 10 Of The Most Harmful And Disastrous Opinions Of Antonin Scalia’s Career — With QuotesJustice Antonin Scalia had an impressive career. In his decades-long appointment as a Supreme Court Justice, he has worked diligently against the forces of social justice. Scalia s insane originalist philosophy has had a major impact on modern conservatism. Luckily, President Obama will now have the opportunity to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice, which will tip the scales in favor of a liberal court.Here is a look back on ten of the worst Supreme Court Decisions of Scalia s career. Sometimes his opinions were in the majority. The ones that were in dissent were oftentimes vicious.In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decided to stop recounting ballots in Florida. This decision is considered by many to be the reason George W. Bush became the president, with everything that came after. Scalia voted in concurrence with majority, and wrote: The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether  [c]ounting every legally cast vote ca[n] constitute irreparable harm.  One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law,  legally cast vote[s].  The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires. 2. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010:In Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court decided that corporations are people. This created the situation we are in now, where corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to SuperPACS, which are used to influence political elections. Scalia voted in concurrence with the majority, and wrote: Even if we thought it proper to apply the dissent s approach of excluding from First Amendment coverage what the Founders disliked, and even if we agreed that the Founders disliked founding-era corporations; modern corporations might not qualify for exclusion. Most of the Founders  resentment towards corporations was directed at the state-granted monopoly privileges that individually chartered corporations enjoyed. Modern corporations do not have such privileges, and would probably have been favored by most of our enterprising Founders excluding, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson and others favoring perpetuation of an agrarian society. 3. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 2014:In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court decided that private businesses can be exempted from certain laws on religious grounds. Justice Scalia voted with the opinion of the court. During the case s oral argument, Scalia said: Well, religious beliefs aren t reasonable. I mean, religious beliefs are categorical. You know, it s God tells you. It s not a matter of being reasonable. God be reasonable? He s supposed to have a full beard. 4. King v. Burwell, 2015:In King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court decided that subsidies under Obamacare could be used through the federal exchange program. Scalia dissented, saying: We should start calling this law SCOTUScare   [T]his Court s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years   And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. 5. Shelby County v. Holder, 2013:In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court decided to strike down parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This weakened the Voting Rights Act and is considered by many an attack on the civil liberties of black voters. Scalia said, in 2013 in a speech at the University of California Washington Center, the following: Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. Who s going to vote against that? 6. Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015:In Obergrefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have the right to get married. Scalia dissented from the opinion of the court, saying: Those civil consequences and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. 7. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992:In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, challenges were made to Pennsylvania law that required women to meet certain provisions in order to have an abortion. The court found that the provisions were unconstitutional, except for one that required women to notify their husband. Justice Scalia dissented gainst the opinion of the court, saying: The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. 8. Lawrence v. Texas, 2003:In this Supreme Court decision, a law that banned sodomy was struck down. Scalia dissented from the opinion of the court. He wrote: Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children s schools, or as boarders in their home,  he wrote.  They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. 9. Romer v. Evans, 1996:In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court decided that the state of Colorado could not prevent local jurisdictions from creating laws that prohibit discrimination against LGBT people, Scalia dissented, saying: [Colorado s ban] prohibits special treatment of homosexuals, and nothing more. [I]t would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the  life partner  of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee. 10. Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 2011:In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme court made the decision that ended one of the largest class-action suits in history. More than 1.5 million women filed a class action suit against Wal-Mart claiming gender discrimination. Scalia voted with the majority of the court and delivered their opinion. Scalia said: Respondents have not identified a common mode of exercising discretion that pervades the entire company aside from their reliance on Dr. Bielby s social frameworks analysis that we have rejected. In a company of Wal-Mart s size and geographical scope, it is quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction. Respondents attempt to make that showing by means of statistical and anecdotal evidence, but their evidence falls well short. Republicans are already hard at work trying to prevent President Obama from appointing Scalia s replacement. Their efforts are in vain. There is no legitimate reason President Obama should not appoint Scalia s replacement. Luckily for everyone, it is likely that President Obama s replacement can undo much of the harm that Scalia has done during his career.Featured image from Donkey Hotey via FlickrNews
of the most harmful and disastrous opinions of antonio scale career with quotesjustice antonio scale impressive career in appointment supreme court justice worked diligently forces social justice scale insane originals philosophy major impact modern conservatism lucky president obama opportunity appoint new supreme court justice tip scales favor liberal look back ten worst supreme court decisions scale career sometimes opinions majority the ones dissent oftentimes bush gore supreme court decided stop recounting ballots florida this decision considered many reason george bush became president everything came scale voted concurrence majority wrote the issue dissent puts whether c hunting every legally cast vote ca n constitute inseparable harm one principal issues appeal accepted precisely whether votes ordered counted reasonable interpretation florida law legally cast vote the counting votes questionable legality view threaten inseparable harm petitioner country casting cloud upon claims legitimacy election count first rule upon legality afterwards recipe producing election results public acceptance democratic stability requires citizens united federal election commission in citizen united federal election commission supreme court decided corporations people this created situation corporations donate unlimited amounts money supercars used influence political elections scale voted concurrence majority wrote even thought proper apply dissent approach excluding first amendment coverage founders disliked even agreed founders disliked corporations modern corporations might qualify exclusion most founders resentment towards corporations directed monopoly privileges individually chartered corporations enjoyed modern corporations privileges would probably favored enterprising founders excluding perhaps thomas jefferson others favoring perpetuating agrarian society orwell hobby lobby in orwell hobby lobby supreme court decided private businesses exempted certain laws religious grounds justice scale voted opinion court during case oral argument scale said well religious beliefs reasonable i mean religious beliefs categorical you know god tells it matter reasonable god reasonable he supposed full beard king orwell in king orwell supreme court decided subsidies obamacare could used federal exchange program scale dissented saying we start calling law scotuscare t court two decisions act surely remembered years and cases publish forever discouraging truth supreme court united states favors laws others prepared whatever takes uphold assist favorites shell county holder in shell county holder supreme court decided strike parts voting rights act this weakened voting rights act considered many attack civil liberties black voters scale said speech university california washington center following whenever society adopts racial entitlement difficult get normal political processes even name wonderful voting rights act who going vote obergefell hodges in obergrefell hodges supreme court decided couples right get married scale dissented opinion court saying those civil consequences public approval conferring name marriage evidences perhaps adverse social effects adverse effects many controversial laws so special importance law says marriage it overwhelming importance however rules today decree says ruler ruler million americans majority nine lawyers supreme court planned parenthood casey in planned parenthood casey challenges made pennsylvania law required women meet certain provisions order abortion the court found provisions unconstitutional except one required women notify husband justice scale dissented against opinion court saying the states may wish permit abortion demand constitution require the permissibility abortion limitations upon resolved like important questions democracy citizens trying persuade one another voting lawrence texas in supreme court decision law banned sodomy struck scale dissented opinion court he wrote many americans want persons openly engage homosexual conduct partners business scoutmasters children teachers children schools boarders home wrote they view protecting families lifestyle believe immoral destructive rower evans in rower evans supreme court decided state colorado could prevent local jurisdictions creating laws prohibit discrimination lgbt people scale dissented saying colorado ban prohibits special treatment homosexuals nothing i would prevent state municipality making death benefit payments life partner homosexual make payments long time roommate nonhomosexual employee dukes in dukes supreme court made decision ended one largest suits history more million women filed class action suit claiming gender discrimination scale voted majority court delivered opinion scale said respondents identified common mode exercising discretion parades entire company aside reliance belly social frameworks analysis rejected in company size geographical scope quite unbelievable managers would exercise discretion common way without common direction respondents attempt make showing means statistical anecdotal evidence evidence falls well short republicans already hard work trying prevent president obama appointing scale replacement their efforts vain there legitimate reason president obama appoint scale replacement lucky everyone likely president obama replacement undo much harm scale done image donkey hotel via flickrnews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT:  10 Of The Most Harmful And Disastrous Opinions Of Antonin Scalia’s Career — With QuotesJustice Antonin Scalia had an impressive career. In his decades-long appointment as a Supreme Court Justice, he has worked diligently against the forces of social justice. Scalia s insane originalist philosophy has had a major impact on modern conservatism. Luckily, President Obama will now have the opportunity to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice, which will tip the scales in favor of a liberal court.Here is a look back on ten of the worst Supreme Court Decisions of Scalia s career. Sometimes his opinions were in the majority. The ones that were in dissent were oftentimes vicious.In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court decided to stop recounting ballots in Florida. This decision is considered by many to be the reason George W. Bush became the president, with everything that came after. Scalia voted in concurrence with majority, and wrote: The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether  [c]ounting every legally cast vote ca[n] constitute irreparable harm.  One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law,  legally cast vote[s].  The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires. 2. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010:In Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court decided that corporations are people. This created the situation we are in now, where corporations can donate unlimited amounts of money to SuperPACS, which are used to influence political elections. Scalia voted in concurrence with the majority, and wrote: Even if we thought it proper to apply the dissent s approach of excluding from First Amendment coverage what the Founders disliked, and even if we agreed that the Founders disliked founding-era corporations; modern corporations might not qualify for exclusion. Most of the Founders  resentment towards corporations was directed at the state-granted monopoly privileges that individually chartered corporations enjoyed. Modern corporations do not have such privileges, and would probably have been favored by most of our enterprising Founders excluding, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson and others favoring perpetuation of an agrarian society. 3. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 2014:In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court decided that private businesses can be exempted from certain laws on religious grounds. Justice Scalia voted with the opinion of the court. During the case s oral argument, Scalia said: Well, religious beliefs aren t reasonable. I mean, religious beliefs are categorical. You know, it s God tells you. It s not a matter of being reasonable. God be reasonable? He s supposed to have a full beard. 4. King v. Burwell, 2015:In King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court decided that subsidies under Obamacare could be used through the federal exchange program. Scalia dissented, saying: We should start calling this law SCOTUScare   [T]his Court s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years   And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. 5. Shelby County v. Holder, 2013:In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court decided to strike down parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This weakened the Voting Rights Act and is considered by many an attack on the civil liberties of black voters. Scalia said, in 2013 in a speech at the University of California Washington Center, the following: Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. Who s going to vote against that? 6. Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015:In Obergrefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have the right to get married. Scalia dissented from the opinion of the court, saying: Those civil consequences and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. 7. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992:In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, challenges were made to Pennsylvania law that required women to meet certain provisions in order to have an abortion. The court found that the provisions were unconstitutional, except for one that required women to notify their husband. Justice Scalia dissented gainst the opinion of the court, saying: The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. 8. Lawrence v. Texas, 2003:In this Supreme Court decision, a law that banned sodomy was struck down. Scalia dissented from the opinion of the court. He wrote: Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children s schools, or as boarders in their home,  he wrote.  They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. 9. Romer v. Evans, 1996:In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court decided that the state of Colorado could not prevent local jurisdictions from creating laws that prohibit discrimination against LGBT people, Scalia dissented, saying: [Colorado s ban] prohibits special treatment of homosexuals, and nothing more. [I]t would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the  life partner  of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee. 10. Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 2011:In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme court made the decision that ended one of the largest class-action suits in history. More than 1.5 million women filed a class action suit against Wal-Mart claiming gender discrimination. Scalia voted with the majority of the court and delivered their opinion. Scalia said: Respondents have not identified a common mode of exercising discretion that pervades the entire company aside from their reliance on Dr. Bielby s social frameworks analysis that we have rejected. In a company of Wal-Mart s size and geographical scope, it is quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction. Respondents attempt to make that showing by means of statistical and anecdotal evidence, but their evidence falls well short. Republicans are already hard at work trying to prevent President Obama from appointing Scalia s replacement. Their efforts are in vain. There is no legitimate reason President Obama should not appoint Scalia s replacement. Luckily for everyone, it is likely that President Obama s replacement can undo much of the harm that Scalia has done during his career.Featured image from Donkey Hotey via FlickrNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: of the most harmful and disastrous opinions of antonio scale career with quotesjustice antonio scale impressive career in appointment supreme court justice worked diligently forces social justice scale insane originals philosophy major impact modern conservatism lucky president obama opportunity appoint new supreme court justice tip scales favor liberal look back ten worst supreme court decisions scale career sometimes opinions majority the ones dissent oftentimes bush gore supreme court decided stop recounting ballots florida this decision considered many reason george bush became president everything came scale voted concurrence majority wrote the issue dissent puts whether c hunting every legally cast vote ca n constitute inseparable harm one principal issues appeal accepted precisely whether votes ordered counted reasonable interpretation florida law legally cast vote the counting votes questionable legality view threaten inseparable harm petitioner country casting cloud upon claims legitimacy election count first rule upon legality afterwards recipe producing election results public acceptance democratic stability requires citizens united federal election commission in citizen united federal election commission supreme court decided corporations people this created situation corporations donate unlimited amounts money supercars used influence political elections scale voted concurrence majority wrote even thought proper apply dissent approach excluding first amendment coverage founders disliked even agreed founders disliked corporations modern corporations might qualify exclusion most founders resentment towards corporations directed monopoly privileges individually chartered corporations enjoyed modern corporations privileges would probably favored enterprising founders excluding perhaps thomas jefferson others favoring perpetuating agrarian society orwell hobby lobby in orwell hobby lobby supreme court decided private businesses exempted certain laws religious grounds justice scale voted opinion court during case oral argument scale said well religious beliefs reasonable i mean religious beliefs categorical you know god tells it matter reasonable god reasonable he supposed full beard king orwell in king orwell supreme court decided subsidies obamacare could used federal exchange program scale dissented saying we start calling law scotuscare t court two decisions act surely remembered years and cases publish forever discouraging truth supreme court united states favors laws others prepared whatever takes uphold assist favorites shell county holder in shell county holder supreme court decided strike parts voting rights act this weakened voting rights act considered many attack civil liberties black voters scale said speech university california washington center following whenever society adopts racial entitlement difficult get normal political processes even name wonderful voting rights act who going vote obergefell hodges in obergrefell hodges supreme court decided couples right get married scale dissented opinion court saying those civil consequences public approval conferring name marriage evidences perhaps adverse social effects adverse effects many controversial laws so special importance law says marriage it overwhelming importance however rules today decree says ruler ruler million americans majority nine lawyers supreme court planned parenthood casey in planned parenthood casey challenges made pennsylvania law required women meet certain provisions order abortion the court found provisions unconstitutional except one required women notify husband justice scale dissented against opinion court saying the states may wish permit abortion demand constitution require the permissibility abortion limitations upon resolved like important questions democracy citizens trying persuade one another voting lawrence texas in supreme court decision law banned sodomy struck scale dissented opinion court he wrote many americans want persons openly engage homosexual conduct partners business scoutmasters children teachers children schools boarders home wrote they view protecting families lifestyle believe immoral destructive rower evans in rower evans supreme court decided state colorado could prevent local jurisdictions creating laws prohibit discrimination lgbt people scale dissented saying colorado ban prohibits special treatment homosexuals nothing i would prevent state municipality making death benefit payments life partner homosexual make payments long time roommate nonhomosexual employee dukes in dukes supreme court made decision ended one largest suits history more million women filed class action suit claiming gender discrimination scale voted majority court delivered opinion scale said respondents identified common mode exercising discretion parades entire company aside reliance belly social frameworks analysis rejected in company size geographical scope quite unbelievable managers would exercise discretion common way without common direction respondents attempt make showing means statistical anecdotal evidence evidence falls well short republicans already hard work trying prevent president obama appointing scale replacement their efforts vain there legitimate reason president obama appoint scale replacement lucky everyone likely president obama replacement undo much harm scale done image donkey hotel via flickrnews