OT – scalia

[scaredyclassic]

Final part of cleaning up 9/11 conspiracy. George Bush has no alibi for the night in question. Odd, no?

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=scaredyclassic]Final part of cleaning up 9/11 conspiracy. George Bush has no alibi for the night in question. Odd, no?[/quote]

And in TX also where the bushes control the power structure.

Edit:
Just had lunch with my brother. And we discussed just for fun… if Obama were able to reach into Bush’s turf and kill Scalia, then that makes him extremely smart. The incompetence charge would not fly.

Now, in TX, the Bush family does have a lot of influence over the local officials, business leaders and other pillars of the community.

Why Justice Scalia was staying for free at a Texas resort
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-scalias-death-and-questions-about-who-pays-for-supreme-court-justices-to-visit-remote-resorts/

[njtosd]

[quote=scaredyclassic]I miss him already. Dude knew how to move through life. I aspire to be such a confident fellow like him.[/quote]

He was identified as the funniest Justice – 19 times funnier than Ruth Bader Ginsburg:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/31/politics/so-guy-walks-up-to-the-bar-and-scalia-says.html?_r=0

He had a cohesive perspective that seemed to come from a deep level of personal conviction. I didn’t always agree with him, but I admired his unwillingness to be swayed by public approval.

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi]According to Scalia, any liberty not specifically defined in the constitution is not protected.

His attitude is: so what? If you don’t like it, amend the constitution, but don’t ask the court to broaden the constitution. Original intent and textualism.

The founding fathers clearly didn’t know anything about computers. So it follows that digital privacy is not protected. Businesses and government can do whatever they want.[/quote]

I agreed with you up to the last sentence. The point is that if the people want there to be a right that is not in the Constitution, they should vote on it. It is not appropriate for 9 highly educated elite individuals to create Constitutional rights that do not already exist. The Constitution can be changed and supplemented – according to very specific rules.

It cuts both ways Brian. What if we ended up with a Supreme Court full of arch conservatives who started finding all kinds of rights that you didn’t agree with in the “penumbra” of rights set forth in the Constitution? We have to make rules that prevent undue power regardless of who’s in charge.

[FlyerInHi]

njtosd, your point is well taken.

I didn’t make up the “so what?” comment. Scalia said it many times in interviews.

I think the conservative in Scalia meant “deal with it. if you don’t like it, then become engaged and work for change through the legislature. Take some personal responsibility and stop being cry babies.”

I can see Scalia’s point of view. On gay marriage, the Supreme Court was a victory for democrats… but I agree with Scalia. I wish they had left it to the states. It would have put the remaining holdout states in the untenable position of not recognizing out of state marriages (that required of lot of legal gyrations because even out of country marriages are recognized). Eventually, the culture war would have been unconditionally won by the best side. The states could not then not argue that they were unfairly forced by the Feds. It’s not like the outcome was not already predetermined because of changing public opinion.

[paramount]

Courts across the nation have far more power and influence than they should thanks to John Marshall.

And states power has been usurped by the national government – and much of this was started with John Marshall as well.

The Senate has an obligation IMO to reject any unacceptable scotus nominee.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=pencilneck]Saw this posted elsewhere:

Antonin Scalia requested cremation in his will, but millions of women will meet tomorrow to discuss if that’s really best for his body.[/quote]

Heh heh…

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=paramount]Courts across the nation have far more power and influence than they should thanks to John Marshall.

And states power has been usurped by the national government – and much of this was started with John Marshall as well.

The Senate has an obligation IMO to reject any unacceptable scotus nominee.[/quote]

I guess one way to get rid of the Supreme Court would be for the senate to never consent and then just wait for the oldsters on the bench to die off…..

[paramount]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

I guess one way to get rid of the Supreme Court would be for the senate to never consent and then just wait for the oldsters on the bench to die off…..[/quote]

When I heard Scalia died, the 1st thing to cross my mind was: CTA

And I wouldn’t put it past them…

[njtosd]

[quote=paramount][quote=scaredyclassic]

I guess one way to get rid of the Supreme Court would be for the senate to never consent and then just wait for the oldsters on the bench to die off…..[/quote]

When I heard Scalia died, the 1st thing to cross my mind was: CTA

And I wouldn’t put it past them…[/quote]

Chicago Transit Authority? California Teachers association?

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=njtosd][quote=paramount][quote=scaredyclassic]

I guess one way to get rid of the Supreme Court would be for the senate to never consent and then just wait for the oldsters on the bench to die off…..[/quote]

When I heard Scalia died, the 1st thing to cross my mind was: CTA

And I wouldn’t put it past them…[/quote]

Chicago Transit Authority? California Teachers association?[/quote]

I thought it was cryotechnologist technocrats amalgamated.

[NotCranky]

I don’t know why people would revere these judges. To me they are just like priests interpreting religions and manipulating them to get control for power of one flavor over another. Not so much wisdom and justice etc.

Corporations are people.

[ltsddd]

[quote=Blogstar]I don’t know why people would revere these judges. To me they are just like priests interpreting religions and manipulating them to get control for power of one flavor over another. Not so much wisdom and justice etc.

Corporations are people.[/quote]

amen

[FlyerInHi]

I would not equate judges to priests.
You need an arbiter of the law to get closure and move on.

Regarding religion, it’s your own relationship with whatever god you believe it.

I’m and atheist and I never read the Bible. But now you can search online so easily. Those searches help me in my debates with a born-again friend who thinks its a duty to evangelize.

I’ve come to conclusion that the most vociferous Christians do the opposite of what the Bible says. It’s not hard to come up with evidence. Even my friend agrees.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+12
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

[paramount]

[quote=njtosd][quote=paramount][quote=scaredyclassic]

I guess one way to get rid of the Supreme Court would be for the senate to never consent and then just wait for the oldsters on the bench to die off…..[/quote]

When I heard Scalia died, the 1st thing to cross my mind was: CTA

And I wouldn’t put it past them…[/quote]

Chicago Transit Authority? California Teachers association?[/quote]

R u kidding!? That’s all I’m saying -> I don’t want to end up with a pillow on my face!

[Author]

Posts