RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas?

RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

domiguy -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/16/2010 10:00:22 PM)
Not at all. You are an idiot. Predictable. Not overly intelligent.

DomKen -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/16/2010 10:10:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy FR... Ken... I am an opponent of the Death Penalty. I could give you any number of valid reasons, most of which you will likely agree with me on. But surely... you are not so naive that you think a highly competent appellate attorney in a death penalty case (how else would they have been appointed?) would not collude to malpractice in order to stop a sentence do you??? Making such a claim in the face of the existing evidence is beyond absurd.

TreasureKY -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 6:03:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Scalia is wrong here. Hmmm.... So, either you or two of the Supreme Court Judges, don't fully understand the law and its application. You'll have to forgive me if I lend more weight to the opinions of the Judges in this area. Why? Are you suggesting that Supreme Court Justices, by virtue of their appointments, have some superior legal knowledge not accessible to the rest of the population? I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm saying very plainly that I believe, based on their education and experience, that Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas have superior legal knowledge to DomKen.

thishereboi -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 6:37:48 AM)
quote: Of course they should look at experience and education AFTER finding an atheist. And if there were a more qualified candidate the was religious, you would pass over him or her to choose the less qualified athiest? You honestly care more about what they believe in and less about their qualifications? The more you post, the happier I am that you are in Canada and can't vote here.

flcouple2009 -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 6:46:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Scalia is wrong here. The state is required to provide and pay for an appeals attorney under the rules laid down by SCOTUS in previous rulings. This state provided counsel then failed to do what his client directed him to do. He is saying quite clearly that he would be ok with a state providing appelate lawyers to capital inmates who were specifically employed by the state to not file the inmates appeals which would make a mockery of the rules laid down by SCOTUS under which the death penalty was allowed to resume. Hmmm.... So, either you or two of the Supreme Court Judges, don't fully understand the law and its application. You'll have to forgive me if I lend more weight to the opinions of the Judges in this area. Are you suggesting the other 7 Justices don't understand the law?

rulemylife -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 7:02:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm saying very plainly that I believe, based on their education and experience, that Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas have superior legal knowledge to DomKen. While I don't want to be in the middle of your argument with DK, I don't share your admiration for the legal skills or even the common sense of some of the political appointees that staff our Supreme Court. Have you ever watched Scalia being interviewed? He's a buffoon. This is a little long but if you forward to the 10 minute mark of the video you get to see the fun things. Justice Scalia On The Record - 60 Minutes - CBS News

DomKen -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 8:16:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Scalia is wrong here. Hmmm.... So, either you or two of the Supreme Court Judges, don't fully understand the law and its application. You'll have to forgive me if I lend more weight to the opinions of the Judges in this area. Why? Are you suggesting that Supreme Court Justices, by virtue of their appointments, have some superior legal knowledge not accessible to the rest of the population? I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm saying very plainly that I believe, based on their education and experience, that Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas have superior legal knowledge to DomKen. Actually you were suggesting that the minority opinion was correct over the majority opinion.

TreasureKY -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 3:54:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Scalia is wrong here. The state is required to provide and pay for an appeals attorney under the rules laid down by SCOTUS in previous rulings. This state provided counsel then failed to do what his client directed him to do. He is saying quite clearly that he would be ok with a state providing appelate lawyers to capital inmates who were specifically employed by the state to not file the inmates appeals which would make a mockery of the rules laid down by SCOTUS under which the death penalty was allowed to resume. Hmmm.... So, either you or two of the Supreme Court Judges, don't fully understand the law and its application. You'll have to forgive me if I lend more weight to the opinions of the Judges in this area. Are you suggesting the other 7 Justices don't understand the law? No. I'm saying DomKen's opinion that Justice Scalia is wrong doesn't hold any weight with me.

TreasureKY -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 3:59:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Scalia is wrong here. Hmmm.... So, either you or two of the Supreme Court Judges, don't fully understand the law and its application. You'll have to forgive me if I lend more weight to the opinions of the Judges in this area. Why? Are you suggesting that Supreme Court Justices, by virtue of their appointments, have some superior legal knowledge not accessible to the rest of the population? I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm saying very plainly that I believe, based on their education and experience, that Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas have superior legal knowledge to DomKen. Actually you were suggesting that the minority opinion was correct over the majority opinion. Actually, no. I didn't address that issue, at all. Can you not read?

DomKen -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 4:28:48 PM)
Actually you did claim the minority was correct. Right here where you agreed with Scalia and Thomas: quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen ... They seem unconcerned that the state appointed attorney in this case would deny this man access to the appeals process ... Where a State is constitutionally obliged to provide an attorney but fails to provide an effective one, the attorney’s failures ... are chargeable to the State, not to the prisoner. ... But where the client has no right to counsel—which in habeas proceedings he does not—the rule holding him responsible for his attorney’s acts applies with full force. This was clearly addressed. Because of that, I'd hardly claim that Scalia and Thomas seemed unconcerned. You simply do not agree with them. The majority held that this was not the case. Otherwise the majority would have agreed with Scalia and ruled against the appeal.

TreasureKY -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 4:43:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually you did claim the minority was correct. Right here where you agreed with Scalia and Thomas: quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen ... They seem unconcerned that the state appointed attorney in this case would deny this man access to the appeals process ... Where a State is constitutionally obliged to provide an attorney but fails to provide an effective one, the attorney’s failures ... are chargeable to the State, not to the prisoner. ... But where the client has no right to counsel—which in habeas proceedings he does not—the rule holding him responsible for his attorney’s acts applies with full force. This was clearly addressed. Because of that, I'd hardly claim that Scalia and Thomas seemed unconcerned. You simply do not agree with them. The majority held that this was not the case. Otherwise the majority would have agreed with Scalia and ruled against the appeal. Honestly... [8\|] You claimed they were unconcerned. I pointed out where they addressed the issue. I disagreed with you. I neither agreed nor disagreed with any of the Justices.

thornhappy -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 5:10:53 PM)
Texas is notorious for the incompetence of it's court-provided attorneys. Thomas is famous for listening to cases with eyes shut, and seldom asking questions. quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy FR... Ken... I am an opponent of the Death Penalty. I could give you any number of valid reasons, most of which you will likely agree with me on. But surely... you are not so naive that you think a highly competent appellate attorney in a death penalty case (how else would they have been appointed?) would not collude to malpractice in order to stop a sentence do you???

DomKen -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 5:20:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually you did claim the minority was correct. Right here where you agreed with Scalia and Thomas: quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen ... They seem unconcerned that the state appointed attorney in this case would deny this man access to the appeals process ... Where a State is constitutionally obliged to provide an attorney but fails to provide an effective one, the attorney’s failures ... are chargeable to the State, not to the prisoner. ... But where the client has no right to counsel—which in habeas proceedings he does not—the rule holding him responsible for his attorney’s acts applies with full force. This was clearly addressed. Because of that, I'd hardly claim that Scalia and Thomas seemed unconcerned. You simply do not agree with them. The majority held that this was not the case. Otherwise the majority would have agreed with Scalia and ruled against the appeal. Honestly... [8\|] You claimed they were unconcerned. I pointed out where they addressed the issue. I disagreed with you. I neither agreed nor disagreed with any of the Justices. Taking lessons from Firm now? Semantic quibbles aside precisely how could you disagree with me here: quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Scalia is wrong here. The state is required to provide and pay for an appeals attorney under the rules laid down by SCOTUS in previous rulings. This state provided counsel then failed to do what his client directed him to do. He is saying quite clearly that he would be ok with a state providing appelate lawyers to capital inmates who were specifically employed by the state to not file the inmates appeals which would make a mockery of the rules laid down by SCOTUS under which the death penalty was allowed to resume. Hmmm.... So, either you or two of the Supreme Court Judges, don't fully understand the law and its application. You'll have to forgive me if I lend more weight to the opinions of the Judges in this area. And not be in agreement with Scalia and Thomas and since the majority also disagreed with Scalia and Thomas on their claim how are you not disagreeing with the majority?

TreasureKY -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 7:01:21 PM)
Good grief! Do you have any idea what "semantics" is? When discussing what one said and what they meant, that is semantics! You brought it up trying to tell me what I said and meant. When I correct you... because, you know, I was the one who said it and I know full well what I said and what I meant... then you try to brush off my response as semantic quibbling... Sheesh. [8\|] Please re-read what I wrote. Over and over again, if necessary. I did not address the opinions of the other seven Justices. I addressed your opinion and rephrasing of Justice Scalia's opinion. Do you understand the concept of legal opinions? Between persons possessing educated legal expertise, that is? This isn't a matter of one being right and another being wrong. It is about interpreting and rendering viewpoints. From my reading of the opinions, Scalia and Thomas came down on the side of the "letter of the law", whereas the other Justices came down on the side of the "spirit of the law". Neither is wrong. Just more of the Justices agreed on one side. Voila... that's the way the legal precedents are set in any given time frame. You said "Scalia is wrong here." I disagreed with your judgment that he was wrong.

Brain -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 7:12:52 PM)
I think the reverse is true. I think there are more qualifed atheists than there are religious candidates for the position and too many have been overlooked. The fact that no atheists are on the Supreme Court demands an atheist be appointed to the Supreme Court next vacancy. The Supreme Court of the United States is over represented with religious extremists. quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: Of course they should look at experience and education AFTER finding an atheist. And if there were a more qualified candidate the was religious, you would pass over him or her to choose the less qualified athiest? You honestly care more about what they believe in and less about their qualifications? The more you post, the happier I am that you are in Canada and can't vote here.

Brain -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 8:15:57 PM)
quote: Have you ever watched Scalia being interviewed? He's a buffoon. I listened to the interview and I find I can't stand the man. He is a liar and when he does a similar interview with a lie detector test and passes then I will believe him. If he is telling the truth and believes the things he said then he is insane (brainwashed with religion and dangerous). How Ginsberg can be his friend is beyond me. I think all of his judicial decisions are derived from his religious beliefs. For instance, in Bush versus Gore Scalia and others decided to give the election to Bush. It was a political decision. The Florida Supreme Court decided in Al Gore's favor. The decision was reversed by the United States Supreme Court and it was motivated firstly by religion and secondly by politics. Scalia wanted George Bush to win because Bush wears his religion on his sleeve for all to see. Prior to this position, right-wingers or conservatives were all about states’ rights and since that was the case, why did they (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) reverse and interfere in the decision of the Florida Supreme Court? Whatever the reason, it isn't justifiable and IS hypocrisy.

Arpig -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 8:32:44 PM)
quote: I think the reverse is true. I think there are more qualifed atheists than there are religious candidates for the position and too many have been overlooked. The fact that no atheists are on the Supreme Court demands an atheist be appointed to the Supreme Court next vacancy. The Supreme Court of the United States is over represented with religious extremists. And you are no different than a bible-thumper demanding a born-again judge...the religion of the candidate should NOT be an issue, The fact that you feel it should be shows you to be just as big a proselyte as any foaming at the mouth Jesus freak. I have said it before and I am sure I will have call to say it again...you are a religious bigot of the first order, really no different than Phelps and his gang.

DomKen -> RE: What is wrong with Scalia and Thomas? (6/17/2010 9:05:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY Good grief! Do you have any idea what "semantics" is? When discussing what one said and what they meant, that is semantics! You brought it up trying to tell me what I said and meant. When I correct you... because, you know, I was the one who said it and I know full well what I said and what I meant... then you try to brush off my response as semantic quibbling... Sheesh. [8\|] Please re-read what I wrote. Over and over again, if necessary. I did not address the opinions of the other seven Justices. I addressed your opinion and rephrasing of Justice Scalia's opinion. Do you understand the concept of legal opinions? Between persons possessing educated legal expertise, that is? This isn't a matter of one being right and another being wrong. It is about interpreting and rendering viewpoints. From my reading of the opinions, Scalia and Thomas came down on the side of the "letter of the law", whereas the other Justices came down on the side of the "spirit of the law". Neither is wrong. Just more of the Justices agreed on one side. Voila... that's the way the legal precedents are set in any given time frame. You said "Scalia is wrong here." I disagreed with your judgment that he was wrong. You are trying to deny that you disagreed with the majority opinion. I'm not the only one who saw what you wrote and arrived at the same conclusion. You are simply trying to deny the plain definition of disagreed which is semantics. As to the rest, this is a plain case of right and wrong. The letter of the law, as laid down by SCOTUS, is that the people convicted of capital crimes must have competent appelate counsel who perform their duties properly. Scalia and Thomas tried to deny this plain fact and you agreed with them. That the majority came down on the other side makes Scalia and Thomas wrong as well both de facto and de jure.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125