What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Antonin Scalia Supporters ONLY - Please Respect Our Cyber Wall (1 Viewer)

SIDA!

SIDA!

Footballguy
THIS IS NOT A "HEY DID YOU HEAR THE NEWS" ABOUT JUSTICE SCALIA THREAD


After much thought and deliberation, I have decided to launch a thread for supporters of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Because of the abusive name calling, vitriol, and just a general nastiness towards a great legal mind and one of the most influential men in American history, I am starting this thread to create a safe, positive place for Scalia fans.

We are not here to mourn the loss of this great man. We are here to celebrate his positive influence. Please use this thread to discuss your favorite rulings and legal opinions here.


JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA SUPPORTERS ONLY!


We are building a giant cyber wall around this thread. It is a big beautiful cyber wall.

If you are not a supporter of Justice Antonin Scalia, this thread is not for you. We do not want your divisiveness, your animosity. Any negativity is not welcome here.

However, our wall has a big shiny door.

If you have some positive things to say about Justice Scalia, you are welcome to comment. But please keep it on the subject of his legal rulings. We want to focus on his fantastic legal resume...not discuss the politics surrounding his replacement.


In this thread we will link to articles and other information on the internet chronicling the career of the honorable Scalia and his general awesomeness. We will engage in positive, uplifting discussions about how he preserved American values and fought to defend and protect our constitution.

If you are a Scalia supporter but avoided the other thread because of all the ugly, hateful rhetoric and personal attacks, you are welcome here.

If Scalia haters refuse to leave this thread alone and attempt to instigate discord, please do not feed the trolls. We must ignore them.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR FAVORITE LEGAL OPINION AUTHORED BY JUSTICE SCALIA.
 
Fennis said:
:IBTL:
Click to expand...
Negative ghostrider.

This thread will not be locked because it is tailored to a discussion about the career of this great man. Not the petty and divisive attacks on him as a person or the political shenanigans regarding who and when he should be replaced.

We need to have an honest vetting of this man's record. And it needs to be kept to just discussing his record.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
SIDA! said:
PLEASE SHARE YOUR FAVORITE LEGAL OPINION AUTHORED BY JUSTICE SCALIA.
Click to expand...
Impossible. That's like asking me to pick my favorite child! OK, it's the white one, but still, so many to choose from.
Click to expand...
Well...I am a hardcore fan of Scalia. I wanted to keep it singular because I didn't want another die-hard Scalia supporter to come in and list their 30 favorite decisions.

This ain't a "name your favorite movie of all time thread" where your typical FBGer lists 5 favorite movies of all-time. Not going to all that to happen. Okaaaay.

 
Not sure what you mean by "supporter", SIDA.

Antonin Scalia was a brilliant mind, a giant of the Supreme Court, and he will be sorely missed. That said, I strongly disagreed with many of his decisions and his overall "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution. But that doesn't matter. He was a great adversary of the justices that I agree with more. And I certainly found the remarks cheering his death to be absolutely classless.

So I don't know if that makes me a supporter or not in your eyes.

 
timschochet said:
Not sure what you mean by "supporter", SIDA.

Antonin Scalia was a brilliant mind, a giant of the Supreme Court, and he will be sorely missed. That said, I strongly disagreed with many of his decisions and his overall "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution. But that doesn't matter. He was a great adversary of the justices that I agree with more. And I certainly found the remarks cheering his death to be absolutely classless.

So I don't know if that makes me a supporter or not in your eyes.
Click to expand...
If you liked or agreed with a specific ruling/opinion, you are welcome to share those thoughts here.

Most people would not agree with every opinion of any justice. So, I am not suggesting anyone posting in here should agree with everything he ever said/wrote.

 
Well yeah, OK. I agreed with him in his dissent on the Casey Martin golf case. I thought then, and I do now, that golf courses have the right to insist that players walk.

Scalia wrote:

"I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a “fundamental” aspect of golf."

 
timschochet said:
Not sure what you mean by "supporter", SIDA.

Antonin Scalia was a brilliant mind, a giant of the Supreme Court, and he will be sorely missed. That said, I strongly disagreed with many of his decisions and his overall "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution. But that doesn't matter. He was a great adversary of the justices that I agree with more. And I certainly found the remarks cheering his death to be absolutely classless.

So I don't know if that makes me a supporter or not in your eyes.
Click to expand...
This is why I like you, Tim.
 
Is this the thread where my 1st Amendment is being limited without due process of the law? I don't think Scalia would be in favor of this thread.

 
timschochet said:
Well yeah, OK. I agreed with him in his dissent on the Casey Martin golf case. I thought then, and I do now, that golf courses have the right to insist that players walk.

Scalia wrote:

"I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a fundamental aspect of golf."
Click to expand...
Man, he was snarky, but in a thoroughly entertaining way.

 
This is a pretty good excerpt. Enjoy:

1. Original Understandings

Let us start from the beginning. The Court invokes “ancient First Amendment principles,” ante , at 1 (internal quotation marks omitted), and original understandings, ante , at 37–38, to defend today’s ruling, yet it makes only a perfunctory attempt to ground its analysis in the principles or understandings of those who drafted and ratified the Amendment. Perhaps this is because there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that anyone believed it would preclude regulatory distinctions based on the corporate form. To the extent that the Framers’ views are discernible and relevant to the disposition of this case, they would appear to cut strongly against the majority’s position.

This is not only because the Framers and their contemporaries conceived of speech more narrowly than we now think of it, see Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L. J. 1, 22 (1971), but also because they held very different views about the nature of the First Amendment right and the role of corporations in society. Those few corporations that existed at the founding were authorized by grant of a special legislative charter. 53 Corporate sponsors would petition the legislature, and the legislature, if amenable, would issue a charter that specified the corporation’s powers and purposes and “authoritatively fixed the scope and content of corporate organization,” including “the internal structure of the corporation.” J. Hurst, The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States 1780–1970, pp. 15–16 (1970) (reprint 2004). Corporations were created, supervised, and conceptualized as quasi-public entities, “designed to serve a social function for the state.” Handlin & Handlin, Origin of the American Business Corporation, 5 J. Econ. Hist. 1, 22 (1945). It was “assumed that [they] were legally privileged organizations that had to be closely scrutinized by the legislature because their purposes had to be made consistent with public welfare.” R. Seavoy, Origins of the American Business Corporation, 1784–1855, p. 5 (1982).

The individualized charter mode of incorporation reflected the “cloud of disfavor under which corporations labored” in the early years of this Nation. 1 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations §2, p. 8 (rev. ed. 2006); see also Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee , 288 U. S. 517, 548–549 (1933) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (discussing fears of the “evils” of business corporations); L. Friedman, A History of American Law 194 (2d ed. 1985) (“The word ‘soulless’ constantly recurs in debates over corporations… . Corporations, it was feared, could concentrate the worst urges of whole groups of men”). Thomas Jefferson famously fretted that corporations would subvert the Republic. 54 General incorporation statutes, and widespread acceptance of business corporations as socially useful actors, did not emerge until the 1800’s. See Hansmann & Kraakman, The End of History for Corporate Law, 89 Geo. L. J. 439, 440 (2001) (hereinafter Hansmann & Kraakman) (“[A]ll general business corporation statutes appear to date from well after 1800”).

The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment , it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind. 55 While individuals might join together to exercise their speech rights, business corporations, at least, were plainly not seen as facilitating such associational or expressive ends. Even “the notion that business corporations could invoke the First Amendment would probably have been quite a novelty,” given that “at the time, the legitimacy of every corporate activity was thought to rest entirely in a concession of the sovereign.” Shelledy, Autonomy, Debate, and Corporate Speech, 18 Hastings Const. L. Q. 541, 578 (1991); cf. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward , 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819) (Marshall, C. J.) (“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it”); Eule, Promoting Speaker Diversity: Austin and Metro Broadcasting, 1990 S. Ct. Rev. 105, 129 (“The framers of the First Amendment could scarcely have anticipated its application to the corporation form. That, of course, ought not to be dispositive. What is compelling, however, is an understanding of who was supposed to be the beneficiary of the free speech guaranty—the individual”). In light of these background practices and understandings, it seems to me implausible that the Framers believed “the freedom of speech” would extend equally to all corporate speakers, much less that it would preclude legislatures from taking limited measures to guard against corporate capture of elections.

 
pinequick said:
This is a pretty good excerpt. Enjoy:

1. Original Understandings

Let us start from the beginning. The Court invokes “ancient First Amendment principles,” ante , at 1 (internal quotation marks omitted), and original understandings, ante , at 37–38, to defend today’s ruling, yet it makes only a perfunctory attempt to ground its analysis in the principles or understandings of those who drafted and ratified the Amendment. Perhaps this is because there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that anyone believed it would preclude regulatory distinctions based on the corporate form. To the extent that the Framers’ views are discernible and relevant to the disposition of this case, they would appear to cut strongly against the majority’s position.

This is not only because the Framers and their contemporaries conceived of speech more narrowly than we now think of it, see Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L. J. 1, 22 (1971), but also because they held very different views about the nature of the First Amendment right and the role of corporations in society. Those few corporations that existed at the founding were authorized by grant of a special legislative charter. 53 Corporate sponsors would petition the legislature, and the legislature, if amenable, would issue a charter that specified the corporation’s powers and purposes and “authoritatively fixed the scope and content of corporate organization,” including “the internal structure of the corporation.” J. Hurst, The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States 1780–1970, pp. 15–16 (1970) (reprint 2004). Corporations were created, supervised, and conceptualized as quasi-public entities, “designed to serve a social function for the state.” Handlin & Handlin, Origin of the American Business Corporation, 5 J. Econ. Hist. 1, 22 (1945). It was “assumed that [they] were legally privileged organizations that had to be closely scrutinized by the legislature because their purposes had to be made consistent with public welfare.” R. Seavoy, Origins of the American Business Corporation, 1784–1855, p. 5 (1982).

The individualized charter mode of incorporation reflected the “cloud of disfavor under which corporations labored” in the early years of this Nation. 1 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations §2, p. 8 (rev. ed. 2006); see also Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee , 288 U. S. 517, 548–549 (1933) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (discussing fears of the “evils” of business corporations); L. Friedman, A History of American Law 194 (2d ed. 1985) (“The word ‘soulless’ constantly recurs in debates over corporations… . Corporations, it was feared, could concentrate the worst urges of whole groups of men”). Thomas Jefferson famously fretted that corporations would subvert the Republic. 54 General incorporation statutes, and widespread acceptance of business corporations as socially useful actors, did not emerge until the 1800’s. See Hansmann & Kraakman, The End of History for Corporate Law, 89 Geo. L. J. 439, 440 (2001) (hereinafter Hansmann & Kraakman) (“[A]ll general business corporation statutes appear to date from well after 1800”).

The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment , it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind. 55 While individuals might join together to exercise their speech rights, business corporations, at least, were plainly not seen as facilitating such associational or expressive ends. Even “the notion that business corporations could invoke the First Amendment would probably have been quite a novelty,” given that “at the time, the legitimacy of every corporate activity was thought to rest entirely in a concession of the sovereign.” Shelledy, Autonomy, Debate, and Corporate Speech, 18 Hastings Const. L. Q. 541, 578 (1991); cf. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward , 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819) (Marshall, C. J.) (“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it”); Eule, Promoting Speaker Diversity: Austin and Metro Broadcasting, 1990 S. Ct. Rev. 105, 129 (“The framers of the First Amendment could scarcely have anticipated its application to the corporation form. That, of course, ought not to be dispositive. What is compelling, however, is an understanding of who was supposed to be the beneficiary of the free speech guaranty—the individual”). In light of these background practices and understandings, it seems to me implausible that the Framers believed “the freedom of speech” would extend equally to all corporate speakers, much less that it would preclude legislatures from taking limited measures to guard against corporate capture of elections.
Click to expand...
Hey! This doesn't sound like Scalia at all! Pretty sneaky, Pinequick.

 
Here is some red meat for you, RHE:

There is a poignant aspect to today's opinion. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. "It is the dimension" of authority, they say, to "cal[l] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution." Ante, at 24.

There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep-set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case--its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon-to-be-played-out consequences for the Nation--burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself "call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution."

It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved--an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation--can be "speedily and finally settled" by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.

We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.

 
SIDA! said:
Mario Kart said:
Is this the thread where my 1st Amendment is being limited without due process of the law? I don't think Scalia would be in favor of this thread.
Click to expand...
Thankfully, justice scalia knew more about the first amendment than you do. Amen!
Click to expand...
Well, he should have since that was his job and all. However, my right to speak in this thread is not something he would have inhibited.

 
Mario Kart said:
SIDA! said:
Mario Kart said:
Is this the thread where my 1st Amendment is being limited without due process of the law? I don't think Scalia would be in favor of this thread.
Click to expand...
Thankfully, justice scalia knew more about the first amendment than you do. Amen!
Click to expand...
Well, he should have since that was his job and all. However, my right to speak in this thread is not something he would have inhibited.
Click to expand...
What do you base this on? Please show your work.

 
You guys are pathetic. Cyber wall my ###. Delusional thinking as well as panty-waisted fear of debate. I'm out. Have fun in your circle jerk.

 
Mohawk said:
You guys are pathetic. Cyber wall my ###. Delusional thinking as well as panty-waisted fear of debate. I'm out. Have fun in your circle jerk.
Click to expand...
Thank you for respecting the wishes of your fellow Americans. This is how we bring civility back to American discourse.

 
Sure...speak only when you agree with me. Any dissent is uncivil. Make America great again! Blah blah blah. Enjoy yourself kids.

 
I don't understand this board anymore. There is a flamer thread that is there so you can act like a DB, SIDA has tried now several times to start a thread that isn't just put up to smash tomatoes against and yet the idiots who keep on posting negative things can't contain themselves. The immaturity level...the board has warning points, maybe we need an official Immaturity points thread run by the members. When a person reaches their quota we all simply agree to put them on ignore for a month or something, force them to build a transparent alias for all to mock. It's a privilege to post in here and should be treated as such.

 
Ministry of Pain said:
I don't understand this board anymore. There is a flamer thread that is there so you can act like a DB, SIDA has tried now several times to start a thread that isn't just put up to smash tomatoes against and yet the idiots who keep on posting negative things can't contain themselves. The immaturity level...the board has warning points, maybe we need an official Immaturity points thread run by the members. When a person reaches their quota we all simply agree to put them on ignore for a month or something, force them to build a transparent alias for all to mock. It's a privilege to post in here and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...
Find a new board. :shrug:
 
Bucky86 said:
Ministry of Pain said:
I don't understand this board anymore. There is a flamer thread that is there so you can act like a DB, SIDA has tried now several times to start a thread that isn't just put up to smash tomatoes against and yet the idiots who keep on posting negative things can't contain themselves. The immaturity level...the board has warning points, maybe we need an official Immaturity points thread run by the members. When a person reaches their quota we all simply agree to put them on ignore for a month or something, force them to build a transparent alias for all to mock. It's a privilege to post in here and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...
Find a new board. :shrug:
Click to expand...
That's just silly. It's a handful that are starting to make a run for LHucks status in here.

 
Mohawk said:
Sure...speak only when you agree with me. Any dissent is uncivil. Make America great again! Blah blah blah. Enjoy yourself kids.
Click to expand...
Bunch of wusses here. If the liberals on this forum had asked for safe zone threads with cyber walls to keep out the opinions of those conservative meanies, not only would it not be respected, but there probably be two dozen responses with nothing but the :lmao: emoji.

 
BustedKnuckles said:
reality is rearing its ugly head in here .........im not feeling very safe anymore :unsure:
Click to expand...
Reality is some of you want safe places to hide behind walls and censor people.

Just like your current hero.

Sure, some is achtick...but schtick or not, its all sad.

Thats what we get when we live in a society where everyone gets a trophy.

 
SIDA! said:


THIS IS NOT A "HEY DID YOU HEAR THE NEWS" ABOUT JUSTICE SCALIA THREAD





After much thought and deliberation, I have decided to launch a thread for supporters of Justice Antonin Scalia.


Because of the abusive name calling, vitriol, and just a general nastiness towards a great legal mind and one of the most influential men in American history, I am starting this thread to create a safe, positive place for Scalia fans.

We are not here to mourn the loss of this great man. We are here to celebrate his positive influence. Please use this thread to discuss your favorite rulings and legal opinions here.





JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA SUPPORTERS ONLY!



We are building a giant cyber wall around this thread. It is a big beautiful cyber wall.


If you are not a supporter of Justice Antonin Scalia, this thread is not for you. We do not want your divisiveness, your animosity. Any negativity is not welcome here.


However, our wall has a big shiny door.


If you have some positive things to say about Justice Scalia, you are welcome to comment. But please keep it on the subject of his legal rulings. We want to focus on his fantastic legal resume...not discuss the politics surrounding his replacement.



In this thread we will link to articles and other information on the internet chronicling the career of the honorable Scalia and his general awesomeness. We will engage in positive, uplifting discussions about how he preserved American values and fought to defend and protect our constitution.


If you are a Scalia supporter but avoided the other thread because of all the ugly, hateful rhetoric and personal attacks, you are welcome here.


If Scalia haters refuse to leave this thread alone and attempt to instigate discord, please do not feed the trolls. We must ignore them.




PLEASE SHARE YOUR FAVORITE LEGAL OPINION AUTHORED BY JUSTICE SCALIA.
Click to expand...
Here is a shorter version of the OP:https://youtu.be/Vkii2JkmKDg

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In respect for the thread title, I'll say that Scalia was pretty good on criminal defense issues, particularly the confrontation clause (which he pretty much single-handedly resurrected). So, :clap: to Nino for that.

With that said, this thread sort of reinforced what I've always believed about Scalia. Which is that he was a more influential political figure than a legal figure on the court. When this thread was started, I made a private prediction that nobody would actually name a majority decision authored by Scalia. And sure enough, what we've had posted was his dissent in Casey. That's a decent dissent. Scalia's position is reasonable and he isn't particularly off the rails. But I think more conservatives remember his dissents in Lawrence and eventually Windsor. Those dissents are just red meat to his base. They have no legal significance and most conservative legal scholars I know find them embarrassing.

For a guy who was on the court for close to 30 years, Scalia doesn't really have many signature majority opinions. Heller. Maybe Raich (which isn't really a good thing). Because he never really built a consensus even among his fellow Conservative jurists. We can give him a pass on Souter, but he often failed to convince Kennedy and Roberts. And even, sometimes, Alito and Rehnquist. Scalia could write Anthony Kennedy under the table, but Kennedy has a bigger impact on the law, IMO

I'll sneak back over the wall now.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

squistion
2025 New Music Thread
2 3
Replies
127
Views
2K
squistion
squistion
J
  • Poll Poll
It's hazardous to drive with hazard lights on
2
Replies
65
Views
2K
FarFromHome
FarFromHome
E
Fluoride in City/Public Water. Thoughts?
2
Replies
90
Views
2K
the moops
the moops

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top