Justice Scalia Dies

[Yuwipi Woman]

Unlikely. No judicial exp.

It wouldn't be the first time for either someone with no judicial experience or was a former President. Taft has only minor experience as a state judge but was nominated:

http://www.biography.com/people/william-howard-taft-9501184#public-service

 

[Lord Camomile]

Serve him right if that President were Clinton or Sanders and they nominated Obama.

Unless the Dems win back the Senate he'd have no chance of getting in, would he?

(Said with no understanding of how like it is the Dems will take back the Senate )

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Unless the Dems win back the Senate he'd have no chance of getting in, would he?

(Said with no understanding of how like it is the Dems will take back the Senate )

True. I don't think the Republicans hold the Senate with that much of a majority. But, a lot of things would have to fall into place first. There's 35 seats up for grabs in 2016. The Dems needs to pick up 5.

2016 Senate Election Interactive Map

 

[mhendo]

I think you should revisit elbows' link. He does far more than that. He states his opinion where X or y student will succeed based on their race, with black students not suited to the top schools.

I don't need to revisit the link. I'm well aware of what Scalia said in that case. It was big news here in the US when it happened.

But again, all these comments can definitively tell us is what he thought about affirmative action and African Americans in higher education in 2015. While they might allow us to make some inferences about his teaching practices 35 years prior, they do not provide any sort of definitive proof that Scalia himself was racially prejudiced in his teaching practices, or that he did not want to teach black students.

True. I don't think the Republicans hold the Senate with that much of a majority. But, a lot of things would have to fall into place first. There's 35 seats up for grabs in 2016. The Dems needs to pick up 5.

2016 Senate Election Interactive Map

Actually, I think it's 34 Senate seats up for grabs this year.

One interesting possibility, of course, is that the debate over the Supreme Court might, in and of itself, shape some of those Senate races in important ways. Quite a few of the Republican Senate seats up for grabs are in very closely contested races, and a long, drawn-out campaign of obstructionism by the Senate could be enough to swing them in Democrats' favor.

A lot of liberals in the US are decrying Republican obstructionism, and calling on them to confirm Obama's nomination. I wonder whether it might not actually benefit the Democrats more for the country to see Republican obstructionism in action for a full nine months before the election. When the Republicans shut down the government over the debt ceiling, they thought it was going to work in their favor, but they actually came out of it worse because the majority of Americans blamed them for the shutdown, and were angry that they prevented government from doing its job. If they obstruct the SC nomination, we might get a similar situation.

I think I'd like to see Obama nominate someone who is quite liberal (not too liberal), but has impeccable legal credentials and outstanding experience. It should be a person that every reasonable legal observer agrees is worthy of a seat. Then sit back and watch the Republicans obstruct.

If the Democrats play this right, and are a bit lucky, they could come out of this situation with both a Supreme Court justice AND another four years in the White House.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't need to revisit the link. I'm well aware of what Scalia said in that case. It was big news here in the US when it happened.

But again, all these comments can definitively tell us is what he thought about affirmative action and African Americans in higher education in 2015. While they might allow us to make some inferences about his teaching practices 35 years prior, they do not provide any sort of definitive proof that Scalia himself was racially prejudiced in his teaching practices, or that he did not want to teach black students.
.

You and I are reading it differently, then He: "pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools" where they do not feel they're being pushed in classes "that are too fast for them."

This is white supremacism, Bell Curve nonsense, biological essentialism. Flat-out racism from a racist who judges merit through skin colour and considers that those with black skin are better suited to 'lesser schools' - ie schools where he doesn't teach.

That goes way beyond opposition to affirmative action. And it leaves the tweet entirely understandable. If he flunks black students, that's because the classes are 'too fast for them'. If he doesn't flunk black students, their success proves his racism wrong. So he makes damn sure to flunk them.

 

[agricola]

Obama should just troll them all, and nominate Ted Cruz.

 

[mhendo]

You and I are reading it differently, then He: "pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools" where they do not feel they're being pushed in classes "that are too fast for them."

This is white supremacism, Bell Curve nonsense, biological essentialism. Flat-out racism from a racist who judges merit through skin colour and considers that those with black skin are better suited to 'lesser schools' - ie schools where he doesn't teach.

That goes way beyond opposition to affirmative action. And it leaves the tweet entirely understandable. If he flunks black students, that's because the classes are 'too fast for them'. If he doesn't flunk black students, their success proves his racism wrong. So he makes damn sure to flunk them.

First, i never said that the position he was defending was not racist. I think it is. It is, as you observe, part of the whole ridiculous "Bell Curve" argument.

But this position, which he took in 2015, still provides us with no real evidence for how he acted as a teacher in 1980, which is when he was at the University of Chicago. Furthermore, even some Bell Curve racists believe that some black candidates are intelligent and capable. Scalia might believe that most black candidates get into good schools because of affirmative action and other social promotion policies, but it does not necessarily follow from this that he actually treated the black students in his own classes unfairly.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the offensive nature of his comments and his racial arguments. I'm disagreeing with you about what exactly constitutes evidence of prejudiced teaching in 1980. Evidence works in particular ways. Sometimes we can draw reasonable inferences, but we need to be careful to distinguish between reasonable inferences and hard conclusions. "John said X in 2015" does not provide definitive evidence that "John did X in 1980." If you believe it does, might I suggest a course in Logic.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In the UK, attempts at affirmative action at uni have not taken a racial aspect, partly because there is a much weaker association between race and class here, but they have happened, notably at Bristol University, which found that there's about a 1-grade difference between state school and private school candidates at A-level in predicting final degree class: the advantages of private school give an inflated idea of the candidate's worth, essentially.

There's no non-racist reason to assume that this isn't also true in the US. Yet this guy reached the opposite conclusion after a lifetime in academia. He had both motive and opportunity to discriminate.

He's not alone in this. James Watson, of DNA-structure fame, thinks exactly the same guff, the great big racist twat.

The evidence of how he acted as a teacher is the tweet. It's not strong evidence on its own, but knowing that he was a great big racist makes that tweet eminently believable.

 

[mhendo]

The evidence of how he acted as a teacher is the tweet. It's not strong evidence on its own, but knowing that he was a great big racist makes that tweet eminently believable.

Woohoo! Finally, you've said something that makes evidentiary sense.

I agree with you that Scalia's well-known attitudes on racial issues do, in fact, make the experiences quoted by elbows more believable. If Scalia held similar opinions about blacks in 1980 to the ones he held in 2015, it would not be terribly surprising to learn that he treated blacks unfairly when he was a teacher.

Because we're not in a court of law, none of us have any obligation to any particular burden of proof in making our minds up about this. You are welcome to believe what you like about Scalia. But while I don't disbelieve the quote provided by elbows, and while I agree that Scalia's recent arguments about race lend some weight to the issue, I'd still need more evidence from the time period in question to reach any definitive and confident conclusion about Scalia's actions as a professor 35 years ago.

 

[Idris2002]

The only good thing about Scalia was that he inspired this series of Tom the Dancing Bug cartoons:

 

[elbows]

Woohoo! Finally, you've said something that makes evidentiary sense.

I agree with you that Scalia's well-known attitudes on racial issues do, in fact, make the experiences quoted by elbows more believable. If Scalia held similar opinions about blacks in 1980 to the ones he held in 2015, it would not be terribly surprising to learn that he treated blacks unfairly when he was a teacher.

Because we're not in a court of law, none of us have any obligation to any particular burden of proof in making our minds up about this. You are welcome to believe what you like about Scalia. But while I don't disbelieve the quote provided by elbows, and while I agree that Scalia's recent arguments about race lend some weight to the issue, I'd still need more evidence from the time period in question to reach any definitive and confident conclusion about Scalia's actions as a professor 35 years ago.

I posted the stuff about what he said last December, I wasn't responsible for the quote about how he treated black students in 1980.

 

[mhendo]

I posted the stuff about what he said last December, I wasn't responsible for the quote about how he treated black students in 1980.

Sorry, mixed up my posters and quotes!

 

[elbows]

No problem. I did try to research that quote after it was posted here but all I got was some sign that the source of the quote may have had their license to practice law suspended in the state of Illinois several times.

 

[stupid kid]

I don't need to revisit the link. I'm well aware of what Scalia said in that case. It was big news here in the US when it happened.

But again, all these comments can definitively tell us is what he thought about affirmative action and African Americans in higher education in 2015. While they might allow us to make some inferences about his teaching practices 35 years prior, they do not provide any sort of definitive proof that Scalia himself was racially prejudiced in his teaching practices, or that he did not want to teach black students.
Actually, I think it's 34 Senate seats up for grabs this year.

One interesting possibility, of course, is that the debate over the Supreme Court might, in and of itself, shape some of those Senate races in important ways. Quite a few of the Republican Senate seats up for grabs are in very closely contested races, and a long, drawn-out campaign of obstructionism by the Senate could be enough to swing them in Democrats' favor.

A lot of liberals in the US are decrying Republican obstructionism, and calling on them to confirm Obama's nomination. I wonder whether it might not actually benefit the Democrats more for the country to see Republican obstructionism in action for a full nine months before the election. When the Republicans shut down the government over the debt ceiling, they thought it was going to work in their favor, but they actually came out of it worse because the majority of Americans blamed them for the shutdown, and were angry that they prevented government from doing its job. If they obstruct the SC nomination, we might get a similar situation.

I think I'd like to see Obama nominate someone who is quite liberal (not too liberal), but has impeccable legal credentials and outstanding experience. It should be a person that every reasonable legal observer agrees is worthy of a seat. Then sit back and watch the Republicans obstruct.

If the Democrats play this right, and are a bit lucky, they could come out of this situation with both a Supreme Court justice AND another four years in the White House.

I kind of want to see him bait them at this point, and put up a moderate right winger who is pro-choice, pro-voting rights and pro-science. I'm not sure who that judge is, but there must be a few libertarians around who fit the description.

 

[coley]

Already seeing the first conspiracies about him being murdered emerging. Obama dunnit, apparently.

No it wuz the greens, Scalia was going to block Obamas green legislation

 

[Poi E]

His clerks wrote well-worded judgments.

 

[stupid kid]

Obama should just troll them all, and nominate Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz might legitimately lose a vote in the Senate. McConnell and the party old boys hate him. It would only take 4 plus Joe Biden and the Democrats...

 

[agricola]

Ted Cruz might legitimately lose a vote in the Senate. McConnell and the party old boys hate him. It would only take 4 plus Joe Biden and the Democrats...

I emphatically disagree; I think any vote that rids them of Ted Cruz and rules him out of the 2016 race would probably be seized upon.

 

[DotCommunist]

article here on what scalia's death means for the american union movements. I hadn't checked on scalia having just written him off as good riddance but OF COURSE he was rabidly anti union

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/antonin-scalia-death-friedrichs-labor-union-right-to-work/

 

[mhendo]

article here on what scalia's death means for the american union movements. I hadn't checked on scalia having just written him off as good riddance but OF COURSE he was rabidly anti union

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/antonin-scalia-death-friedrichs-labor-union-right-to-work/

Yeah, his absence from the court certainly means something of a reprieve for public sector unions, including my own.

I teach in the California State University system, and we have a faculty union called the California Faculty Association. Under current rules, all faculty, whether they want to be union members or not, contribute a small amount from every paycheck to help sustain the union and its collective bargaining activities. Those who choose to be full members pay a bit more, but we are all covered by the CFA's negotiations, whether full members or not.

Under the case currently before the court, public sector unions would be forbidden from requiring non-members to pay into the union, which would dramatically reduce union effectiveness. As your story suggested, with Scalia on the court, it looked pretty likely to come out 5-4 in favor of eliminating compulsory union dues; not, a 4-4 vote looks likely, which would maintain the status quo, for the moment at least.

I'm a full member of the CFA. It's not exactly a ball-busting, super-strong union, but it's all we've got to argue for our interests. In its absence, we'd be doing much worse than we are.

 

[stupid kid]

Yeah, his absence from the court certainly means something of a reprieve for public sector unions, including my own.

Definitely a big win on that one. Interesting to note that the plaintiffs apparently (paraphrasing NPR here) asked the CA Supreme Court to rule against them swiftly so they could move straight to SCOTUS. Oops.

 

[Dowie]

I just read something that suggests Obama could appoint a justice for a year with no need for confirmation. No idea what that's all about. Will try to find out more.

Anyway. Very interesting news.

that could be a good move... if they play silly buggers in the Senate then get in a temporary person anyway for the upcoming important cases

 

[mhendo]

that could be a good move... if they play silly buggers in the Senate then get in a temporary person anyway for the upcoming important cases

It's not going to happen.

For Obama to make a recess appointment, the Senate would have to be in recess. Now that the fight is on over a Supreme Court nominee, the Republican Senators will make damn sure that the Senate is not in recess any time between now and the end of Obama's term.

Recent Supreme Court decisions make it very easy to prevent a recess. All the Republican leadership has to do is call a Senate meeting every three days. These Senate meetings are allowed to last as little as a few minutes. They don't have to vote; they don't have to debate legislation. As long as they officially open the Senate every few days, and "gavel in, gavel out," they are not in recess, and Obama can't make a recess appointment.