HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Scalia says abortion, gay...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 06:37 AM

Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases

Source: AP via Yahoo

Justice Antonin Scalia says his method of interpreting the Constitution makes some of the most hotly disputed issues that come before the Supreme Court among the easiest to resolve.

Scalia calls himself a "textualist" and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak in Washington the other day, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.

So Scalia parts company with former colleagues who have come to believe capital punishment is unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution didn't think so and neither does he.

"The death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.




Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-says-abortion-gay-rights-easy-cases-073501926.html

71 replies, 9503 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 71 replies Author Time Post
Reply Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases (Original post)
Roland99 Oct 2012 OP
baldguy Oct 2012 #1
SamKnause Oct 2012 #6
kelliekat44 Oct 2012 #63
bulloney Oct 2012 #2
HankyDub Oct 2012 #26
happyslug Oct 2012 #47
bullwinkle428 Oct 2012 #29
Amimnoch Oct 2012 #33
closeupready Oct 2012 #39
sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #51
ieoeja Oct 2012 #56
Hosnon Oct 2012 #61
24601 Oct 2012 #62
onehandle Oct 2012 #3
regnaD kciN Oct 2012 #9
VWolf Oct 2012 #15
sulphurdunn Oct 2012 #4
Amimnoch Oct 2012 #34
SamKnause Oct 2012 #5
jerseyjack Oct 2012 #8
SamKnause Oct 2012 #17
Panasonic Oct 2012 #22
onenote Oct 2012 #40
Ash_F Oct 2012 #64
dotymed Oct 2012 #24
bucolic_frolic Oct 2012 #25
CreekDog Oct 2012 #37
SamKnause Oct 2012 #65
xchrom Oct 2012 #7
bitchkitty Oct 2012 #10
tishaLA Oct 2012 #28
FailureToCommunicate Oct 2012 #11
MsPithy Oct 2012 #35
OKNancy Oct 2012 #12
ieoeja Oct 2012 #57
Orrex Oct 2012 #13
hamsterjill Oct 2012 #14
LeftishBrit Oct 2012 #16
SWTORFanatic Oct 2012 #20
n2doc Oct 2012 #18
Gman Oct 2012 #19
Le Taz Hot Oct 2012 #21
rug Oct 2012 #23
FiveGoodMen Oct 2012 #60
Dawson Leery Oct 2012 #27
Bossy Monkey Oct 2012 #30
valerief Oct 2012 #31
slackmaster Oct 2012 #32
lobodons Oct 2012 #36
closeupready Oct 2012 #38
mountain grammy Oct 2012 #41
Riverman Oct 2012 #43
mountain grammy Oct 2012 #58
jmowreader Oct 2012 #66
Riverman Oct 2012 #42
sakabatou Oct 2012 #55
The Second Stone Oct 2012 #44
olegramps Oct 2012 #45
jsr Oct 2012 #46
Zoeisright Oct 2012 #48
ChairmanAgnostic Oct 2012 #49
kiranon Oct 2012 #50
Fearless Oct 2012 #52
bucolic_frolic Oct 2012 #53
Evasporque Oct 2012 #54
richmwill Oct 2012 #59
Drahthaardogs Oct 2012 #67
Hugabear Oct 2012 #68
NoGOPZone Oct 2012 #69
tabasco Oct 2012 #70
booley Oct 2012 #71

Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 06:46 AM

1. He's like a bigot who finds Bible passages the validate every one of his prejudices.

This fucker should be impeached & removed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:00 AM

6. No Justice

I am in 100% agreement !!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:10 PM

63. But since those people are dead and gone and could never have imagined a world

as we have today, a lot of the Constitution is irrelevant and outdated. That'a why an amendment process is provided. The authors intended for it to change over time. The authors of the Bible also wrote for their time. Otherwise we would have cities of refuge rather than prisons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 06:47 AM

2. What about slavery Tony? It was acceptable in this country 200 years ago, too.

As for the death penalty--if we had a justice system that actually determined innocence or guilt instead of put on some made-for-TV performance to see who can afford the slickest talking lawyers who can do the best job of manipulating the judge and jury, maybe capital punishment would have some merit in extreme cases. But, we're regularly seeing cases where people on death row are being released because DNA evidence proved that they were wrongly convicted. How many innocent people were put to death before such evidence could have been produced to overturn their convictions?

Scalia has lost his marbles. He's a poster child for term limits or mandatory retirement age for SCOTUS justices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bulloney (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:38 AM

26. Easy!

 

The founders said it was legal, therefore slavery is okey dokey! Black people, sorry but you are now 3/5's of a person.

Segregation? No problem!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HankyDub (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:10 PM

47. The Actual Position is the Post Civil War Amendments made Slavery illegal, and thus illegaj

But the same Congress that passed the post Civil War Amendments to the US Constitution, that outlawed Slavery, also made the Washington DC Schools segregated, thus segregation was and is allowed. This was the rationale behind Pleesy vs Ferguson and the rest of the Supreme Court Cases upholding Segregation (And reversed by Brown vs Board of Education).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bulloney (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:58 AM

29. This fucker would bring back slavery in a heartbeat if he was king.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bulloney (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:03 AM

33. Bulloney, that's exactly what I was thinking too.

This justice should be removed immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bulloney (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:47 AM

39. Ah, but wait! Scalia's trump card is "come on!" So there, he wins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bulloney (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:14 PM

51. Didn't he also say that once a person was convicted and sentenced to death

even if s/he is later proven to be innocent, that should not stop the execution of that person?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #51)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 02:04 PM

56. He essentially wrote that new evidence of innocence does not automatically mean ...


... the federal courts have to take up the case. The courts *can*. But the courts may first decided if the evidence is compelling enough to justify a trial. Otherwise, the courts would be flooded with such claims based on very flimsy evidence just to delay the execution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bulloney (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 06:03 PM

61. Slavery isn't the best counter to this because of the 15th Amendment.

Scalia can be both a textualist and against slavery while remaining intellectually coherent.

I still don't understand why textualists aren't up in arms about the Judiciary and the Executive not being able to abridge all the freedoms listed in the 1st Amendment. It only lists Congress...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bulloney (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:15 PM

62. Slavery is not a good exemplar in this argument. It was not a Supreme Court

decision that eliminated slavery. It was instead the amendment process that is articulated in the Constitution - completely with Scalia's position that changing course on the law of the land is a political process instead of what 5 Justices might thing is a good/just idea on a case.

I remember in one of my courses asking if the Constitution built on the Declaration of Independence or replaced it. The prof declined to engage on that question, but it seems intuitive that the Declaration is a statement of principal (especially on the equality issue) that lacks the force of law.

My tendency is to agree with Scalia on one point that if we were to invest any group with the mandate to affect social change, it would be counterintuitive to empower 9 people in just one profession that for the most part attended only elite law schools.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 06:48 AM

3. Citizens of Massachusetts, Scott Brown's favorite Justice. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:27 AM

9. I get the feeling Brownie is going to be...

... as soon as that story hits the Boston media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:15 AM

15. Yep. I hope Fat Tony keeps yapping.

Free advertising for the Warren campaign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 06:58 AM

4. Scalia is one of the most reactionary

activist justices to ever sit on the Court. He is one of the clowns who anointed GW Bush. His vote on any issue that comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted could just as easily be emailed to the court as requiring him to perform the costume drama of donning his black robe. Textualist my ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:06 AM

34. Well of course he was quick to anoint Shrub.

didn't you read the OP, it's what the founding fathers would have wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 06:59 AM

5. Justice Scale Head

...........he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.

I have a problem with this.

How much knowledge have we gained since the Constitution was written ?

Does the Constitution state that corporations are people ?

Is Justice Scale Head in favor of slavery ?

History will not be kind to Justice Scale Head.

His impeachment would be a victory in justice for the United States of America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SamKnause (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:21 AM

8. He cannot be impeached.

 

Being an asshole fuck-wad is not an impeachable offense.

The Constitution refers to "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Besides, impeachment and conviction would require two congressional votes. They are not there. Do you envision Bachmann, Ryan, et al voting to impeach or convict?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:47 AM

17. He cannot

I am aware, but I can dream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:04 AM

22. Which Scalia *DID* commit in 2000.

 

There is no statute of limitations on when treason is involved.

Remember that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #22)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:02 AM

40. You don't have to be a "textualist" to know that what Scalia did in 2000 isn't "treason" as defined

in the Constitution.

Scalia isn't going to be impeached for the 2000 decision and neither are Thomas and Kennedy. Justices aren't impeached in the US based on the outcome of a case. Which is why it so incredibly important that President Obama is reelected so that the court isn't filled with additional justices whose views of the Constitution are unduly narrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #40)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 12:50 AM

64. This. Elect the right presidents. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:13 AM

24. IMO, he can and should definitely be impeached.

Duck hunting with Cheney while he was being prosecuted in the SCOTUS, accepting "speaking fee's" from groups who had cases before the SCOTUS....the list goes on. These are "high crimes and (at least) misdemeanors."
Bribery,again IMO, would be relatively easy to prove.
The sickening thing is that while ALL other U.S. court judges are explicitly forbidden from even showing any type of impropriety concerning the cases or litigants that are coming before their court, the SCOTUS (the highest court in the land) has no such restrictions. At the very least, a law should be passed that forces these "justices" to behave in the same manner that ALL other judges have to abide by.
By not having such a law, it shouts to the world that our "justices" are political hacks.
Hell, he lead the majority in appointing our president and ignoring our right to elect our officials.... That is a very "high crime."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #24)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:20 AM

25. Hey! You!

Fat Tony can do whatever he wants.

That much should be transparent.

GET IT?

*******SARCASM*******

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:43 AM

37. yes he can be impeached for saying it's justified to make homosexuality illegal

absolutely he can.

he probably won't, but it would be completely appropriate to impeach him for saying that about fellow Americans and human beings.

and someday in this country, i think saying something like that in this country would get a Supreme Court Justice impeached.

and i'll celebrate that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 02:54 AM

65. Scale Head

I am aware.

I think this man and Clarence Thomas have done many questionable things.

I don't like the whole set up.

Appointments for life is just an insane rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:07 AM

7. He's got his magic 'Textualist' wand and

He's waving it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:32 AM

10. "For 200 years, it was criminal in every state".

And for hundreds of years, men took multiple wives and people were stoned to death. Shall we go back to those days, Tony?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitchkitty (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:53 AM

28. Well, his assertion that it was criminal in every state for 200 years is also false

Many amicus briefs filed in the Lawrence v Texas case told the court that--in part because SCOTUS made that assertion, incorrectly, in Bowers v Hardwick. The court wisely looked at the scholarship and came to the right conclusion in Lawrence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:42 AM

11. "Abortion? Absolutely easy" --Justice Scalia



Wake up and smell the Dark Ages, Massachusetts, before it's too late for America!

http://elizabethwarren.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #11)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:13 AM

35. "Wake up and smell the Dark Ages!"

I thought that bears repeating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:43 AM

12. He is a cafeteria textualist ..

He just picks out what he wants and forgets or denies other inconvenient beliefs or the founders.
Not just the ones mention in the above posts, but the founders only believed landed gentry should vote.
No women, no workers... only landowners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 02:48 PM

57. "Some" of the founders.


The northern states enfranchised all adult males early on. But then the northern states were founded/populated largely by Anglo-Saxons seeking to flee the British Empire.

While the southern states were founded/populated by Normans/Celts seeking to expand empire. Military cultures are very class/rank oriented with landed gentry above warriors and workers at the bottom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:50 AM

13. Well, it's not as though we didn't know how he'd rule on these cases already

Incidentally, the claim that he can interpret the Constitution as the words were understood by the authors is outright bullshit on basic textual grounds obvious to anyone who's done any analysis of literary works. I know that we all know this, but I wanted to underscore it once again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:13 AM

14. Judgment before trial

So a justice is admitting that he has already pronounced judgment on a case or cases that hasn't even been presented yet. No testimony, no cross-examination... Nothing.

Only in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:21 AM

16. Does that mean that he also thinks it would be OK to reintroduce slavery and child labour and

abolish women's right to vote?

For that matter, I doubt that he would like a return to the way that Italian-Americans were typically treated 100 years ago.

Just because something has 'always been done' does not make it right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #16)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:58 AM

20. I don't know about slavery, but child labor and women voting

I think he would do away with our progress on those, but feels the blowback would be too mighty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:55 AM

18. "Textualist"=gets a text from the Koch Bros telling him how to vote n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:56 AM

19. What a great job. You never have to think

No wonder he loves it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:02 AM

21. He NEEDS to be impeached!

This man is guilty of serial conflict of interest (Citizens United decision, anyone?) not to mention a 14th Century attitude towards women and, what did he call it? "homosexual sodomy?" Of all the vermin in Washington D.C., THIS is the man I truly fear the most.


Advocacy Group Says Justices May Have Conflict in Campaign Finance Cases
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/us/politics/20koch.html?_r=0



Conflict of Interest? Justices Scalia, Thomas Dine with Obamacare Opponents

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/health/health-care/conflict-interest-justices-scalia-thomas-dine-obamacare-opponents

Scalia won't recuse himself from Cheney case
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-18/justice/scalia.recusal_1_cheney-case-recuse-scalia-and-cheney?_s=PM:LAW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:11 AM

23. It also requires a declaration of war.

Didn't stop the guy he put in office from starting one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 05:49 PM

60. Two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:53 AM

27. Impeachment is the proper means to deal with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:00 AM

30. I, too, am a flaming asshole, but I'll just call myself a textualist & it'll be OK n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:01 AM

31. Hell is calling for him. Why doesn't he just go???? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:03 AM

32. Justice Scalia should know that there are many instances where long-standing law has turned out...

 

...to be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:30 AM

36. Just ANOTHER reason to make sure Obama wins

Could you imagine a SCOTUS Court with a 7-2 Conservative bent!!?? Americans must ensure that when these "easy" cases reach the Supreme Court, Scalia writes his opinion for the Minority!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 10:46 AM

38. "Give me a break" and "come on"? REALLY? That's your argument?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:15 AM

41. Keep stuffing your face, fat Tony!

Give me a break, it's easy! Have the heart attack you so richly deserve. My dream is to dance on your grave!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mountain grammy (Reply #41)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:27 AM

43. I Would Never Wish for Someone to Die, But Might Enjoy Reading Their Obituary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Riverman (Reply #43)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 05:38 PM

58. I would never wish for someone to die either

I just wish for nature to take it's course. Scalia has, however, shown little regard for human life or human suffering. His children are following in his footsteps.. nine little crazy conservative Scalias. The man is a curse to all Americans, except maybe a few very wealthy ones, who have paid him back with riches. Who do you think buys most of his crappy, stupid books?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Riverman (Reply #43)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 04:28 AM

66. I would enjoy writing it

Antonin Scalia, quite possibly the most worthless fuck to ever sit on the Supreme Court, exploded on his toilet today. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Not much is known of Scalia's life. There are hundreds of books written about him; since Scalia would lie to you if you asked him what color the grass is, we believe nothing in any of them.

The Democrats are holding a solemn ceremony to mark Fat Tony's passage on Saturday in front of the Lincoln Memorial. There will be 300 kegs of beer, and whole pigs will be roasted. Guests are asked to wear devil suits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:26 AM

42. Why is DU Running Ads like the one above this Story? Gays Raising $ for Obama, STOP THEM? REALLY?

Scalia is a fat pig that must be impeached, no doubt. Why in any way support the biggots here on DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Riverman (Reply #42)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:58 PM

55. DU has no control over the contents of the ads

as far as I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:37 AM

44. A textualist who ignores the 9th amendment completely

because it gives people rights. All the rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:43 AM

45. The Supreme Court has become so politicized its time for term limits.

The intent of the nation's founders to insulate make Supreme Court judges from the political of the day has been proven to have increasingly failed especially in recent years. It is time to take a reassessment of the life time appointments to any judgeship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olegramps (Reply #45)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 11:53 AM

46. The Supreme Court is a hopeless joke

Yes, there ought to be term limits. Maybe 10 years max.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:28 PM

48. He is absolute proof that only the good die young.

That gasbag is a waste of oxygen and water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:31 PM

49. Slavery is included in the constitution AND their bible

so it must be OK, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:55 PM

50. Any Justice who finds certainty in vagueness is writing his own script. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:38 PM

52. Where in the TEXT oh great "textualist" are either mentioned?

Oh right. They're not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:49 PM

53. OMG Antonin!

'homosexual sodomy" is an easy case?

did you just imply that just plain "sodomy" isn't?

Antonin! Is that a subconscious comment about women?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 01:52 PM

54. the earth was flat for sometime too...it is written in texts...why change our beliefs?

Someone wrote it down a thousand years ago...come on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 05:47 PM

59. Scalia- "Interracial dating? Come on. It was against the law for so many friggin' years..." (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Sat Oct 6, 2012, 08:34 AM

67. WOW. Even the Church had Vatican II.

I guess Scalia is also a firm believer in slavery and that only male property owners should be allowed to vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:04 AM

68. I'm sure Scalia can point to the clause that allows government to regulate basic human sexuality

I wonder which part of the Constitution that would be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 04:52 PM

69. What's the textualist justification for Bush v. Gore? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 05:13 PM

70. Everything's easy when you use dogma instead of reason

How did this asshole get on the USSC?

I weep for my country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 05:30 PM

71. ..and seeing as how the United States is exactly the same as it was 200 years ago

I mean it's not as if we have ever amended the constitution to be better.

Weird though since considering the original Tea party and that the founders used the word "person" and not "legal entity", how he could support Citizens United.

But I guess once you get over the fact that people dead for centuries agree with you on every single issue right now, there's few things that remain hard to believe.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread