5 ms·

>Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint When convenient.

by nemo 11y ago

vonnik 11y ago
Totally agree. The stay he supported on the Florida recount was rampant federal interference in a state matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Stay_of_the_Florida_recount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Stay_of_the_Flori... Indirectly, he gave us eight years of incompetence and Iraq, a horrible farce of a war.
- ethbro 11y ago
  You can't possibly put the result of Bush being elected on a Supreme Court Justice. Any more than you can put it on a single person who voted for him. Yes, they all share some responsibility, but the amount is so miniscule given future actions and how many people were fooled and lied to so as to be almost completely disconnected.
  - Beltiras 11y ago
    Actually one can. Just like the cause of a hanged man's death is the knot the hangman tied. There's a great big sequence of events preceding it for sure.
    - saalweachter 11y ago
      That's not really an apt analogy; if a hangman refuses to tie a knot, they'll find another hangman. The Supreme Court Justice specifically gets to choose one way or the other.
      - ethbro 11y ago
        No, he or she doesn't. Because if they did so arbitrarily then they have likely long since been thrown off the lower benches. A judge doesn't decide: a judge weighs evidence and then states which interpretation of the law they believe is correct. If we had a judicial system arbitrated over by people who could simply say "I want this outcome" and make it so, then the country would and should crumble.
        saalweachter 11y ago
        ... if?
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  I wish Gore had won, and I don't know enough about law to have an opinion on the specifics of the case. But I am at peace with it for a simple reason: that election was within the margin of error. We can put a lot of stake into details of state law, but in reality it was a draw. Frankly I think the fairest thing would be a coin flip. In absence of that, I think "play it where it lies" is a fine proxy. I don't think a recount would've been any more or less fair. I think our energies are better served changing the widespread voter disenfranchisement which does in fact distort the ability of our electoral system, as enacted in law, from representing the will of the people.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Yeah, that's pretty close to what I think about the 2000 election as well. If you're going to blame one person for what happened, well, none of them were on the Supreme Court.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    I believe a privately run recount was conducted afterwards and Bush still won.
    - dalke 11y ago
      Depends on your standard and which recount you look at. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-... : > under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes.[38] Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used. ... because of the possibility of mistakes, it is difficult to conclude that Gore was surely the winner under the strict standard ... While in another analysis "Bush won under stricter standards and Gore won under looser standards" And there are also the "spoiled ballots" where "people had punched and written in a candidate’s name", eg, for people who would "check Gore and write Gore". These were rejected, even though the voter's intent was clear. "The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000" But with all the attention on hanging chad, we didn't hear about that last issue. (I didn't until I read it just now!)
- barney54 11y ago
  No, voting is protected by the Ewual Protection Clause. Here's the argument: http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/01-17.pdf http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_pap...
  - bmelton 11y ago
    Sort of. Discrimination from voting practices are protected by the equal protection clause, but otherwise, less well known, there is no affirmative right to voting in the Constitution. A county or municipality could, for example, decide not to participate in a particular vote, which could have discriminatory effect, but without being overtly discriminatory.
- ErikVandeWater 11y ago
  This comment needs to be better supported. It is intuitive that votes for POTUS would be a federal matter, and Wikipedia does not mention a jurisdictional issue for that case, nor any other federal interference conflict whatsoever. Also, singling out Scalia when four other justices voted with him is biased. It is also an incredible stretch to cast responsibility for an incompetence in handling an unanticipated war on any individual (especially in the judiciary!).
  - specialist 11y ago
    States administer their own elections.
  - harywilke 11y ago
    You are not voting for POTUS. You are voting for your candidates chance to chose your states representative to the electoral collage. it's a state election. not a federal election.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Ignoring the fact that every recount had Bush winning and at some point a winner had to be declared since we needed a president.
  - cmurf 11y ago
    Nope. What should have happened, if we weren't such a litigious society, is it would have been considered a political question, not a judicial one. Florida's legislature could have decided its Electors alone. And then if Congress considered that decision questionable, the president would have been decided in the House, and the vice president by the Senate. George W Bush would have been president in that case. And Joe Lieberman would have been Vice President.
    - merpnderp 11y ago
      "What should have happened, if we weren't such a litigious society," Ironic given it was Gore, not Bush, who filed the suits. Bush demanded the initial recount, it swung his way, Gore started filing suits. Many many recounts happened afterwards, I think NBC or CBS (hardly bush allies) had the most famous one for objectivity, and it came back for Bush.
sandworm101 11y ago
>>> When convenient. I'd say more "when useful". Many of his opinions were too convoluted to be considered convenient. He often went on and on without saying much of anything.

>Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint When convenient.

by nemo 11y ago

>Scalia was foremost an advocate of judicial restraint When convenient.

Totally agree. The stay he supported on the Florida recount was rampant federal interference in a state matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Stay_of_the_Florida_recount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Stay_of_the_Flori... Indirectly, he gave us eight years of incompetence and Iraq, a horrible farce of a war.

ethbro 11y ago
You can't possibly put the result of Bush being elected on a Supreme Court Justice. Any more than you can put it on a single person who voted for him. Yes, they all share some responsibility, but the amount is so miniscule given future actions and how many people were fooled and lied to so as to be almost completely disconnected.
- Beltiras 11y ago
  Actually one can. Just like the cause of a hanged man's death is the knot the hangman tied. There's a great big sequence of events preceding it for sure.
  - saalweachter 11y ago
    That's not really an apt analogy; if a hangman refuses to tie a knot, they'll find another hangman. The Supreme Court Justice specifically gets to choose one way or the other.
    - ethbro 11y ago
      No, he or she doesn't. Because if they did so arbitrarily then they have likely long since been thrown off the lower benches. A judge doesn't decide: a judge weighs evidence and then states which interpretation of the law they believe is correct. If we had a judicial system arbitrated over by people who could simply say "I want this outcome" and make it so, then the country would and should crumble.
      - saalweachter 11y ago
        ... if?
erikpukinskis 11y ago
I wish Gore had won, and I don't know enough about law to have an opinion on the specifics of the case. But I am at peace with it for a simple reason: that election was within the margin of error. We can put a lot of stake into details of state law, but in reality it was a draw. Frankly I think the fairest thing would be a coin flip. In absence of that, I think "play it where it lies" is a fine proxy. I don't think a recount would've been any more or less fair. I think our energies are better served changing the widespread voter disenfranchisement which does in fact distort the ability of our electoral system, as enacted in law, from representing the will of the people.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Yeah, that's pretty close to what I think about the 2000 election as well. If you're going to blame one person for what happened, well, none of them were on the Supreme Court.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  I believe a privately run recount was conducted afterwards and Bush still won.
  - dalke 11y ago
    Depends on your standard and which recount you look at. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-... : > under the strictest standard, where only a cleanly punched ballot with a fully removed chad was counted, Gore won by three votes.[38] Under all other standards, Bush won, with Bush's margin increasing as looser standards were used. ... because of the possibility of mistakes, it is difficult to conclude that Gore was surely the winner under the strict standard ... While in another analysis "Bush won under stricter standards and Gore won under looser standards" And there are also the "spoiled ballots" where "people had punched and written in a candidate’s name", eg, for people who would "check Gore and write Gore". These were rejected, even though the voter's intent was clear. "The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000" But with all the attention on hanging chad, we didn't hear about that last issue. (I didn't until I read it just now!)
barney54 11y ago
No, voting is protected by the Ewual Protection Clause. Here's the argument: http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/01-17.pdf http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_pap...
- bmelton 11y ago
  Sort of. Discrimination from voting practices are protected by the equal protection clause, but otherwise, less well known, there is no affirmative right to voting in the Constitution. A county or municipality could, for example, decide not to participate in a particular vote, which could have discriminatory effect, but without being overtly discriminatory.
ErikVandeWater 11y ago
This comment needs to be better supported. It is intuitive that votes for POTUS would be a federal matter, and Wikipedia does not mention a jurisdictional issue for that case, nor any other federal interference conflict whatsoever. Also, singling out Scalia when four other justices voted with him is biased. It is also an incredible stretch to cast responsibility for an incompetence in handling an unanticipated war on any individual (especially in the judiciary!).
- specialist 11y ago
  States administer their own elections.
- harywilke 11y ago
  You are not voting for POTUS. You are voting for your candidates chance to chose your states representative to the electoral collage. it's a state election. not a federal election.
merpnderp 11y ago
Ignoring the fact that every recount had Bush winning and at some point a winner had to be declared since we needed a president.
- cmurf 11y ago
  Nope. What should have happened, if we weren't such a litigious society, is it would have been considered a political question, not a judicial one. Florida's legislature could have decided its Electors alone. And then if Congress considered that decision questionable, the president would have been decided in the House, and the vice president by the Senate. George W Bush would have been president in that case. And Joe Lieberman would have been Vice President.
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    "What should have happened, if we weren't such a litigious society," Ironic given it was Gore, not Bush, who filed the suits. Bush demanded the initial recount, it swung his way, Gore started filing suits. Many many recounts happened afterwards, I think NBC or CBS (hardly bush allies) had the most famous one for objectivity, and it came back for Bush.

sandworm101 11y ago

>>> When convenient. I'd say more "when useful". Many of his opinions were too convoluted to be considered convenient. He often went on and on without saying much of anything.