• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count [W:24]

Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

tres borrachos said:
I wish I knew more about how SCOTUS worked. It would come in handy in times like this, although I suspect the almost secretive nature in which they work is necessary.

My point was more about what the OP link was talking about, and also the idiotic OP itself calling him a "psychopathic sociopath" and droning on with partisanship about republicans and all of that. There's a much better way of discussing this than with petty insults and partisan crap. This really isn't a partisan issue. It's a logical issue, and it's hardly a dead man voting. Dead men can't vote, and to try to play it off that was is just stupid.

If Scalia cast votes, and it can be verified and proven, and most importantly, the other 8 justices agree, it's in the interest of everyone to observe his votes. We don't really need to be unnecessarily clogging up an already clogged up court system.

And, as TD said, dying immediately after you do something doesn't nullify what you did. If I sign a mortgage today and then die in a month, that doesn't mean my mortgage is going to be ripped up. If I send in my absentee ballot today and drop dead tomorrow, my vote is still going to count. These are actions before a death, not the actions of a dead person (as the OP dishonestly implies).
Click to expand...

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

:agree: :thumbs: Logic is great, but it sure doesn't mean that both parties won't try their best to argue for - or against - what they want in the form of a decision! We're dealing with politicians, tres! :thumbdown: The fact that the Dems are on record saying that a nomination should be delayed in a POTUS election year will be an interesting fight to witness, IMO! :mrgreen:
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

MrT said:
The examples that you cite for your analogies are just not comparable to this situation. In terms of the Supreme Court, the only times that a vote is actually recorded is when the opinion is released by the Court. Until that moment occurs, the judges are free to switch their votes. It is, of course, unlikely that a judge would switch his vote after completing a brief, but it still allowed in these scenarios.

The examples that you both raise would only be comparable if the individual was on their way to the voting booth or the mortgage company. Once they have completed the action, then their action is binding and counts. The action, in this scenario, must be the releasing of the opinion by the Supreme Court. Until that moment has occurred, the "voting" that takes place behind closed doors is not binding on the judges or anyone else.
Click to expand...

I missed you pointing out to the OP that his analogy of dead people voting isn't comparable to the situation. Curious why you didn't do that when you seem to be stuck on analogies.

If someone is alive when he casts a vote, he's not dead. It isn't complicated. Death doesn't nullify some action that you took in life. That also isn't complicated. It appears you share the OP's extreme lack of comprehension of the difference between being alive and being dead.

Just curious, where does your knowledge on the inner workings of SCOTUS come from. Did you clerk for one of them? Study it? I don't know enough to make determinations about it as you do. I just know the OP was a mixture of pathetic blather and partisan idiocy, and lots of disingenuous statements.
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

tres borrachos said:
I missed you pointing out to the OP that his analogy of dead people voting isn't comparable to the situation. Curious why you didn't do that when you seem to be stuck on analogies.

If someone is alive when he casts a vote, he's not dead. It isn't complicated. Death doesn't nullify some action that you took in life. That also isn't complicated. It appears you share the OP's extreme lack of comprehension of the difference between being alive and being dead.

Just curious, where does your knowledge on the inner workings of SCOTUS come from. Did you clerk for one of them? Study it? I don't know enough to make determinations about it as you do. I just know the OP was a mixture of pathetic blather and partisan idiocy, and lots of disingenuous statements.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with OP's attempts to antagonize Republicans on this issue or to completely ridicule the suggestion that Scalia's votes should still count, but I do agree with the analogy that counting his behind the scenes votes that were made before the briefs were written or released to the public would be like allowing a dead person to vote. The votes made behind the scenes are just not binding and "upholding" his non-binding votes would effectively be creating a new vote based on an assumption of what he would have done if he were still alive. Thus, it is creating a vote for a dead guy.

As for my source, it comes from attending Law School, from talking with individuals that did clerk for the Supreme Court, and from following Scotusblog and Nina Totemburg.
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

TurtleDude said:
so if someone casts a vote in the presidential election pursuant to the laws but that vote is cast before election day (as is possible in almost every state of the union) and that person dies the night before the election, then that vote should be stricken? same thing
Click to expand...

Maybe you can answer the question but if it was permissible or possible for Scalia to change his mind prior to the opinion being issued, then I don't see how he's actually cast a binding vote before the opinion is released. And if the "vote" isn't binding until publication, and he died before it's published, then obviously his vote cannot count.

That's entirely different than someone casting an early ballot - once it's cast, it's final, no take backs possible.
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

JasperL said:
Maybe you can answer the question but if it was permissible or possible for Scalia to change his mind prior to the opinion being issued, then I don't see how he's actually cast a binding vote before the opinion is released. And if the "vote" isn't binding until publication, and he died before it's published, then obviously his vote cannot count.

That's entirely different than someone casting an early ballot - once it's cast, it's final, no take backs possible.
Click to expand...

I suspect it depends, if Scalia had started on writing the majority opinion I doubt it matters. and if it was a 6-3 or 7-2 or 8-1 or 9-0 decision it doesn't matter either
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Fearandloathing said:
The lawyer is out of his ****ing mind.

Scalia is dead. The right has to get over that.

NO evidence, testimony or other legal ruling can be done without the opportunity to examine that evidence. Scalia is no longer available to the other justices to discuss or question any ruling, and that goes against common law.

I suspect even the lower courts would cancel that idea
Click to expand...

It takes zombie voters to a new level.
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

TurtleDude said:
I suspect it depends, if Scalia had started on writing the majority opinion I doubt it matters. and if it was a 6-3 or 7-2 or 8-1 or 9-0 decision it doesn't matter either
Click to expand...

I see no way that "it depends" is an answer to the question whether his 'votes' prior to death can be counted. The preliminary votes are binding or they're not and if he is permitted by rule or law to change his "vote" up until the point the opinion is released, then his vote was not binding and cannot count no matter how certain we might be of what that vote would have been. Until it's final, all he's done is indicated his likely vote - that's it.

To put it in your voting analogy, your vote doesn't count until it's final, and once it's cast it must always count. The only relevant question here is whether those pre-release votes are binding/irrevocable or not.
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

JasperL said:
I see no way that "it depends" is an answer to the question whether his 'votes' prior to death can be counted. The preliminary votes are binding or they're not and if he is permitted by rule or law to change his "vote" up until the point the opinion is released, then his vote was not binding and cannot count no matter how certain we might be of what that vote would have been. Until it's final, all he's done is indicated his likely vote - that's it.

To put it in your voting analogy, your vote doesn't count until it's final, and once it's cast it must always count. The only relevant question here is whether those pre-release votes are binding/irrevocable or not.
Click to expand...

I think the USSC will decide how his vote counts and its really speculation at this point. and I am sure they know whether he could have changed his vote or not based on his prior comments and his comments with his clerks.
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

TurtleDude said:
I think the USSC will decide how his vote counts and its really speculation at this point. and I am sure they know whether he could have changed his vote or not based on his prior comments and his comments with his clerks.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem like a legal standard that would apply to anything else in life. "Well, he told his secretary and his lawyer he planned on signing that contract/will! So what he died before putting pen to paper!" Laughed out of court. :roll:

Seems like there would be a rule to govern when or if a justice is permitted to change his preliminary vote, and I can't imagine the rule refers to "prior comments and his comments with his clerks."
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

JasperL said:
Doesn't seem like a legal standard that would apply to anything else in life. "Well, he told his secretary and his lawyer he planned on signing that contract/will! So what he died before putting pen to paper!" Laughed out of court. :roll:

Seems like there would be a rule to govern when or if a justice is permitted to change his preliminary vote, and I can't imagine the rule refers to "prior comments and his comments with his clerks."
Click to expand...

if he had cast a vote and then died, his vote has been recorded.
 
digitusmedius said:
Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Golly, I just love republicans for **** like this. Here they make up stories about voter fraud and how dead people are voting for dems in yooooge numbers, stealing elections away from real americans and this guy comes out and actually declares that voting by a dead person should be allowed.



As I've said before many times, ridiculing or satirizing republicans is so difficult since they do such a good job doing it to themselves. Can we pleeeeze, pleeeeze have some moah? Why, yes, yes we can. There's plenty of insanity to go around:



Of course these psychopathic sociopaths don't back down. That's why they're psychopathic sociopaths.
Click to expand...

Is this a real story or a spoof on a satire on a bad joke?

If this guy is real, he is insane. Better yet, deny Obama a new justice by just letting a dead Scalia vote on everything for the next fifty years since we already know where he stood anyways?

Makes as much sense as this whack job stupidity.
 
Last edited:
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

TurtleDude said:
so if someone casts a vote in the presidential election pursuant to the laws but that vote is cast before election day (as is possible in almost every state of the union) and that person dies the night before the election, then that vote should be stricken? same thing

the psychotic sociopaths are those who have a pathological hatred towards Scalia, most likely due to the fact that he was not a fan of the court created right to engage in gay sex
Click to expand...

Really ****ty analogy. A person who dies after he votes gets his vote counted. Scalia never "voted" on any of the pending cases that he heard while on the court. You can't just take a biased self-serving political guess as to what his opinion several months later is going to be. No, the voting analogy for this would more likely be someone dying between his primary vote and the general election and saying that the primary vote should count. I don't think even rightwingers are silly enough to think that should be done. Or the other acceptable analogy is that someone assumes Scalia's identity and "votes" for him in the way that someone want's to believe Scalia would have voted. But thanks for really showing us how rightwingers view fraud--it's okay if you do it but woe be unto anyone you suspect of doing it without a shred of proof. Why do you think only your side should get to vote? Or, put another way, why do you hate our constitutional representative republic?
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

digitusmedius said:
Really ****ty analogy. A person who dies after he votes gets his vote counted. Scalia never "voted" on any of the pending cases that he heard while on the court. You can't just take a biased self-serving political guess as to what his opinion several months later is going to be. No, the voting analogy for this would more likely be someone dying between his primary vote and the general election and saying that the primary vote should count. I don't think even rightwingers are silly enough to think that should be done. Or the other acceptable analogy is that someone assumes Scalia's identity and "votes" for him in the way that someone want's to believe Scalia would have voted. But thanks for really showing us how rightwingers view fraud--it's okay if you do it but woe be unto anyone you suspect of doing it without a shred of proof. Why do you think only your side should get to vote? Or, put another way, why do you hate our constitutional representative republic?
Click to expand...

BS

and where did I say anything about my side?
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

soot said:
What exactly strikes you as "psychopathic" about this argument:



I mean, you can certainly argue against it:



And that argument seems perfectly fair and rational, but no more fair and rational than Langhofer's proposal.

I think that this following statement is what really determines my opinion on this issue:



I agree with Ryan, Langhofer's argument is "problematic", not psychopathic or sociopathic or anything like that.

If there was even a slight chance, however unlikely and uncharacteristic that chance may be, that Scalia could have changed his mind on something then you can't have the Constitution interpreted on the basis of eight final votes and one "maybe".
Click to expand...

For this scumbag to imagine he can count a dead justice's opinion (that is the opinion HE thinks would have happened) that hasn't been written yet and make it stand indicates a substantial degree of bizarre thinking that has to be due to severe mental illness. The suggestion is beyond absurd on its face. I even see one of you trying to compare it to person who dies AFTER he's voted in an election. To even think that's a valid analogy is suggestive of this kind of, if only slightly milder, aberrant thinking.
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

TurtleDude said:
BS

and where did I say anything about my side?
Click to expand...

You are as advertised and your words identify your side.
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

ludin said:
you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?
these were votes that were already cast while he was alive.

these are not votes that after he died someone went and voted for the issue.
then you might have a case.

that didn't happen :roll:

then the nerve to call other people psychopathic.
Click to expand...

What "votes?" Where and what are they? Again, I really marvel at the **** you people think you can rationalize not to mention get away with.
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Lutherf said:
A little common sense here wouldn't hurt you.

The court is made up of 9 justices who render an opinion in each case. Where those decisions are other than 5-4 Scalia's opinion wouldn't matter. In the rest of the decisions his opinion would only matter if he was in the majority. Should that be the case the decision would then be 4-4 and the lower court opinion would hold by default.
Click to expand...

And you assume those opinions have been written and certified? Is it mental telepathy? Is Scalia speaking to you from the grave?
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

digitusmedius said:
You are as advertised and your words identify your side.
Click to expand...

I don't have a signature that is oozing partisan hackery as you are. tell us what decisions of Scalia cause you so much bellyaching? and then amuse us by telling us why his opinions either contradicted the words of the constitution or years of established precedent. I want to see if some of you who whine about Scalia because you are hard core lefties can actually formulate an honest argument against his jurisprudence that actually is a bit more intellectual than saying you don't like the outcome
 
digitusmedius said:
Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

Golly, I just love republicans for **** like this. Here they make up stories about voter fraud and how dead people are voting for dems in yooooge numbers, stealing elections away from real americans and this guy comes out and actually declares that voting by a dead person should be allowed.



As I've said before many times, ridiculing or satirizing republicans is so difficult since they do such a good job doing it to themselves. Can we pleeeeze, pleeeeze have some moah? Why, yes, yes we can. There's plenty of insanity to go around:



Of course these psychopathic sociopaths don't back down. That's why they're psychopathic sociopaths.
Click to expand...

Are you sure those last two sentences are really quite, what you wanted to say? ;)
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

tres borrachos said:
Not sure, but my understanding is they were in the process of writing the opinions (majority and dissent). I believe only they know about the vote results but I'm also pleading a total lack of knowledge on what happens in this process
Click to expand...

I am with whatever the written rules say.
:peace
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

TurtleDude said:
if he had cast a vote and then died, his vote has been recorded.
Click to expand...

You're avoiding the legal question and if you're as bright a lawyer as you claim, you know this so I'm not sure why. I guess it's because you don't know the answer, but if so, it would be easier to simply admit it and move on.

The question is whether when he died he was permitted under the rules of the court to change his "vote" on one or more of the pending cases. If so, his "vote" was nothing more than a suggestion of what he would likely do and cannot be binding.
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

JasperL said:
You're avoiding the legal question and if you're as bright a lawyer as you claim, you know this so I'm not sure why. I guess it's because you don't know the answer, but if so, it would be easier to simply admit it and move on.

The question is whether when he died he was permitted under the rules of the court to change his "vote" on one or more of the pending cases. If so, his "vote" was nothing more than a suggestion of what he would likely do and cannot be binding.
Click to expand...

do you know what the rules are for the supreme court?
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

TurtleDude said:
do you know what the rules are for the supreme court?
Click to expand...

I do not know, which is why I keep posing the relevant question. Do you know the rules?

I've read several places that the preliminary votes aren't binding, the only binding vote, and therefore the only one that could possibly 'count' for a now dead man, is the final one just immediately prior to the opinion's release, but haven't seen any authority cited. If you have information to the contrary, share it.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems impossible to me that the legal standard is "Well, he was permitted to change his mind at any time, but we're pretty sure/nearly certain! he would have voted this way, so it's good - we'll count it!"
 
Last edited:
actually his votes in all prior cases should be annulled for good measure
 
Re: Attorney Claims Scalia's Votes In Pending Cases Should Still Count

JasperL said:
I do not know, which is why I keep posing the relevant question. Do you know the rules?

I've read several places that the preliminary votes aren't binding, the only binding vote, and therefore the only one that could possibly 'count' for a now dead man, is the final one just immediately prior to the opinion's release, but haven't seen any authority cited. If you have information to the contrary, share it.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems impossible to me that the legal standard is "Well, he was permitted to change his mind at any time, but we're pretty sure/nearly certain! he would have voted this way, so it's good - we'll count it!"
Click to expand...

I don't know either. that's why I said the court will do what it will do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom