Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A crazed rant that underscores how far around the bend he'd gone in recent years. He always was an evil, hypocritical, agenda-driven ideologue, but he was at least relatively sane for much of his career. Last few years, though, he really lost touch with reality.
Yes, because warning that the Supreme Court is there to interpret and apply laws as they are, and not through interpretation make or create new ones, is such an evil, hypocritical, agenda driven message.
Does that mean laws duly enacted in the states that prohibit pig ****ing may be struck down by the Court because it`s one of those liberties that "have always existed?"
Perhaps, if you read the Constitution you would come across the Tenth Amendment and not write such ridiculous things.
Judicial review is legislating from the bench and an assumed power not provided by the Constitution.
I nominate this for the Post of the Year Award for the next Webbys.
First, a general observation: in my travels, I have noted that no one who has the capacity to truly understand the Constitution ever says "if you read the Constitution" or "I've read the Constitution" or "I gots me a pocket edition Constitution from Glenn Beck when I bought his coloring books". But who knows, you may be different, quite possible.
Second, is pig f-ing prevalent in your area? I suspect that it is. Running out of sheep, I guess. lol
The Tenth Amendment doesn't really say anything meaningful - it is a circular logic. It just begs the question. Like the Court has said in Darby Lumber (and elsewhere over and over):
Quote:
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.
Frankly, I think the SCOTUS twisted itself in Oberkfell to come out with a desired outcome in many ways, but it is what it is. Judges "make laws" every day . . . that's what they do when they discharge their duty to interpret laws. Interpretation necessarily makes laws. The Constitution says nothing about the Air Force, cell phones and the Internet, and million other things, obviously. The Court has to then reason how the Constitutional provisions apply to things that the Founders could not have imagined to exist in the future. Clearly, there is no consensus on the interpretation so the SCOTUS has to pick sides.
Mick
P.S. I am starting to understand why Muslims and Jews do not eat pork byproducts.
I do not see where removing the legal restriction that prevents gay folk from marrying each other damages our society. Allowing gay marriage does not force anyone that is not gay to marry one. So where is the harm?
Some people may believe, with or without any proof, that gay sex will result in everlasting torment in hell for the participants, but are incapable of believing that many people do not believe that it will. it is not the believers duty to prevent others from going to hell but it is an individual decision to believe or not. I support the unbelievers because it is an individual and not societal decision to believe or not.
I do not see where removing the legal restriction that prevents gay folk from marrying each other damages our society. Allowing gay marriage does not force anyone that is not gay to marry one. So where is the harm?
Some people may believe, with or without any proof, that gay sex will result in everlasting torment in hell for the participants, but are incapable of believing that many people do not believe that it will. it is not the believers duty to prevent others from going to hell but it is an individual decision to believe or not. I support the unbelievers because it is an individual and not societal decision to believe or not.
True. I will note that Justice Scalia was noted as being a devoted Roman Catholic, which may well have colored his viewpoint in his writings.
It does seem that, the more 'religious' a person claims to be, the more inclined they are to deny 'liberty' to those who do not hold the same beliefs.
My husband and I have been watching quite a few youtube videos of Scalia lectures and interviews the last couple of days, so understanding his point of view a little better, I sort of get what he's saying.
I do not see where removing the legal restriction that prevents gay folk from marrying each other damages our society. Allowing gay marriage does not force anyone that is not gay to marry one. So where is the harm?
I agree. There is no harm in allowing same sex marriage.
However, and this is important, there IS harm in forcing some US citizens to violate their First Amendment Right to practice their own religion by forcing them to participate in same sex marriage by providing goods/services for same sex weddings. Doing so is completely unnecessary when wedding goods and services can easily be obtained elsewhere from those of different religions which don't prohibit same sex marriage.
At that point where court-imposed force is wielded, courts are choosing superior and subordinate citizens, violating the First Amendment, and not treating all equally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A man of high moral character would have given us a new war.
