep in mind:

1\. Burwell v Hobby Lobby (private corporate responsibility for birth control
re: Obamacare) was 5-4

2\. Legal pragmatism arguments against criminal justice matters under equal
protections grounds have already been very close to succeeding (or actually
have). Could mean the end of the death penalty in the US.

3\. Scalia opposed Guantanamo inmates' ability to challenge their detention in
US Courts in the Boumediene v Bush decision

4\. Scalia consistently opposed expansion of national healthcare

5\. Citizens United was 5-4 with Scalia supporting the decision (this is what
created superPACs), so potentially this could result in a limitation of
corporate personhood

6\. Potential liberalization and modernization of intellectual property rules,
particularly in context of software (see: denial of certiorari of
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.))

Further edit: SCOTUSblog analysis on the political situation:
[http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/first-reactions-on-the-
pas...](http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/first-reactions-on-the-passing-of-
justice-scalia/)

~~~
PKop
OK, but if they do _not_ oppose, their supporters will not support them in the
election. They have a duty and obligation to oppose.

~~~
sangnoir
> They have a duty and obligation to oppose

Which is why they are likely to put up token opposition - enough to placate
their supporters. Everyone panders to the center when election time comes,
because that's where most of the voters are. This is why the rhetoric is
extreme during the primaries, but is significantly toned afterwards.

~~~
tptacek
They have a majority of Senate. They don't need token opposition. They can
just decide, as Mitch McConnell has already said, that this is a rare
opportunity for the people to vote directly on the direction they want to take
the court, and that's that.

This isn't unprecedented. Obama is a lame-duck President facing a majority
opposition party in both Houses of Congress. His influence is close to its
nadir. Scalia is a lion of the GOP. It would have been hard to replace him in
2015. It's probably impossible in 2016.

~~~
krallja
Obama is not a lame duck president until his replacement is nominated and then
elected. That happens in November.

~~~
tptacek
That depends on whose definition you use, but this discussion is mostly about
precedent; look up the "Thurmond Rule" to see why technical strictness about
the term "lame duck" isn't really an issue here.

~~~
krallja
The Thurmond Rule, which is amorphous and inconsistently applied, only applies
when an incumbent has "six months or so" remaining in his term. We are still
several months away from that excuse being valid.

------
jakeogh
Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008)[1] for the majority:
[https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-
media.ogg/case_data/2007/...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-
media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg)

[1]
[https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290)

------
tomjakubowski
A dumb hypothetical because this will never happen, but: could Obama nominate
himself to replace Scalia? And if the Senate somehow approved him, would he
_have_ to resign the presidency to take his spot on the bench? I don't see
anything in the eligibility requirements to be President or a judge of the
Supreme Court that would suggest an incompatibility. Is there relevant case
law?

~~~
bobwaycott
Well, there is the Ineligibility Clause in the Constitution (Article I,
Section 6, Clause 2). But that only concerns the ineligibility of cross-
serving in the legislative and executive/judicial branches, iirc.

There's nothing I can think of in the Constitution that prevents serving under
the executive and judicial branches simultaneously. In fact, John Marshall did
exactly that (Chief Justice & Sec. of State, iirc).

~~~
tomjakubowski
Huh, yup: John Marshall served jointly as Secretary of State and Chief
Justice, for a few months at the end of the Adams administration.

source: the sidebar here
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall)

------
hwstar
Things are going to get very interesting with the pending court decisions
coming at the end of June.

~~~
jqm
Right? But worst case, they can probably deduce how Scalia _would_ have voted
(which certainly wouldn't be allowed even though it's likely to be pretty
accurate in this case).

~~~
mikeyouse
Split decisions affirm the lower court's rulings.. So the initial Appellate
Court decisions are probably a good barometer to see where things will land.
The ever-helpful SCOTUSBlog with a bit more background:

[http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-
terms...](http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-terms-close-
cases/)

------
greenyoda
So far, the only story that has been posted that has any significant
information about Scalia's career has been this one, from the Chicago Tribune:

[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-supreme-court-
scalia-d...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-supreme-court-scalia-
dead-20160213-story.html)

~~~
vonnik
There's no working link now.

~~~
wging
The Tribune link works for me.

------
hysan
Question for those familiar with how the Judicial system works: If Congress
prevents any new appointments until after the election cycle, does that mean
that the Supreme Court is effectively halted on making any rulings? What
happens to the cases currently being taken on and those that are queued up?
Would they all potentially be delayed an entire year+?

~~~
rdancer
No. There are eight justices left. The quorum is six.

Source: 28 U.S. Code § 1
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1)

~~~
hysan
Ok, thanks.

Do you also know how split decisions are handled now?

~~~
rdancer
Split decision means the lower court decision is affirmed. Simple majority is
required for a reversal, or any change to status quo.

Think about the Supreme Court as a very small Senate. The individual justices
do not make decisions. The whole body does. They do operate a lot like a
legislative body procedurally.

~~~
hysan
Ah ok, thanks for explaining it.

------
madaxe_again
Tangential, but if you're sat there going "Marfa, that rings a bell" (he died
in Marfa) - this is probably why. Temperature inversion that reflects
headlamps, apparently.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfa_lights](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfa_lights)

~~~
pepsi
My only knowledge of Marfa is the Prada Marfa:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prada_Marfa](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prada_Marfa)

------
tzs
There has been some discussion here about whether or not Obama has time to get
a replacement nominated and confirmed, or whether the Republicans can slow
things down enough to push it to the next President (who they hope will be one
of them).

I wonder if it might be better for the Democrats to not even try to get a
nominee through before the next election. From what I've seen
liberal/progressive leaning younger voters are more likely than conservative
leaning younger voters to feel that Congress and to a lesser extent the
President are totally beholden to corporate lobbyists and that voting doesn't
make a difference so why bother.

An open Supreme Court position at the time of the election could give
Democrats something to focus their get out the vote message on (for both the
Presidential election and Congressional elections) that might get through to
some of those younger liberal/progressive leaning voters.

~~~
clavalle
The Democrats have everything to win by trying to get a nominee through.

If they get through, great! A Democratic appointment on the Court!

If they don't, it can be a call to arms and a constant rallying cry showing
how different the Right and Left are. We are not just electing the next
President for four years but the next Justice for the next 30.

If there is anyone with any motivation to vote whatsoever they will vote and
demographics show that is good for Democrats.

My guess is that Republicans are scrambling right now to posture for a fight
but actually trying to get a moderate they can live with nominated so they can
confirm them and not face that and tout themselves as reasonable and willing
to work across the aisle despite their well earned reputation of late.

~~~
alexqgb
Exactly, the GOP is in a lose / lose situation now, with one loss having the
potential to be exponentially worse than the other. This would seem to make
their choice an easy one, except that the larger loss is also the one that's
further away, and they're beholden to a base so blinded by fury that playing a
longer game becomes impossible.

------
brandonmenc
Scalia's appointment was a major point of pride for us Italian-Americans. Even
today, if you're wealthy with an Italian last name, people joke about mafia
connections. Representation on the highest court has been a great counter to
that.

------
throwaway43563
Why should the death of a Supreme Court Justice matter this much, let alone be
a cause for celebration (as it clearly is for some in this thread)?

That unelected, life-tenured judges exercise this much authority over us, that
they routinely subvert our collective democratic will as expressed through
elections and referendums, that people even defend their votes for President
on the basis of what kind of Supreme Court nominations they will likely make,
does not suggest a healthy democracy.

~~~
splat
> That unelected, life-tenured judges exercise this much authority over us,
> that they routinely subvert our collective democratic will as expressed
> through elections and referendums, that people even defend their votes for
> President on the basis of what kind of Supreme Court nominations they will
> likely make, does not suggest a healthy democracy.

Nor should it! The judiciary is at its best when it is overturning the will of
the majority in order to defend the rights of minorities.

The Court did precisely that in its most celebrated cases (e.g., Brown v.
Board, Lawrence v. Texas), and upheld the will of the majority in its most
infamous cases (e.g., Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United
States).

------
nbadg
This has been confirmed by the governor of Texas.

[https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/698629632816500738](https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/698629632816500738)

------
teawithcarl
Lawrence Lessig (@Lessig) has yet to comment on Twitter - he clerked under
Scalia.

Lessig also clerked under Richard Posner, considered by many to be the top
legal theorist in America.

------
lazyant
isn't this the judge that said that torture is not "cruel and unusual
punishment" because the Constitution applies to persons and suspects
conveniently labeled "enemy combatants" were not persons? good riddance

~~~
icebraining
From what I understand, that's not his argument. His position was that torture
was only unconstitutional when used as _punishment_ (and not for extracting
information or other purposes).

------
dredmorbius
Confirmed at _The New York Times_ as well:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-
death.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-
death.html?_r=0)

------
dang
A reader emailed to suggest that we change the url from
[http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-
Ass...](http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-
Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop) to this more
substantive obituary. That seems like a good idea. If anyone can suggest a
better URL, we can change it again.

------
mikerichards
Considering the constant 5-4 decisions, there's 0 chance that a new justice
will be confirmed until the next President takes office

~~~
mrgordon
10 months? I find that unlikely. The conservatives might not LIKE it, but no
5-4 decision in the past is going to help them now.

~~~
mikerichards
The Republican-controlled Senate can just hold up the nominations until
whenever. In fact, Republican voters are going to demand it.

The American people should have a voice on this matter, and if the shoe was on
the other foot, the dems would be saying the same thing.

~~~
saalweachter
Well, yeah, but that's why they elected Obama, twice.

~~~
mikerichards
True, but considering the circumstances, it's not going to happen until at
least the next President is elected. The democrats would do the same thing.

~~~
mikeyouse
I'm not sure about that. I lean to the left but my biggest complaint is how
easily democrats get pushed around.. My guess is that after a month of
editorials in the WSJ and the constant drumbeat on the trail, they'd offer to
vote on a centrist candidate, the republican in office would nominate someone
pretty far right, and then to save face, they'd vote anyways and lose the
vote.

------
growlix
Let us honor Justice Scalia's memory by refraining from interpreting or
contextualizing any prose for the remainder of the day.

~~~
ktamura
Indeed. While my beliefs have often diverged from the Justice's, his writing
has been riveting to read and inspired me to improve my own.

America has lost a towering intellectual, and for that, I mourn today.

~~~
davidbhayes
…you seem to have missed the joke…

~~~
rdancer
...or they just refrained from interpreting and contextualizing...

------
orbitur
He didn't actually say that, and I'm not sure how it spread.

However, he's still a terrible person, and here's the quote yours spawned
from:

“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.”

edit: This was originally in reply to a misquote that has now been deleted.
Mods have now made it a parent comment.

~~~
dang
> _he 's still a terrible person_

The combination of incivility and internet buzzphrase is toxic for HN. Please
don't do this when commenting here, regardless of how you feel about someone.

We detached this subthread from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11096095](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11096095)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
orbitur
I admit the phrase "terrible person" is uncivil, but where is an internet
buzzphrase in my comment?

~~~
dang
"You are a terrible person" or "he is a terrible person" is the internet
buzzphrase, in the same category as "you are bad and you should feel bad".

I mean, I don't collect data on how often these things appear, but that's the
one I was reacting to.

~~~
CamperBob2
Just on a purely objective level, isn't "terrible" a reasonable adjective to
describe someone who wrote this?

    
    
      “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.”
    

Scalia could easily have stated that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of
cruel and unusual punishment would apply to a case where a defendant was
denied the benefit of evidence discovered after conviction. No one could
possibly have argued with that reasoning, or with his right to apply it. But
he didn't.

A _good_ person would have done a very different thing.

~~~
dang
To go from _having written a terrible thing_ to _being a terrible person_ is
an enormous leap, and a catastrophic one.

Indeed, if the threshold is that low, then we're all a terrible person.

~~~
rdancer
If I may, I respectfully disagree in this particular case.

If you deny, capriciously, justice to wrongfully convicted humans, it is not
just something you write about. It is that you personally are this person who
denies these people justice for no particular reason except that you can. You
are a terrible person.

The phrase is appropriate, and that it is often used flippantly in other less
fitting contexts doesn't matter.

You do a terrific job moderating HN, and I respect your decisions. Godspeed!

~~~
emmelaich
Capriciously?

Can _you_ find a ".. basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary
practice .."

~~~
CamperBob2
As I stated, the Eighth Amendment alone would have sufficed.

Basically, Scalia was always steadfastly loyal to the Constitution's original
intent, except when it conflicted with his religion, his political ideology,
or his personal opinion. It's unfortunate to see all these hagiographies being
written about him.

~~~
emmelaich
The long term of imprisonment of innocent people in the USA is disturbing and
perhaps if I was on the Supreme Court I would ave allowed it. But. It sounds
like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction, even if you're not
guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied.

Put it this way; if the law is never _wrong_ because you can rely on the good
people on the Supreme Court to fix things, then the law will never be changed.

(btw, I didn't downvote you at any time)

~~~
CamperBob2
_But. It sounds like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction,
even if you 're not guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied._

I'm afraid I don't follow you. If you're still being punished after evidence
comes to light that you aren't guilty, then you're being "cruelly and
unusually punished" by any sane person's definition. The Eighth is applicable,
and should have been cited by Scalia to draw the opposite conclusion that he
came to.

------
notthegov
I can't escape the thought of him driving to work and getting all his news
only from conservative talk radio. And then declaring he literally believes in
Satan.

I'm for religious freedom but a Supreme Court judge who literally believes in
evil and refuses to read news contrary to his politics beliefs, seems
dangerous.

~~~
splintercell
Are you ok with the President believing in God, believing in praying daily,
and receiving guidance at the time of crises?

I am no fan of religious people, but a LOT of people are able to do their job
properly despite of holding these crazy beliefs, and at the same time a lot of
atheist do crazy stuff without having to resort to these beliefs.

~~~
hyperdunc
Don't you think a person is likely to make better decisions when their beliefs
more accurately reflect reality?

I would much prefer an atheist president but that's not likely to happen any
time soon.

~~~
emmelaich
From my experience it means very little difference.

------
ck2
Now we get to see the first ever anonymous hold put on a nomination for the
supreme court.

It's the only way they can try to run out the clock on Obama.

Or come up with some kind of fake moral outrage.

Can you imagine Trump picking the next three Supreme Court judges? It would
set back America for decades.

~~~
ceejayoz
> It's the only way they can try to run out the clock on Obama.

Two words: recess appointment. They've got a recess coming up later this year.

~~~
falsestprophet
Not enough words. Here are more words:

During the 110th Congress, the Democratic leadership of the Senate
specifically blocked Republican President George W. Bush from making any
recess appointments with the use of pro forma sessions.

In 2012 President Barack Obama attempted to make four appointments during a
pro forma session, calling the practice of blocking recess appointments into
question. However, on June 26, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States
determined that the President had improperly used his presidential power to
make these appointments stating that while the Senate was in recess punctuated
by pro forma sessions the period of time between the sessions was not long
enough to invoke such power.

~~~
ck2
Yes the republicans came up with a trick to gavel in each day (aka "pro forma
sessions")

Which made them technically not in recess even though no business was done.

And the court ruled that was fine.

------
work-on-828
Is it bad that my third thought was about how this will hurt Hillary's
chances?

EDIT: It directly counters the argument that Bernie supporters are naive to
risk a more leftist candidate who would have a lower chance of being able to
appoint justices.

~~~
mikegioia
How so?

~~~
work-on-828
An argument in favor of Hillary is that the democrats need to be more cautious
so as to make sure a republican doesn't appoint folks to the bench who would
reverse the decision in Roe v. Wade If Obama appoints Scalia's successor, then
that weakens that argument.

------
jdminhbg
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
> evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or
> disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's
> probably off-topic.

~~~
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426)

~~~
jdminhbg
Well it's your site, so you can do what you want, but allowing these political
threads is, in my opinion at least, really dragging down the quality of
conversation across the site. It attracts users whose main contribution is
willingness to initiate and prolong political flamewars.

~~~
dang
There are far fewer outright political stories than there used to be. Probably
fewer than ever, in fact. So if discussion quality is being dragged down,
something else is dragging it.

As for this post, experience has taught us that when a story crosses a certain
magnitude, there's no stopping it from getting discussed on HN, so we may as
well have a single thread.

~~~
jdminhbg
> There are far fewer outright political stories than there used to be.
> Probably fewer than ever, in fact.

I find that really difficult to believe, but you'd have access to stats and I
don't. Maybe just confirmation bias on my part, or maybe disagreement on
what's "outright political."

> As for this post, experience has taught us that when a story crosses a
> certain magnitude, there's no stopping it from getting discussed on HN, so
> we may as well have a single thread.

Fair enough, I suppose.

~~~
dang
I gave you a curt reply above, so let me make up for that by thanking you for
caring about the quality of HN. That's what matters most. It sounds like we
largely agree anyhow. This thread is the rare case of being too big a story
for normal moderation.

