SCOTUS

That's a very good read. Given what's been posted about Scalia, I encourage everyone to read it, for the sake of balance.

I always felt like it was kind of a shame that Scalia used all that vaunted wit, intellect, and writing ability to essentially build a stout and sometimes beautiful fortress around such a retrograde worldview. For all the ink that's been spilled about his defense of the constitution, it needs to be noted for the record that he was as much an activist as any colleague, if not more so--and that's ON the bench. Off it, he was pretty much just a partisan cheerleader. He was perfectly capable of engaging in the same kind of philosophical maunderings that he accused other justices of, and of conceiving tortured constructions in order to achieve the outcome he wanted.

Anyway, he was a mixed bag, and his legacy will reflect that, even as some folks try to turn him, a la Reagan, into some kind of spotless secular saint. As usual, real life is messier.
 
Imagine that, someone expressing what they view as their moral superiority. They, of course, are in the right. The opponent de jour is retrograde, ugly, and just wrong. Sez who? Sez them of course. And they've got the votes to prove it and might makes right and all. Sez who? Sez them so long as they are in the ascendency.
 
"God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools…and He has not been disappointed. Devout Christians are destined to be regarded as fools in modern society. We are fools for Christ’s sake. We must pray for courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world. If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world."

~Justice Scalia~
 
BedellBrave said:
Imagine that, someone expressing what they view as their moral superiority. They, of course, are in the right. The opponent de jour is retrograde, ugly, and just wrong. Sez who? Sez them of course. And they've got the votes to prove it and might makes right and all. Sez who? Sez them so long as they are in the ascendency.
Click to expand...

I'm not really talking about religion here. I didn't mention it at all, actually. Sure, I think Scalia's writings in gay rights cases are pretty abhorrent. His faith informed his thinking on all fronts, and I accept that. The idea shines through pretty clearly that he probably thought that homosexuals should just get off his Constitution, er, lawn and get back in the closet, and I can't say I agree with either the sentiment or the reasoning. I'm really speaking more of his full-throated, activist, and sometimes headstanding ideas about corporate power, issues of race, and the more general idea that his originalism preserved in amber a world where the landed gentry of a certain complexion were free to go about their business without worrying about "racial entitlements" like the VRA, or getting sued or whatnot.

Since you mention it, nothing says "fool for Christ" quite like hanging out with your multimillionaire oil buddies, blasting hell out of semi-tame birds.
 
And you are making your own moral judgments. And you are writing off an opposing view as retrograde, ugly, foolish, vile, etc. You frame the one you dislike in the worse possible light - using the same sort of inflammatory rhetoric as he. We all do that sort of thing. And we all have to face the "Sez who?"
 
BedellBrave said:
"God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools…and He has not been disappointed. Devout Christians are destined to be regarded as fools in modern society. We are fools for Christ’s sake. We must pray for courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world. If I have brought any message today, it is this: Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world."

~Justice Scalia~
Click to expand...

I'm a Christian and all I can say is just stop with this nonsense. In a country that is overwhelmingly Christian, somehow some Christians still pull out this "woe is me" card. If a Christian is even remotely bothered by criticism from the sophisticated smart set, my advice is "Buy a backbone."
 
50PoundHead said:
I'm a Christian and all I can say is just stop with this nonsense. In a country that is overwhelmingly Christian, somehow some Christians still pull out this "woe is me" card. If a Christian is even remotely bothered by criticism from the sophisticated smart set, my advice is "Buy a backbone."
Click to expand...

"Christian" what does that even mean when Trump wins SC? Oh, and please stop the nonsense that the movers and shakers in academia and the media and in your party and in your denominational circles aren't guilty of the very sort of scorn that Scalia spoke of (a scorn expressed quite frequently here). Also, as a Christian then you are quite aware of Paul's message in 1 Cor. 1. Tell him to just stop if you'd like.
 
BedellBrave said:
"Christian" what does that even mean when Trump wins SC? Oh, and please stop the nonsense that the movers and shakers in academia and the media and in your party and in your denominational circles aren't guilty of the very sort of scorn that Scalia spoke of (a scorn expressed quite frequently here). Also, as a Christian then you are quite aware of Paul's message in 1 Cor. 1. Tell him to just stop if you'd like.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of all of that thank you. When they start stoning Christians, I'll start worrying. You make out every liberal to be Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or the late Christopher Hitchens. The hijacking of the Christian faith by those on the cultural right has driven more people out of the pews than anything that has come from the academic left.
 
BedellBrave said:
"Christian" what does that even mean when Trump wins SC? Oh, and please stop the nonsense that the movers and shakers in academia and the media and in your party and in your denominational circles aren't guilty of the very sort of scorn that Scalia spoke of (a scorn expressed quite frequently here). Also, as a Christian then you are quite aware of Paul's message in 1 Cor. 1. Tell him to just stop if you'd like.
Click to expand...

/Pope Francis
 
The Roberts Court has made it easier to buy an election and harder to vote in one, which is why I recently argued that Democratic candidates should make repairing American democracy a central focus in the campaign by embracing policies that reduce the influence of big money, curb gerrymandering, and protect voting rights. None of these causes can be achieved without a sympathetic Supreme Court.
-Ari Berman

still don't understand why McConnell did what McConnell did
 
50PoundHead said:
I'm aware of all of that thank you. When they start stoning Christians, I'll start worrying. You make out every liberal to be Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or the late Christopher Hitchens. The hijacking of the Christian faith by those on the cultural right has driven more people out of the pews than anything that has come from the academic left.
Click to expand...

Yep. Personal example right here.
 
57Brave said:
The Roberts Court has made it easier to buy an election and harder to vote in one, which is why I recently argued that Democratic candidates should make repairing American democracy a central focus in the campaign by embracing policies that reduce the influence of big money, curb gerrymandering, and protect voting rights. None of these causes can be achieved without a sympathetic Supreme Court.
-Ari Berman

still don't understand why McConnell did what McConnell did
Click to expand...

There's still a part of their wacko base (and frankly there's a part of our wacko base that thinks W.'s election was illegitimate) that sees Obama as not truly being President. I think it's that simple. Kind of crazy, but I'm going with Ockham's Razor on this one.
 
50PoundHead said:
There's still a part of their wacko base (and frankly there's a part of our wacko base that thinks W.'s election was illegitimate) that sees Obama as not truly being President. I think it's that simple. Kind of crazy, but I'm going with Ockham's Razor on this one.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't agree with the decision, but I think it's rational and probably safe. Consider the cost/benefit:

McConnell and the leadership seem like they're increasingly under threat (whether by caucus revolt or primary challenge) from the right. This buys them goodwill there. The rainmakers and the donor class don't want to see the ideological balance of the court flipped, and they'll write checks to protect the majority and muddy the waters of the debate, if it comes to that. They're at least buying a chance at a palatable ideological successor to Scalia if a Republican is elected.

The downside of potential electoral losses? I don't think that the electorate is even going to care. They'll see it as another in an interminable line of partisan scraps, and tune out. Democrats are not positioned to run an anti-status quo campaign across the board (or at all). So the Republicans brazen out the election year fuss and the anger of an outgoing president. Sure, they'll further poison the well of partisan relations, but if you'll forgive the metaphor, what's another turd in a cesspool?

If they win the election, they buy another term of control of the court. If they lose the election, they're not much worse off than they would be if they considered a nominee in good faith. Sure, if I'm an incoming Democratic president in that scenario, I'd consider nominating a more liberal candidate, but that seems like the absolute worst that could happen for the Rs.

I don't like it, but I get it.
 
If Hillary wins the Presidency then she will nominate someone probably the liberal equivalent of Scalia. That's why Pubs are better off getting a Kennedy Moderate to nominate now.
 
bravesnumberone said:
Yep. Personal example right here.
Click to expand...

That's too bad. You can find a pew somewhere where things will line up with what you'd prefer. There are plenty of places that chase the fashionable (be it culturally right or left). The unfortunate thing about those that chase the either end of the spectrum - they usually present an aberrant faith. My thought is that the Christian faith challenges every culture (be it Lynchburg, VA, or San Fransisco, or Wall Street).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top