• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Scalia is dead

Crossbow said:
Then they are wrong.

The Senate is supposed to advise and consent as opposed to having one member be an obstructionist piece of crap in order to generate some publicity that may support his presidential campaign.
Click to expand...

Its not about publicity, it's about winning!!

We want the leftist scum defeated any way possible.
 
To my knowledge no one with legal standing ever seriously argued that the Constitution banned inter-racial marriage. On what grounds would they have argued this? Pennsylvania banned interracial marriage in 1725, then repealed it in 1780 as part of a legal effort to abolish slavery in the state and grant blacks equal legal status. There were three separate efforts to amend the Constitution to ban marriage between persons of different racial groups; in 1871, 1912 and 1928. All failed.

In 1883 in Pace v Alabama plaintiffs attacked the state law banning inter-racial marriage on the grounds it violated the 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, upheld the Alabama law, not because the U.S. Constitution was interpreted as banning inter-racial marriage but because Alabama's state law did not violate the 14th amendment because it punished whites and blacks equally:
"The defect in the argument of counsel consists in his assumption that any discrimination is made by the laws of Alabama... Section 4189 applies the same punishment to both offenders, the white and the black." - U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Stephen Johnson Field Link
Click to expand...


But in 1964 and 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Florida law (making it a crime for male/female couples of different races to habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room) and a Virginia law (that went back to 1705) making it a crime for couples of different races to marry.

Ironically, the Alabama law stayed on the books until 2000, when a statewide referendum repealed it. The law remained despite state officials conceding it was unenforceable.
 
jaydeehess said:
A Canuck popping in to comment. Rubio said today to Dana Bash on CNN, that it should be the next president who nominates the next judge. He says it shouldnt be someone who"will never face the electorate" again. Rather odd imo. He wants to be POTUS himself and just stated in effect, that no president in his second term should nominate a S.C. judge.
Click to expand...

That's retarded. I'm sure others will be quick to mention both of George W. Bush's picks came in his second term. Republicans are scrambling, and their rationalizations are transparently ad hoc.
 
newyorkguy said:
To my knowledge no one with legal standing ever seriously argued that the Constitution banned inter-racial marriage. On what grounds would they have argued this? Pennsylvania banned interracial marriage in 1725, then repealed it in 1780 as part of a legal effort to abolish slavery in the state and grant blacks equal legal status. There were three separate efforts to amend the Constitution to ban marriage between persons of different racial groups; in 1871, 1912 and 1928. All failed.

In 1883 in Pace v Alabama plaintiffs attacked the state law banning inter-racial marriage on the grounds it violated the 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, upheld the Alabama law, not because the U.S. Constitution was interpreted as banning inter-racial marriage but because Alabama's state law did not violate the 14th amendment because it punished whites and blacks equally:


But in 1964 and 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Florida law (making it a crime for male/female couples of different races to habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room) and a Virginia law (that went back to 1705) making it a crime for couples of different races to marry.

Ironically, the Alabama law stayed on the books until 2000, when a statewide referendum repealed it. The law remained despite state officials conceding it was unenforceable.
Click to expand...


That sounds like the idiocy that anti-gay marriage didn't violate equal protection because straight and gay men were both equally bound and limited to marrying only women.
 
The wisdom of Antonin Scalia.
“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?"
Click to expand...

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion.”
Click to expand...

“To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’” Scalia reportedly said, flicking his right hand from under his chin. In Italian, this not-so subtle phrase means **** off!
Click to expand...

When a lawyer corrected his misuse of "stratosphere" during an environmental case he snapped back, “Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I’m not a scientist. That’s why I don’t want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.”
Click to expand...


And the all-time favorite Scaliaism
Discussing his expanded definition of the second amendment, Scalia once said, “It doesn’t apply to cannons—but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."
Click to expand...

Link
 
The Don said:
I disagree. There is mileage to be got from opposing any Obama nomination. There is a fair chance that there will be a Republican president and therefore an even more conservative Scalia replacement.

The type of people who care about this are the type who won't be voting GOP in any case.
Click to expand...

You can quite equally argue that the kind of people who would get a kick out of the congress republicans rejecting every Obama appointed candidate by default, are the type of people who would be voting republican in any case. That's why I don't see such action realistically increasing the popularity of the republican nominee.

On the other hand, the people in the middle, and those that have been worried about the tea party takeover of the republican party have not been too happy about the obstructionism. These people may, or may not vote republican. If they see more obstructionism that is based on nothing else but the desire to sabotage Obama, they may view that negatively.

That's why I think that announcing ahead of time that they are going to reject any Obama nominees is not a move that is going to make them any more popular (as it'll only gain points with their core base tea party voters anyway), and might drive away some moderates, who view such a-priori decision before even looking at the candidate as too extreme, and unproductive.
 
Wonder if Scalia would have supported personal ownership of one of these :D

250px-DavyCrockettBomb.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29
 
Last edited:
Desert Fox said:
Wonder if Scalia would have supported personal ownership of one of these :D

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/DavyCrockettBomb.jpg/250px-DavyCrockettBomb.jpg[/qimg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29
Click to expand...

hahaha!!!

the Davy Crocket.

aka mini-nuclear device. :)
 
Desert Fox said:
Wonder if Scalia would have supported personal ownership of one of these :D

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/DavyCrockettBomb.jpg/250px-DavyCrockettBomb.jpg[/qimg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29
Click to expand...

You haven't actually read is opinion in Heller, have you?
 
Swordfishtrombone said:
Whichever path they take, they lose: either by having an Obama appointee in the Supreme court, or by giving additional ammunition to the democrat candidate in the presidential election.
Click to expand...


But if Trump is the nominee, he'll just claim that he's not part of the problem.

Steve S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom