Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

US Supreme Court Scalia dies


We lock topics that are over 365 days old, and the last reply made in this topic was 2393 days ago. If you want to discuss this subject, we prefer that you start a new topic.

Recommended Posts

What Obama want to pic someone who is very liberal If a Republican president  elected this year, then it will be very hard for him to get rid of Obama care. Why? Becaause if the Republican president vote against it, then it will go to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will go against the president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Tbs77 said:

Stratton Ohio case, see Scalia comment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/18/national/18SOLI.html

Obama gets to pick another Supreme Court Justice

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I would like to hear what others feel and understand about his comment   ...   

 

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas did not sign the majority opinion, instead concurring separately in an opinion by Justice Scalia that was oddly churlish in tone. 

Justice Scalia responded to a comment by Justice Stevens that there were "patriotic citizens" who might "prefer silence to speech licensed by a petty official." That was a "fairy-tale category" of patriots, Justice Scalia said, adding: "If our free-speech jurisprudence is to be determined by the predicted behavior of such crackpots, we are in a sorry state indeed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel 2:44..... problem solved....

Amen!... Until then the vitriol that's going to spew forth from these candidates and party lines will be unprecedented. Scalia wasn't dead 24 hours before battle lines drawn.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hope said:

This article for one:  http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0714-chemerinsky-scalia-bad-example-20150714-story.html

 

I'm a liberal socialist at heart.. :D  plus he's mean

 

Well, does the fact he was against abortions, the murder of innocents, offset that? This is why we don't do politics. We watch to see what is happening, but we stay neutral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How a judge feels about abortion has no bearing on my feelings about it, so no, it doesn't.  I don't need my feelings supported in that way.

 

I think he was rude, unsympathetic and rather undignified in his manner... unbecoming a justice.


Edited by Hope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hope said:

How a judge feels about abortion has no bearing on my feelings about it, so no, it doesn't.  I don't need my feelings supported in that way.

 

I think he was rude, unsympathetic and rather undignified in his manner... unbecoming a justice.

 

You are a truly a liberal sister. I admire it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Hope said:

I'm a liberal socialist at heart.. :D  plus he's mean

 

Liberal socialist at heart?  Very strange.  All along I thought we were supposed to be neutral.  If I'm not mistaken, this particular forum is publicly visible.    It's true that we are all influenced by our families, experiences, and upbringings, but do you really want to give the world the impression that our claim of political neutrality is nothing more than words?

 

As to meanness, his feelings did not extend beyond the legal papers he was writing.  Everything I've seen indicates that his colleagues as well as the lawyers who argued cases in front of him understood his style was not personal in nature.  The legal profession is not one for wimps.  Lawyers know this.  It is an inherently adversarial occupation.  I should know.  I worked for them for nearly 20 years.

 

All that being said, I find it disturbing that in your original post you are essentially saying, 'Scalia was fairly awful, so good riddance.'  If you were speaking about someone like Charles Manson, I could understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Julsey said:

Liberal socialist at heart?  Very strange.  All along I thought we were supposed to be neutral.

Politically, yes, but political ideals are only a label for a set of personal opinions.

 

Case in point, Jehovah is against abortion,  for the death penalty, for war against his enemies, and he enforced theocratic law on the entire nation. In modern culture, that set of opinions aligns perfectly with the American conservative label.

 

On the contrary, Jesus spoke against war, was against the use of weapons, and he gave aid to the poor and infirm. In modern culture, that set of opinions aligns perfectly with the American liberal label.

 

Neutrality doesn't mean having no opinion on any topics that have been hijacked by politicians, it only means that we don't hold our opinions specifically because we are trying to follow some politician or political ideal.  Though cherry-picking, the Bible itself can be said to support every political ideal, as well as oppose those same ideals. But we don't cherry-pick our beliefs, we follow what the Bible says, and at times our application of the Bible's direction may more closely align with one political label than the other, and that label could even be used as shorthand for one's opinions, but that should not be confused for outright political support or a lack of neutrality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked me and I answered. I'm sorry you're disturbed but I didn't start this thread. And to be quite honest, I don't really care if Scalia is dead or not.  He didn't support the Stratton decision, so he's not my friend, regardless.

 

Perhaps I was more specific than I should have been with "liberal socialist"; I'm not political in any way.  The nation of Israel and the early Christian congregation was quite socialist, though - "the one with much, not too much; the one with little, not too little".  Gleaning provisions, Jubilee years of redistribution of lost inheritance... it was beautifully kind and fair. 

 

There is no comparable system of government today - but I can't help but like ideas that echo those, even though I won't vote or actively support them.  


Edited by Hope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people ask me what my political position is I say neutral in the world's affairs as I already cast a vote that has nothing to do with men. Then I explain that Jesus is my ruler as King and my vote already when in for Him. (It's called baptism) ^_^ None of the human politicians can govern other humans, much less themselves as Jehovah says to man it does not belong to direct his own step! It's hard to stay neutral as each of us have our own views on various matters, but I like to remind myself that no human has the answers to our problems, only Jehovah! ^_^ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Julsey said:

Liberal socialist at heart?  Very strange.  All along I thought we were supposed to be neutral.  If I'm not mistaken, this particular forum is publicly visible.    It's true that we are all influenced by our families, experiences, and upbringings, but do you really want to give the world the impression that our claim of political neutrality is nothing more than words?

 

As to meanness, his feelings did not extend beyond the legal papers he was writing.  Everything I've seen indicates that his colleagues as well as the lawyers who argued cases in front of him understood his style was not personal in nature.  The legal profession is not one for wimps.  Lawyers know this.  It is an inherently adversarial occupation.  I should know.  I worked for them for nearly 20 years.

 

All that being said, I find it disturbing that in your original post you are essentially saying, 'Scalia was fairly awful, so good riddance.'  If you were speaking about someone like Charles Manson, I could understand.

Charles Mansion is totally nuts. Could he help  what he did?? I don't think so. A matter of fact he gave the order to kill, although he did no killing, yet there are a lot of doctors and others are aborting and killing people or babies and not consider to be murders or nuts like Mansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Julsey said:

As to meanness, his feelings did not extend beyond the legal papers he was writing.  Everything I've seen indicates that his colleagues as well as the lawyers who argued cases in front of him understood his style was not personal in nature.  The legal profession is not one for wimps.  Lawyers know this.  It is an inherently adversarial occupation.  I should know.  I worked for them for nearly 20 years.

Justice Scalia often had a tendency to rule on issues from the bench by interpreting the Constitutional language based on the "original meaning" or rather he interpreted the Constitution's legal terms based on the time it was written -  very cut and dry.   He did not attempt to change the original legal terms of the Constitution unlike various other justices who claim the Constitutional terms had/have "evolved" and needed a new "interpretation."  He was well-known, highly admired  and respected by many for having stuck to the original interpretation when legislating.   Other Justices suggested that the U.S.  Constitution should be abolished and a new one implemented, such as the one used by Africa.  Scalia found this appalling.   Whether or not some might consider him conservative, neo-conservative, Libertarian . . . or whatever I don't think matters.  He was well-respected not only for his approach to legislating but for also attempting to remove power from the hands of Justices .   One of the things I remember him saying, and I do not recall which issue he had to rule on (perhaps it was the gay marriage debate), but stated that he didn't think that "nine non-lawyers" should have to rule on an issue he felt did not need to be legislated.   He just did not believe the Justices should have that type of power.  


Edited by Mei

typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

About JWTalk.net - Jehovah's Witnesses Online Community

Since 2006, JWTalk has proved to be a well-moderated online community for real Jehovah's Witnesses on the web. However, our community is not an official website of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not endorsed, sponsored, or maintained by any legal entity used by Jehovah's Witnesses. We are a pro-JW community maintained by brothers and sisters around the world. We expect all community members to be active publishers in their congregations, therefore, please do not apply for membership if you are not currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

JWTalk 22.7.20 (changelog)