55 Comments
Yvette Gagum
2/15/2016 04:37:16 pm
The first article (the Editorial Board on Scalia) focuses on Scalia's legacy and impact of his death on the supreme court, commenting on how the Supreme Court enjoyed his unique style of getting things done in a conservative and direct way. It voiced the fear of President Obama nominating a new Justice who will "undo" everything Scalia had set forth, and how Scalia's view on politics will carry over to the new set of Judges and Lawyers and Justices who are now reading and analyzing Scalia's words. The Second article (Douthat on Scalia's legacy) tells a similar tale. Though the writer started the article by commenting on somewhat negative comments on Scalia, the article opens up to opinions on how Scalia was very impactful and influential to generations to come (basically talking all about how amazing the guy was). It doesn't compare Scalia to other justices and their decisions in detail, but did say that his death "promises a nightmare" in terms of politics and legislation.
Reply
2/16/2016 09:20:34 pm
Yeah, Scalia was interesting with his "dead Constitution" belief but what honestly made me interested the most was how one of the article basically described Scalia as a "final boss" to liberals. It was interesting and made me laugh, but I did see a significant amount of similarities between the two. Kinda like reading the same thing, but with only minute differences.
Reply
Andie Stockwell
2/16/2016 09:25:52 pm
I would agree that the second article might start on rather negative ground but ends up singing Scalia's praises saying "he was the most important Supreme Court justice of his era." I would also agree that both texts mostly just say nice things about him so there isn't very much to compare there; neither author found much fault with his methods and admired his straight-forwardness.
Reply
Barter
2/18/2016 10:47:17 am
The "Dead Constitution" article did admire the man, but clearly had no regard for his "originalist" method.
Imelda
2/17/2016 08:03:48 am
I also noticed that the second article focused a lot more on the effect his death will have on the imbalance of the court instead of just his legacy.
Reply
Kynzie
2/18/2016 06:35:24 am
I agree with Imelda. The second article went over how this will swing the Supreme Court to the left is Obama chooses a liberal judge.
Lupita
2/18/2016 09:33:03 am
I agree, but both articles did focus on his personality, like him sticking to his principles and how important that was on the bench.
Jacqueline Fonseca
2/16/2016 07:28:03 am
The first article talks about Scalia in a good light. They say even from the beginning he was willing to state his opinion and never compromised. That leading to his dissents that were different than everyone else's. He was also a man who believed that the Constitution was not a living one and didn't change with new things, so instead it should be amended not interrupted. The second article also talks about how he was different than the other Justices just in a different way. The second article more said how that with him leaving the seat open in a Democratic presidency will leave the court unbalanced and will mess up the 5-4 decisions that the court originally had. It also says how him dying will bring up a battle between the two political parties to see what will happen.
Reply
2/16/2016 09:23:24 pm
You know, I didn't notice that the first article actually states Scalia in a positive light. I noticed the similarities and how the writes both stated of the "nightmare" coming to happen and the political shift because of the absent conservative judge. Aside from that, everything you have said is basically the entirety of the articles, so there isn't much more to comment on that.
Reply
Andie Stockwell
2/16/2016 09:30:44 pm
I agree. The first article makes comment to how Scalia functioned independently and how he was very excitable to name-calling against opposing view points. Both articles address the political unrest or reduction of Scalia's work his death will cause...but it was bound to happen eventually so.
Reply
Imelda
2/17/2016 08:01:27 am
I agree that the second article expresses more concern with what effect Scalia's death will have on the strain between the two political parties.
Reply
Yvette Gagum
2/17/2016 06:22:31 pm
I defiantly agree. The second article defiantly discussed how Scalia's death had a big political impact on the court and other two branches of government. The first article focused more on is Legacy and how he voted in major decisions.
Reply
Robert M
2/18/2016 05:36:24 am
I also find that the second article focused on his opinions and his important votes. But it doesn't really pain Scalia as this great man for his votes it says that he is great because of his intellect and ideas. The court was split in several of his rulings and the second article author argues that the most important justices are the swing votes (the people that we didn't know which way they would vote). He says that his dissents were eloquent yes however it was almost as if he was perturbed at the ruling and would often argue against it. He even went as far as to say that the rulings that mattered most to Scalia, he lost, such as abortion. Which I felt the second author really slapped him in the face and peppered it with compliments.
Reply
Andie Stockwell
2/16/2016 08:09:18 pm
This isn't an actual comment but you said there would only be one article to read, ya liar, ya teller of tales.
Reply
Barter
2/18/2016 10:49:42 am
Liar liar liar, you sound like D.T. =)
Reply
2/16/2016 09:17:06 pm
So from what I have gathered, both articles mention basically the same things. They both talk of how Justice Scalia is a judge who was one of a kind, who believed and was most famous for the idea of a "dead Constitution", and how Scalia's worst nightmare may happen because of his passing. It is interesting to see people's opinions on Scalia, as I don't have much of an idea on him, and to hear of what he has ruled so I can get a bigger picture. However while he was an important justice, with one article arguing he was the most important in terms of certain respects, there seems to be an undertone of "Scalia's death will shift the balance and political spectrum" that seems to have much more focus and immediate threat than our judge's passing. That is all I really gathered from it, though.
Reply
Payson
2/17/2016 07:01:15 pm
I agree with that last part of yours that they talk about the potential effects of his death and not his death itself at times. Intact, i feel the main purpose of each essay was not to glorify Scalia, but to discuss what is to come of the courts.
Reply
Deanna Strayer
2/17/2016 09:03:09 pm
I'm not saying that I hate Scalia or anything even close to that, but I feel parts of the articles may have been a bit liberal with their praise of Scalia. They both made some very good points on his importance in court, but there are arguments that are just as valid for several other members of the court. It's hard for me to say that Scalia was definitely the "most" important of his time.
Reply
Laura Jackson
2/18/2016 06:38:44 am
I agree with you, Deanna. I think both these pieces were written from a memorial-esque point of view - less critique and more praise. If there had been written at a later date I believe there would have been more of a balance between the two, but because it is so close to his death many authors avoid critisism of insensitivity and stay complimentary.
Madeline Arbogast
2/18/2016 07:06:41 am
They weren't about to bash on him, I mean he was a supreme court judge and all. But for the conservative side of law, Scalia did make a huge impact. he set the tone for others to follow and introduced a lot of new ideas. So I don't think it's too big of a leap to say that he was pretty important.
Barter
2/18/2016 10:53:57 am
Agreed. We tend to heap to much praise on people when they die, no one wants to be seen as "spitting on the grave."
Robert M.
2/18/2016 05:44:05 am
I definitely agree with Deanna's reply. The second article was definitely more liberal as it blatantly objected Scalia in the first section whereas the first author seemed as though we had lost a hero.
Reply
Nina Almase
3/1/2016 10:35:47 am
Yes I agree even republicans that have a sound mind know what is right- OBAMA HAS THE RIGHT
Andie Stockwell
2/16/2016 09:20:32 pm
Both articles reflect on Scalia's political career as a Supreme Court Justice in positive terms. The first articles focuses on his conceptualization of the constitution as dead and his outspoken manner of addressing issues. The second article talks about Scalia's consistent way of putting original ideology above partisan conservatism.
Reply
Yvette Gagum
2/17/2016 06:28:00 pm
I totally agree, and the second article didn't really touch up on Scalia's impact as much as the first did, and it really focused on his death's impact on the political sphere. The other one focused on Scalia's impact on the courts and future generations of Law workers.
Reply
Jacob Acuña
2/17/2016 09:23:17 pm
True that Yvette.
Barter
2/18/2016 10:56:19 am
What's true is that "true that" does not a comment make.
Payson
2/17/2016 07:09:25 pm
Well said. I agree with everything you've stated. The only thing I can think to add is the first article just says that Scalia is the most important justice, but the second one specifically names the other two justices as the most important in some respects then specifies the areas that Scalia has more influence.
Reply
Laura Jackson
2/18/2016 06:35:28 am
There was a significant amount of praise in each (with varying levels of subtlety), and the overwhelming impression I got from them was almost a eulegy. I thought that, from the source, (NYT) there would be some critique of his character but there was a notible abscence.
Reply
Imelda Fragoza
2/17/2016 07:58:17 am
The article by Douthat openly praised Scalia. It is sure of the impact he had on the Supreme Court with his opposition to viewing the constitution as a "living" document. The author praises Scalia for making decisions based off of the idea that different interpretations of the constitution must come with new amendments. The second article by Murphy is a little more subtle in his praise for Scalia.
Reply
Jacob Acuña
2/17/2016 09:22:46 pm
Yeah, the first one was a little more subtle in including his approval of Scalia's role in the court.
Reply
Payson
2/17/2016 06:51:24 pm
Both articles place heavy focus on how Antonin Scalia was different than the other justices on the Supreme Court. The main thing each cites is Scalia's opposition to a "living constitution" and his outspokenness. The articles differ, however, in two main ways. The first way is that the first article seems to praise Scalia more than the second article. The second difference is that the first article called Scalia a conservative outright while the other article specifically noted how Scalia dissented and stayed above partisanship by sticking to a strict set of principles. That is all.
Reply
Deanna Strayer
2/17/2016 08:59:29 pm
I found Scalia's view that the Constitution is and should remain "dead" to be quite interesting. I don't necessarily agree with his opinion, but it has opened up some room for political debate on the subject.
Reply
Deanna Strayer
2/17/2016 08:57:12 pm
The first article mainly focuses on Scalia's history in court along with his attitude and how people viewed him. It briefly touched on the political impact of his death in the final paragraphs and makes the neutral statement that there will likely never be another justice quite like him. The second article dives a bit deeper into the political ramifications of his death and ends up highly praising Scalia as the most important justice of his time, which is debatable.
Reply
Jacqueline Fonseca
2/18/2016 10:21:38 am
I agree, both of the articles mainly talked about the history of Scalia and both said that he was different than the rest of the judges.
Reply
Barter
2/18/2016 10:58:17 am
He was the first to aggressively question lawyers from the bench.
Jacob Acuña
2/17/2016 09:21:38 pm
Former Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was, I think, a vital asset to not only the Supreme Court, but to our Republic as whole. Though I may not agree with his view of our Constitution being "dead", I do believe that it is important to acknowledge and take into account different interpretations of the Constitution in order to better represent the American people and our valuable rights. The Honorable Scalia's death, I agree, is untimely as the our President is unable to exercise his constitutionally given rights as the right wing will stop at nothing to halt required proceedings in favor of their own agenda as they scramble to find their presidential candidate in this electrifying campaign trail to the most important office in all of the world.
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
2/18/2016 07:00:37 am
I find it interesting and ironic that the conservatives are saying that Obama shouldn't appoint someone but Scalia believed in the written words of the constitution, and thus his philosophy would have to support Obama appointing someone, as is his duty according to the constitution.
Reply
Robert M.
2/18/2016 05:31:37 am
I feel as though both articles are straining to convey the same message. That justice Scalia's death is unfortunate in this time period however for different reasons. One such that his conservatism will be replaced with that of a liberal and another being that his intellectual capacity and rigor will leave the court and that is something which should never be replaced. For Scalia the trials were many in the several decades that he ruled and it is important to note that he was a justice who wasn't necessarily as important as the swing votes of O'Connor and Kennedy. He was someone who was stubborn and hard nosed. As he entered his term he was not afraid to challenge the norm and even dissent against the standard dissent in order to express his own ideologies. He was also a man who inspired several and believed in a standing rather than a living constitution such as the case of his counterparts on the bench. The articles convey that Scalia was a remarkable man despite ones political beliefs but it was because of his philosophies and intellectual capacity that we will remember him.
Reply
Kynzie
2/18/2016 06:40:55 am
I agree with Robert. Scalia's death has come at an unfortunate time and this could cause a split. The articles both had different ways of explaining his impact on the Supreme Court. They explained that he stood up for what he believed in, regardless of the odds. That can be hard to find.
Reply
Jerbear
2/18/2016 07:19:29 am
Robert i would have to disagree with you...
Reply
Laura Jackson
2/18/2016 06:25:11 am
Both article speak on the various skills, traits and legend left behind by Judge Scalia. One speakimh on the impact he has left behind - inspiration to new generations and a source of new constituonal interpretations. Each article contains respectful praise and critique of the judge and his impact on the Supreme Court System; Scalia defied many expectations during his time as judge and primarily followed his own code. While he was a conservative judge, no doubt, Scalia didnt let that dictate his every decision. Although he was involved in numerous important decisions (such as Citizens United), I think a great part of Scalia's legacy will come from the debate about his successor and the interpretation of the Constitution.
Reply
Jerbear
2/18/2016 07:12:42 am
Laura i love your little bloop " speakimh "...
Reply
Kynzie
2/18/2016 06:45:19 am
Both of these articles explain Scalia's impact on the Supreme Court. They address him as a person with opinions and the guts to stick to those opinions. That is what made him memorable and important to the court. Now the President must choose a new court member which can be difficult for his choice could be vetoed.
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
2/18/2016 06:56:17 am
This first article discusses Scalia's importance and his legacy. It goes into how he has inspired many young conservative lawyers and has shaped the was conservative law is practiced. It mostly discusses his ideas of Textualism and a dead constitution that only changes with amendments. The second article took more of an objective view, in my opinion, because it talked about his wins and loses in the court and his career more so than his legacy. It then went into what his death means for the court and the republic. Talking about how we have a 4-4 with a split vote and how the American people feel that is fair or mostly fair, but if a liberal judge is appointed by Obama that could be disaster for the country because the people would not believe it to be an unbiased decision. Both articles claimed that Scalia was extremely important and has changed the way the court runs.
Reply
Ryan S.
2/18/2016 09:29:19 am
I agree with Maddie in the belief appointing a liberal judge would be detrimental to the court and would also probably be blocked by the Republican majority in the Senate
Reply
Jacqueline Fonseca
2/18/2016 10:23:17 am
I agree. I believe that if President Obama choose a liberal to be the new justice than the Republican party would turn it down in hopes that they win the next Presidential election.
Jeremy
2/18/2016 07:06:29 am
I actually really liked these articles. The didn't feel like they had soooo much bias it was overwhelming. Although one or both of the authors may not have agreed with Justice Scalia i think that all of them did well at uplifting his qualities instead of bringing forth how horrible they believed him to be. I really liked how the highlight of Scalia was the foundation of his beliefs and why he believed in what he did. And both really show the legacy that he leaves behind as a stonewall in the Supreme Court, focusing on his philosophy and how that was the mainstay of his beliefs not political ideology. Although Justice Scalia is dead i think that whomever attempts to fill in his shoes is going to have a very hard time living up to the legacy of Justice Scalia.
Reply
Barter
2/18/2016 11:02:13 am
Republicans are arguing that since his legacy is so large that the next Judge should be modeled on the Scalia mold.
Reply
Ryan S.
2/18/2016 09:23:28 am
Both these articles were very enlightening as to the nature of Scalia as a judge and the second article especially highlighted the controversy around the new supreme judge appointment and the paradigm of the past thirty years of the ability of the court being able to swing to both sides of the political spectrum. I do believe it makes the most sense for Obama to attempt to appoint a moderate judge who the republicans can agree on that will keep the court in a tippable balance when it comes to court rulings
Reply
Ryan S
2/18/2016 09:27:28 am
I would also like to make my argument against some of what Scalia believed, he says the constitution should be depicted as a dead document and that making it living is incorrect but in reality the constitution was mainly a set of ideals that are not put in any real context, to even attempt to apply it to the many minute conflicts in out present society we must make living to come to a decision
Reply
Barter
2/18/2016 11:03:50 am
He would reply to your comment by saying "then the people should amend it"
Reply
Lupita
2/18/2016 09:30:02 am
The first article mainly reflects on his time on the bench and what type of judge he was, it does praise him for sticking to his principal and not changing to fit society. The article talks more of his effect when he was alive than what his death does to the court. I liked how the article discussed how he was important without being the deciding vote. The second article (maybe the first idk the other article) talked about his death being at the most unconvient time for him, hahaha (when is death convenient) because he had said he wanted the person who replaced him to not come in and try to undo everything he had done, which is likely what is going to happen if Obama nominates a new justice.
Reply
Barter
2/18/2016 11:09:41 am
Comments are now clsed
Reply
Nina Almase
3/1/2016 10:33:55 am
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2020
Categories |