4 ms·
I admit the phrase "terrible person" is uncivil, but where is an internet buzzphrase in my comment?
by orbitur 11y ago
I admit the phrase "terrible person" is uncivil, but where is an internet buzzphrase in my comment?
- dang 11y ago"You are a terrible person" or "he is a terrible person" is the internet buzzphrase, in the same category as "you are bad and you should feel bad". I mean, I don't collect data on how often these things appear, but that's the one I was reacting to.
- CamperBob2 11y agoJust on a purely objective level, isn't "terrible" a reasonable adjective to describe someone who wrote this? “There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.” Scalia could easily have stated that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment would apply to a case where a defendant was denied the benefit of evidence discovered after conviction. No one could possibly have argued with that reasoning, or with his right to apply it. But he didn't. A good person would have done a very different thing.
- dang 11y agoTo go from having written a terrible thing to being a terrible person is an enormous leap, and a catastrophic one. Indeed, if the threshold is that low, then we're all a terrible person.
- rdancer 11y agoIf I may, I respectfully disagree in this particular case. If you deny, capriciously, justice to wrongfully convicted humans, it is not just something you write about. It is that you personally are this person who denies these people justice for no particular reason except that you can. You are a terrible person. The phrase is appropriate, and that it is often used flippantly in other less fitting contexts doesn't matter. You do a terrific job moderating HN, and I respect your decisions. Godspeed!
- emmelaich 11y agoCapriciously? Can you find a ".. basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice .."
- rdancer 11y agoSince at other times he is a veritable balloon animal artist able to make the constitution support whatever conclusion he wants, I do find him refusing to do it in cases when he could remedy manifest injustice with a stroke of a pen capricious. Other than that, what CamperBob2 says.
- rdancer 11y ago> I do find him refusing to do it in cases when he could remedy manifest injustice with a stroke of a pen capricious. The certiorari was granted, and I'm a terrible person for writing it was refused; see further up-thread.
- CamperBob2 11y agoAs I stated, the Eighth Amendment alone would have sufficed. Basically, Scalia was always steadfastly loyal to the Constitution's original intent, except when it conflicted with his religion, his political ideology, or his personal opinion. It's unfortunate to see all these hagiographies being written about him.
- emmelaich 11y agoThe long term of imprisonment of innocent people in the USA is disturbing and perhaps if I was on the Supreme Court I would ave allowed it. But. It sounds like the 8th amendment applies to events after conviction, even if you're not guilty. So the letter of the law has been applied. Put it this way; if the law is never wrong because you can rely on the good people on the Supreme Court to fix things, then the law will never be changed. (btw, I didn't downvote you at any time)
- 11y ago
- CamperBob2 11y ago(Shrug) If I ever wrote something as outrageous and indefensible as that, I'm truly and honestly sorry. I don't believe I've ever done so.
- dang 11y agoI don't mean that we've all written something like that, but that we've all (or practically all) done something as bad as that. No doubt the impact is many times worse when one is a Supreme Court justice, but that doesn't change the kind of person one is, it just amplifies it.
- tomp 11y agoIt's not about having written a terrible thing, it's about believing a terrible thing and upholding it as a principle. I find this mod action very unfair and completely unsubstantiated.