Scalia refused to read the NY Times or the Washington Post.

[Kingofalldems]

He gathered all his information from the Washington Times and from talk radio (Pigboy Limbaugh I presume) and other right wing commentators.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/14/antonin-scalia-a-brilliant-legal-mind-who-defied-civil-rights-at-nearly-every-turn/?tid=sm_tw

It's called intellectual dishonesty.


He should have been impeached.

[elleng]

1. How about he gathered all his RELEVANT information from the legal precedents he read?

[COLGATE4]

2. Very doubtful he read the precedents. That's the job

of the Law Clerk. They do all the grunt work and the carpenter work on the brief and then give it to the Justice to edit and add his final touches. He/she may go back and ask the Clerk further questions about the precedents they cite to but actually read the precedents? Nah.

[elleng]

3. I disagree.

[COLGATE4]

4. Interesting. Why?

[elleng]

6. I'm a lawyer,

and I've studied and observed the way decisions are made for many years.

[COLGATE4]

7. What have you seen (specifically) that leads you to

conclude that Scalia read precedents for cases he was deciding in depth?

[elleng]

8. The Kalb Report:

[COLGATE4]

10. i went through the whole tape. I find nothing that even remotely discusses

how Scalia prepares his opinions, much less anything that could be remotely construed to indicatethat he reads the precedents used in his opinions.

[former9thward]

15. You don't know what you are talking about.

Eight years ago I took a summer course from him in law school. Without notes he could dance around every student in the class with his knowledge of various cases. Everyone in the legal world knows he was a very smart person even if you disagree with his viewpoints.

[elleng]

25. Thanks former9thward.

[Hortensis]

27. Yes, thanks both of you for standing up for reality.

[COLGATE4]

29. You're missing the point I was discussing with

another DUer. It's common knowledge that he was very bright. No one is denying that. But what I was responding to was the allegation that he studied the cases he used as precedent in his opinions in depth. Common practice is that the members of the Court all depend to a greater or lesser extent on their Clerks to research and then write draft opinions for them, which they then polish, circulate, discuss and re-write to suit 1) their opinion as to how the case should be decided and 2) their own ideological leanings. I doubt that Scalia was any exception to this, particularly given his reluctance to consider any sources of information which don't already correspond to his own ideology.

[RobinA]

33. So...

In which opinions would you say this brilliance can be seen? I am not in the legal world, but I have followed through the years what goes on concerning issues that I care about. I have read Scalia opinions here and there and have never seen the oft-touted brilliance. In fact, I find "originalism" rather anti-brilliant. Is there something out there that might enlighten me? Or maybe definitions of brilliant differ.

[former9thward]

41. Do you really think I could give you an intelligence answer

in this space? When I was in law school my case books were filled with Scalia opinions. And No, my profs were not Conservative, they were liberals.

[RobinA]

47. Well,

I had hoped there were some landmark Scalia cases out there in which he had been particularly brilliant that could be pointed out as examples of his best work. I have not been to law school and I have read maybe 10 Scalia opinions over the years that happened to correspond with my areas of interest. No one is brilliant all the time, so I was hoping somebody could point me in the right direction.

[Rex]

23. He was a piece of shit toward the end of his life, some cannot handle the fact their idol turned

into a golden turd. So sad for them, thankfully history will remember the name Scalia as a worthless crap stain that permanently fucked up this country.

All the crying in this thread and other places won't change that. Scalia was a worthless piece of shit...those are the facts.

[COLGATE4]

30. I am absolutely astounded by this new-found love for

Scalia from members of DU. IMO, Scalia was the most dangerous member of the Court insofar as liberal causes were concerned. His intellectually dishonest insistence on "originalism" in interpretating the Constitution would be laughable if it hadn't had a real life effect on decisions the Court has taken. Not even taking into account the unbelievable decision inBush v Gore, one need only examine some of his more recent 'pronouncements' ('evidence of factual innocence is really immaterial when considering a death penalty appeal') to see a briliant mind turned to ideological ranting as dishonest as anything published today by WND or Brietbart. His death is no loss to the legal community.

[RobinA]

34. This Language -

"evidence of factual innocence is really immaterial when considering a death penalty appeal" - makes me hyperventilate every time I see it. Although, I suppose I'm just not brilliant enough to understand.

[COLGATE4]

36. It's a hyper-technical understanding of the law, which enshrines process

as an end to itself, much the same approach as he took in other instances of his "originalism". According to Scalia, once you've exhausted your appeals process that's it - all she wrote - game over. If later in the day new evidence arises that proves you were wrongly convicted, well... . You got all the Due Process that you were due. Next case.

[RobinA]

49. Yeah, I Get That

That's what I find so appalling. It relegates the law to the level of the plumbing in your house. "Well, it gets the water from point A to point B without spilling, so it's working as intended." The whole appeal of law as an area of study, to me anyway (casual study in my case), is how you take a codified system and make it work for very uncodified human endeavors.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

43. There's nothing new found about it

While a few truly spiritual folks don't like grave dancing, there are a few DUers who loved Scalia because they are in fact right wingers just like him. If you asked me Saturday evening what usernames were sure to tut-tut DUers for being happy he was gone, on top of tacitly defending him and some of his most idiotic and vile views and decisions, I would have told you who to look for. Can't say I've been disappointed either. They are clockwork, but they don't fucking fool me. You don't have to look far either right now.

[COLGATE4]

45. Yep. Unfortunately you're right. nt

[Atman]

24. I'm sorry, I see no indication that Scalia ever gave a rat's ass about precedent.

He cared about what he personally believed, what his own religion taught him. He rarely if ever actually even considered the "original" Constitution on a scholarly level, instead opting to interpret it upon his own personal and religious beliefs. He was a piece of shit.

Oh, and also upon who was paying his honorarium or speaking fee.

POS.

[Rex]

26. He never did, all he cared about what his own personal agenda against gays and minorities.

And of course furthering the aims of the Grand Old Party. He was a partisan hack that did America a favor by kicking the bucket. Now Obama can nominate someone SANE to take his place!

[Human101948]

28. You mean like all those precedents for Bush v. Gore?

Which also set no precedent. One time only ruling.

Scalia was a fucking turd in a black robe.

[MineralMan]

5. He's dead.

Let him stay dead, OK. Let's move on to the next appointee, shall we?

[Kingofalldems]

12. Let's not.

[JHB]

13. You're wrong here, MM. Reminding people of the REAL Scalia...

...is a necessary step in moving on to the next appointee.

Conservatives rail against "judicial activism", but that's a lie: Scalia was a conservative judicial activist, so they loved him and embraced him as a hero.

Scalia claimed to be an "originalist", a conveniently vague and impossible to verify stance that provided an intellectual smokescreen for his partisanship and activism. A stance he was also quite willing to throw overboard when it conflicted with his activism: witness Bush v Gore.

Republicans are going to offer a selectively-edited version of Scalia as the model of why Obama should not be allowed to choose his replacement on the bench. That needs to be pointedly countered by not allowing Scalia's hyper-partisanship to be whitewashed.

A strategy of "look forward, not back" is ill-advised when facing backstabbers. That was true long before President Obama used that particular phrase to describe it. Bil Clinton did the same, and all it did was let conservatives devote more energy to attacks.

[laundry_queen]

35. ^^^This. nt

[Rex]

22. Feel free to ignore these threads then, because they are going to be up for a long time.

No, I think we will spit on Scalia's grave a little bit longer...sorry if you cannot have your way. Such is life.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

37. How about you simply pass on reading or commenting on any thread about him?

Thanks.

[MineralMan]

38. How about I post as I choose?

How would that be?

[Kingofalldems]

39. And let others do the same--instead of telling them to move on.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

40. It would be fine

It would also be great if you followed your own council about lecturing others on what they choose to post.

[Logical]

42. Then don't whine when questioned! Nt

[valerief]

9. Unlike Palin, who reads "all of 'em."

[JHB]

11. Garbage in, garbage out

Most knowledgable sources credit Scalia with a sharp, brilliant mind, but that -- like a computer -- is a tool. A tool that needs certain things for its calculations to be meaningful: accurate data.

One of the oldest adages in computing is "garbage in, garbage out". No matter how quickly and complexly it crunches numbers, if those numbers aren't in line with reality then the computer is going to spit out the wrong answer. A fiction. A fiction that can be all the worse from haing the imprimatur of authority. "We ran the numbers, and they told us..."

Even putting the best "talk civilly to a conservative relative" face on it, Scalia's getting his news from the MoonieTimes and other sources squarely within the "conservative media" bubble is damnably lazy. Given the attitude he displayed over the years, that sort of cheap, comfy-cozy ensconsement came easily to him. But it was not and can't ever be considered an admirable quality in a Supreme Court Justice. Justice is supposed to be blind, but it's rare when Justices so blatantly wear blinders.

Of course, for those of us outside that festering bubble, it's all the more reason to consider Tony's decisions to be partisan activism, nothing that should be taken as precedent.

[Carolina]

14. I don't blame him

I cancelled my subscription to the Post in 1997 when it became a tabloid rag panting after every Ken Starr accusation and painting that tobacco lawyer/shill as an honest man.

Not that I liked Scalia;quite the contrary. But the once venerable WaPo and 'Grey Lady' aren't worth the paper and ink, and haven't been for a long time.

[hfojvt]

50. I was gonna say

I don't read the NY Times or WaPo either. Used to read the columns of Krugman, Kristoff and and (aw heck, it figures I would forget the black guy's name) and even Dowd, but their website started asking for money. That was long ago. Long enough for me to forget one name even.

I read the Daily Howler, usually every day and often read there about how ridiculous the NYT is and Dean Baker never had anything nice to say about WaPo either. (Haven't read his 'Beat the Press' for a while now.)

[oberliner]

16. A lot of DUers are about to refuse to read the Washington Post

In light of the Capehart story (unless they fire him).

[Kingofalldems]

17. What was that?

[oberliner]

18. Have you seen the posts about the Bernie civil rights photo?

In relation to this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/02/11/stop-sending-around-this-photo-of-bernie-sanders/

[lpbk2713]

19. So he let assholes like OxyRush define the issues of the day for him.

Such a shame all that education was wasted on Scalia.

[Rex]

21. A lot of smart people turn into mindless zombies listening to hate radio. Scalia was no exception.

He willingly polluted his mind with Rush etc.. Can't wait to see who Obama picks to replace him!

[Rex]

20. Of course he was intellectually dishonest, I am surprised some are just realizing that by now.

The man lead and decided on Bush vs. Gore, one of the worse cases ever to be brought up and decided on. He was a horrible man that never knew a conflict of interest and I can only hope he is rotting in hell as I type this.

He was worthless and may his name be spoken like it was a pox for the rest of days.

[Kingofalldems]

31. Kick this for his internet pals, some who post here.

[rockfordfile]

32. He was just your typical republican scumbag

[4bernie28]

44. Everyone on the supreme court should listen to all sides of an issue

[COLGATE4]

46. They do.* And then

they go ahead and vote for a result which is in accord with their personal ideology.

* PS - Except Slappy. They don't bother to wake him up to hear oral argument.

[Iggo]

48. And now he's dead.

Let that be a lesson to you, kids.