Scalia consistently harmed the most vulnerable

San Jose Mercury News ^ | 02/16/2016 | William B. Gould IV

[artichokegrower]

The death of anyone is always cause for sorrow. Moreover Justice Antonin Scalia was unusual -- a man of considerable intellect who used it to frequently dominate the give and take of oral argument at the Supreme Court. But make no mistake about it: His mode of interpretation, be it of statutes or constitution, almost invariably harmed the most vulnerable who came to the courts seeking redress for their claims.

[Georgia Girl 2]

San Jose. That figures.

[jazusamo]

William B. Gould IV , a professor of law, emeritus, at Stanford University, is the former chair of the National Labor Relations Board. He wrote this for this newspaper.

Yep, a liberal leftist chair of the NLRB under Bill Clinton.

[Robert DeLong]

WILLIAM B. GOULD IV, A.K.A. Mr. Pantload

[MortMan]

Fidelity to the law as written is not harm caused by the judge.

[NJRighty]

An abiding theme of Scalia was his view that he was required to be limited by original intent in the Constitution -- a document written by many slaveholders and proponents of slave power.

What the heck does their being slaveowners have to do with how to interpret the Constitution?

[Fungi]

What bothers me most is that these people (fools) who read this stuff are really that naive and gullible to believe it? That the leftist rag continually repeats this nonsense is another issue. Heaven help us.

[right way right]

The word ‘but’ always that what follows is complete BS.
Anyone ever notice that?

[quietly desperate]

If your rich don’t bother showing up at Gould’s court.

[Crucial]

Scalia often fought for the right that superseded all others and that is the right of people to govern themselves. Liberal minorities and whites should be dropping to their knees in sorrow and thanks for this man. But they’re just too stupid to see.

[right way right]

means

[uncitizen]

The most vulnerable are the unborn. So no, he hasn’t.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Regrettably, Scalia was inconsistent when his own desire to achieve the end result demanded inconsistency. In 1991 he wrote a balanced concurring opinion concluding that public employee unions could charge non-member dissenters for dues under a so-called fair share system (they had already had their chance to have no union, a different union or different leaders under a majority rule system), concluding that the charge of dues for services like wages or other conditions of employment are lawful when the union was obliged to bargain through its duty of fair representation, which it owes to all employees, union and non-union. Otherwise workers would have an incentive to be non-union because they could get the same services as union members for no dues. But in 1991 he was fending off what appeared to be a more ambitious opinion by Justice Harry Blackmun. This year, when a new group of conservative judicial activists led by Justice Samuel Alito could scarcely contain their desire to reverse more than a half-century of judicial precedent, Scalia joined in an oral argument to suggest that all dues were for political objectives and thus impermissible. To charge them would, therefore, said the group of five, violate non-member First Amendment rights. So much for 1991, when now in 2016 the votes were there to cripple the labor movement. (This case didn't issue before Scalia's death.)

If the guy who typed in this article can't see the difference.. first there is non-members paying for "fair representation"; then there's taking a portion of said dues and handing it over to political parties with whom the dues payers disagree.

Did Justice Scalia really "suggest that all dues were for political objectives" every penny? Regardless how fair is it for government unions to have such cozy deals with government that forces government employees to fully fund the union-government mechanism?

Or what did I miss?

[BwanaNdege]

So says the paper that supports Roe v. Wade.

Exactly!

...almost invariably harmed the most vulnerable who came to the courts seeking redress for their claims.<>i>

And who on earth is more vulnerable than an unborn baby?

Why don't all you Social Justice Warriors on the staff of the San Jose Mercury News and the rest of the MSM support babies in the womb?

[Larry381]

Justice Antonin Scalia was a hero to some because he fought against the type of politicians and judges who had no respect for the US constitution, considering it something that could be twisted and distorted to make the latest leftist craze lawful.

The types he fought against are the same ones who now secretly, and some not so secretly, celebrate and cheer his demise.

[FlingWingFlyer]

FUWBGIV

[BigEdLB]

You notice his name ends, “IV”? You mean to tell me there were four of these. Darwin natural selection didn’t end with, “I”? What kind of world do we live in?

[Fiddlstix]

Click the Pic

[Tucker39]

That’s a gimmick the lib haters use to try to besmirch the honor of the Founders.

[Secret Agent Man]

Just barf.

[Kevin in California]

A leftist rag indeed. I live in San Jose and wouldn’t read this newspaper if they gave it to me. They hate the police too.