Fine Legal Mind

Published by

Clarissa

February 14, 2016

Black scientists, he said, “come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them,” he added. “I’m just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer [black students],” Scalia added. “Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe … when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks admitted to lesser schools, turns out to be less. And I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.”

Is that the fine legal mind we are all supposed to mourn? ‘Cause the kindest words I have for this case of verbal diarrhea are “rambling, incoherent, and inane.”

Rate this:

17 responses to “Fine Legal Mind”

Dreidel

February 14, 2016

Well, at least he never said that he’d visited “57 states” in America…

Or that the citizens of Austria spoke “Austrian”…

Or that servicemen and women in the U.S. Marines are “CORPSEmen”…

Like another great legal scholar, the current President of the United States.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Stringer Bell
  
  February 14, 2016
  
  Just one more year to go and the black guy will finally leave the white house. Until then, keep seething
  
  Stay frothy, my friends.
  
  dosequisguy.jpg
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Dreidel
    
    February 14, 2016
    
    Sorry, Stinger Boy, but your .JPG didn’t make it though.
    
    Why don’t you try posting it again, when you aren’t foaming at the mouth?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Stringer Bell
      
      February 15, 2016
      
      I didn’t post a picture there, idiot. The file name was the joke.
      
      Seethe, old man, seethe.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
2. The Dark Avenger
  
  February 15, 2016
  
  “Is our children learning?”
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
3. Shakti
  
  February 15, 2016
  
  “But Obama” is not a rebuttal.
  
  Although when people talk about legal minds of judges they usually talk about appellate decisions they’ve authored.
  
  For example:
  [t]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent….Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Stringer Bell
    
    February 15, 2016
    
    ““But Obama” is not a rebuttal.”
    
    Oh, but it is for a dim-witted racist who’s been stewing in his own juices ever since the poll tax was outlawed, haha.
    
    WORST PRESIDENT EVAR! Amirite Dreidel?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Dreidel
      
      February 15, 2016
      
      “Idiot”
      
      “Seethe, old man, seethe.”
      
      “Dim-witted racist”
      
      “Stewing in his own juices”
      
      Ah, young mister “anger management problems” is pissing himself again.
      Recess time at the hill at the San Bernardino Zoo is over, Stringer Boy. You need to stop flinging your infantile poop around now and go back to scratching yourself for a while.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
4. Evelina Anville
  
  February 15, 2016
  
  Come on. Obviously “57 states” was a misspeak. I saw that one. Just one of those weird slips of the tongue. “Corpsemen” strikes me as a similar “tongue slip.” And I haven’t heard of Obama saying that people in Austria speak Austrian. That would surprise me but mistakes do happen.
  
  At any rate, none of these mistakes appear in a finely considered/vetted legal brief as Clarissa points out. It’s silly to compare them.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Dreidel
    
    February 15, 2016
    
    “It’s silly to compare them (Scalia and Obama’s words).”
    
    Hillary has said that as President she’d definitely consider appointing Obama to the Supreme Court, so his ability to form “considered legal opinions” has to be open to evaluation.
    
    Sure, it’s silly to directly compare their words. SO WHAT?? Chill out and don’t take every idle posting so seriously. 🙂
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Shakti
      
      February 15, 2016
      
      I’m pretty sure she’s trolling. However, there is precedent for that, unlike the absolutely bogus claim that Obama should avoid nominating anyone to fill a SCOTUS vacancy because he’s a second term president.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. Dreidel
        
        February 15, 2016
        
        Obama has every right to nominate a candidate before his term ends (and has already declared his intention to do so). The Republicans also have a right to stall until after the election and prevent Obama’s nominee from becoming a justice.
        
        Politically, the Republicans would be foolish to allow Obama to replace the very conservative Scalia with a liberal or even “moderate” justice.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Stringer Bell
        
        February 15, 2016
        
        We know what the president and the senate can and cannot do.
        
        Let me ask you this. If the Republicans do decide to stall the appointment for an year, would you personally support it?
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Dreidel
        
        February 15, 2016
        
        I don’t think the Republicans are going to ask my opinion on this issue! But since you asked me a serious question, I’ll answer it.
        
        I’m in favor of the Republicans doing whatever is necessary to keep the (pre-Scalia death) 4-4-1 balance on the court, since that will influence major court rulings for years. The changes are ZERO that Obama will nominate a candidate anywhere near as conservative as Scalia, so no one whom he nominates will meet that requirement.
        
        Having a eight-person court until 2017 won’t bring the court to a halt, or keep it from functioning effectively. Most court cases aren’t decided on a 5-4 basis, so the vast majority of cases reaching the court can still be resolved.
        
        There’s precedent for a prolonged eight-justice functioning court: Back in December 1974 Justice William O. Douglas had a severe, permanently debilitating stroke that made it impossible to continue functioning on the court, but he refused to accept this reality, and despite the consistent urging of his fellow justices, refused to retire until November 1975, so the process of nominating a successor could finally be started.
        
        LikeLike
Shakti

February 15, 2016

Scalia decisions make sense as long as you remember two things 1) to accept his bullshit premises and 2)he’s asking the cryogenically frozen heads of selected Founding Fathers what they would do in his imagination(originalism).

LikeLike

Reply
1. Dreidel
  
  February 15, 2016
  
  Scalia had a VERY transparent habit of making deliberately outrageous statements in his speeches at colleges (and sometimes in his legal briefs) for the purpose of getting attention and outraging people, and his “absolute original intent” doctrine was nonsensical, because you can’t apply 18th century rules to 21st century situations that the Founding Fathers never conceived of and never addressed in the document.
  
  But Scalia served a vital role in keeping the court finely balanced, just like the U.S. political opinion. With him, the court had two staunch conservatives, two staunch liberals, and one swing vote. It wouldn’t be good for the country to have an ideologically lopsided court that always voted either liberal or always conservative when deciding the most important laws of our land.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
NG

February 15, 2016

Where was Hilary?

“John Poindexter, owner of the 30,000-acre luxury ranch who is reported to have said the following…”

“We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled,”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-15/justice-scalia-found-dead-pillow-over-his-head-no-autopsy-ordered

LikeLike

Reply