• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Died Of Natural Causes

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Political affiliation should bar you from being a judge of any sort. Let alone the supreme court.
here they sit on the cross benches in the lords.
Some judges show their colours when they retire from the bench.
The law is supposed to be impartial. How else can it rule on the legality of laws, or stand up to government. When laws are unfair.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Especially since some of these corporations have foreign investors with sometimes they being in the majority.
Not only that, the people who run the corporation, are members of the charter, investors, all these people who make up a corporation already have their rights as individuals. How do these people make up an extra person to have these corporate personhood "rights?"
 

esmith

Veteran Member
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.
This would be in direct violation of the Constitution. All he can do is put forth a nomination. It is the Senate and only the Senate that can approve or disprove the nomination. No matter what you and other want him to do. And yes they will block any nomination that they do not approve of.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Thanks for the correction, so whomever said that on a follow-up evaluation on CNN dealing with the debate must be wrong.
well, they may have quietly qualified it with something like "In the last 30 years" or something. I didn't see anything that gave the length of appointments recently.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Not only that, the people who run the corporation, are members of the charter, investors, all these people who make up a corporation already have their rights as individuals. How do these people make up an extra person to have these corporate personhood "rights?"
Corporations are not people.
The Supreme Court never ruled that they are.
This is the biggest misunderstanding on the left.
They merely have some rights of persons, & this is because corporations are made up of persons.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
They merely have some rights of persons, & this is because corporations are made up of persons.
"They merely have some rights of persons," even though those that make up the corporation already have their rights as people, and they are getting some of the same rights again because of corporate personhood. Why does an organization deserve these "extra person" rights when the people who make them up already have their own rights as individuals? With campaign financing, for example, each individual could already spend their money - why is there a need to recognize the corporation as a person in this regards when it grants the rights of a person to a non-person entity, even though those who make up this non-person entity already have those rights? The people who make up Apple should be able to vote and finance campaigns, but Apple is not a person, thus Apple should not.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
"They merely have some rights of persons," even though those that make up the corporation already have their rights as people, and they are getting some of the same rights again because of corporate personhood. Why does an organization deserve these "extra person" rights when the people who make them up already have their own rights as individuals? With campaign financing, for example, each individual could already spend their money - why is there a need to recognize the corporation as a person in this regards when it grants the rights of a person to a non-person entity, even though those who make up this non-person entity already have those rights? The people who make up Apple should be able to vote and finance campaigns, but Apple is not a person, thus Apple should not.
Are you asking why corporations are a separate legal entity from the people that create them?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"They merely have some rights of persons," even though those that make up the corporation already have their rights as people, and they are getting some of the same rights again because of corporate personhood. Why does an organization deserve these "extra person" rights when the people who make them up already have their own rights as individuals?
Corporations really don't have extra rights.
Example....
Bob & Ray each have $100 in life savings.
The each invest it all in Revcorp.
As individuals, they have the right to use all their money for political advocacy.
As Revcorp, they still have no more right to use all their money for the same.
Note that Revcorp cannot vote.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Not a separate entity but an entity entitled to certain rights for individuals, such as political campaign contributions.
Hmm, well I would imagine that this goes along with the idea that an entity can spend money freely, and to limit this right would be limiting free speech.

If you agree that they are a separate entity, why do you disagree with that entity spending money in a manner that suits that entity?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If you agree that they are a separate entity, why do you disagree with that entity spending money in a manner that suits that entity?
It has worsened the problem with politics being about money. Since Citizens United, we've seen the costs of elections jump, donations from outside sources have skyrocketed, and most of the money is coming from a wealthy few:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/report-after-citizens-united-outside-spending-doubles/
In 2014, outside groups spent $486 million on the Senate races alone, up from $220 million in 2010, the Brennan Center found. Republicans outspent Democrats by about $40 million on the Senate races in 2014, and they reclaimed the Senate majority.

Most of that outside money comes from the super-rich. Super PACs have spent $1 billion on the last three federal election cycles since 2010. Nearly 60 percent of those donations — more than $600 million — were made by just 195 people and their spouses, the Brennan Center found.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/
1. This chart details all spending by outside groups from 1990-2014. The surge in 2012 is obvious but compare outside spending in the 2006 midterms (pre Citizens United) vs outside spending in the 2010 midterms (post Citizens United). Big difference.

imrs.php

Image courtesy of Open Secrets
2. Here's a look at all outside group spending through Jan. 21 (aka today) of an election year. Spending at this point in the 2014 cycle is already almost three times as much as it was at this time in the 2010 election. And it's 25 times more than at this point in the 2006 election.

imrs.php

Image courtesy of Open Secrets
3. Conservatives have a far better organized and financed outside operation than do liberals. It's also worth noting that Republicans had a contested presidential primary in 2012 with vast sums spent by a handful of individuals to elect their preferred candidate, skewing the numbers below a bit.

imrs.php

Image courtesy of Open Secrets
4. That GOP organization/fundraising advantage translates into more TV ads when it matters. The chart below -- courtesy of CMAG/Kantar Media -- tracks the raw number of ads run by candidates, party committees and outside groups beginning 130 days before the 2010 and 2006 elections. It's no mistake that the red (Republican) line soared between 2006 and 2010 while the blue (Democratic) one stayed largely steady.

imrs.php

Image courtesy of CMAG's Harley Ellenberger
5. While the soaring spending on elections -- by unions, corporations and individuals -- is well known by this point, what is less well understood is how Citizens United drove massive amounts of cash into the non-profit political world, a world where disclosure is not required. This chart details the over $300 million spent by outside groups with no disclosure of donors.

Brendan Doherty, a political scientist at the U.S. Naval Academy, shows the rapid increase in first term fundraisers by presidents. Writes Doherty: "The combination of rising campaign costs and contribution limits that were low relative to those costs for decades led presidents to spend increasing amounts of their scarcest resource, their time, raising campaign funds. Citizens United accelerated these dynamics, as the prospect of outside groups receiving contributions in the millions provided an even greater incentive for President Obama to spend a great deal of time raising money in the increments in the low thousands required by campaign finance law."

imrs.php

I sleep with a pillow over my head.
It's a habit I picked up when living in a noisy neighborhood.
Really.
I do it when I'm stressed.
Why did the law enforcement authorities jump to conclusions about thecause of his death, and did not order an autopsy?
Because old people die, and sometimes without any apparent cause except for "old age." And police do have training, and experience, with being able to tell if foul play was involved.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Alright, so any opinions about Larry Lessig as a Supreme Court Nominee? He was once a clerk for Scalia and is currently a Law Professor at Harvard.

So any opinions? Should Obama nominate him?
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
Because old people die, and sometimes without any apparent cause except for "old age." And police do have training, and experience, with being able to tell if foul play was involved.
No, it wasn't announced by police, nor a medical professional. Apparently a county judge - without seeing his body - pronounced him dead of natural causes, and that it wasn't a heart attack ... all without an autopsy.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Many Supreme Court Justices and other judges have been and are quite eloquent writers, but Scalia was hands-down the most entertaining writer there has ever been on the Court. I always eagerly read his opinions--even though I have probably disagreed with more of them than I have agreed with. He often made me chuckle, which is a difficult thing to do in a Court opinion. I will always appreciate his wit and energy.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
It has worsened the problem with politics being about money. Since Citizens United, we've seen the costs of elections jump, donations from outside sources have skyrocketed, and most of the money is coming from a wealthy few:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/report-after-citizens-united-outside-spending-doubles/
In 2014, outside groups spent $486 million on the Senate races alone, up from $220 million in 2010, the Brennan Center found. Republicans outspent Democrats by about $40 million on the Senate races in 2014, and they reclaimed the Senate majority.

Most of that outside money comes from the super-rich. Super PACs have spent $1 billion on the last three federal election cycles since 2010. Nearly 60 percent of those donations — more than $600 million — were made by just 195 people and their spouses, the Brennan Center found.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/



I do it when I'm stressed.

Because old people die, and sometimes without any apparent cause except for "old age." And police do have training, and experience, with being able to tell if foul play was involved.
So you disagree, because of how those entities spend money? You don't have any disagreement beyond the effects of their free speech?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Alright, so any opinions about Larry Lessig as a Supreme Court Nominee? He was once a clerk for Scalia and is currently a Law Professor at Harvard.

So any opinions? Should Obama nominate him?
As far as I know, I'd approve Lessig. I think it would probably be a bad move for Obama to nominate him, as he has voiced far too many opinions for the Senate to pick apart. On the other hand, I suppose some of his opinions have a sort of "conservative" aura. He's kind of like 7th Circuit Court judge Posner--difficult to pin down as left or right. I like that.
 
Top