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.
I do think they might have gotton rid of him.... He was a supporter of the 2nd addendment and as we know they are trying to destroy it!!! (Anyone who is trouble for them is usally dealt with )
That's an extremely perceptive and intelligent point, given all the guns they've confiscated, and all the anti-gun laws they've passed in the last seven years.
I didn't like the guy. He was an ideologue with a staunch personal political bias. His rulings and opinions betrayed his deeply felt animus and prejudice.
However, having said that I do not question his intelligence or ability to articulate his point of view.
Years from now history's judgement will prove his views were reactionary and even bigoted.
For a man so brilliant is interesting to note his blindness to the internal contradiction or what he wrote:
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.
It could just as well be seen in the light of the decree that 320 million people minus the family, friends and supporters of Gays and Lesbians couples had no constitutional right to rule over the personal lives of consenting adults who chose to pledge fidelity to one another and as a result receive the full benefits of such unions. It could be further argued that because the Constitution is silent on such matters that the court created no new liberties but simply recognized (as the decision did) that those liberties, while not recognized by statute have always existed. And finally it is more than a bit disingenuous to lay one's argument across a document that states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Constitution is silent on pig ****ing too.
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.
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.
What is Obama but a disgusting man of low moral character.
I didn't like the guy. He was an ideologue with a staunch personal political bias. His rulings and opinions betrayed his deeply felt animus and prejudice.
"In this respect, Justice Scalia really was different from the other justices. He considered himself a conservative but denied that he ruled conservatively. While the other justices ritualistically denied that politics should play a role in their decision-making, only he really meant it—or at least seemed to. His anguished complaints that other justices voted ideologically were met with puzzled silence. Of course, they voted ideologically; what else would they do? The stridency with which Scalia attacked them, especially in his later years, could only make one scratch one’s head. If he was the boy who revealed that the emperor wore no clothes, did he not know that he was also naked?"
Oh, before the usual folks go on their deride the messenger and the publishers of the message it should be noted that there are a surprising number of articles by liberal writers singing the praises of Justice Scalia.
What is Obama but a disgusting man of low moral character.
Why ask me that in this thread? This is a thread about Scalia. As it happens, I agree with you, but you're totally off-topic and our feelings about Obama have no relevance in this discussion.
For a man so brilliant is interesting to note his blindness to the internal contradiction or what he wrote:
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.
It could just as well be seen in the light of the decree that 320 million people minus the family, friends and supporters of Gays and Lesbians couples had no constitutional right to rule over the personal lives of consenting adults who chose to pledge fidelity to one another and as a result receive the full benefits of such unions. It could be further argued that because the Constitution is silent on such matters that the court created no new liberties but simply recognized (as the decision did) that those liberties, while not recognized by statute have always existed. And finally it is more than a bit disingenuous to lay one's argument across a document that states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty,...."
He was so right. Read what he has to say about the court
"Here is an excerpt of a key passage from Scalia’s decision:
I write sepa*rately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.
“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense per*sonal importance to me. The law can recognize as mar*riage whatever sexual attachments and living arrange*ments it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.
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 mar*riage. 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. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Consti*tution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected commit*tee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extrav*agant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most im*portant liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
Yeah... he was just flat-out wrong on this one. Smart guy, no doubt, and worthy of lots of respect. But he was wrong on this. End of story.
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.