R.I.P. Justice Antonin Scalia

[njhoya78]

News just being reported that Antonin Scalia (Class of 1957), a Supreme Court Associate Justice, was found dead this morning in Texas.

www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php

While I was not a fan of all of his positions, he was a prolific and passionate jurist. Requiescat in pace, Mr. Justice.

[Elvado]

RIP to a man who devoted his life to the law and service of our nation.

[DallasHoya]

As they did did after liberal justices retired, I eagerly await the editorials in the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. urging the President to nominate someone who will not alter the ideological balance of the court.

[EasyEd]

Well done, Mr. Scalia, and God speed.

[Nevada Hoya]

Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord.

[tashoya]

Regardless of one's views, one has to admire Mr. Scalia's service and conviction. Rest in peace.

I think it's disgusting how quickly his passing has become a talking point for the candidates.

[EasyEd]

Feb 14, 2016 10:34:52 GMT -5 tashoya said:

Regardless of one's views, one has to admire Mr. Scalia's service and conviction. Rest in peace.

I think it's disgusting how quickly his passing has become a talking point for the candidates.

Or the president.

[aleutianhoya]

Feb 14, 2016 13:27:32 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Feb 14, 2016 10:34:52 GMT -5 tashoya said:

Regardless of one's views, one has to admire Mr. Scalia's service and conviction. Rest in peace.

I think it's disgusting how quickly his passing has become a talking point for the candidates.

Or the president.

providing condolences and paying compliments to a deceased supreme court justice that disagreed with you is disgusting?

It can't be disgusting to say you're going to nominate a replacement since, you know, that's what your job is.

If the Senate wants to vote that person down (because its an election year, they deem him or her unqualified, or for any reason, that's their privilege).

But I don't see how nominating a replacement would be disgusting. Or saying you're going to.

[Elvado]

Feb 14, 2016 14:19:25 GMT -5 aleutianhoya said:

Feb 14, 2016 13:27:32 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Or the president.

providing condolences and paying compliments to a deceased supreme court justice that disagreed with you is disgusting?

It can't be disgusting to say you're going to nominate a replacement since, you know, that's what your job is.

If the Senate wants to vote that person down (because its an election year, they deem him or her unqualified, or for any reason, that's their privilege).

But I don't see how nominating a replacement would be disgusting. Or saying you're going to.

Of course it is also his job to enforce existing immigration laws...

Just saying...

[aleutianhoya]

Feb 14, 2016 14:22:58 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Feb 14, 2016 14:19:25 GMT -5 aleutianhoya said:

providing condolences and paying compliments to a deceased supreme court justice that disagreed with you is disgusting?

It can't be disgusting to say you're going to nominate a replacement since, you know, that's what your job is.

If the Senate wants to vote that person down (because its an election year, they deem him or her unqualified, or for any reason, that's their privilege).

But I don't see how nominating a replacement would be disgusting. Or saying you're going to.

Of course it is also his job to enforce existing immigration laws...

Just saying...

It is. But that's not what the discussion is about or the original comment was finding fault with.

I'm not even suggesting that the President is acting "above politics." Of course he isn't. But this is a situation where he can advance his political ends by simply saying and doing what he's supposed to be doing. There really can't be any (reasonable) argument about that.

Really, I hope he nominates someone clearly moderate and the Senate confirms that person. That's how the system is designed to work in these circumstances. You can't expect him to nominate a far right-wing originalist. And he can't expect the Senate to confirm a far left-winger....not for this seat.

We'll see what happens.

[Elvado]

He has neither the grace nor circumspection to be moderate here. Remember he won as he loves to tell everyone.

[tashoya]

Feb 14, 2016 14:26:45 GMT -5 aleutianhoya said:

Feb 14, 2016 14:22:58 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Of course it is also his job to enforce existing immigration laws...

Just saying...

It is. But that's not what the discussion is about or the original comment was finding fault with.

I'm not even suggesting that the President is acting "above politics." Of course he isn't. But this is a situation where he can advance his political ends by simply saying and doing what he's supposed to be doing. There really can't be any (reasonable) argument about that.

Really, I hope he nominates someone clearly moderate and the Senate confirms that person. That's how the system is designed to work in these circumstances. You can't expect him to nominate a far right-wing originalist. And he can't expect the Senate to confirm a far left-winger....not for this seat.

We'll see what happens.

I don't know which parts were directed at me, if any, but the only thing I was trying to say is that I find it disgusting (though not surprising) that there isn't a grace period to honor the service of Mr. Scalia before turning to the obvious political issues. There's plenty of time to discuss the rest. I was saddened to see/hear so little on what passes as network news today about Mr. Scalia's years of service. Obviously, it's not the attention grabbing story but it's the right one to tell. I didn't necessarily agree with a decent amount of Mr. Scalia's opinions but I really felt as though he deserved to have his service and his legacy be more at the forefront as opposed to as a footnote to political positioning. Condolences to his family and friends and much respect to a Hoya that lived a life in service to his country. May you rest in peace.

[TBird41]

Ginsburg's statement, in particular, I think is worth reading:

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/14/statements-supreme-court-death-justice-scalia/80375976/

I'll also say that two of my friends from law school clerked for Scalia. They are both brilliant, and neither is particularly partisan, even if they are conservative. They are both the type of lawyer and person that doesn't put up with BS, who will take blowhards down a peg, and who are willing to take on any flawed argument. Neither spend much time, if any, on facebook. Both wrote out lengthy facebook posts after Scalia passed detailing how much they enjoyed working with him, how impressed they were by his legal mind and the way he approached decisions and worked through his arguments. They wouldn't do that for anyone that didn't deserve respect, if that makes sense.

Personally, I think that the nation is lucky that he was on the Court, and that Scalia did a lot to preserve our freedom. And at the very least, I think even the most liberal person should be happy with the way he defended the 4th Amendment. www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/02/antonin_scalia_was_often_a_friend_of_criminal_defendants.html

[kchoya]

Good to see the liberals at GULC are staying classy.

Law Center Puts Out statement on Feb. 13:

Georgetown Law mourns the loss of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (C'57), who died in Texas at the age of 79. “Scalia was a giant in the history of the law, a brilliant jurist whose opinions and scholarship profoundly transformed the law,” said Dean William M. Treanor in a statement.

Liberal professors, offended that Georgetown notes the passing of an alum who sat on the Supreme Court for 30 years, issued a statement on Feb. 16 that was originally sent just to Dean William Treanor and the faculty, then later cleared for dissemination to the student body:

Like Mike Seidman, I also was put-off by the invocation of the “Georgetown Community” in the press release that Dean Treanor issued Saturday. I imagine many other faculty, students and staff, particularly people of color, women and sexual minorities, cringed at headline and at the unmitigated praise with which the press release described a jurist that many of us believe was a defender of privilege, oppression and bigotry, one whose intellectual positions were not brilliant but simplistic and formalistic.

Feb. 17, Dean Treanor issues a calm, measured response:

I issued a statement on Saturday saying that the law school community mourned the Justice’s death. As you may know, some faculty have disagreed with my statement. I am writing now to reaffirm my belief that this a time for us to mourn. Justice Scalia was an individual who provoked strong and divergent views; the debate about his legacy is long-standing, and it will continue for many years. But this moment is a moment of grief. It is a time of loss and a time when many in our community are in pain. It is a time for mourning.

Later that night, GULC's only two conservative professors offer a rebuttal to their colleagues' missive:

For one’s colleagues to write, within hours of the death of someone one knows, likes, and admires, that he was a “defender of privilege, oppression and bigotry, one whose intellectual positions were not brilliant but simplistic and formalistic,” is startlingly callous and insulting, not only to his memory but to those of us who admired him. To hear from one’s colleagues, within hours of the death of a hero, mentor, and friend, that they resent any implication that they might mourn his death — that, in effect, they are glad he is dead – is simply cruel beyond words.

[kchoya]

If the President presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. Some will criticize such a decision and say that it is nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Republican would be able to fill it. Instead, it would be pragmatic to conclude that once the political season is under way, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process.

[kchoya]

The Black Law Students Association at GULC proving that they just don't get it.

GULC Black Law Students Statement

Also, I think their letter needs more bold and italicized text.

[AvantGuardHoya]

Feb 23, 2016 12:13:06 GMT -5 kchoya said:

The Black Law Students Association at GULC proving that they just don't get it.

GULC Black Law Students Statement

Also, I think their letter needs more bold and italicized text.

What is it that they don't get, kc?

[kchoya]

Feb 23, 2016 12:21:56 GMT -5 AvantGuardHoya said:

Feb 23, 2016 12:13:06 GMT -5 kchoya said:

The Black Law Students Association at GULC proving that they just don't get it.

GULC Black Law Students Statement

Also, I think their letter needs more bold and italicized text.

What is it that they don't get, kc?

Oh, where to start. First, I think they totally missed the point of the mocking use of reference to micro-aggressions, etc. in the letter from Profs. Rosenkranz and Barnett. Second, their belief that a law school should be making "unprompted timely statements" regarding societal issues, such as the alleged "uptick in racialized policing, law enforcement, and the lack of indictments of violent police officers." Third, their apparent belief that law school classrooms should be safe spaces, free from intense and uncomfortable discussions about significant and important issues. (Put aside the idea that they plan to "use the law to fight for progress" yet they feel uncomfortable discussing those same issues in a sheltered, educational setting). Fourth, their clear inability (or disinterest) in understanding Scalia's arguments/questioning in Fisher v. University of Texas.

I could go on and on, but, I think you get the flavor.

[Nevada Hoya]

www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/02/22/black-law-students-at-georgetown-we-are-shaken-and-angry-at-conservatives-response-to-scalias-death/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_georgetownscalia-730pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[quickplay]

Feb 23, 2016 11:58:44 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Instead, it would be pragmatic to conclude that once the political season is under way, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.

Isn't that just begging the question? Why should my vote in 2012 not count in 2016? I voted for Obama because of the importance of nominating supreme court justices.