Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Conservative Giant Has Passed Away


Recommended Posts

3893a13c54cfa8c510efd6e2397192d8.jpgA man of unquestioned conservative principles who was an Originalist on the court. Condolences to his family. He will be greatly missed.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/96c0cdf1ceaa4c10837f40fe53528116/victory-or-dissent-scalia-was-man-strong-opinions

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html

 

RIP

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a living document, I think it's dead. More precisely, I think it's enduring. It doesn't change. I think that needs to be orthodoxy.

 

Antonin Gregory Scalia -- Supreme Court Justice

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a living document, I think it's dead. More precisely, I think it's enduring. It doesn't change. I think that needs to be orthodoxy.

 

Antonin Gregory Scalia -- Supreme Court Justice

Exactly why Obama should nominate a replacement now and then the Senate should vote on him/her within 60 days.  Normal time to approve/disapprove a nominee has been about 60 days.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly why Obama should nominate a replacement now and then the Senate should vote on him/her within 60 days.  Normal time to approve/disapprove a nominee has been about 60 days.

too bad the dems doan control either house.

 

lets see obama try a recess appointment. :D

 

of course dems want the constitution viewed as a living document so they can brainwash people into thinking it's proper to alter the basic underpinnings of this republic.

 

they'd love to abolish the 2nd amendment but no mechanism exists to do so.

 

if these democrats had been alive during our war for independence, they'd of tried to sell the line that benedict arnold was an independent thinker who should be hear'd out. (my grampa joad vocab moment for today) :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

too bad the dems doan control either house.

 

lets see obama try a recess appointment. :D

 

of course dems want the constitution viewed as a living document so they can brainwash people into thinking it's proper to alter the basic underpinnings of this republic.

 

they'd love to abolish the 2nd amendment but no mechanism exists to do so.

 

if these democrats had been alive during our war for independence, they'd of tried to sell the line that benedict arnold was an independent thinker who should be hear'd out. (my grampa joad vocab moment for today) :lol:

Spoken like someone living in 1776.  Wait a minute ... if you dislike change so much I guess that would have made you a redcoat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoken like someone living in 1776.  Wait a minute ... if you dislike change so much I guess that would have made you a redcoat.

Bogie56, it is possible to lose sight of basic longstanding moral standards and eventually lose one's bearings.

 

as I say, I doan have a problem with obama naming scalia's replacement NOW.

 

But obama's gotta know it ain't gonna happen until next year.

 

why should obama inflame passions so quickly?

 

would a pause of even a fortnight before naming someone kill him?

 

is barack obama that much of an ideological messianic mentality that he has to be so constantly fed? :huh:

 

 

that last question was rhetorical. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bogie56, it is possible to lose sight of basic longstanding moral standards and eventually lose one's bearings.

 

as I say, I doan have a problem with obama naming scalia's replacement NOW.

 

But obama's gotta know it ain't gonna happen until next year.

 

why should obama inflame passions so quickly?

 

would a pause of even a fortnight before naming someone kill him?

 

is barack obama that much of an ideological messianic mentality that he has to be so constantly fed? :huh:

 

 

that last question was rhetorical. :)

The only people calling Obama a messiah are you knuckleheads. "Inflame passions?" So you're admitting Congressional Republicans have the emotional maturity of middle-schoolers.

 

As for your idiotic comments about the Constitution not being tampered with, and then unironically immediately bringing up the 2nd AMENDMENT, that's priceless. Do you not understand that the Amendments were added after the fact? Do you not know what the definition of the word amendment is? Do you recall the 18th and 21st amendments?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep Bogie, and what I've always found kind'a "funny" is the constant incongruity in thought exhibited by folks who believe in this whole "strict constitutionist" mindset, in so much as the same people who ALSO often pontificate that they ONLY believe in the "infallibility of some Deity and not of Man" will on the other hand seem to constantly insist in the thought of the infallibility of the Founders and any and all of THEIR writings, and as if any of their writings were ALSO etched on some stone tablets as were those which supposedly Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai.

 

Yep, the concept which I BELIEVE the Founders of this Republic is that said Founders WERE smart and enlightened enough to know that the Constitution they wrote WAS and IS a "living document", and unfortunately hardheads like Justice Scalia were AND are just..well...too freakin' hardheaded to realize this!

 

(...and speakin' of "hardheads" and "Deities"...yeah, I wonder when are all the freakin' hardheads out there who keep implying that others think of our present POTUS as some kind of "messiah" are going to WISE THE HELL UP and realize FEW IF ANY people out there EVER DID???...yeah, I know, probably never, huh...they're just too freakin' HARDHEADED!!!)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(...and speakin' of "hardheads" and "Deities"...yeah, I wonder when are all the freakin' hardheads out there who keep implying that others think of our present POTUS as some kind of "messiah" are going to WISE THE HELL UP and realize FEW IF ANY people out there EVER DID???...yeah, I know, probably never, huh...they're just too freakin' HARDHEADED!!!)

I believe it started way back when Obama was first elected, and Chris Matthews was gushing with praise, and Rush Limbaugh made a lot of fun of it, stating that Matthews was speaking about Obama as if he were the reborn messiah and the "anointed one." That has been Rush's nickname for Obama ever since, and like most of the lukewarm puke that leaks out Rush's pill-addled maggot brain, it has infected the rest of the right-wing media and spread to their listeners/viewers/readers, creating this false idea that all or any view Obama in such a fashion (including Obama himself). It's the way most of these idiotic ideas and theories get started: somebody read someone who was paraphrasing something they heard that was repeated from an article that was misquoted by Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the concept which I BELIEVE the Founders of this Republic is that said Founders WERE smart and enlightened enough to know that the Constitution they wrote WAS and IS a "living document", and unfortunately hardheads like Justice Scalia were AND are just..well...too freakin' hardheaded to realize this!

 

 

The Founders intended for the Constitution to change as the country changed.  These were enlightened, educated, experienced and farsighted men who knew history.  They had seen government in England and Europe change.  The English government of 18th Century was not the English government of 1066.  That is why there are so many vague parts to it.

If they had not intended for interpretations to change with the times, why have a Congress to pass laws?

Only one example would be that every gun owner would have to be enrolled in official state miltias under the Second Amendment.  Scalia ignored and/or re-interpreted that.

Scalia's problem is that he saw the Supreme Court and the nation were going in a different direction than he and the extremists wanted.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people calling Obama a messiah are you knuckleheads. "Inflame passions?" So you're admitting Congressional Republicans have the emotional maturity of middle-schoolers.

 

As for your idiotic comments about the Constitution not being tampered with, and then unironically immediately bringing up the 2nd AMENDMENT, that's priceless. Do you not understand that the Amendments were added after the fact? Do you not know what the definition of the word amendment is? Do you recall the 18th and 21st amendments?

 

Well back in 2007 and 2008 many Obama supporters were claiming he would bring about a lot of change.    Many of these Obama supporters had a middle-schooler understanding of US politics and lack of understanding of how power is divided and 'balanced' in DC.    

 

What I find funny is now it is the ignorant GOP supporters of folks like Cruz and Trump as well as some Sanders supporters that believe THEIR President will be all powerful.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For clarification.  The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) were adopted at same time as main body of Constitution.  Many (most?) state legislatures made it a requirement that they would not adopt the Consitution unless the Bill of Rights was a part of it. 

An amendment is a part of the Constitution.  I don't believe even Scalia would have denied that.  That is why it is so hard (thank God) to amend the Constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, the second Amendment is conflicting in itself.  "Well regulated", "militia" and "not infringed" are contradictory.  Let alone what does "bear arms" really mean?

yeah, I agree, but you can't expect 'legislators' who would pass a humungous aca bill without first reading it to be trusted with re-interpreting the constitution.

 

that's obama's forte. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

For clarification.  The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) were adopted at same time as main body of Constitution.  Many (most?) state legislatures made it a requirement that they would not adopt the Consitution unless the Bill of Rights was a part of it. 

An amendment is a part of the Constitution.  I don't believe even Scalia would have denied that.  That is why it is so hard (thank God) to amend the Constitution.

While at the same time being "amendments" to the original document. My point still stands: it is a living document and was intended as such, so no change, no matter how fundamental, is out of the question as long as the proper procedures for doing so are followed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well back in 2007 and 2008 many Obama supporters were claiming he would bring about a lot of change.    Many of these Obama supporters had a middle-schooler understanding of US politics and lack of understanding of how power is divided and 'balanced' in DC.    

 

What I find funny is now it is the ignorant GOP supporters of folks like Cruz and Trump as well as some Sanders supporters that believe THEIR President will be all powerful.

Just look at FDR - - he wanted to do so much for the blacks but couldn't because all who surrounded him in government were opposed. Any legislation he proposed or managed to get passed (the latter an impossibility) would have instantly turned him into a lame duck in that he would receive no support for other, more all-encompassing legislation designed to aid everyone in our country.

 

He had to refrain for the betterment of all citizens. A difficult pill to swallow.

 

So much for a President of the United States of America being all powerful. For good or bad (at any particular time in history), it's those checks and balances which do work as intended.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just look at FDR - - he wanted to do so much for the blacks but couldn't because all who surrounded him in government were opposed. Any legislation he proposed or managed to get passed (the latter an impossibility) would have instantly turned him into a lame duck in that he would receive no support for other, more all-encompassing legislation designed to aid everyone in our country.

 

He had to refrain for the betterment of all citizens. A difficult pill to swallow.

 

So much for a President of the United States of America being all powerful. For good or bad (at any particular time in history), it's those checks and balances which do work as intended.

 

Well, all of 'em EXCEPT that "messiah" Obama, of course!

 

Haven't you heard, James?! THAT guy has used his Executive Privilege powers like TEN TIMES more than any other President ever has!

 

(...spread the word, dude...spread the word) ;)

 

LOL

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all of 'em EXCEPT that "messiah" Obama, of course!

 

Haven't you heard, James?! THAT guy has used his Executive Privilege powers like TEN TIMES more than any other President ever has!

 

(...spread the word, dude...spread the word) ;)

 

LOL

 

The only thing we lack is a Reichstag to burn down to give him more power. ;)

 

By the (executive) order of the president for the protection of people and the state.

 

fire.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave the Scalia Chair Vacant

 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

 

It is a measure of the stature and the significance of Justice Antonin Scalia that, upon the news of his death at a hunting lodge in Texas, Washington was instantly caught up in an unseemly quarrel over who would succeed him.

 

But no one can replace Justice Scalia.

 

He was a giant among jurists. For a third of a century, he led the conservative wing of the high court, creating a new school of judicial thought called “originalism.”

 

Read more @:

 

http://buchanan.org/blog/leave-the-scalia-chair-vacant-124793

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave the Scalia Chair Vacant

 

That would be good - permanently leave it vacant.  That leaves the court at 4 to 4 forever.  Then gradually reduce court to ZERO.  Because if we do not fill the Scalia chair, we cannot fill any others.  

We would never fill a SCOTUS chair as long as an election is pending - and elections are pending every two years.

Incidentally, it is not the "Scalia Chair," it is a supreme court chair or the people's chair (one of nine) on the Supreme Court.

Besides which Scalia's Constitution requires that the vacancy be filled by the current President.  Period.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...