What was Scalia's position on laws relating to and regarding technology? Encryption, etc...
What impact does his death have on the court's handling of privacy laws and whatnot?
Who would be the best adequately-qualified candidate (meaning limited to judges) to join the bench?
Please speak candidly.
Sent from the Executive Office of the President of the United States
>three letter agencies told him to have
what possible influence could the NSA, CIA, etc... have on him once he's on the bench? Justices have no term limits and can only be impeached by very rigorous standards. And their very public role makes any "black ops" bullshit you imagine insanely unlikely. If a justice's cousin died under mysterious circumstances it would be front page news no matter what the justice wanted.
You have to accept that Scalia was a true believer in the opinions he held, as objectionable and sometimes inconsistent as they were. Nobody on SCOTUS is being coerced into acting a certain way under cloak and dagger.
Technology was not mentioned in the Constitution therefore he had nothing to literally interpret technological concepts from.
Good riddance to that stupid fucking waste of sperm and egg.
willingly believing them is different from the "being told to believe" narrative that other idiot came up with.
There are people who honestly believe every word out of the CIA/NSA/etc... about national security. They truly believe it, perhaps as much as you or I would believe a scientist about something like climate change or whatever.
How you go about turning someone depends on what their mindset is that leads them to believe something. If Scalia was being coerced, you obviously would go about getting him to vote your way differently from if he was just a cuck who believed everything the CIA said without scrutiny.
Being simplistic toward people you disagree with only entrenches them further. If you won't try to understand people, don't try to convince them. You make it harder for the rest of us.
He was a firm believer in the Constitution, muh freedoms, and taking personal responsibility. As long as your choice was to own guns, let the government spy on you, and it was your personal responsibility to protest at abortion clinics, or pass laws banning abortion.
Did he even believe in extrapolating the intent of the framers into modern day situations, which is necessary to judge laws regarding technology? Or was he as literal as some are saying, ie: "If its not explicitly stated in the constitution, there's nothing to say about it since I'd be making it up as I went?"
>Or was he as literal as some are saying, ie: "If its not explicitly stated in the constitution, there's nothing to say about it since I'd be making it up as I went?"
This is exactly what Scalia was all about. If it's not in the constitution, it's a state-level issue. Not a federal one. He was great in that regard. I don't necessarily agree with his opinions on everything he did, but his upholding of the constitution made him a great man and that's glossed over carelessly by a disregard for law and order over muh feelings. His top-tier banter was a great bonus. People celebrating his death are just assblasted that he followed the law as closely as possible instead of the feelings of his detractors.
One of the technology related things he did was with video games in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n. He recognized that it was free protected speech.
Except that near the end he publicly admitted that he believed the constitution gave the government the right to endorse religion over non-religion. I hate theocratic conservicucks.
OTOH, he was instrumental in setting the precedence of the supreme court being wholly separated and not giving a damn about digital privacy.
Considering all factors, I'd say he was marginally harmful overall to free speech. Very, very marginally.
You'll find a lot of ideas that are common among liberals in k. And a lot of ideas common among conservatives there as well. Often in the same poster.
I think 4chan users don't tend to follow any particular party line when it comes to voting. Both from ideology, and by having lost the right to vote from previous actions.
Just means that those split decisions will now be more left leaning.
But no matter which way you lean you still have the follow the rule of the land.
I never sat in the court room, but sometimes he came off as a hypocrite or not knowledgeable enough about how his decisions will impact people.
But I am sure right leaning people fell the same way about left leaning judges.
>time for a living tree type document, not what people 150 years ago would have done
Scalia was very pro-privacy as well as an advocate for freedom of speech and individual freedom. He was *the* core conservative Justice. The whole country is worse off for his loss.
Don't let OButtBaby pack the court.
He was the most pro gun justice on the bench save maybe for Thomas. That's not a position the alphabet soup would tell him to hold.
Face it. Scalia was his own person with his own prejudices.
Mostly because /g/ is full of Snowden sympathizers.
On the matter of Scalia, I would think he had a tightassed opinion on privacy like that Jew rat Posner. I dunno though, and this thread already looks conflicted.
You mean the "living document" Ginsburg's and their 'the constitution means whatever we project on it at the moment'.
I'm sorry but Quantum Ginsburg and her acolytes don't exactly sway my opinion on precedent. Not when their entire schtick is historicity be damned what does it mean now.
>we can limit how much people are allowed to donate directly to candidates
>we can't limit how much people donate to a campaign's surrogate organization
There is hardly a wink nor a a nod separating PACs and campaigns. The Supreme Court got it wrong, and now we're going to suffer until someone musters the political courage to call a Constitutional Convention.
Stare decisis has its place, but it is absolutely absurd to follow precedent when it undermines the foundation of our representative democracy. It certainly didn't take Mrs. Cleo to foresee to implications of this decision before it was written.
>the constitution means whatever we project on it at the moment
That's the entire point. Public consensus changes over time, and the Constitution should be able to accomodate evolving needs without needing a rewrite every fucking decade.
Of course it's far from perfect, but it's one of the least terrible templates out there.
>but it is absolutely absurd to follow precedent when it undermines the foundation of our representative democracy
This is the entire point of the US Constitution. To constrain popular sovereignty. It's why the US is a Republic than has very slowly been undermined by becoming increasingly democratic.
You aren't supposed to be able to make sweeping changes to the nation with a simple majority, no matter how necessary that majority may deem it. No matter how backwards they deem the minority. That's the fucking point.
Anon, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that confers the rights of natural citizens onto corporations.
You're completely contradicting yourself. You criticize Ginsburg's "living document" paradigm while reading into the Constitution rights for corporations, the concept of which didn't exist for nearly a hundred years after the Constitution was written.
>You aren't supposed to be able to make sweeping changes to the nation with a simple majority, no matter how necessary that majority may deem it.
I cannot agree with this. What you're suggesting -- an even more rigid federal government than the one we've got today -- is absolutely insane.
We needed better interpretations regarding the internet YESTERDAY. The internet is old enough to drink already, and we're rapidly approaching the point where we need a whole new set of laws governing how private data is handled.
I agree that stability is the reason for having the supreme law of the land to begin with, but we'll never have that stability we seek if the court has to drag its feet even more than it does now. There's a time and place for rigidity, and it's not today.
Larry Lessig is probably the best suited to replace Scalia. He's very well versed in constitutional law, understands copyright, has a firm grasp on internet issues and is all for campaign finance reform. He's also pretty well liked by our friends on the left.
Not only did he work under Scalia, they frequently engaged in rigorous debate. He's probably the only person available that could best serve our nation as SCJ.
In a hypothetical setting where Lessig actually replaced Scalia, would being a member of the Court prevent him from participating in activism?
God please don't even joke about that. Obama would become Big Government Bigger Corporations: The Judge.
>Anon, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that confers the rights of natural citizens onto corporations.
Which is why I refer to the court having to conform to standing case law, not the constitution. The 14th amendment has been taken for over a century to apply to corporations and so here we are. Absent an amendment there's no standing for the court to rule any other way.
Then feel free to move to any number of parliamentary supremacy states. Not a bug. It's a feature. The very regulations you clamor for, to be pushed through regardless, doesn't actually do you any good friendo. It get's you shit like the Patriot Act.
Everything Stevens says in his opinion regarding his "concerns" are things I agree with, but you don't get to just throw out the older 14th amendment cases because of "concerns".
Anon, the Supreme Court has held for nearly a decade that corporations are not entitled to all of the right of a person under the 14th Amendment. This paragraph from Stevens is particularly instructive:
The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id., at 209–210. The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).
>would being a member of the Court prevent him from participating in activism?
Not legally, but ethically, sure. Most members of the court don't even attend State of the Unions because they don't want to appear to have any political bias. However, the power to rule in any direction on some of the most important issues and have those ruling become law - I'd say that's pretty damn good activism.
Like I said, legally he could still be an activist for whatever he wanted, but he wouldn't because it wouldn't be ethical/moral.
>while reading into the Constitution rights for corporations
>only individuals have rights, not groups of people
Do you need me to go over how much that would mess things up? Do you even know what the Citizens United case was about? It was about the the government trying to ban a film from being shown.
>The very regulations you clamor for, to be pushed through regardless, doesn't actually do you any good friendo. It get's you shit like the Patriot Act.
I'll concede that you're right in this regard, but it was an exceptional and rare event with lots of emotions involved.
Flexibility may have harmed in that instance, but it' the only thing that's keeping our laws relevant in the current world. And just barely, at that.
For instance, how many more years of CFAA being upheld? Should we keep legitimizing it because the government needs to stay stable and rigid toward changes? Without CFAA, Patriot Act can be fought or protested against enough to the point of not being enforced. Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but right now we need that double-edged flexibility more than ever.
I understand that having him as one of the justices would be a massive boon in and of itself, but that leaves rather hefty shoes to fill in terms of grassroots activism.
Most of our generation's activists are either locked up or smeared to the point of being ineffective. With Lessig gone, I can't think of an adequate replacement off the top of my head.
protip: everyone on the SCOTUS bench can do literally whatever they want. their political views are better-documented and more verbosely described than any politician in the US government.
They attend SOTU, but they don't do the cheerleading bullshit you see career politicians do (as >>52967819 pointed out). I doubt they're constraining themselves deliberately though. They're veteran lawyers - hearing a president enthusiastically talk about passing laws and initiatives is probably trite to them at this point.
So they have no motivation to jump up and down and clap retardedly like the junior senator from whichever bullshit small state, AND they're probably tired of presidents talking shit and not delivering.
I disagree with some of the opinions of the people on the bench, but I'll grant that they're probably the most honest about their worldviews due to the fact that they live under absolutely no threat of losing their position, and the people they interact with (the other justices) are similarly in it for the long haul.
>not three letters
Holy shit anon that's embarrassing learn2count