Discussion:
Antonin Scalia 1936-2016 ?!
(too old to reply)
Louis Epstein
2016-02-13 22:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Suddenly breaking on Twitter and Google News...the Supreme Court Justice
whose 80th birthday is next month is said to have been found "dead at 78"
at a Texas ranch.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Louis Epstein
2016-02-14 00:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Suddenly breaking on Twitter and Google News...the Supreme Court Justice
whose 80th birthday is next month is said to have been found "dead at 78"
at a Texas ranch.
Fox News headline per Google,"Chief Justice Scalia dead at 79"...
editing continues I suppose.
Post by Louis Epstein
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
danny burstein
2016-02-14 00:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Post by Louis Epstein
Suddenly breaking on Twitter and Google News...the Supreme Court Justice
whose 80th birthday is next month is said to have been found "dead at 78"
at a Texas ranch.
Fox News headline per Google,"Chief Justice Scalia dead at 79"...
editing continues I suppose.
CNN's talking hen also just referred to him as "Chief Justice.."
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
David Carson
2016-02-14 00:56:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 00:23:03 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
Post by danny burstein
CNN's talking hen also just referred to him as "Chief Justice.."
In a way, he kind of was.
marcus
2016-02-14 04:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Suddenly breaking on Twitter and Google News...the Supreme Court Justice
whose 80th birthday is next month is said to have been found "dead at 78"
at a Texas ranch.
Who?


http://marccatone.webs.com/berniesanders.htm
Sarah Ehrett
2016-02-14 18:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Suddenly breaking on Twitter and Google News...the Supreme Court Justice
whose 80th birthday is next month is said to have been found "dead at 78"
at a Texas ranch.
Who?
Give up marcus, your brain is gone.
marcus
2016-02-16 17:09:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:00:40 -0800 (PST), marcus <>
Post by Louis Epstein
Suddenly breaking on Twitter and Google News...the Supreme Court Justice
whose 80th birthday is next month is said to have been found "dead at 78"
at a Texas ranch.
Who?
Give up marcus, your brain is gone.
Why do the Republicans want the next president to fill the vacancy?

It doesn't make sense for them to want another Democratic president to make that decision.

http://marccatone.webs.com/berniesanders.htm

Marc
Sarah Ehrett
2016-02-17 03:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by marcus
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:00:40 -0800 (PST), marcus <>
Post by Louis Epstein
Suddenly breaking on Twitter and Google News...the Supreme Court Justice
whose 80th birthday is next month is said to have been found "dead at 78"
at a Texas ranch.
Who?
Give up marcus, your brain is gone.
Why do the Republicans want the next president to fill the vacancy?
Why care? You didn't know who Antonin Scalia was.
l***@yahoo.com
2016-02-18 18:10:11 UTC
Permalink
(For once, I'll print the whole thing.)

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/17/antonin-scalia-death-and-due-restraint/Ol56NVN71GZCvmekSwGJZJ/story.html

"Antonin Scalia, death, and due restraint"

By Joan Vennochi.

It isn't nice to bid good riddance to the newly dead.

Sheila R. Lyons, a Barnstable County (Cape Cod) commissioner and Democrat who is running for state Senate, discovered that fact of life after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died and she posted this sentiment on Facebook: "I know it's disrespectful to feel happy but Justice Scalia orchestrated tremendous power to benefit the powerful who have controlled the message to the American people."

She deleted her words shortly afterwards and apologized for her mistake. But, no surprise, criticism was swift and brutal. A spokesman for the Massachusetts Republican Party called Lyons out for "comments that degraded the life and work of a longtime public servant."

Across the country, the political establishment mostly hailed Scalia as a brilliant and witty jurist, who left an important, if severely right-wing, mark on the court. High praise came from colleagues who passionately disagreed with him, such as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal yin to his conservative yang (or vice versa, depending on your ideology). Of course, the bickering over Scalia's replacement began instantly, as Ohio Governor John Kasich lamented during last weekend's Republican presidential debate.

But especially on social media, Scalia's opposition to gay marriage, the Affordable Care Act, affirmative action, and other progressive cause, generated instant, ungracious responses from those who disagree with his opinions. That, in turn, elicited outrage from offended Scalia fans. "Liberals can't hide their morbid glee in attacking the dead," declared the Boston Herald.

Round-ups of disrespectful reactions turned up this tweet from comedian Marc Maron: "Good timing. RIP Scalia." Writer and producer Drew Emery tweeted, "I will not at all be surprised when the coroner confirms the cause of death as marriage equality.'' And the satirical Onion issued this zinger: "Justice Scalia Dead Following 30 year Battle with Social Progress."

What about the line between minimum respect and outright contempt?

Michelangelo Signorile, editor-at-large for the Queer Voices section of Huffington Post, walked it skillfully. He ran a photo of the two men smiling together at the annual White House Correspondents Dinner, and recounted how, after he was introduced to Scalia that night, the Supreme Court justice "repeated my name several times, with the proper Italian pronunciation." Then, Signorile identified himself as a gay journalist who would be in the courtroom the day of arguments in the "gay marriage case." The justice shrugged, but held his smile. Signorile said he confronted Scalia directly about his sexuality because he believes such human interaction is important. But now, he added, with Scalia's death "our options are much bigger than revealing ourselves to him in public. Already, as of this moment, a right-wing, conservative homophobic, racist, misogynistic grip that held the court tightly for decades has been released."

A heartfelt "Hallelujah!" might be implied from that observation, but was not explicitly stated. It's nice to know a modicum of restraint applies even in this age of hyperbolic insult.

As for Lyons, she first agreed to discuss her Facebook post, but then changed her mind, saying she has apologized and now wishes to move on. After deleting the offensive post, she posted again, this time calling Scalia an "accomplished and brilliant scholar" and adding, "I disagreed with his opinions, his ideology. I'm not saying he's a bad man. I'm just relieved he's no longer serving on the bench."

It's not necessary to agree with Scalia in order to value the life he lived and understand there are people who loved him. Meanwhile, speaking ill of the dead is an old taboo and should be broken with caution. There's a time and place for candor. Social media simply makes that too easy to forget.

(end)

There are 77 comments. So far, the top-rated one is:

BeaconHillGuy02/18/16 07:33 AM
I'm no hypocrite. I think Judge Scalia was the poster boy for corporate and evangelical influence and the horrific erosion of power away from the vast majority of hard working American families.
When I have to speak about his passing, I've adopted this mantra:
" I'm not happy for his death but I am happy that he no longer has any influence on Supreme Court decisions."



Lenona.
J.D. Baldwin
2016-02-18 20:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Sheila R. Lyons, a Barnstable County (Cape Cod) commissioner and
Democrat who is running for state Senate, discovered that fact of
life after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died and she posted
this sentiment on Facebook: "I know it's disrespectful to feel happy
but Justice Scalia orchestrated tremendous power to benefit the
powerful who have controlled the message to the American people."
I don't give a crap whether you're respectful of the newly, or old-ly,
dead. But if you think Scalia's legacy was all about protecting the
powerful at the expense of individual rights, you're not merely
ignorant, your brand of stupid goes all the way to the bone.

Citizens United? Jesus, I've never heard so much ill-informed carping
about anything in my life. If you complain about that decision making
it okay for corporations to do whatever they want with political
spending, then you are quite simply and irrefutably a moron. The
holding was narrow and was on very sympathetic facts. It merely says
that the government cannot outlaw criticism of powerful politicians
just because the people do the criticizing pool their resources to do
it. What kind of fool would even *disagree* with that, much less make
it a basis for hating an entire body of judicial work?

Gay marriage? Scalia was vehemently opposed to judicial imposition of
gay marriage, but he never once said or held that it couldn't or
shouldn't be a thing in states whose legislatures had approved it.
Why do people hate democracy so much?

And then there's the whole Fourth and Sixth Amendment line of cases,
for which every American who gives a crap about individual rights and
freedom should be getting down on his knees and thanking Scalia every
single day of his life.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Ehrett's Lesbian Love Interest
2016-02-18 20:38:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Sheila R. Lyons, a Barnstable County (Cape Cod) commissioner and
Democrat who is running for state Senate, discovered that fact of
life after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died and she posted
this sentiment on Facebook: "I know it's disrespectful to feel happy
but Justice Scalia orchestrated tremendous power to benefit the
powerful who have controlled the message to the American people."
I don't give a crap whether you're respectful of the newly, or old-ly,
dead. But if you think Scalia's legacy was all about protecting the
powerful at the expense of individual rights, you're not merely
ignorant, your brand of stupid goes all the way to the bone.
Citizens United? Jesus, I've never heard so much ill-informed carping
about anything in my life. If you complain about that decision making
it okay for corporations to do whatever they want with political
spending, then you are quite simply and irrefutably a moron. The
holding was narrow and was on very sympathetic facts. It merely says
that the government cannot outlaw criticism of powerful politicians
just because the people do the criticizing pool their resources to do
it. What kind of fool would even *disagree* with that, much less make
it a basis for hating an entire body of judicial work?
Gay marriage? Scalia was vehemently opposed to judicial imposition of
gay marriage, but he never once said or held that it couldn't or
shouldn't be a thing in states whose legislatures had approved it.
Why do people hate democracy so much?
And then there's the whole Fourth and Sixth Amendment line of cases,
for which every American who gives a crap about individual rights and
freedom should be getting down on his knees and thanking Scalia every
single day of his life.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
And now he is dead, dead, dead, he can do no further harm.
l***@yahoo.com
2016-02-18 22:13:50 UTC
Permalink
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 3:01:34 PM UTC-5, J.D. Baldwin wrote:


Um, maybe you should say "she" instead of "you"?

You can write to Vennochi, you know.


Lenona.
J.D. Baldwin
2016-02-19 01:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Um, maybe you should say "she" instead of "you"?
My rant was of wider scope than one particular idjit. I see this
"Citizens United" == "corporations are people" crapola all the time.
It's unbelievably ignorant.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry del Fuego
2016-02-19 13:59:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 20:01:31 +0000 (UTC),
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Gay marriage? Scalia was vehemently opposed to judicial imposition of
gay marriage, but he never once said or held that it couldn't or
shouldn't be a thing in states whose legislatures had approved it.
Why do people hate democracy so much?
Prior to the "Supreme" Court decision, this issue was a pretty good
example of democracy as defined by the cliché about the wolves and
lamb choosing a dinner. Only one of many, of course.

Scalia (and psychos on the alleged left as well, of course) also
decided to continue the long tradition of "Interstate commerce means
whatever the hell we want it to" in Gonzales v. Raich. For that
alone, I consider him one of several active participants in the deaths
of more than one personal friend.

On the other hand, he did seem to take a few of those low-numbered
Amendments surprisingly seriously. Wonder what he'd have made of this
week's Apple news. Or, for that matter, of the recent claim that
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 only applies when convenient.
David Carson
2016-02-20 05:03:11 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 05:59:33 -0800, Terry del Fuego
Post by Terry del Fuego
On the other hand, he did seem to take a few of those low-numbered
Amendments surprisingly seriously. Wonder what he'd have made of this
week's Apple news. Or, for that matter, of the recent claim that
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 only applies when convenient.
I don't think Mitch McConnell blowharding about how he's really
serious about opposing Obama this time - no, seriously *this* time, he
really means it, FOR REAL - counts as an attempt to thwart the
Constitution.
Terry del Fuego
2016-02-20 14:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Carson
I don't think Mitch McConnell blowharding about how he's really
serious about opposing Obama this time - no, seriously *this* time, he
really means it, FOR REAL - counts as an attempt to thwart the
Constitution.
Because partisans on all sides will go to their graves insisting that
the Constitution doesn't say what it says but rather what they wish it
said. In a different reality, that might even be comic.
David Carson
2016-02-20 19:51:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:02:53 -0800, Terry del Fuego
Post by Terry del Fuego
Post by David Carson
I don't think Mitch McConnell blowharding about how he's really
serious about opposing Obama this time - no, seriously *this* time, he
really means it, FOR REAL - counts as an attempt to thwart the
Constitution.
Because partisans on all sides will go to their graves insisting that
the Constitution doesn't say what it says but rather what they wish it
said. In a different reality, that might even be comic.
Who? Who has advanced the theory that Obama doesn't have the
Constitutional authority to nominate a Justice? Who has "insisted" that
the Constituion says he can't?
Terry del Fuego
2016-02-20 22:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Carson
Who? Who has advanced the theory that Obama doesn't have the
Constitutional authority to nominate a Justice? Who has "insisted" that
the Constituion says he can't?
I honestly can't decide if you're being 100% sincerely genuine or
utterly disingenuous. Either way, I'm convinced that there is
absolutely no point in even attempting to discuss it and apologize for
mentioning it.
David Carson
2016-02-20 23:33:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 14:14:41 -0800, Terry del Fuego
Post by Terry del Fuego
Post by David Carson
Who? Who has advanced the theory that Obama doesn't have the
Constitutional authority to nominate a Justice? Who has "insisted" that
the Constituion says he can't?
I honestly can't decide if you're being 100% sincerely genuine or
utterly disingenuous.
Genuine. Your complaint, as I read it, isn't that the so-called
"opposition" party in Congress has announced plans to thwart Obama's
Constitutional authority, but that said party has taken the position that
he doesn't even possess that authority. In my earlier post, I alerted you
that I haven't seen any sign of what you're talking about. In your next
reply, you basically restated what you had already said, without
elaboration. So, I'm asking for elaboration. Who has claimed that the
president's Constitutional authority "doesn't apply" now?
Post by Terry del Fuego
Either way, I'm convinced that there is
absolutely no point in even attempting to discuss it and apologize for
mentioning it.
Try.

Also, mark my words: despite whatever he's said to make you or anyone else
think otherwise, Mitch McConnell is going to make sure that Obama gets his
Supreme Court nominee confirmed. He could nominate Bill Cosby, and Cosby
could confess not only to drugging and raping dozens of women, but also to
mishandling thousands of classified documents on a private e-mail server,
and McConnell would *still* make sure he got confirmed before midsummer.
And any rouge senators like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul who actually *try* to
thwart the nomination - like McConnell is promising will happen - will be
punished and ostracized.

David Carson
--
Dead or Alive Data Base
http://www.doadb.com
Kenny McCormack
2016-02-22 16:30:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <naasvh$7jn$***@dont-email.me>,
David Carson <***@neosoft.com> wrote:
...
Post by David Carson
Also, mark my words: despite whatever he's said to make you or anyone else
think otherwise, Mitch McConnell is going to make sure that Obama gets his
Supreme Court nominee confirmed. He could nominate Bill Cosby, and Cosby
could confess not only to drugging and raping dozens of women, but also to
mishandling thousands of classified documents on a private e-mail server,
and McConnell would *still* make sure he got confirmed before midsummer.
And any rouge senators like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul who actually *try* to
thwart the nomination - like McConnell is promising will happen - will be
punished and ostracized.
Well, I certainly hope you are right.

But, I have to ask, why do you say this? (When all indications are to the
contrary, sadly...)

Note that I could speculate about what might be your reasons, but I'd
rather let you speak for yourself.
--
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
Louis Epstein
2016-03-23 01:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenny McCormack
...
Post by David Carson
Also, mark my words: despite whatever he's said to make you or anyone else
think otherwise, Mitch McConnell is going to make sure that Obama gets his
Supreme Court nominee confirmed. He could nominate Bill Cosby, and Cosby
could confess not only to drugging and raping dozens of women, but also to
mishandling thousands of classified documents on a private e-mail server,
and McConnell would *still* make sure he got confirmed before midsummer.
And any rouge senators like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul who actually *try* to
thwart the nomination - like McConnell is promising will happen - will be
punished and ostracized.
Well, I certainly hope you are right.
But, I have to ask, why do you say this? (When all indications are to the
contrary, sadly...)
Note that I could speculate about what might be your reasons, but I'd
rather let you speak for yourself.
Wondering if now,with a live nominee McConnell has been promising to
ignore no matter what,David remains confident he'll do a 180?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
David Carson
2016-03-23 03:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Louis Epstein
Wondering if now,with a live nominee McConnell has been promising to
ignore no matter what,David remains confident he'll do a 180?
When has he ever *not* done a 180?

Louis Epstein
2016-02-28 21:37:32 UTC
Permalink
At the time his death was a shock...he was thought to be in good health
and known to have no intent to retire.

However,the hubbub over the lack of autopsy has led to the emergence of
the local judge who ordered the death certificate having spoken to
Scalia's doctor and learned of a host of ailments...he had coronary
artery disease,high blood pressure,diabetes,chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease,degenerative joint disease,and sleep apnea (he
travelled with a breathing apparatus).And he was obese and a smoker,
with all the complications those things cause for the foregoing ills
(one doctor who hadn't treated him said the first things Scalia
should have done were quit smoking and lose weight).

Hasn't squelched all conspiracy theory,but natural death seems legitimate.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Loading...