• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Scalia flip flops

They may not be finished, but we can all agree that, much like Atlanta, they are in decline.

Not to hijack, but why all the Atlanta hate? Are you the one who keeps posting this? I've read it several times on here. I'm not an Atlanta apologist, but I live here and want to know the definition of being "in decline" so I can better plan my day.
 
I understand that I am ill informed. Decline is my raison d'etre.
 
Least shocking political flip-flop ever. Don't these guys understand that their actions are memorialized and studied forever? You can't talk your way around your own statements on the record. Not when your sudden about-face is so clearly political. Apparently Scalia has no issue with being canonized as a political-motivated activist judge who changed his legal interpretations to support short-term preferred agendas. Most judges would bend over backwards to avoid such a legacy. I guess Scalia doesn't care about his place in history.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/09/understanding-justice-scalias-concurring-opinion-in-raich/

There has been a lot of chatter lately about how Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Raich somehow binds him to rule for the government in the challenge to the ACA. As the lawyer for Angel Raich, I admit to being disappointed by the outcome of the case, by Justice Scalia’s vote, and by his opinion. But during the course of that litigation I became very familiar with the issues raised by that case, and since then have come to appreciate the problem with which Justice Scalia was wrestling. There are two very important implications of his opinion in Raich, and neither benefit the government’s case.
 
Not to hijack, but why all the Atlanta hate? Are you the one who keeps posting this? I've read it several times on here. I'm not an Atlanta apologist, but I live here and want to know the definition of being "in decline" so I can better plan my day.

I am not the one that started it and I haven't ever used it as a tag. In fact, this is probably the first time I have ever referenced that particular nugget of ogboard pop culture. I think it arose out of an article about Atlanta, but I am not sure...

Now, let the "Scalia is a flip-flopping flip-flopper circle jerk" re-commence.
 
I didn't know you were Raich's lawyer, RaleighDevil. Impressive. But must have been very hard to deal with that loss and at the same time keep your head firmly lodged up Scalia's anus and pass off Volokh guy's work as if it were your own.
 
Being able to describe how and why the bill was put together is different that being paid to vote against it. Kagan is a close call. Thomas isn't.

I agree. Being a little bit pregnant is not the same as being fully pregnant.
 
http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/09/understanding-justice-scalias-concurring-opinion-in-raich/

There has been a lot of chatter lately about how Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Raich somehow binds him to rule for the government in the challenge to the ACA. As the lawyer for Angel Raich, I admit to being disappointed by the outcome of the case, by Justice Scalia’s vote, and by his opinion. But during the course of that litigation I became very familiar with the issues raised by that case, and since then have come to appreciate the problem with which Justice Scalia was wrestling. There are two very important implications of his opinion in Raich, and neither benefit the government’s case.

Nothing binds him, but he can't wiggle away from several unqualified statements he made in his opinion. There's not really much room to even try to redefine them so that it looks like he's not contradicting himself. He can't run from his longstanding support of a powerful and sweeping Commerce Power. Not without being transparently political.
 
Nothing binds him, but he can't wiggle away from several unqualified statements he made in his opinion. There's not really much room to even try to redefine them so that it looks like he's not contradicting himself. He can't run from his longstanding support of a powerful and sweeping Commerce Power. Not without being transparently political.

Sure he can. Those who oppose Obamacare do not see it even remotely as a flip-flop (as I have articulated on several prior threads). Those who support Obamacare and view it as a flip-flop didn't like him anyway, and I doubt he was too concerned with their opinions. We are doing the exact same thing that you are chastizing him for doing (and, what every justice before him has done - use some component of prcedent to justify his ultimate opinion on the outcome while distinguishing contrary precedent). He will make his decision, I will agree with it, you will not agree with it, his life will go on uninterrupted regardless of your opinion of him, and Shoo will continue to whine like a bitch.
 
By articulating it on several prior threads, 2&2 means he has made legal arguments that make the unfrozen caveman lawyer look like Clarence Darrow.
 
Don't fuck with the unfrozen caveman lawyer. He may not understand our iron birds and such, but he does know that a man slips and falls on the ice, he is entitled to no less than $5,000,000.00.
 
By articulating it on several prior threads, 2&2 means he has made legal arguments that make the unfrozen caveman lawyer look like Clarence Darrow. His prediction that I would continue to whine like a bitch, however, makes 2&2 look like Nostradamus.

Edited for accuracy.
 
http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/09/understanding-justice-scalias-concurring-opinion-in-raich/

There has been a lot of chatter lately about how Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Raich somehow binds him to rule for the government in the challenge to the ACA. As the lawyer for Angel Raich, I admit to being disappointed by the outcome of the case, by Justice Scalia’s vote, and by his opinion. But during the course of that litigation I became very familiar with the issues raised by that case, and since then have come to appreciate the problem with which Justice Scalia was wrestling. There are two very important implications of his opinion in Raich, and neither benefit the government’s case.

I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall that some of Scalia's questions had to do with whether forcing people to buy health care was proper.
 
Back
Top