Merged Scalia is dead

[Elind]

There is this group of Catholics who don't support Evolution - this group includes Santorium
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html

Yes I know. All religions have their offshoots that think they know better. They would be much more honest if they just made up their own mumbo jumbo, like Mormons for example. But the Catholics have a fairly unique hierarchy with an actual head of the church, unlike Muslims for example, or Protestants. So why call yourself Catholic if you don't accept that fact?

 

[The Big Dog]

How Supreme Court justices (especially the ideologues like Scalia) typically do their jobs is decide the outcome they want and then find a way to justify it. For example, Scalia wanted states to have the ability to force his creationist beliefs on public schools, and he no doubt found some way to justify his desired outcome. Too bad for him that seven of the other justices recognized that his arguments were BS.

You're free to quote what part of that article supports your claim that he wasn't a creationist. Or any other evidence for that matter. You, of course, will do no such thing. Because it doesn't exist.

Sure! It is the part that says "update" and in which the author apologizes for misrepresenting scalia's dissent!

Hee hee!

Tony? When you hit bottom, stop *********** digging.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No he was not, and no he didn't. You didn't read the correction either?

Several judges ruled in favor of the nazis, does that make them nazis?

Of course not.

The fact that he ruled that Creationism is a valid scientific theory proves that he's a Creationist. Nice try, though. Keep up with your denials.

Also, there is this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...ment-speech-supports-young-earth-creationism/

 

[Desert Fox]

that is convenient! That is "code speak" for "********."

Well, we have been chasing your silly goal posts all over the thread, y'all think it is about time you own up to not reading the entire article that you posted about Scalia being a creationist, particularly the correction?

It is ok, we know.

Or post more off topic crap about Santorum, that frothy substance is salve for the wounded ego.

I was answering Elind, not you. You could have just chosen to stay out of it.
He/she knows that micro-evolution is code speech for creationism. Everybody who has dealt with the issues does as well.

 

[Tony Stark]

Sure! It is the part that says "update" and in which the author apologizes for misrepresenting scalia's dissent!

Hee hee!

Tony? When you hit bottom, stop *********** digging.

Them acknowledging that Scalia was paraphrasing the argument of a party that he wrote a dissent in favor of is in no way whatsoever evidence that he is not a creationist. I don't think you even believe that. Though you still pathetically cling to it. Because it is apparently all you have even though it is nothing.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

There seems to be an unwritten rule that he would like to adhere to which says "if the status quo is to be upset, may as well let the voters have a chance to weigh in."

The voters had their "chance" to "weigh in" on any potential circumstances that might occur during this current four year term when they went to the polls in 2012. They can now once again voice their preference with regard to the upcoming term come November of this year.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

ODS is just so cute and adorable.

It's downright bizarre.

 

[TragicMonkey]

But the Catholics have a fairly unique hierarchy with an actual head of the church, unlike Muslims for example, or Protestants. So why call yourself Catholic if you don't accept that fact?

Some of my more religious relations have no difficulty in asserting that they are literally more Catholic than the pope, and have done so for the last few popes. Some of them still think everything since they ditched Latin is "practically Protestant" anyway.

Hierarchies talk a good game, but ultimately everything is a democracy whether they like it or not.

 

[The Big Dog]

The fact that he ruled that Creationism is a valid scientific theory proves that he's a Creationist. Nice try, though. Keep up with your denials.

Also, there is this:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...ment-speech-supports-young-earth-creationism/

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!! I have just explained for the last half hour how that is wrong and you just went ahead and cited it again?

(Update: Several diligent readers have complained that the above quote taken from Scalia’s dissent is unfairly attributed to Scalia and taken out of context since Scalia prefaced the quoted remarks by claiming to be only paraphrasing the arguments being made in favor of teaching creationism. The readers’ complaints have merit, and the author wishes to apologizes for any confusion. However, the larger point still stands: Scalia was wrong to defend the teaching of creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution.)

The author is a *********** moron.

By the way?

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) (also known as Smith v. Collin; sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of assembly. The outcome was that the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words." Its ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march.[1]

The Supreme Court are all Nazis!!!! I know it is true because I read it on the iSkep!



By the way? The ACLU represented the Nazis in the Skokie case? Nazis. The lawyers were Jewish. Jewish Nazis, I guess. I learned how to analyze Supreme Court precedent on iSkep!

 

[Tony Stark]

It's downright bizarre.

sunmaster believes that the reason Obama and Bill Clinton don't like Netanyahu is because they are jealous of him. Extremely bizarre.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No doubt he meant to make the following claim: "The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees [made] during a presidential election year."

Nonsense. Name them, the ones supposedly left to the next administration.

I posted McConnell's hypocrisy in his own words upstream.

If it had been Ruth Bader Ginsburg who had died during a Republican administration in an election year, I think the odds are reasonably high that he would say something similar. There seems to be an unwritten rule that he would like to adhere to which says "if the status quo is to be upset, may as well let the voters have a chance to weigh in."

That is quite the contortionist imagination you have there.

I repeat, Obama was elected!!!! Period. End of fake argument.

 

[thaiboxerken]

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!! I have just explained for the last half hour how that is wrong and you just went ahead and cited it again?

You explained nothing. Denial is all you have.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Nonsense. Name them, the ones supposedly left to the next administration.

I posted McConnell's hypocrisy in his own words upstream.

That is quite the contortionist imagination you have there.

I repeat, Obama was elected!!!! Period. End of fake argument.

What the Republicans want is Obama to stop being President, and stop right now. That's all there is to it. They don't want him to do anything, ever. Of course, they had this sentiment back when he was first elected. The best thing Obama can do is to ignore the Republicans, because their opinions don't matter.

 

[Desert Fox]

Them acknowledging that Scalia was paraphrasing the argument of a party that he wrote a dissent in favor of is in no way whatsoever evidence that he is not a creationist. I don't think you even believe that. Though you still pathetically cling to it. Because it is apparently all you have even though it is nothing.

Trying to explain this -

Now, I am not saying he was a holocaust denier and I will go on record as assuming he was not.

There is however a tactic among holocaust deniers who present the argument of others while never presenting their own positions. They are always arguing that they are just questioning.

Once you argue them down, you can usually get their holocaust denialism in the open although they never actually admit it.

I see Scalia using the same trick with his quoting especially when the law forbid the teaching of evolution unless you taught creationism. That does not read as anything like scholarly freedom. He seems to be trying to play a game with his arguments of quoting others while never actually committing.

In addition, he is suppose to be reasonably intelligent. He much have known that the state legislature (as a body) did it not for scientific reasons but for religious reasons.

By paraphrasing what he did and the tact he took, makes pretty clear that he is a creationist. You have to however think it through a bit. You also have to understand the games which creationists play.

 

[The Big Dog]

You explained nothing. Denial is all you have.

actually, I read and quoted the stupid article you cited... probably before you googled it.... dissected it and showed that it did not support the point it was cited for due to the "Update.... again, probably before you googled it... and then quoted the entire update, which I read.... probably before you googled it.

Solid piece of irony in your post tho.

 

[Craig4]

Its hilarious and a wonderful thing that the GOP leadership is going to stick it to the bastard Obama. Finally the right may be figuring out how to fight.

Yeah, only this times it's better for the Rs to do a deal now. The electoral map favors the Democrats with 24 Rs defending versus 10 Ds including seven Republicans in states Obama carried twice. If they wait, there is a very real possibility that the Republicans will be looking at a loss in the Senate and a Democratic president. At that point, the Ds just thrust a nominee down the collective Republican throat. The smart play is get a compromise candidate now.

 

[thaiboxerken]

actually, I read and quoted the stupid article you cited... probably before you googled it.... dissected it and showed that it did not support the point it was cited for due to the "Update.... again, probably before you googled it... and then quoted the entire update, which I read.... probably before you googled it.

Solid piece of irony in your post tho.

Only in your mind.

 

[The Big Dog]

here is the dissent in Edwards v. Aquillard:

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/edwards_v_aguillard_dissent.htm

Because I believe that the Balanced Treatment Act had a secular purpose, which is all the first component of the Lemon test requires, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for further consideration.

He's a creationist! I read it on the Iskeps!

 

[The Big Dog]

Only in your mind.

wait, you read my earlier posts concerning the update that totally destroyed that stupid article and then went ahead and cited the *********** stupid article anyway?

I'll be damned....

 

[Tony Stark]

Yeah, only this times it's better for the Rs to do a deal now. The electoral map favors the Democrats with 24 Rs defending versus 10 Ds including seven Republicans in states Obama carried twice. If they wait, there is a very real possibility that the Republicans will be looking at a loss in the Senate and a Democratic president. At that point, the Ds just thrust a nominee down the collective Republican throat. The smart play is get a compromise candidate now.

That would indeed be the smart move. But people like logger would call them RINO traitors if they did that. LOL.