4 ms·

This isn't really directed at you, but it seems like a good place to address the crowd. I didn't say the man was a saint or that he was always perfectly intell

This isn't really directed at you, but it seems like a good place to address the crowd. I didn't say the man was a saint or that he was always perfectly intellectually honest all the time. No one is. But I think was a lot more of those things than he often got credit for. Some of you seem to forget that people who have different opinions than you are also people. And as such, they have the right to try to get those opinions represented. Scalia's attitude towards torture was repulsive in my opinion. But he represents the attitudes of a very large number of real people. It's not like he's some kind of singular monster or something. As for saying crass things, giving people shit when maybe he shouldn't have, well, we've all done that too. I figure if there's one day you can cut a guy a little slack, it's the day he dies. Sheesh, if you can't find one tiny little positive thing to say about the man, I suggest that you aren't even trying. It's not like the man was pure evil. I further suggest that you say nothing at all if you honestly can't think of anything good about him. The vitriol in much of this thread is utterly tasteless and shameful.

mentat 11y ago
I'd love to see these people dealing with their every action criticized through their whole life. Now when he dies they can't stop piling on.
- indrax 11y ago
  It's one thing to not speak ill of the dead, but you're complaining about a judge having their judgements judged.
  - dang 11y ago
    The key distinction is between criticizing Scalia's judgements, which many if not most of us would, and denouncing him a human being. The latter is a problem on HN because it rapidly degrades the discourse below the level we hope for. I also think that a little self-observation is enough to reveal (a) the rather ugly motives behind that mechanism, and (b) how we would each consider it unfair in our own case.
lawnchair_larry 11y ago
>Some of you seem to forget that people who have different opinions than you are also people." I think you have something in common with the people who don't like Scalia.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
> And as such, they have the right to try to get those opinions represented. At best, Scalia represented the opinions of an opinionated and influential but not truly representative minority of the population. Now - there's nothing in the constitution that says explicitly that the Supreme Court should be a representative body. But the political reality is that judges aren't picked for the SC because they're the best legal minds of their generation - they're chosen for their legal minds and for their politics. IMO, in a representative democracy, the political values of the judiciary and especially of the SC should be broadly similar to those of the population. Did Scalia bring the SC closer to the values of the median population, or did he move it away from the median?
- nindalf 11y ago
  This seems to make sense but it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to drag society forward when society's inertia is at odds with the Constitution. For example, 90% of people didn't support interracial marriage when the Supreme Court legalised it. If the bench's political values were the same as the general population, that would never have happened.
  - rdancer 11y ago
    It was closer to 80%, and on a question of disapproval of[1], not illegality. I may disapprove of your misquoting stats, but that doesn't mean I want you to go to jail for it. Also the majority of population lived in a state where interracial marriage was legal since before 1940, and by 1967 the only states that have miscegenation laws were the ones apt to fly Dixie. It was not so much about dragging against inertia, unless by inertia you mean stalemate—the South would never have repealed those laws. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh...
    - nindalf 11y ago
      My apologies, I misread the the Gallup graph because the one I saw didn't have 1968 marked. Anyhow, my point stands. It would not have been legalised if the bench voted like the general population did.
oska 11y ago
Glenn Greenwald: “This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power.” “...the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. [...] Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death.” Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margare...
- tptacek 11y ago
  That is rich, considering the source.
  - oska 11y ago
    With respect, this appears to me a content-free reply. Greenwald is making a serious argument in the article I quoted from. Are you being dismissive of the argument or (as it would appear) the source, the author. If the latter, maybe you can more fully explain why and also why dismissing the source dismisses the argument.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I'm suggesting that Greenwald has no problems with hagiography when the subjects are politically useful to him.
- ianamartin 11y ago

mentat 11y ago

I'd love to see these people dealing with their every action criticized through their whole life. Now when he dies they can't stop piling on.

indrax 11y ago
It's one thing to not speak ill of the dead, but you're complaining about a judge having their judgements judged.
- dang 11y ago
  The key distinction is between criticizing Scalia's judgements, which many if not most of us would, and denouncing him a human being. The latter is a problem on HN because it rapidly degrades the discourse below the level we hope for. I also think that a little self-observation is enough to reveal (a) the rather ugly motives behind that mechanism, and (b) how we would each consider it unfair in our own case.

lawnchair_larry 11y ago

>Some of you seem to forget that people who have different opinions than you are also people." I think you have something in common with the people who don't like Scalia.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

> And as such, they have the right to try to get those opinions represented. At best, Scalia represented the opinions of an opinionated and influential but not truly representative minority of the population. Now - there's nothing in the constitution that says explicitly that the Supreme Court should be a representative body. But the political reality is that judges aren't picked for the SC because they're the best legal minds of their generation - they're chosen for their legal minds and for their politics. IMO, in a representative democracy, the political values of the judiciary and especially of the SC should be broadly similar to those of the population. Did Scalia bring the SC closer to the values of the median population, or did he move it away from the median?

nindalf 11y ago
This seems to make sense but it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to drag society forward when society's inertia is at odds with the Constitution. For example, 90% of people didn't support interracial marriage when the Supreme Court legalised it. If the bench's political values were the same as the general population, that would never have happened.
- rdancer 11y ago
  It was closer to 80%, and on a question of disapproval of[1], not illegality. I may disapprove of your misquoting stats, but that doesn't mean I want you to go to jail for it. Also the majority of population lived in a state where interracial marriage was legal since before 1940, and by 1967 the only states that have miscegenation laws were the ones apt to fly Dixie. It was not so much about dragging against inertia, unless by inertia you mean stalemate—the South would never have repealed those laws. [1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-wh...
  - nindalf 11y ago
    My apologies, I misread the the Gallup graph because the one I saw didn't have 1968 marked. Anyhow, my point stands. It would not have been legalised if the bench voted like the general population did.

oska 11y ago

Glenn Greenwald: “This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power.” “...the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. [...] Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death.” Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margare...

tptacek 11y ago
That is rich, considering the source.
- oska 11y ago
  With respect, this appears to me a content-free reply. Greenwald is making a serious argument in the article I quoted from. Are you being dismissive of the argument or (as it would appear) the source, the author. If the latter, maybe you can more fully explain why and also why dismissing the source dismisses the argument.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I'm suggesting that Greenwald has no problems with hagiography when the subjects are politically useful to him.
ianamartin 11y ago