• 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

Elind said:
Scalia was the supreme court version of Trump. Better elocution but similar thinking.
Click to expand...


I disagree.

Trump is a creature of expediency and self aggrandizement.

Scalia was a hidebound ideologue with both feet firmly planted in the 19th Century, but he can't be accused of not sticking to his principles, as despicable as they might have been.
 
Scalia was a creationist
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...ment-speech-supports-young-earth-creationism/

The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth.”…

Creation science is educationally valuable…
 
Desert Fox said:
Scalia was a creationist
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...ment-speech-supports-young-earth-creationism/

The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth.”…

Creation science is educationally valuable…
Click to expand...
He also apparently had no idea what a scientific theory is. Common for creationists and Republicans.
 
According to McConnell's logic, Obama became ineligible to nominate a Justice in early November of 2012.
 
Desert Fox said:
Scalia was a creationist
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...ment-speech-supports-young-earth-creationism/

The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger…. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific “fact,” since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or “guess.”… It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a “myth.”…

Creation science is educationally valuable…
Click to expand...

No he wasn't, that is a paraphrase of a party's arguments in the case before the Supreme Court.

Typical defamation from the completely uninformed.
 
quadraginta said:
Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch



Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.
Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa.
According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.


<Link>
Click to expand...

Presumably his.
 
Minoosh said:
"Arms" had a very specific legal and historical context. Does that mean the Constitution clearly meant to authorize only musket-bearing?

So you are not a strict constructionist, is that correct?
Click to expand...

For sure, for a "strict constructionist" who relies solely on the intentions of the writers of the constitution, the 2nd amendment clearly does NOT include automatic weapons. Those who wrote the constitution were clearly not referring to automatic weapons when the said "the right to bear arms."

This is undeniable.
 
16.5 said:
No he wasn't, that is a paraphrase of a party's arguments in the case before the Supreme Court.

Typical defamation from the completely uninformed.
Click to expand...
A party that wanted to be able to force the teaching of creationism in public schools. Scalia apparently found their arguments persuasive given that he wrote the dissent. One of the many times he was on the wrong side of the Constitution and history.

But sure, it had absolutely nothing with him wanting to force his religious beliefs on people. Yeah, that is totally believable.
 
Last edited:
Desert Fox said:
This is from a Creationist source
http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/pr...utiful-excerpts-from-antonin-scalia-dissents/
They argue that he is a wonderful person for supporting that opinion. . . .It is after all part of his decent. Stop trying to play games.
Click to expand...

Your source intentionally misquoted his dissent. I guess you did too

Brennan Marshall and Stevens ruled in favor of tha Nazi party in Skokie v. Nazis, zomg! That makes them teh nazis.

:rolleyes:

Go back and reread your source, you are wrong, but I suspect you are not going to clear up your misleading post. Too bad.
 
pgwenthold said:
For sure, for a "strict constructionist" who relies solely on the intentions of the writers of the constitution, the 2nd amendment clearly does NOT include automatic weapons. Those who wrote the constitution were clearly not referring to automatic weapons when the said "the right to bear arms."

This is undeniable.
Click to expand...

Is it not undeniable that Scalia felt to his core that his constitutional interpretation was that of a "dead" document (his words) which meant what the writers meant AT THE TIME?
 
Tony Stark said:
A party that wanted to be able to force the teaching of creationism in public schools. Scalia apparently found their arguments persuasive given that he wrote the dissent. One of the many times he was on the wrong side of the Constitution and history.

But sure, it had absolutely nothing with him wanting to force his religious beliefs on people. Yeah, that is totally believable.
Click to expand...

He was not a creationist, and a judge's ruling on the law does not mean that are his personal beliefs.

Did you read the correction on the article your pal cited?

I guess no.
 
Last edited:
I am looking at the whole text of Edwards v. Aguillard on Talk.Origins as I discuss this.

Those arguing for Scalia have two choices. . .
1. Scalia is stupid - ie: He believes the arguments that teaching creationism has a secular purpose.
2. He is dishonest - ie: He know the arguments are Bovine Excrement but he is willing to play games.
Which do you prefer? Either way I win.
 
Desert Fox said:
I am looking at the whole text of Edwards v. Aguillard on Talk.Origins as I discuss this.

Those arguing for Scalia have two choices. . .
1. Scalia is stupid - ie: He believes the arguments that teaching creationism has a secular purpose.
2. He is dishonest - ie: He know the arguments are Bovine Excrement but he is willing to play games.
Which do you prefer? Either way I win.
Click to expand...

Too bad you didn't read the whole text of the patheos article before you posted that defamatory nonsense about him being a creationist. It would be easier to take your goal post move seriously.

Cool false dichotomy tho.
 
Elind said:
Is it not undeniable that Scalia felt to his core that his constitutional interpretation was that of a "dead" document (his words) which meant what the writers meant AT THE TIME?
Click to expand...

That is the claim, but the question is whether those who claim to rely on what the writers meant actually really believe that. As I pointed out, it cannot be denied that the writers were not referring to automatic weapons when they wrote the 2nd amendment. So they should not have any problems with laws against them.

That is if they are honest, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom