• 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

BobTheCoward said:
I agree with everything you say EXCEPT when trying to claim unconstitutional laws that existed as Constitutional concepts since ratification.

Two of your examples required amendments (slavery and suffrage). That supports my argument that ideals don't mean squat when a contractual interpretation is readily apparent. You can't argue that slavery was unconstitutional before the amendment and you can't argue anti miscegenation is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, that there were amendments proves my argument, not yours. That there is a mechanism in place for changing it proves beyond all doubt that it is not a 'suicide pact'.

Second, what? Are you saying that anti-gay marriage was in the Constitution? Of course it wasn't. You are the one claiming to be in line with the Constitution by claiming things it does not say are part of it.

And thirdly, I can say that the ideals of the Constitution were utterly incompatible with slavery. It took massive cognitive dissidence to not see that from the start, and many could see that the end of slavery would follow.
 
tyr_13 said:
First and foremost, that there were amendments proves my argument, not yours. That there is a mechanism in place for changing it proves beyond all doubt that it is not a 'suicide pact'.

Second, what? Are you saying that anti-gay marriage was in the Constitution? Of course it wasn't. You are the one claiming to be in line with the Constitution by claiming things it does not say are part of it.

And thirdly, I can say that the ideals of the Constitution were utterly incompatible with slavery. It took massive cognitive dissidence to not see that from the start, and many could see that the end of slavery would follow.
Click to expand...

Until you amend it, you are stuck obeying the provision.

Clearly your ideals concept is BS. We are still stuck following the actual Constitution until it changes.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Until you amend it, you are stuck obeying the provision.
Click to expand...
The 14th Amendment demands equal protection under the laws. It is completely irrelevant if the writers thought it obvious that means except for the blacks and gays since the text says nothing of the sort.
 
Governor Abbott's official statement about Scalia began: "Justice Antonin Scalia was a man of God, a patriot, and an unwavering defender of the written Constitution and the Rule of Law." And remarkably, he apparently meant those things to be complimentary.

Translation: "Justice Antonin Scalia was an irrational zealot, a tribalistic ideologue, and a champion of blind, arbitrary authoritarianism over reason, evidence and empathy. And those were his good points."
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
The 14th Amendment demands equal protection under the laws. It is completely irrelevant if the writers thought it obvious that means except for the blacks and gays since the text says nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...

And it just took over 100 years to figure it out? That is laughable.

You don't seem to disagree that the parties at the time understood it to mean it was not covered. How parties act under a contract matters. It had. Much more narrow interpretation we cannot simply wish away in the context of our modern understanding. We are confined to theirs.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
And it just took over 100 years to figure it out? That is laughable.
Click to expand...
Yes, people were (and most Republicans still are) largely bigots and did not actually care about equal protection under the law. Supreme Court justices are subsets of people. It took them about 100 years to strike down laws thay denied equal protection wrt interracial marriage and 150 years wrt gay marriage. Though the latter was unanimous while the latter 5-4. For the sole reason there were four bigots on the Supreme Court. Thankfully, we are now down to three.

You don't seem to disagree that the parties at the time understood it to mean it was not covered. How parties act under a contract matters. It had. Much more narrow interpretation we cannot simply wish away in the context of our modern understanding. We are confined to theirs.
Click to expand...

No we aren't.
 
Last edited:
ehcks said:
Wait. Was he saying that there's no such thing as appealing a case? If you can't consider new evidence after a conviction, then you can't appeal, and the entire appeals court system and even the Supreme Court itself are entirely pointless.
Click to expand...


Shorter Scalia:

Once convicted, always convicted.
 
madurobob said:
I'm confident there will be no confirmed replacement before the election. I hope to be surprised.

But, if no replacement, then is there any real threat of a 4-4 split? If I recall correctly, if there is a tie vote, the lower court ruling is upheld. Not sure yet what that might mean for the upcoming 2016 cases, but I'm sure our politicians will be considering it when they decide how to behave with regard to confirming a nominee.
Click to expand...

Note: I have not read the whole thread to this point, so lots of people may have commented since this post.


The interesting thing about this situation is the amount of political theater that will swirl around it, regardless of whether anyone is confirmed.

In the middle of the primary season, it brings the Supreme Court issue to the fore. I predict that Monday will bring a bevy of radio talk show hosts saying how important it is to replace Obama, because look what is happening. Old reliable on the court is gone, and Obama will try to replace him with a darned liberal. Not just that, though, I predict they will also be saying that it demonstrates the problem with Trump. He's not a True Conservative, so you can't take a chance.

When it comes to the nomination, you can't really not nominate someone. The seat shouldn't be vacant too long. All sorts of issues suddenly pop up. Who does he nominate How does the Senate react, especially Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Express doubt but ultimately accept, the normal thing to do with supreme court candidates? For Cruz, that would be a primary season disaster. Risk being labelled an obstructionist? Bad for the general election, but it's practically Cruz' identity.

Should be interesting.
 
logger said:
That was a nothing more than an attention whore.

The real revolution can be measured in gun and ammunition sales. ;)
Click to expand...

The fantasy you have here is driven by paranoia and does not end where you think it ends. The paranoid turn on each other every time. Best you could hope for is what happened to the French revolution. But it won't even get that far.

Every time the media looks closely at the would be revolutionary types they turn out to either be like those people you call attention whores or so paranoid they turn on each other if the group grows large than a few people.
 
While I'm sure the GOP base would love for the Senate to just stop things and prevent a new appointment how will this play with moderates and independents? This sounds like the kind of base appeasement idea that will horrifically backfire on the Republicans and in an election year too.
 
Travis said:
While I'm sure the GOP base would love for the Senate to just stop things and prevent a new appointment how will this play with moderates and independents? This sounds like the kind of base appeasement idea that will horrifically backfire on the Republicans and in an election year too.
Click to expand...
Probably. Especially since they have already stated their intentions to obstruct and so they will have no argument that their obstruction will be based on the qualifications of the person Obama nominates.

But then again the retards in the GOP base will call them traitors if they confirm any Obama appointment.

LOL. Quite a pickle they will have themselves in.
 
logger said:
... You libs have to understand, if your given this nomination our country will be changed for generations. Obama will not get another pick. I hope the repubs understand if they let Obama do this, they will start a violent revolution that cannot be stopped.

We will not be governed by the most immoral among us!!!!
Click to expand...

Edited by zooterkin: 
Edited for rule 11 and rule 12.


Tell me, will those tossers that gathered at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge be joining this armed insurgency?

:sdl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Edited by zooterkin: 
Edited for rule 11 and rule 12.


Tell me, will those tossers that gathered at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge be joining this armed insurgency?

:sdl:
Click to expand...

So sad that people would take up arms so that they can continue to keep minorities and women oppressed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Screw phony sentimentality about speaking ill of the dead and "I never wish anyone dead..." Scalia has done too much harm to this nation for that. **** that guy. I wish there was a Hell for him to rot in.
 
Last edited:
Buckaroo said:
Screw phony sentimentality about speaking ill of the dead and "I never wish anyone dead, but..." Scalia has done too much harm to this nation for that. **** that guy. I wish there was a Hell for him to rot in.
Click to expand...

He was born in Trenton, New Jersey: hasn't he suffered enough?
 
logger said:
You libs have to understand, if your given this nomination our country will be changed for generations. Obama will not get another pick. I hope the repubs understand if they let Obama do this, they will start a violent revolution that cannot be stopped.
Click to expand...


So there will be a revolution of the people who don't know the difference between "your" and "you're." I'm not too worried.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom