R.I.P Justice Scalia

[mariemeyer]

Justice Ginsburg has written a moving tribute to Justice Scalia..  They shared an interest in the opera and spwent New Year's Eve together for many years.

 In a tribute to Scalia as an interlocutor, a fellow opera lover — including a reference to the opera Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of Operatic Proportions, which debuted in 2015 — and a "best buddy"  Justice Ginsburg writes....

"Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: 'We are different, we are one,' different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the 'applesauce' and 'argle bargle'—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his 'energetic fervor,' 'astringent intellect,' 'peppery prose,' 'acumen,' and 'affability,' all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.

Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend."

[James_Gale]

For some Justice Scalia was a conservative ipso facto that made him a bad man, or at least a bad jurist.  It just remains to show how his writings can be interpreted to demonstrate it.

For others, that ipso facto made him a good man, or at least a good jurist. They will praise him for having been on the right side.

Peace,
Michael

Much of the media and much of the public views the Court primarily in political terms -- as a policy-making body.  In reporting on decisions, news outlets often report that the Court favored or opposed some policy when in fact the Court did no such  thing, instead simply interpreting the law (which individual justices may or may not have "favored").


Even high-end media make this kind of mistake.  The lead headline in yesterday's Washington Post -- in bold at the very top of the front page -- "Supreme Court conservative dismayed liberals."  The accompanying article, by the Post's Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes, was good.  (I subscribe to the Post and find its reporting generally to be very good.)

[Richard Johnson]

Justice Ginsburg has written a moving tribute to Justice Scalia..  They shared an interest in the opera and spwent New Year's Eve together for many years.

 In a tribute to Scalia as an interlocutor, a fellow opera lover — including a reference to the opera Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of Operatic Proportions, which debuted in 2015 — and a "best buddy"  Justice Ginsburg writes....

"Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: 'We are different, we are one,' different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the 'applesauce' and 'argle bargle'—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his 'energetic fervor,' 'astringent intellect,' 'peppery prose,' 'acumen,' and 'affability,' all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.

Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend."

Thanks for posting this, Marie.

[JEdwards]

My comment remains. I find it sad that a jurist, especially a constitutional jurist, regrets that certain rights were given and twould limit those rights if he were "king" (or perhaps in the majority on the court?).

Are you not aware, Charles, that in the case referenced in these comments, Justice Scalia WAS in the majority - joining Justice Brennan's opinion for the Court that burning the American flag is speech protected by the First Amendment?  The vote was 5-4, so he did not join the majority for strategic reasons. He really did have the power to put Mr. Johnson in jail, but instead demonstrated his respect for the Constitution.

Peace,
Jon

[David Garner]

My comment remains. I find it sad that a jurist, especially a constitutional jurist, regrets that certain rights were given and twould limit those rights if he were "king" (or perhaps in the majority on the court?).

Are you not aware, Charles, that in the case referenced in these comments, Justice Scalia WAS in the majority - joining Justice Brennan's opinion for the Court that burning the American flag is speech protected by the First Amendment?  The vote was 5-4, so he did not join the majority for strategic reasons. He really did have the power to put Mr. Johnson in jail, but instead demonstrated his respect for the Constitution.

Peace,
Jon

Apparently he was not aware.

Here is a fantastic article about Justice Scalia by David Axelrod.  It completely belies the impression Pastor Austin apparently has of the man, and the jurist.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/index.html?sr=fbpol021416david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia0759PMStoryLink&linkId=21262477

[George Erdner]

   I cannot find the quote immediately, but one of the late justice's remarks said that he was "sorry" that the constitution gave permissions and rights to the "scruffy" ones (protestors, I think) that he did not like. I suppose we ought to be glad that he recognized the rights, but it bothers me that such a high-placed jurist would regret that those rights were given.

I'd like to read the quote in context.

It bothers me that some people are entitled to wear a clerical collar, but I am not one with the authority to change that.

[Dave Likeness]

The Clerical Collar:

When I attended Concordia Seminary, St. Louis from 1964 to 1968,
none of the seminarians wore clerical collars to their class rooms.
Amazingly, some of the professors wore clerical collars when they
taught in the class room:  Dr. A.C. Piepkorn,  Dr. Donald Deffner,
Prof. George Hoyer were the only ones that I recall.

However, there were some classy professors who had the gift of sartorial
splendor: Dr. Robert Preus with his herringbone sport coats, Prof. William
Danker in Hart Schaffner Marx suits, Dr. Robert Bertram in button down
collar shirts and a dark blue blazer....just to name a few.

Bottom Line:  A clerical collar is adiaphoria for the parish pastor.

[Charles Austin]

Well, Peter, if you wish to declare that the "goofy sect of liberal Protestantism" presumably including the ELCA, the church wherein I and some few others here dwell, is not Christian;  I respectfully request that you get the hell off this discussion board.  I am truly sick of hearing your condemnations declaring that those of us in this "goofy sect" do not care about human life simply because we do not accept your view on abortions.

[Dan Fienen]

Well, Peter, if you wish to declare that the "goofy sect of liberal Protestantism" presumably including the ELCA, the church wherein I and some few others here dwell, is not Christian;  I respectfully request that you get the hell off this discussion board.  I am truly sick of hearing your condemnations declaring that those of us in this "goofy sect" do not care about human life simply because we do not accept your view on abortions.

Well, Charles, would you please quote where Peter said that you or the ELCA were not Christian?  Or does calling your church affiliation a "goofy sect of liberal Protestantism" count as equivalent to denying your Christianity?  If so does saying (oh so respectfully as befits speaking about the President of a Lutheran church body) that something our Synodical President wrote "That statement has enough goopy theological/constitutional/civic/historical/social and political wiggle-waggles to make a bowl of jello look like a piece of granite." count as denying that he is Christian.

You are very sensitive to perceived slights, and very good at dishing them out.

[George Erdner]

The Clerical Collar:

When I attended Concordia Seminary, St. Louis from 1964 to 1968,
none of the seminarians wore clerical collars to their class rooms.
Amazingly, some of the professors wore clerical collars when they
taught in the class room:  Dr. A.C. Piepkorn,  Dr. Donald Deffner,
Prof. George Hoyer were the only ones that I recall.

However, there were some classy professors who had the gift of sartorial
splendor: Dr. Robert Preus with his herringbone sport coats, Prof. William
Danker in Hart Schaffner Marx suits, Dr. Robert Bertram in button down
collar shirts and a dark blue blazer....just to name a few.

Bottom Line:  A clerical collar is adiaphoria for the parish pastor.

No, "entitled to wear a clerical collar" is a metaphor describing any ordained member of the clergy.

[peter_speckhard]

Well, Peter, if you wish to declare that the "goofy sect of liberal Protestantism" presumably including the ELCA, the church wherein I and some few others here dwell, is not Christian;  I respectfully request that you get the hell off this discussion board.  I am truly sick of hearing your condemnations declaring that those of us in this "goofy sect" do not care about human life simply because we do not accept your view on abortions.

See, that didn't seem like a respectful request to me, but at any rate rest assured I know many, many members of the ELCA and other mainline bodies whom I am glad to number among my Christian friends. That having been said, I don't care what you are truly sick of. If you think it should be legal to dismember unborn babies, you don't care about the sanctity of life.

[Dan Fienen]

The Clerical Collar:

When I attended Concordia Seminary, St. Louis from 1964 to 1968,
none of the seminarians wore clerical collars to their class rooms.
Amazingly, some of the professors wore clerical collars when they
taught in the class room:  Dr. A.C. Piepkorn,  Dr. Donald Deffner,
Prof. George Hoyer were the only ones that I recall.

However, there were some classy professors who had the gift of sartorial
splendor: Dr. Robert Preus with his herringbone sport coats, Prof. William
Danker in Hart Schaffner Marx suits, Dr. Robert Bertram in button down
collar shirts and a dark blue blazer....just to name a few.

Bottom Line:  A clerical collar is adiaphoria for the parish pastor.

Flash forward a few years to 1974.  I was a senior at the Senior College at the time of the Great Walkout and the funeral for CSL.  When Seminex seminarians came to Ft. Wayne and give us Pre-Sem students the benefit of their great insights into the theological issues of the day, they almost invariably wore their clerical collars.  What they had done in class, I do not know.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen asks why I think Peter has erred and maligned millions of us. Here's why.
Peter writes:
A statement by the justice of how glad he is that people have rights despite his personal preference is taken by you to mean he is sorry they have those rights.
I comment:
Well, for heaven's sake! Am I not to conclude that he would not "prefer" to have his religious, personal and judicial preference (that the protesters could be banned)? "Not prefer" can, in sensible conversation, equal "sorry." And BTW, he never said he was "glad" people had those rights he dislikes. He just (reluctantly, in my reading) admitted that they had them.

Peter writes:
The sanctity of human life is an issue dear to all Christians. That you dwell in the goofy sect of liberal Protestantism is your problem.
I comment:
In simple reading (people here like to do that, right?) the "goofy sect of liberal Protestantism" is set over against "all Christians." Sounds insulting and not very inclusive to me. In clear apposition is "Christian" and "liberal Protestantism"(that "goofy" non-christian "sect).

Peter writes:
That you find a church leader praying for devout secular leaders per Luther's catechism (and in the case of a nation led by the people, a devout citizenry) to be such goopy wiggle-waggle is a further comment on you and your church, not President Harrison. 
I comment:
No, it is not the call to prayer that bothers me (and apparently some others here). It is those other words.

Peter continues:
See, that didn't seem like a respectful request to me, but at any rate rest assured I know many, many members of the ELCA and other mainline bodies whom I am glad to number among my Christian friends.
I comment:
But, Peter! They are with me in that body of millions and millions of Christians sharing complex and nuanced views on abortions, led by a teaching statement that does not call every abortion murder. They did not leave the ELCA when we adopted that statement.

Peter writes:
That having been said, I don't care what you are truly sick of. If you think it should be legal to dismember unborn babies, you don't care about the sanctity of life.
I comment:
And if you continue to insist that the only way to care about the "sanctity of life" and the only "Christian" view is that a human person exists the minute sperm meets egg then I have my own assessment of who is "sectarian," whose "church," or whose "fellowship" stands on its own, abrogating to itself all certainty on the issue at hand.
There is no other way to interpret your words, Peter. You say that of us who support the current abortion legislation, who do not want to see it overturned; those of us who understand that a woman, her husband/partner, and most likely their pastor can in good faith and conscience decide to terminate a pregnancy under those laws do not care about human life and are not Christian.
If that is not your view (since you contend that I never get you right), then just say, "That is not my view." 

[Charles Austin]

And it is time again to remind myself (and perhaps others) where I am and what it is to be in this forum.
Of the roughly 60 people with more than 1,000 postings, about seven are members of the ELCA, and two or three of those are in serious or total opposition to the ELCA on certain subjects.
Among the Missourians are some hard-liners, a couple of them as eager to pot-shot certain other Missourians as they are to denounce the rest of us. Moderator Peter is in a class ("sect"?) by himself.
Pastor Stoffregen is frequently maligned, made fun of and his postings made the subject of ridicule. (He remains incredibly patient.) A couple of those who make a point of not reading my comments nonetheless take opportunities to level insults or denunciations, even to the point of making fun of my vocation as ELCA pastor.
Recently a few more ELCA voices seem to have departed this forum. They join some who left in disgust a few years ago (expressing the disgust privately, so go ahead and said I got it wrong.)
That's the situation here. Something to think about. Once a staunch, eager, contributing supporter of ALPB, I am wondering whether today's ALPB is anything that I or anyone in the ELCA should be participating in and supporting.

[peter_speckhard]

And it is time again to remind myself (and perhaps others) where I am and what it is to be in this forum.
Of the roughly 60 people with more than 1,000 postings, about seven are members of the ELCA, and two or three of those are in serious or total opposition to the ELCA on certain subjects.
Among the Missourians are some hard-liners, a couple of them as eager to pot-shot certain other Missourians as they are to denounce the rest of us. Moderator Peter is in a class ("sect"?) by himself.
Pastor Stoffregen is frequently maligned, made fun of and his postings made the subject of ridicule. (He remains incredibly patient.) A couple of those who make a point of not reading my comments nonetheless take opportunities to level insults or denunciations, even to the point of making fun of my vocation as ELCA pastor.
Recently a few more ELCA voices seem to have departed this forum. They join some who left in disgust a few years ago (expressing the disgust privately, so go ahead and said I got it wrong.)
That's the situation here. Something to think about. Once a staunch, eager, contributing supporter of ALPB, I am wondering whether today's ALPB is anything that I or anyone in the ELCA should be participating in and supporting.

i think you are the only one who regularly and predictably posts about what a bad forum this is. Inexplicably, you visit it every single day as though under some sort of compulsion. And you are outraged when anyone finds your posts to be of the quality you ascribe to the letter put out by the president of the LCMS. Too bad for you. I have been describing liberal Protestantism as essentially one unified sect in this forum for probably ten years or more. It is a perfectly mainstream opinion, too.

I never said anything about a fertilized egg from the moment of conception. I said if you think it should be legal to dismember an unborn baby then you do not care about the sanctity of life. I stand by that statement as self-evidently true.

What you referred to as wiggle-waggle was simple a prayer for the first article gift of devout rulers and good government, including a devout electorate. Whatever problem you have with that is your problem, not anyone else's.

I will defer to Brian S. as to whether there is no other way to interpret my words. If he says it is so, then I will have achieved a linguistic first, a superhuman feat of clarity not even the Spirit-inspired authors of holy Scripture could manage. But since you obviously misinterpreted Justice Scalia and then doubled down on your error when several people pointed out you got it wrong, I won't worry about your interpretation of my words.