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.
It'll be interesting to see whether he deviates from his judicial philosophy in the Affordable Care Act decision. He seems to support both sides of Wickard as his politics suit him, which makes him a very, very bad judge.
He sounds just like Rush Limbaugh. I thought judges were supposed to be fair and non biased. I guess he is, if you are using Fox News definition of fair and balanced.
Major league FAIL .... he said "Democrat Governors" ... not "Democratic Governors"? That's the big "secret code" ? Good Lord No ... in my layman opinion, it's called proper English for which the brilliant liberal apparently has a slippery grasp.
Now, I'd never present myself as an English Professor, nor can I even claim to remember 90% of the English language usage rules taught in school (for me, that was eons ago). And, I wouldn't be completely honest if I didn't admit that much of that stuff made very little sense to me even back then, as the English language does have some very arbitrary and counter intuitive rules. Nevertheless, I generally have a reasonable grasp of the real easy stuff, like the differences between nouns and adjectives, and how they are supposed to be used in sentences. And this is a particularly easy case, at least in my not-so-expert opinion.
Every day ... we hear references made to "Democrats" and "Republicans" ... NOT "Democratics" and Republicans". Notice how one uses the two words as either a noun or an adjective .... where "Democrat" refers to a person associated with the "Democratic Party", or a "noun", while the term "Democratic" is used as an "adjective" to provide definition ... in this case, defining the party.
The good judge Scalia, in my humble opinion, was correct in his usage, and was not engaging in some secret "conservative" code that belays his hidden agenda and biases toward the "democratics" (sic).
So let's test this theory of mine about proper English usage, shall we? Tell me, which sentence is grammatically proper: (Notice the small "d" in sentence #1? That's a clue, not a secret code, as adjectives are generally not capitalized, while nouns generally are. And, I don't believe that "democratics" is even a real word, to be honest )
1) The room was divided by political affiliation, with all of the Republicans gathered on the right, and all of the democratics gathered on the left.
OR
2) The room was divided by political affiliation, with all of the Republicans gathered on the right, and all of the Democrats gathered on the left.
So which is correct? Number 1 or number 2 ?
Now let's analyze a little further, this "Democrat Governor" versus "Democratic Governor" in a more explanatory manner in the following statement using the term "democratic" in it's proper context:
Our Republican leader proved himself to be a very democratic Governor by his non-partisan appointments which observed equal numbers of conservatives and liberals on his personally selected special investigation team.
Here we have the use of "democratic Governor" used in the proper manner, with "democratic" being an obvious "adjective" defining the Republican Governor's "democratic" nature.
So, do you get it? Do you now see that instead of simply taking 30 seconds to sound out these words in sentences to himself (or look them up in a dictionary, because they will both be labeled, one as a noun and the other an adjective), this arse clown made a fool of himself by making a YouTube video to record for posterity, his clueless stupidity regarding the English language?
Another feather in the hat for the intellectual elitists on the left!
PS
I won't give you a harsh grade for not recognizing this yourself ... as I understand that you liberals are followers, so it's entirely possible that you just didn't think this through before posting.
Of course, I expect nothing but an argument here. I just thought I'd throw this out here to see what comes back. Ought to be interesting .... but whatever you do, please don't agree with me. The shock would be more than I could bear ... or is that "bare"? No .. methinks it's "bear".
The title is a huge compliment to Rush to be compared to this brilliant intellect. Thanks, SF. Scalia got his BA from Georgetown with honors, then Harvard law school magna *** laude. He was a highly regarded law prof at the University of Chicago in the early 80's, at a time when UC law school was a dynamo with luminaries like Richard Posner and Richard Epstein breaking new ground.
Scalia was so well respected that he was confirmed 98-0 by the Senate when nominated by Reagan. Truly a living legend. Nonetheless I do not consider it out of line to compare Rush to him. They're both brilliant; they've just arrived via different routes. Thanks again for the nice compliment to Rush, SF.
Major league FAIL .... he said "Democrat Governors" ... not "Democratic Governors"? That's the big "secret code" ? Good Lord No ... in my layman opinion, it's called proper English for which the brilliant liberal apparently has a slippery grasp.
Now, I'd never present myself as an English Professor, nor can I even claim to remember 90% of the English language usage rules taught in school (for me, that was eons ago). And, I wouldn't be completely honest if I didn't admit that much of that stuff made very little sense to me even back then, as the English language does have some very arbitrary and counter intuitive rules. Nevertheless, I generally have a reasonable grasp of the real easy stuff, like the differences between nouns and adjectives, and how they are supposed to be used in sentences. And this is a particularly easy case, at least in my not-so-expert opinion.
Every day ... we hear references made to "Democrats" and "Republicans" ... NOT "Democratics" and Republicans". Notice how one uses the two words as either a noun or an adjective .... where "Democrat" refers to a person associated with the "Democratic Party", or a "noun", while the term "Democratic" is used as an "adjective" to provide definition ... in this case, defining the party.
The good judge Scalia, in my humble opinion, was correct in his usage, and was not engaging in some secret "conservative" code that belays his hidden agenda and biases toward the "democratics" (sic).
So let's test this theory of mine about proper English usage, shall we? Tell me, which sentence is grammatically proper: (Notice the small "d" in sentence #1? That's a clue, not a secret code, as adjectives are generally not capitalized, while nouns generally are. And, I don't believe that "democratics" is even a real word, to be honest )
1) The room was divided by political affiliation, with all of the Republicans gathered on the right, and all of the democratics gathered on the left.
OR
2) The room was divided by political affiliation, with all of the Republicans gathered on the right, and all of the Democrats gathered on the left.
So which is correct? Number 1 or number 2 ?
Now let's analyze a little further, this "Democrat Governor" versus "Democratic Governor" in a more explanatory manner in the following statement using the term "democratic" in it's proper context:
Our Republican leader proved himself to be a very democratic Governor by his non-partisan appointments which observed equal numbers of conservatives and liberals on his personally selected special investigation team.
Here we have the use of "democratic Governor" used in the proper manner, with "democratic" being an obvious "adjective" defining the Republican Governor's "democratic" nature.
So, do you get it? Do you now see that instead of simply taking 30 seconds to sound out these words in sentences to himself (or look them up in a dictionary, because they will both be labeled, one as a noun and the other an adjective), this arse clown made a fool of himself by making a YouTube video to record for posterity, his clueless stupidity regarding the English language?
Another feather in the hat for the intellectual elitists on the left!
PS
I won't give you a harsh grade for not recognizing this yourself ... as I understand that you liberals are followers, so it's entirely possible that you just didn't think this through before posting.
Of course, I expect nothing but an argument here. I just thought I'd throw this out here to see what comes back. Ought to be interesting .... but whatever you do, please don't agree with me. The shock would be more than I could bear ... or is that "bare"? No .. methinks it's "bear".
When ever I read a bunch of partisan hacks in this forum, i get the feeling they have substituted politics for sports......I think they think it makes them seem smarter.....
Politics is getting more and more ridiculous in this Country BECAUSE of the partisan hacks in the media and in the public who eat it up.
It is not sports and it should not be viewed in such a myopic us V. them attitude. If you partake in it, on either side, you are part of the problem......and trust me, you do NOT sound intelligent.
He sounds just like Rush Limbaugh. I thought judges were supposed to be fair and non biased. I guess he is, if you are using Fox News definition of fair and balanced.
Yes. I can't stand stand Scalia. NOT because I'm a liberal, but because he intentionally politicizes the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court should NOT be politicized. Its duty is to rule on constitutionality objectively and nothing else.
Also Scalia and Thomas have absolutely killed the conservative argument over activist judges. The activist judges on the court are not Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, or Ginsburg. The activist judges are Scalia and Thomas.
The Constitution in today's context was a very partisan document. It gave us a limited government and strong individual liberty which unfortunately we did not see fit to keep. Just remember the quote from James Madison, father of the Constitution. Could They be Elected Today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter E Williams
In 1792, Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees. James Madison wrote disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Even though our Constitution hasn't been amended to authorize Congress to spend on the objects of benevolence, I can't imagine today's Americans electing a president who'd share Madison's view. Such a candidate would be labeled mean-spirited, racist, sexist and homophobic.
Such a statement in today's food stamp nation would of course be met with howls. If Scalia seems 'partisan,' it is just a reflection of the fact that the Constitution in today's political context is extreme right partisan, and it is the job of a SC Justice to interpret the Constitution, after all.
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.
)
Ought to be interesting .... but whatever you do, please don't agree with me. The shock would be more than I could bear ... or is that "bare"? No .. methinks it's "bear".
