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.
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.”
I remember that unhinged drama queen dissent - famous for the "pure applesauce!" and "interpretive jiggery-pokery!" lines. Total foot stomping nutbar when he didn't get his way.
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.
I remember that unhinged drama queen dissent - famous for the "pure applesauce!" and "interpretive jiggery-pokery!" lines. Total foot stomping nutbar when he didn't get his way.
Oh, Please! The people behind "judicial activism" are ruled exclusively by the "ethic"? that the end justifies the means. If they don't verbalize their feelings as often or as directly (and I'll leave that question open) they have an army of simpletons and ignorant thugs to do their dirty work.
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 important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”
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.
Ummm, I thought it was going to be to eat well, get a good nights sleep, cut out the drinking, etc, etc.
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 )
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 )
Like all the other judges I'm sure he was a supporter of the Constitution and ALL of it's Amendments.
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.
)