Search results for "Anotnin Scalia"
| Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
Sorted by: Relevance | Sort by: Date
|
Results per-page: All
|
[…]two days?” Jay asked. “There’s a move on to get Trump to commit to appointing Mike Lee as Scalia’s Supreme Court replacement.” “Crazy,” Bill said. “He’d be even worse than Scalia. It’s because Cruz did commit to appoint Lee. Cruz and Lee have been shouting Libertarianism fallacies into each other’s ears since they both ran for Senate.” “We said it earlier,” I said. “They’re afflicted with – and addicted to – their mental adolescence. They are infected with seductive Hayekian simplicity – what the psychologists might call simplism.” “Maybe we should get more chocolate to them,” Jay said, smiling. “In their case, change would require a brain transplant,” Bill said. “Or a more powerful chemical change agent,” I […]
[…]said. “Hatch always wanted to be nominated for the Supreme Court. Wouldn’t he be the ideal new Scalia?” “Our discussion of Scalia losing it may have been prophetic. From one scrambled brain to another.” “God! Hatch would be worse than Gowdy – or even Mike Lee,” Bill said. “It just keeps getting worse and worse,” I said. “Dumb and dumber,” Bill […]
[…]2014 book by Garrett Epps has some very helpful perspectives. Alito has become a kind of un-Scalia. Scalia was an ‘originalist’. In deciding constitutional cases, he read the Big History Book and told the rest of us the ‘original public meaning’ of the Constitution’. Although both justices are very conservative, Scalia’s conservatism looks back, invoking the spirits of the Framers. Alito’s is forward-looking. He frequently discusses the dystopian implications of modern technology — whether it be GPS trackers, the Internet, video games, or violent pornography and ‘crush’ videos. Scalia asked how things were done in the past, because the past was good; Alito asks how they should be done in the future, lest the future be bad. Scalia talks about principles; Alito talked about consequences. Alito is often the rudest justice, broadcasting his hostility and impatience to advocates and colleagues. He can treat lawyers like children caught in a lie, grilling them on every minor point of their argument while dismissing their logic. He handles fellow justices like hecklers who have thoughtlessly interrupted his train of thought. He has a gruff demeanor, often sounding like he would rather be somewhere else. He’s shaken his head at Ginsburg and rolled […]
[…]might be called Chocolate Roulette,” Jay smiled. “A fair description. It reminds me of a Scalia story in USA Today, where Scalia, when asked about his nine kids, said something like ‘we are good Catholics – and play Vatican Roulette’.” “And the others?” Bill asked. “I did get to Mike Lee earlier, as well as Chaffetz and Mia Love, at Mike’s Christmas Party at the State Capitol.” “Maybe that’s why Mia is starting to sound a bit reasonable. Her recent talk to the Utah Legislature sounded mature, civil,” Bill said. “I let Hatch go,” I said. “He’d probably recognize me, he’s 80, and he’s tired.” “But he still wants a chair on the Supreme Court?” “Probably. He might not be too bad there – no worse certainly than Scalia was.” “But he’s now saying he can work with Trump – he actually said, according to the Times: We will have to work on changing some of his ideas. He’s a good businessman.” “Jesus. That confirms that Hatch has indeed lost it.” “Did you see the Trib report on what Stewart said at the Capitol the other day: We don’t want […]
[…]– Bill: Issa, McCarthy, Justice Kennedy (Scalia via Joe) Colorado – Joe: Gardner Florida – Joe: Rubio, Bush, and Koch, Bill Idaho – Peter: Labrador Iowa – Bill: Ernst Kansas – Bill: Koch, Charles Kentucky – Jay: McConnell, Paul Montana – Joe, Bill Kochs, Montana Congressmen New York City – Joe: Koch, David; Justice Roberts Oklahoma – Jay: Inhofe South Carolina – Joe: Gowdy Texas – Jay: Cruz, Smith Utah – Joe: Lee, Chaffetz Washington – Peter: Rodgers Washington DC – Joe: LaPierre, Norquist, Donahue; Justice Alito West Virginia – Jay: Capito Wisconsin – Bill: Ryan Wyoming – Peter: Barasso California’s primary therapist is Bill, though I’ll get to Scalia in Santa Clara. Bill will get to Issa and perhaps again to McCarthy. Depending on timing and other variables, he might also access: David Valadao, District 21, elected 2012. Although the district is mainly North of Bakersfield, it includes SE Bakersfield, via a careful gerrymandering. District 21 nearly encircles the city, coming in from the south and east. He has an office in Bakersfield. He is […]
[…]Court justices – and that we would each begin our homework on the most conservative five: Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy. We were meeting at a new place, Coffee Noir, the corner coffee shop at about 10th East and 2nd South, close to the U. This was part of harmless’ strategy to move around a bit and not get too comfortable at any one location. “The Supreme Court can’t legislate – they simply come to decisions on the cases before them,” Bill said. “Sure, there is no such thing as an activist Court,” Jay taunted. “Give me a break – that’s an idealistic fallacy.” “And fantasy,” I said. “We do have a very activist Court, although that’s not necessarily bad. There was a recent Times story on how Justices and the Court ‘request’ cases they want to hear. It talks about ‘legal entrepreneurs’ – people who engineer cases designed for eventual Supreme Court consideration – to pass new judgments on social issues.” “Isn’t that what the recent Affordable Care Act (ACA) case was about?” Bill asked. “Four little words, taken out of context. If the Court had agreed, it would have destroyed the […]
[…]years.” “We’ll ask Hatch and Inhofe to voluntarily submit – to set an example.” “Scalia’s not a worry anymore,” Jay said. Issa, Darrell: California House #49, denier; richest member of Congress, net worth about $355 M. His second wife is Kathy Stanton; one child, Bill. Wikipedia list his religion as Eastern Orthodox. He’s also very familiar with Jewish culture; his mother was Mormon. He is in his eighth House term. Some five years ago he said that the science community is not in agreement about climate change or its severity. He has attacked both the IRS and the EPA – basically to get at Obama, and has voted against CO2 regulation. His climate denialism seems to be intact and perhaps has hardened in more recent years. He’s a Norquist pledge signer. Issa began dogging Obama from the moment Issa became chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in 2010. He spent four years holding hearings on everything from an IRS training fiesta at Disneyland to an attack at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. According to House rules, the Committee may at any time conduct investigations on any matter, which gave […]
[…]need empathy; they need reality. Once we got over the immediate shock of Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s death, some began to reconsider his judicial legacy and ‘brilliance’. There was discussion of his social and emotional ‘intelligence’ – and statements that he lacked empathy – that he rarely understood how his rulings affected the lives of others. Is harmless ‘playing god’ by providing empathogens to those with serious empathy and compassion deficiencies? Can we say we are ‘treating’ Empathy Deficit Disorder (EDD)? If we treat ADD or ADHD, why can’t we treat adult EDD? Is it immoral and unethical to treat and enhance those with serious deficits in critical thinking skills, with a distorted view of reality, with little or no concern for humanity itself – with distorted morals, ethics, values? Is ‘moral enhancement’ a bad thing? One of the books on human enhancement is Beyond Humanity. Isn’t that exactly what the discussion of climate change is all about? If very serious climate change and global warming accelerate, humanity itself is threatened. ‘Beyond Humanity’ can refer to an Earth without man, as well as to an ‘enhancement’ of humanity. harmless feels that it is […]
