Scalia was an intellectual phony: Can we please stop calling him a brilliant jurist?

[cawacko]

wack you are so dumb

Lol, thanks Desh.

[evince]

he stood up against you left wing ideologues.......

he flopped like a fish on the deck


he had no set morals just like you

[PostmodernProphet]

You got me there. Paul Campos is a lawyer and we all know what the conventional wisdom is about lawyers. </sarcasm>

especially liberal lawyers.....in short, Campos bases his conclusions about legal brilliance on whether or not he agrees with Scalia's well thought out and articulated beliefs about textualism.......if Campos, like most liberal lawyers - especially those who have never even argue a case before the Supreme Court, have never spoken with Scalia, probably have never taken the time to read his book "Reading Law", and quite frankly wouldn't even be able to get an appointment to meet him in his office - wants a Constitution that is merely a placeholder for whatever the liberal justice wants to turn the law into, he's never likely to like Scalia's beliefs regarding the law.......

Doesn't change the fact Scalia is a brilliant jurist......doesn't change the fact Campos doesn't even know what a brilliant jurist should look like......just underscores the failure of your thread.....

by the way.....this is not shooting the messenger......this is taking the messengers body, grinding into hamburger and using it to throw a steak tatar party at Salon.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Explain these.

1. Indeed Scalia simply ignored a rich historical record that reveals, among other things, that at the time the amendment was ratified, the federal government passed several laws granting special benefits to African-Americans, and only African-Americans.

2. ...the men who drafted and ratified the First Amendment would, it’s safe to say, been shocked out of their wits if someone had told them they were granting the same free speech rights to corporations they were giving to persons.

3. ...he was one of five justices who didn’t bother to come up with something resembling a coherent legal argument for intervening in Florida’s electoral process. The judges making up that majority did so while trampling on the precise legal principles Justice Scalia, in particular, claimed to hold so dear: judicial restraint, originalist interpretation, and respect for states’ rights.

the answer to all three is this......when the legal entity of a "corporation" was approved by the legislatures of the various states (now, all) that approved them, it was in fact approved as a legal entity.....there are in fact particular things which a legal entity may legally do.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Wouldn't Scalia say everybody has a right to free speech, including this author?

did you think having the freedom to speak carries with it a right to compel everyone to think you are not a dumbfuck?.............

[evince]

especially liberal lawyers.....in short, Campos bases his conclusions about legal brilliance on whether or not he agrees with Scalia's well thought out and articulated beliefs about textualism.......if Campos, like most liberal lawyers - especially those who have never even argue a case before the Supreme Court, have never spoken with Scalia, probably have never taken the time to read his book "Reading Law", and quite frankly wouldn't even be able to get an appointment to meet him in his office - wants a Constitution that is merely a placeholder for whatever the liberal justice wants to turn the law into, he's never likely to like Scalia's beliefs regarding the law.......

Doesn't change the fact Scalia is a brilliant jurist......doesn't change the fact Campos doesn't even know what a brilliant jurist should look like......just underscores the failure of your thread.....

by the way.....this is not shooting the messenger......this is taking the messengers body, grinding into hamburger and using it to throw a steak tatar party at Salon.......

he lied about being a strict constructionist when it suited his racist ideals

[PostmodernProphet]

he lied about being a strict constructionist when it suited his racist ideals

what are you babbling about now?......

[evince]

he flopped like a fish on the deck



he had no set morals



he denied FACTS to retain his ideals of thinking himself superior to others


just like you

[evince]

"Given that those principles are and always have been controversial among American judges, lawyers, and politicians, insisting that they ought to control judicial interpretation as a matter of definition makes about as much sense as arguing for the desirability of, say, a particular income tax rate by claiming that the advocate’s preferred rate simply is the “true” rate (in other words it’s a nonsensical argument on its face)."


this


he was just what this person says




you don't understand what is being said

[christiefan915]

especially liberal lawyers.....in short, Campos bases his conclusions about legal brilliance on whether or not he agrees with Scalia's well thought out and articulated beliefs about textualism.......if Campos, like most liberal lawyers - especially those who have never even argue a case before the Supreme Court, have never spoken with Scalia, probably have never taken the time to read his book "Reading Law", and quite frankly wouldn't even be able to get an appointment to meet him in his office - wants a Constitution that is merely a placeholder for whatever the liberal justice wants to turn the law into, he's never likely to like Scalia's beliefs regarding the law.......

Doesn't change the fact Scalia is a brilliant jurist......doesn't change the fact Campos doesn't even know what a brilliant jurist should look like......just underscores the failure of your thread.....

by the way.....this is not shooting the messenger......this is taking the messengers body, grinding into hamburger and using it to throw a steak tatar party at Salon.......

"Over and over during Scalia’s three decades on the Supreme Court, if one of his cherished interpretive principles got in the way of his political preferences, that principle got thrown overboard in a New York minute."

Your argument sucks. Unless YOU argued a case in front of SCOTUS, talked to Scalia or met him, your opinions are no different from the author's. You are doing exactly what the author is saying Scalia did, waffling because you don't like what was written. You're stooping to ad homs just like Scalia did in some of his dissents. And you are too dumb to understand how foolish you appear for doing so.

[christiefan915]

did you think having the freedom to speak carries with it a right to compel everyone to think you are not a dumbfuck?.............

Do I think Scalia's dissent in Obergefell, for instance, carries with it a right to think of that dissent as fucking dumb? Yes, I do.

[evince]

history will mark him correctly


as an embarrassing racist

[PostmodernProphet]

[I][B]"Over and over during Scalia’s three decades on the Supreme Court, if one of his cherished interpretive principles got in the way of his political preferences, that principle got thrown overboard in a New York minute."

can you or your dumbfuck OP author back this up, Chrispie?.......or is it just another Deshclone "cheater!" moment.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Do I think Scalia's dissent in Obergefell, for instance, carries with it a right to think of that dissent as fucking dumb? Yes, I do.

then, as you are such an expert on legal brilliance I'm sure you can articulate why he was wrong......

perhaps you might start by critiquing this section....

These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is
contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as
government itself, and accepted by every nation in history
until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by
anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are
willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with
that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the
unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies,
stands against the Constitution.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious
as its content is egotistic.

[christiefan915]

can you or your dumbfuck OP author back this up, Chrispie?.......or is it just another Deshclone "cheater!" moment.......

He gave three examples in the article, dummy. Or are you flapping your gums without having read it?