TV and credit cards
Contributor
Shame on you. The man had his opinions and the country saw fit to appoint him as a Supreme Court Justice. Who the fuck are you?
-
Features
SC Justice Scalia Has Died
- Thread starter Cheerful Charlie
- Start date
untermensche
Contributor
He's the weakest member of the Court.
He bases his opinion on the personal assurances of James Madison.
That slave owner who understood the modern world so well.
He doesn't spare marijuana users from government intrusion and declare it a matter of personal freedom. He merely says it is only a matter for the States.
Let them do what they want with people who willfully consume marijuana.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
The debate.
Trump "Delay! Delay! Delay!"
Kasich "Obama shouldn't nominate anybody"
Carson maybe judges shouldn't be appointed for life. "We should look at that"
"We shouldn't allow Obama to appoint a supreme court justice".
Rubio I don't believe the president should nominate someone....."
Bush "Approve somebody with a proven conservative outlook..."
"Obama will not have a consensus"
Cruz "We are not going to give up and allow Obama to nominate a liberal SC justice".
I need something to drink..
Trump "Delay! Delay! Delay!"
Kasich "Obama shouldn't nominate anybody"
Carson maybe judges shouldn't be appointed for life. "We should look at that"
"We shouldn't allow Obama to appoint a supreme court justice".
Rubio I don't believe the president should nominate someone....."
Bush "Approve somebody with a proven conservative outlook..."
"Obama will not have a consensus"
Cruz "We are not going to give up and allow Obama to nominate a liberal SC justice".
I need something to drink..
untermensche
Contributor
You become a Supreme Court Justice based on the opinion of less than 100 people.
Nobody is appointed by the "country" whatever that means.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,896
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
R.I.P. - Rest in Purgatory, ya catholic bastard.
untermensche
Contributor
Of course. It is only his responsibility to appoint somebody. It is only how the Court is supposed to work.
But some have responsibilities to higher powers than the nation.
maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
Oh posh. Scalia was, by all accounts, a good friend and colleague - he made it a routine practice to invite Court liberals to go shooting with him (and some did). He was also one of the most principled jurist (only Thomas (or perhaps Alito) being distinctly more so). His opinions were insightful, enjoyable, and mostly correct - his intelligence was top notch.
His work will be read in Constitutional law long after the trashy work of Sotomayor, O'Connor, and several others are long forgotten.
The thing is the Republicans will try to block any nomination hoping to be doing the appointing next year.
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
And when they loose the election they'll try to block the nomination next year too.
maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
How is that? Are you saying Harry Reid, found in the same situation with a Republican President, would never do such a thing? What exactly in beat-up Harry's self-admitted fabrication over Romney's taxes, and months of ranting, leads you to believe that?
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Time to document maxparrish. Time to document!
I'm pretty sure that a living document isn't correctly interpreted by original intent of people three hundred years ago who had no idea about today's world. Analogy: World was created in seven days by astute ancients to world came into being about 13.7 billion years ago by evidence of modern science. Some things just aren't universal, like law, in man's world.
He was an evil piece of shit Max. I don't care if he invited li erals to lunch. His actions and "opinions" were evil.
maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
It it inherently evil to try and follow the language of the Constitution, and that of statutory law? Or is it just "evil" to not warp the law to fit policies you like?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
It's not really a chance, it's a legal obligation.
It is inherently evil to ignore parts of the constitution to impose one's religious bogotry and evil onto others Max. Max, my opinion of you is just as my opinion of Scalia though fortunately you have zero power to inflict yourself onto others by law as that evil piece of shit Scalia had. Goodbye Max. i know you and have zero interest in engaging with you ever. Bye Max.
prideandfall
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,118
- Location
- a drawer of inappropriate starches
- Basic Beliefs
- highly anti-religious agnostic
if the answer is yes, scalia was most definitely evil.
he was a blatant psychotic who's only possibly positive attribute was that he was just smart enough to sound intelligent to fucking retards while he used "the constitution" to justify the fact he's a neocon nutjob.
couple friends and i were in the room together when we read about this and there was cheering and celebration - this is one of the greatest things to happen for this country in many years.
maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
Document what? As you don't seem to have much of a grip on Scalia's judicial philosophy (which is not original intent but original textual understanding) 'documentation' on your misunderstanding is a fool's errand.
Besides, if the age of a law makes it invalid, then why do liberals and Conservative jurists bother with constitutional law at all?
Why not just claim that any law over 30 years old is "not today's world" and should, therefore, be ignored?
untermensche
Contributor
Back in Truman's and Eisenhower's day Justices would be confirmed in less than 2 weeks.
Almost every Justice in US history was confirmed in less than 100 days from nomination.
To not allow Obama to make a nomination is to negate the will of the American people who elected him for 4 years, not 3.
Almost every Justice in US history was confirmed in less than 100 days from nomination.
To not allow Obama to make a nomination is to negate the will of the American people who elected him for 4 years, not 3.
maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
You've offered no evidence that Scalia ignored parts of the constitution so as to impose religious bigotry or evil...I doubt you've even read an entire Scalia opinion. And as your "view" of Scalia seems to be little broken record name calling of the dead jurist, I can understand why you can't (or won't) "engage ever".
Rest assured, you are entitled to leave us with your lofty argument of "me hate Scalia" as the totality of your "thought"...but you are not going get away without being called on it. Should you choose to vent more such rantings, I will continue to do so.
Of corse he would. It would also give the GOP nominee a very valid and valuable campaign point to hammer the opposition with over their politically motivated obstructionism and it would get them a lot of well deserved votes.
The best thing that could happen for Clinton and all the down vote candidates for the House and Senate would be for the GOP to be as obstructionist as possible over the until the election.