HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Scalia: Constitution is ‘...

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:38 PM

Scalia: Constitution is ‘dead, dead, dead’

Source: The Hill

Scalia: Constitution is ‘dead, dead, dead’
By Jonathan Easley - 01/29/13 09:11 AM ET

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia emphatically rebutted the notion that the Constitution is a living document in a lecture at Southern Methodist University on Monday.

“It’s not a living document,” Scalia said, according to a report in the Dallas Morning News. “It’s dead, dead, dead.”

Scalia also told the crowd that sometimes the decisions he arrives at are not in concert with his political convictions.

“The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge,” he said.





Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/279789-scalia-constitution-is-dead-dead-dead#ixzz2JO4Hi7vI

91 replies, 10578 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 91 replies Author Time Post
Reply Scalia: Constitution is ‘dead, dead, dead’ (Original post)
kpete Jan 2013 OP
villager Jan 2013 #1
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #60
Scairp Jan 2013 #74
PerceptionManagement Jan 2013 #75
MynameisBlarney Jan 2013 #2
demwing Jan 2013 #3
Ian Iam Jan 2013 #8
DhhD Jan 2013 #44
R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2013 #14
demwing Jan 2013 #15
Downtown Hound Jan 2013 #4
lrellok Jan 2013 #5
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #6
sakabatou Jan 2013 #39
demwing Jan 2013 #56
Dyedinthewoolliberal Jan 2013 #7
wilt the stilt Jan 2013 #17
malthaussen Jan 2013 #9
NoGOPZone Jan 2013 #10
Botany Jan 2013 #11
kysrsoze Jan 2013 #29
msanthrope Jan 2013 #12
robertpaulsen Jan 2013 #13
Scuba Jan 2013 #16
Baitball Blogger Jan 2013 #18
JHB Jan 2013 #42
yardwork Jan 2013 #19
n2doc Jan 2013 #23
yardwork Jan 2013 #25
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #20
MADem Jan 2013 #21
NinetySix Jan 2013 #22
John2 Jan 2013 #73
Paladin Jan 2013 #24
Klukie Jan 2013 #26
demwing Jan 2013 #35
MessiahRp Jan 2013 #37
broadcaster75201 Jan 2013 #27
Plucketeer Jan 2013 #28
global1 Jan 2013 #30
LeftInTX Jan 2013 #31
DhhD Jan 2013 #47
hack89 Jan 2013 #55
Lesmoderesstupides Jan 2013 #70
Octafish Jan 2013 #32
Crowman1979 Jan 2013 #33
pansypoo53219 Jan 2013 #34
AlexDeLarge Jan 2013 #36
dbackjon Jan 2013 #38
DallasNE Jan 2013 #40
Jack Rabbit Jan 2013 #41
DhhD Jan 2013 #49
Jack Rabbit Jan 2013 #65
Madmiddle Jan 2013 #43
Old and In the Way Jan 2013 #45
GoCubsGo Jan 2013 #61
Blue_Tires Jan 2013 #46
bongbong Jan 2013 #53
rocktivity Jan 2013 #48
AzDar Jan 2013 #50
yellowcanine Jan 2013 #51
GoCubsGo Jan 2013 #64
geardaddy Jan 2013 #52
cynzke Jan 2013 #54
Igel Jan 2013 #68
Odin2005 Jan 2013 #57
Demeter Jan 2013 #58
GoCubsGo Jan 2013 #59
MissMarple Jan 2013 #62
Lint Head Jan 2013 #63
unblock Jan 2013 #66
Hosnon Jan 2013 #67
high density Jan 2013 #69
muntrv Jan 2013 #71
Zorra Jan 2013 #72
cantbeserious Jan 2013 #76
davidpdx Jan 2013 #77
ZRT2209 Jan 2013 #78
Incitatus Jan 2013 #79
olddad56 Jan 2013 #80
SoapBox Jan 2013 #81
aquart Jan 2013 #82
wickerwoman Jan 2013 #83
47of74 Jan 2013 #88
RedCloud Jan 2013 #84
BudHardener Jan 2013 #85
LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #86
Thor_MN Jan 2013 #87
Initech Jan 2013 #89
Sunlei Jan 2013 #90
lunatica Jan 2013 #91

Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:40 PM

1. So... no one other than land-owning white guys should ever have been allowed to vote?

Well, thanks for being honest, at least, Scalia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:16 PM

60. Apparently so. On the up side, he now has to face the fact that him impoverished Italian immigrant

ancestors would have had no vote, nor many rights, and then HE HIMSELF today would be poor and landless and so unable to vote.

Does he truly not know how to add 2 and 2?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 09:56 PM

74. Who foisted this asshole on our country?

Bush I? Reagan? I don't recall but fuck you very much whoever it was. Didn't he read the job description for a Supreme court justice? It specifically involves interpreting the Constitution to determine if a particular case or law or bill passed is Constitutional. Maybe that's why we get such crazy shit from him. He doesn't even believe in the thing he is supposed to cherish. What an abomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scairp (Reply #74)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:37 PM

75. The problem with Supreme Asshole Fat Tony is..

he is an asshole. Pick a side in any decision he has made and you can be sure Fat Tony will have done whatever it takes to hurt as many people as possible and then claim 'strict constitutionalism'. In hell, ann coulter will blow scalia's soft dick for eternity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:40 PM

2. Yet another reason

to impeach the asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:41 PM

3. So explain the amendment process, Fat Tony

please proceed, Justice...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:46 PM

8. I vastly prefer the other version.....

 

"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian Iam (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:09 PM

44. The government of the Bill of Rights instead of the government of the Constitution.

And his version of the Bill of Rights too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demwing (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:57 PM

14. Living dead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #14)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:59 PM

15. It's an Amendment Apocalypse!

The Night of the Living Bill of Rights!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:42 PM

4. Yes, due in no small part to that presidential selection you made a little over a decade ago. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:44 PM

5. If it is dead

Why should we then not replace it with something relevant to modern society?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:44 PM

6. I think he should resign

Last edited Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:38 PM

39. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:45 PM

56. I think we should resign

him...

I don't think he'll do it himself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:44 PM

7. Why is his opinion

given so much attention? He's not the Chief Justice..........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dyedinthewoolliberal (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:00 PM

17. same question I have about rand paul n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:47 PM

9. So he swore to defend a dead thing?

I dunno, like, isn't that a little late for defense?

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:48 PM

10. Nice of him to gloat about it nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:48 PM

11. Then quit Tony.

If the Constitution is no longer a living and dynamic document in your view
then quit right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:27 PM

29. Exactly... or explain how corporations now = people. That rat fucker!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:50 PM

12. Somebody's gotta get that man an evaluation. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:53 PM

13. OK Scalia, let's try to find some common ground.

If I can agree with you that the Constitution is not "living", i.e. it doesn't eat, sleep, breathe, shit and fuck, then can you agree with me that a corporation is not a "person", i.e. it doesn't eat, sleep, breathe, shit and fuck?

Well, OK, maybe corporations do shit all over indigenous people from third-world countries and fuck us all with their greenhouse gas emissions, but let's not nitpick, OK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:00 PM

16. Well, if there's one man who knows what it takes to be a "bad judge" it's Tony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:00 PM

18. Scalia is the experiment that this country needed to go through to convince us once and for all

that strict constructionist have no place on the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:05 PM

42. He was needed to make it clear there's no such thing as a "strict constructionist"

There's just people who claim they are because it gives their views a coat of patriotic whitewash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:03 PM

19. Scalia is a weirdo.

We should have let the Republicans appoint Bork. He's gone now and Obama would be appointing a replacement, and no way could Bork have been as bad as Scalia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:15 PM

23. Scalia was not Bork's replacement

Kennedy was. Scalia was a later appointment, as was Thomas. If your world we would have had both, because the Repubs had already decided to go all extreme on their choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:19 PM

25. You're right. Reagan had originally considered Bork when he nominated Scalia instead.

The Bork nomination was separate.

Scratch my plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Supreme_Court_candidates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:09 PM

20. Scalia is dead, dead, dead wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:14 PM

21. What a sick fuck....so what's he saying? Don't even try for an ERA?

I can't bear that jerk...!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:14 PM

22. If this is the case, then we do not actually have liberty or self-determination, but

 

are under the thumb of tyrants 200-years dead.

Rousseau held that Sovereignty, the general will of a people, is superior to government, and that when government no longer serves the ends of that Sovereignty, namely the common good, that government is dispensible and may be replaced with a new government of a different form. A government is thus always in flux ("alive," in this sense), mutating to better serve public ends, else it is in peril of being abolished and replaced.

So, Mr. Justice: ever read Rousseau, you ignorant fuck? The Founders did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NinetySix (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 08:34 PM

73. It was the intent

 

of the men who wrote the Constitution and also placed into it the Bill of Rights. The overthrow of the British Government was the justification for the American Revolution. The right for the people to rebel was also the justification for the French Revolution. Those men were thinking in the context of the Era.

I also read the comments from right wingers praising Justice Scalia. I've made these comments over and over. The only power given to any Constitution is if the people consent to it. The people have the right to change it by not only peaceful means but violent means also. Time and time again, people in the Republican Party or on the Right continue to cite the original intent of the men who created this document. That document was created after4r the violent overthrow of a government and it was also changed after a violent Civil War. It was also changed through less violent means during the Civil Rights Movement but there was still violence. By it's own history, this is a living document and subject to change. The country is changing through demographics. In order to meet those changes, the Constitution also needs to evolve. There are a small group in this country, that likes to live in the Past and rule the majority. You can only push the majority too far before they use the last resort. The Republican Party is playing a dangerous game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:17 PM

24. He's Just As Unhinged As So Many Of Us Have Suspected. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:20 PM

26. Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Klukie (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:42 PM

35. I just sent this to the SCOTUS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Klukie (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:46 PM

37. I read that in Stephen Dillane's voice.

He was amazing as Jefferson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:23 PM

27. So the Air Force is unconstitutional?

Who knew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:23 PM

28. Poor Tony....

His powers of comprehension are DEAD - DEAD - DEAD.

Edit to observe..... Antonin would be well advised to adopt Clarabell Thomas' approcah to pontificating. How's that line go..... Better to not speak and let folks only SPECULATE as to your ignorance - rather than confirming you're a dunce by speaking your tiny mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:28 PM

30. I Guess It's Only A Living Document When We Consider the Second Amendment.....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:29 PM

31. Bye Bye standing Army

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:11 PM

47. Back to the Militias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:43 PM

55. "The Congress shall have Power .... To raise and support Armies,..."

Section 8

The Congress shall have Power to:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #55)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:45 PM

70. no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

 

hence the 2 year DoD budget cycle, gives em wiggle room around the pesky Constitution the FF were not fans for a permanent Standing Army, Navy different story they PROTECT Commerce and trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:30 PM

32. Stupid NAZI gangster even talks like a mafiosi.

A soldier, at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:31 PM

33. So now the constitution is pick & choose.

Just like the bible!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 01:32 PM

34. ok mr opus dei, is the bible dead then?

oh wait. he would say yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:20 PM

38. That phrase should describe the judicial careers

Of you, Alito and Thomas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:54 PM

40. Scalia, How Dead Was The Constitution

In the Bush v Gore and Citizens United rulings? Those are extreme examples of legislating from the bench, where you were in the 5-4 majorities, showing that you have no credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:05 PM

41. Jack Rabbit: Scalia's mind is "dead, dead, dead"

While I agree with Scalia that a good judge will arrive at decisions he does not like, his "originalist" view of the Constitution is both unimaginative and unsatisfactory. Do we need to amend the constitution every time a new technological advance creates a situation that James Madison could not have fathomed in his wildest dreams? Would Scalia interpret the Second Amendment to give the right of an individual to put a Howitzer in his back yard or to build a nuclear bomb in his garage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Rabbit (Reply #41)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:15 PM

49. The 2nd Amendment needs to be reworded,changed or removed. The US has the federal Armed Forces; no

Militia is needed anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DhhD (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:28 PM

65. . . . because the Founding Fathers did not inted to maintain a standing army

So where was Scalia when we needed him during the Vietnam War? Would his originalist legal philosophy have led him to declare the draft unconstitutional?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:06 PM

43. The actual question was

Hey Toe Knee, how's your wife in bed? His answer; dead, dead, dead. Quite honest for a schmuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:09 PM

45. The only thing dead about the Constitution is

Justice Scalia's utter disrespect for the role he should be playing in interpreting it. He is a partisan Republican hack who is willing to subvert the ideals of the document to further the interests of a small minority of people in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:18 PM

61. Yep, he just hates what's in it.

It kills him to know that the Constitution gives to all of the unwashed masses all sorts of freedoms he doesn't think we deserve. What a vile man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:09 PM

46. How does he get away with continually saying this?

If Sotomayor said this, it would be national news, congressional repubs would be calling for her dismissal and there would be a congressional investigation into Obama's selection, vetting and approval processes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:37 PM

53. Same answer to pretty much every political question

 

IOKIYAR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:11 PM

48. Rocktivity: Scalia is

a 'murderer, murderer, murder'.


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:22 PM

50. Just like his brain, brain, brain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:24 PM

51. But you liked the outcome of Bush V Gore didn't you Tony?

Are you now conceding that was bad judging?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:27 PM

64. I don't think that's what he is saying.

He is saying that he doesn't like the some of the decisions he makes, because he is forced to comply with the Constitution, even though he disagrees with it. I'm sure he is quite content with his Bush v Gore decision, as he was able to come up with a rationalization that his warped decision was somehow constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:31 PM

52. Va fanculo, Antonio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:38 PM

54. So Scalia....

What are you there for? A paycheck? So when did the constitution "die, die, die"? Before or after your appointment? What a stupid, irresponsible and dangerous claim to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cynzke (Reply #54)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:37 PM

68. He'd say it was never alive.

It doesn't grow and change that much. If you want it changed, you amend it.

I have a cat. It grows and changes. If I want it changed, I can amend it--it's neutered, making it loss some function--but if I do that too many times then it, too, is dead. Hard to amend it to give it *new* functions.

Since it's gotten harder to make changes to the Constitution the alternative has been to amend the definitions of the terms used in it and to make it say novel things--not just expand "freedom of the press" to similar kinds of activities, but to make it say novel things. "Emanations of penumbras" sort of things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:48 PM

57. Somebody give this idiot a remidial class on Common Law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 03:55 PM

58. And Scalia and his compadres killed it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:14 PM

59. Scalia: My brain is dead, dead, dead.

This asshole doesn't belong on a road-kill pick-up crew, let alone on the Supreme Court. Just because you hate what's in the Constitution doesn't mean it's dead, you filthy dirt bag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:20 PM

62. Tony is always right. Just ask him.

I saw an interview with him a few years ago, he actually stated that he was always right. The other justices can be wrong but not Tony. Although it must be a trial to be surrounded by so many deficient people, he does manage maintain cordial relationships with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:27 PM

63. So the right to bear arms is dead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:36 PM

66. he's used that line before.

and it was crap he himself didn't believe in then, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:26 PM

67. While he may think otherwise, that's just his interpretation.

When he is off the Court, that interpretation will likely have one less proponent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:44 PM

69. It's dead until something like DC vs Heller comes along

and then it suddenly becomes living and people like Scalia interpret it how they want to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 08:11 PM

71. Hey Tony! Clarence Thomas would still be a slave under your interpretation of

the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 08:14 PM

72. Scalia's ability to reason fairly and logically is dead, dead, dead. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 10:46 PM

76. Finally, We Can Rescind The Second Amendment

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:01 PM

77. I know on the day this happens

I'm going to get spanked hard on DU and I'll take it. The day he dies I will be grave dancing.

I absolutely despise him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:38 PM

78. meaning only muskets should be allowed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:47 PM

79. I hate when I misread OPs. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:28 AM

80. and he helped kill it when he selected Dubya for President.

The constitution was pretty much superceded by the provisions in the Patriot Act. The most unpatriotic of all acts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:50 AM

81. Hey, Scanklia...

Fuck off!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 01:55 AM

82. Sounds like a confession of murder to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:14 AM

83. Then since his job is to defend it, he should be "unemployed, unemployed, unemployed"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wickerwoman (Reply #83)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:29 PM

88. YES, YES, YES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:00 PM

84. yet corporations are alive and killing us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:52 PM

85. He was talking to his Pleasure Pickle

“The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge,” he said.

So, Scalia admits he always likes his results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 05:58 PM

86. If the Constitution is dead then doesn't that mean there shouldn't be any USSCJ's?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:27 PM

87. I'll be damned. The guilty do return to the scene of the crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:34 PM

89. Yup and guess who killed it? (hint: Bush v. Gore)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:58 AM

90. he is very conservative & sometimes a smartass, I don't think he ever took bribes for him and wife.

He got in very easy compaired to some but I don't think he lied under oath.

I wish there were about 10 more Justices,none of them were allowed to take any bribes for them or family (removed if they did) and more were Constitution professors for at least 10 years before appointment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:53 AM

91. Well, he did do his part to kill it by selecting Bush in 2000

But as usual, in his conceit he overestimates the results of his own actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread