Supreme Court Justice Scalia Died Of Natural Causes

[beenherebeforeagain]

That wasn't what the ruling claimed.
Corporations have had some of the rights of persons since before the country was founded, eg, the right to sue in court.
This is because corporations are how people assemble to accomplish things.
The question becomes which rights they have or do not have, eg, the right to marry.
Political advocacy is one right they have, & spending money enables that.

Ref....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Corporations did not have that right until the Supreme Court ruled that they did in the Citizens case (although it may have occurred in practice prior to efforts to control election spending)...which many still dispute being a legitimate interpretation of law. If there's a change in balance on the Court, they might be inclined to revisit that decision. It's not like the Court can't and hasn't revisited controversial issues and changed the ruling.

 

[Revoltingest]

Corporations did not have that right until the Supreme Court ruled that they did in the Citizens case (although it may have occurred in practice prior to efforts to control election spending)...which many still dispute being a legitimate interpretation of law. If there's a change in balance on the Court, they might be inclined to revisit that decision. It's not like the Court can't and hasn't revisited controversial issues and changed the ruling.

Another way to view it is that they always had that right, particularly because they exercised it.
And only with this decision was it formally recognized.

I think the fundamental problem here is that a great many people are conditioned by
the media & Democratic propaganda to dislike big business, which they refer to as
"corporations" (because that's the typical form of ownership).
But people who oppose corporations spending money on political advocacy
might be surprised just how many organizations are corporations, eg.....
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00010603

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Another way to view it is that they always had that right, particularly because they exercised it.
And only with this decision was it formally recognized.

Yeah, that too. Like most policies, it's "full employment for lawyers" to resolve.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, that too. Like most policies, it's "full employment for lawyers" to resolve.

Well, the country is run by lawyers for lawyers.
Btw, that's one fine trait of Trump, ie, he's not a lawyer.

 

[esmith]

I think the issue can be addressed this way.
Democrats now have the White House and SCOUS was 5-4 against liberal policies and they want Obama to appoint a "liberal" judge giving SCOUS a 4-5 for liberals
Republicans now do not have the White House and SCOUS was 5-4 for Conservative policies they want to wait until after the election hoping to take the White House and keep the SCOUS the same as it was

Liberals are demanding that Obama be allowed to choose the successor
Conservatives are demanding that the next president choose the successor

Reverse the whole thing

Republicans now have the White House and SCOUS was 5-4 against liberal policies and they want Republican President to appoint a "conservative" judge maintain SCOUS a 5-4 for conservatives
Democrats now do not have the White House and SCOUS was 5-4 for Conservative policies they want to wait until after the election hoping to take the White House and appoint a "liberal" judge giving SCOUS a 4-5 for lilberals

Conservatives are demanding that Republican President be allowed to choose the successor
Democrats are demanding that the next president choose the successor


Anyone see a fallacy in this?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the fundamental problem here is that a great many people are conditioned by
the media & Democratic propaganda to dislike big business, which they refer to as
"corporations" (because that's the typical form of ownership).

The fundamental problem is corporations getting to pick and choose what rights they have. Our modern view of corporations did not exist until the mid-to-late 19th century, and today they can spend all they want on elections, the right of a person, but yet things people do not get are various legal protections and things such as limited liability. They don't pay the same tax rates that people do, and it's never even questioned if a corporation has to register for the draft to receive government benefits. The people who make up the boards that run a corporation are people, but WalMart itself is not a person, and should not be entitled to personhood rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

The fundamental problem is corporations getting to pick and choose what rights they have.

No, they don't get to decide this.
It's up to the fed gov, which is limited by the Constitution.

Corporations came about as a structure for people to organize.
The key word is "people".
It's how people accomplish things while limiting personal liability.
It's far from new, preceding the formation of the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

Again, back to the misconceptions.....
Corporate personhood does not mean that a corporation is a person.
It means that a corporation has some (not all) of the rights a person has.
Certainly, we agree that a corporation should be able to own property & sue in court.
But a corporation cannot marry or change its gender.

 

[Draka]

Saw a meme on FB yesterday...pic of Obama, words to the effect of "Oh, Republicans want to delay the nomination for Supreme Court? Go ahead. I'd like Bernie or Hillary to nominate me."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the issue can be addressed this way.
Democrats now have the White House and SCOUS was 5-4 against liberal policies and they want Obama to appoint a "liberal" judge giving SCOUS a 4-5 for liberals
Republicans now do not have the White House and SCOUS was 5-4 for Conservative policies they want to wait until after the election hoping to take the White House and keep the SCOUS the same as it was

Liberals are demanding that Obama be allowed to choose the successor
Conservatives are demanding that the next president choose the successor

Reverse the whole thing

Republicans now have the White House and SCOUS was 5-4 against liberal policies and they want Republican President to appoint a "conservative" judge maintain SCOUS a 5-4 for conservatives
Democrats now do not have the White House and SCOUS was 5-4 for Conservative policies they want to wait until after the election hoping to take the White House and appoint a "liberal" judge giving SCOUS a 4-5 for lilberals

Conservatives are demanding that Republican President be allowed to choose the successor
Democrats are demanding that the next president choose the successor


Anyone see a fallacy in this?

The fallacy is conservatives demanding the next president getting to choose the Scalia's successor, because as Obama is the current president, with just under a full year left in his last term, he gets to choose the Scalia's successor.
The fallacy is that the "by the books" right-wingers who complain like to complain about things Obama does that are not by the books, even if they have to make stuff up, are not liking this "by the books" reality that is going to put them at a disadvantage in the highest court of the land. It's also a death-blow to the anti-gay marriage crowd, because now there is virtually no chance of ever having same-sex marriage overturned - it may even be a death knell tolling the end of RFRA-like bills, and we may even witness GLBT-civil rights and liberties granted in all 50 states.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think the issue can be addressed this way.
Democrats now have the White House and SCOUS was 5-4 against liberal policies and they want Obama to appoint a "liberal" judge giving SCOUS a 4-5 for liberals
Republicans now do not have the White House and SCOUS was 5-4 for Conservative policies they want to wait until after the election hoping to take the White House and keep the SCOUS the same as it was

Liberals are demanding that Obama be allowed to choose the successor
Conservatives are demanding that the next president choose the successor

Reverse the whole thing

Republicans now have the White House and SCOUS was 5-4 against liberal policies and they want Republican President to appoint a "conservative" judge maintain SCOUS a 5-4 for conservatives
Democrats now do not have the White House and SCOUS was 5-4 for Conservative policies they want to wait until after the election hoping to take the White House and appoint a "liberal" judge giving SCOUS a 4-5 for lilberals

Conservatives are demanding that Republican President be allowed to choose the successor
Democrats are demanding that the next president choose the successor


Anyone see a fallacy in this?

It's called "Politics:" WE want control, and to deny control to our opponents, and whatever reasoning is needed at the moment is what we use to justify our position. Consistency of argument does not lead to control; and we're not the least bit embarrassed to be so inconsistent.

Frankly, Obama should nominate someone; if the Senate refuses to confirm, then the GOP will appear to be obstructionist to Dems and lots of independents who don't see a good reason to delay almost a year, and the GOP supporters will be able to argue that they are right in refusing to confirm until the new president can nominate someone. It's political football, of course.

The Constitution says the President should nominate when a vacancy occurs, and the Senate is supposed to "advice and consent" on nominations. All the rest is political window dressing.

 

[esmith]

The fallacy is conservatives demanding the next president getting to choose the Scalia's successor, because as Obama is the current president, with just under a full year left in his last term, he gets to choose the Scalia's successor.
The fallacy is that the "by the books" right-wingers who complain like to complain about things Obama does that are not by the books, even if they have to make stuff up, are not liking this "by the books" reality that is going to put them at a disadvantage in the highest court of the land. It's also a death-blow to the anti-gay marriage crowd, because now there is virtually no chance of ever having same-sex marriage overturned - it may even be a death knell tolling the end of RFRA-like bills, and we may even witness GLBT-civil rights and liberties granted in all 50 states.

Yeah, and if the situation was reversed what would you be advocating. I'm sure it wouldn't be to let the present (fic) Republican select the replacement.

 

[esmith]

It's called "Politics:" WE want control, and to deny control to our opponents, and whatever reasoning is needed at the moment is what we use to justify our position. Consistency of argument does not lead to control; and we're not the least bit embarrassed to be so inconsistent.

Frankly, Obama should nominate someone; if the Senate refuses to confirm, then the GOP will appear to be obstructionist to Dems and lots of independents who don't see a good reason to delay almost a year, and the GOP supporters will be able to argue that they are right in refusing to confirm until the new president can nominate someone. It's political football, of course.

The Constitution says the President should nominate when a vacancy occurs, and the Senate is supposed to "advice and consent" on nominations. All the rest is political window dressing.

The only problem with your assumption is that the country is divided on whether the SCOUS is too liberal, too conservative, or is as it is (prior to the passing of Scalia)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165248/americans-still-divided-approval-supreme-court.aspx

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, and if the situation was reversed what would you be advocating. I'm sure it wouldn't be to let the present (fic) Republican select the replacement.

If a Republican president was in office, that person is the one who would be able to appoint the successor.
It sounds more like a "sore loser" argument to try and flip things around, because you know your side has taken a huge hit over this one, because even if they control the white house in congress in 2017, there is a 'liberal' Supreme Court to keep them from running over everyone, and key Republican moves, such as continued attacks against the ACA and religious "freedoms"/homosexual rights just moved further away from being possible. Abortion rights are looking more safe, same-sex marriage is under no danger of being overturned, and there may even be the potential to overturn Citizens United.
There is no valid reason to make a demand that the next president choose Scalias successor. The right knows his sudden and unexpected (but not too unexpected given his age) death puts them in a weaker position going into next year, because even if the win congress and the White House they are walking into a 'liberal' SC, which is going the make achieving their core agenda much more difficult.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The only problem with your assumption is that the country is divided on whether the SCOUS is too liberal, too conservative, or is as it is (prior to the passing of Scalia)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165248/americans-still-divided-approval-supreme-court.aspx

Actually, there's nothing wrong with what I posted; it's called an OPINION; it's what I think the President should do and why. You're free to have your opinion, too. Your and/or I may be wrong in how the players and public will look at this, but that's okay too, because nothing is riding on it.

Frankly, public opinion is irrelevant to what the Constitution says or what people think the President or Congress "should" do; it's the set of rules that governs how government is run. There's a vacancy, and even if it was one week to the end of the President's term, he could make a nomination...not that the Senate would have to respond, of course, in that case.

 

[Druac]

People die...every last one of them...particularly the older ones. He lived a good life for a human and about as long as could be expected. Oh...yeah...and he is a freaking Justice of the Supreme Court...a politically appointed one...that tend to stick in there as long as possible, some to the death...so yeah, tough sh*t if we 'politicize' his death in any way...you should get over it...would be my honest suggestion/opinion on that matter.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Frankly, public opinion is irrelevant to what the Constitution says or what people think the President or Congress "should" do; it's the set of rules that governs how government is run. There's a vacancy, and even if it was one week to the end of the President's term, he could make a nomination...not that the Senate would have to respond, of course, in that case.

Personally, I won't be surprised if the Senate keeps saying "no" to Obama's appointee and Obama goes ahead and appoints whomever anyways. I have no doubts the Reps will try and block it as long as they can, but all that's going to do is create a headache when the inevitable question of who gets to appoint Scalia's successor when such a thing happens? The president it happened under, which has solid precedence, or the new president who only got into the situation because one party was intentionally obstructive, something I do not think has any precedence. Would Obama's choice get the spot by default? I really don't think the Republicans want to open that can of worms if they think this through.

 

[metis]

With a Dem nomination, same-sex marriage is not in any real danger of being over turned. It's not likely the ACA will be re-addressed. And there may be the potential to overturn citizens united.

Ya, and I can't remember which Republican politician several month ago admitted that it the Pubs repealed the ACA, the public backlash would be vicious. Suddenly, 18 million Americans would be without insurance, plus the CBO said that it would lead into a rise in medical inflation.

 

[metis]

Citizens United isn't on sound grounds, as it is not logically sound to declare a corporation a person.

Especially since some of these corporations have foreign investors with sometimes they being in the majority.

 

[metis]

According to Time magazine, the longest since the late 1800s was 391 days, in 1969-1970.

http://time.com/4224348/scalia-vacancy-supreme-court/

Thanks for the correction, so whomever said that on a follow-up evaluation on CNN dealing with the debate must be wrong.

 

[metis]

Yeah, and if the situation was reversed what would you be advocating. I'm sure it wouldn't be to let the present (fic) Republican select the replacement.

I would be. I simply do not believe that the end justifies the means.