Flem72

"If you like the 3m-rebid-not-forcing style, Goldman's Aces Scientific is very readable and logical." and contains system adjuncts that were way ahead of their time, many of the treatments advanced players use today.

Adds a bunch of pathos to the character. Seems to me that he had a precog "vision" during the seizure -- how else 'hold the door'? -- so we might assume that all along he has known his death.

I think both teams won--assuming the QB picked by the Rams can be That Guy. They are in different conferences; all the Rams need is a QB; Tennessee needs much, much more. So the multiple picks, if handled well, could be the key to the Titans' 3-5 year plan, while the first overall, if he produces, could be the key to LA's fairly short-term success. Then, of course, there is the argument that for the Rams the trade was less about players and more about ownership making a splash to sell a bunch of tickets in LA.

Jim Harrison.

If the Dems take control of the Senate, and do confirm, that, to me, is a "let the people speak" scenario.

I don't think you understand the premise of originalism. "Speech" is an originalist category; originalists do not restrict the instances, evolving through time, that fill the category "speech" so long as they constitute something communicative that fulfills the function "speech.". You'd probably like to chop off the 2nd Amend. with muskets? or the 14th Amend. with propertied white males? or the commerce clause with only horse-driven commerce? or or or....

Not sure I follow this logic at all. To what mental contortions do you refer? 1st Amend. freedom of expression is the constitutional "right" most likely to continue to expand: There are indeed many new ways in which "speech" technologically can and culturally may and will (defecating on a flag anyone?) occur, and you left out a lot of steps that were OKed as free speech between drawing a crowd on a 1789 street corner and contributing to an organization that will advance a political point of view. I do recognize, of course (mild sarcasm alert), that you are objective in this criticism, since conservatives by no means have any advantage in big$ political clout.

" You should read the "racial entitlement " quote in context. Much scarier than I realised ." "I'm positive bigotry has been written about." One of the reasons for S's comments is the early 2000s case Reno vs. Bossier Parrish. Check it out. In that case, the gerrymandering under review (yes, both sides gerrymander) was a plan adopted by the local authorities who did not select a competing NAACP plan which would have created two big-majority black voting districts is a parish which was, as I recall, less than 25% black by population. It required extreme redrawing of district lines and violated Louisiana state election law. Reno's Justice Dept's position was, essentially, that prevention of VRA, Section 5 retrogression meant the locals had to accept the NAACP's plan because the standard for prevention of retrogression required the redistricting authority to accept the plan that came closest to the ideal for maximizing black voting power. Fair by population statistics and "not retrogressive" wasn't enough. Was the NAACP's plan bigotry? is this kind of thing a clear example of what we might call not only “perpetuation of racial entitlement” but unconstitutional (Equal Protection Clause? Due Process clause?) enforcement of the VRA? I have always thought the VRA was necessary for its times, and I can predict answers from individuals here, but I do believe that a law designed to protect and free should not be allowed to become a launching pad for political power grabs.

I haven't bothered to look up S's law review comment, but as I understand the posts I read, yes, he originated that precise terminology. My "good faith J" comment, regarding which I believe I have excessively mea culped above, was made based upon a bunch of bolded words in a google search at which I glanced while running out da house. So: NO, I would not now claim that this was bad faith J.

A couple of them, some way down the line, state that most veteran SCOTUS observers thought that this was a misfire of typical Scalia humor, that he was referring to a law review comment he had written years earlier in which he created the terminology. Ego trip.

Again with the brilliant, incisive comment. Unfortunately, I get what I deserve this time.

Again, true dat. Reasonable specificity was absolutely missing from my response....

True dat. A lesson in posting whilst running out of the house.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=perpetuation+of+racial+entitlement&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNruv0qYLLAhUS5WMKHQIOAIUQgQMIGzAA Must be missing her keyboard also. Is this good faith journalism?

I would put the matter this way: Cases that reach SCOTUS are hard cases, on the far outskirts of decided law; that's why the Court exists. Agreed? If you are familiar with the process of SCOTUS decision making, you will know that preliminary drafts of opinions AND dissents, sometimes several versions, are circulated among the justices, so that the final publication is as highly refined as possible. I believe it is difficult for a judges to be intellectually dishonest ("twisty" to the point of sham) when extensive written opinions are required and support for their reasoning, based upon a preexisting body of "received wisdom", must be provided for all to see. This requirement is the essence of a judicial action as opposed to a legislative or executive one. But I think that, when a case reaches the far outskirts, and a reasoned answer is required, a judge will fall back upon his/her fundamental view of the constitution to reach a final conclusion. I don't see this as a bias as much as it is a philosophical position. If we are debating the existence of precognition, or the possibility vel non of true AI, your view of the mind/brain problem will inform all arguments that go beyond the data.

I don't think you understand Scalia's position or the law in this area. We're talking about the source of the "right" to a new trial are we not? It is statutory, not constitutional. The usual rubric is that a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not an error-free one. You are no doubt familiar with the "system" that has allowed convicted persons to get out of prison b/c of bad -- falsified or just plain botched -- evidence, usually of the DNA variety? or newly discovered evidence? or inadequate representation? It can be done, but it is a matter of procedural rule, generated for the federal courts by SCOTUS pursuant to statutory duty, and not a constitutional matter. If you think it's source should be the Due Process clause -- and it is not -- you will find that 99.9% of the process that is due comes before verdict. If you want to see what the standards are -- and there is a requirement of diligence placed upon defendants and their counsel-- check out FRCrP 33 and the (hundreds of) case annotations.

That they announce that position is, from one point of view, refreshing: they could just say "OK, give us a nominee, and we'll act" without any intention of doing anything. I don't yet know whether it is stupid. It would be refreshing to see O nominate a truly consensus jurist; hope he doesn't nominate a non-jurist political figure who just happens to be a lawyer.

So you don't think that that rather obvious fact -- heard of an alibi defense? -- wouldn't come out at the first trial?

Nice link. Another political statement, which all arguments upon this matter will be. "What makes the Republicans' effort all the more galling is that it flies in the face of their oft-professed, unwavering allegiance to the Constitution, a document that says the president "shall nominate," with the "advice and consent of the Senate," our Supreme Court justices. It doesn't say anything at all about these duties and obligations being suspended a year or so before each president is scheduled to leave office." Correct. Nor does it say that the Senate has a duty to confirm; confirmation is generally viewed as a political concession to the president, which, in turn, does not mean that the Senate must confirm just any nominee. "Bork" is not a verb. This is not a constitutional issue, it is a political one. As othrs have pointed out, representatives of both parties talk out of both sides of their respective pie holes depending upon who is doing the nominating and who will "advise and consent." Even POTUS recognizes this in the first link you provided: “'The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference after a meeting in California with leaders of Southeast Asia. He said the Constitution demanded that a president nominate someone for the court and the Senate either confirms or rejects" and that is what will happen, and both sides will try to make whatever political hay can be made. O's best political move is to nominate a Hispanic or a LBGT. HIspanics will swing more votes.

Sincere question: how?when?

So you, as a charitable, reasonable example of homo sapiens, believe what? that the man (and others like him) just want all people charged with a capitol crime to suffer the most extreme penalty once convicted on the evidence presented ath the first trial? or are you just ignorant when it comes to constitutional theory?

"I guess Scalia did not think the 9th Amendment covered an individual's right not to be executed by the state in error." "I do understand that Scalia had his reasons, but when reasoning leads to a conclusion that can't be right, one must reexamine the reasoning. I'm fairly sure that the framers did not intend for innocent people to be put to death." First: Most folks think the 9th doesn't confer any substantive rights, it only tells us how to interpret the C's other grants of rights. Second: You both realize that your usages of "error" and 'Innocent" are practically metaphysical terms? Whether "error" has occurred and whether a person is "innocent" are unknowable in any absolute, true-false sense (except to the person and his/her victims) ---we're dealing with human processes that are designed to try to do the best we can do in morally extremely troubling circumstances. NB: Every student in every first year law class has to take Criminal Procedure. Every class spends the first week or so letting the students debate the death penalty from their personal, as yet un-legal point of view. My prof was a very symp/emp type (most of you would think that rare in a former federal prosecutor) who wanted to let everyone get it out, and respond in some way to keep the ball rolling. After a couple days, she actually said, as the only response she could muster, "well, that's a point of view." Sheesh. Wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Yeah? So? The second, he's just stating facts, that's the law. You may think 'the law are an ass,' but there ya go. The first--"tradition" is a bit twisty.... In all of this, folks should remember that jurists like Scalia don't think, e.g., that "a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction" is a bad idea, they only think it is not a constitutional idea except to the extent that legislatures may enact the will of the people.

We gonna buy gas stoves for the millions in SE Asia, India and China who still heat and cook, open air, with wood and coal? Make alternatives available, cheer on the private companies who effect real initiatives, but don't tell people they have to use them or else, don't tax oil-based fuels out of existence and don't create any more Solydras. Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. G. Marx

Breitbart has some Scalia quotes. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/13/supereme-court-justice-antonin-scalias-greatest-quotes/ No doubt NYT/Washington Post/HuffPo etc. would compile a different list, but I'd still like to see them.