• 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

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.

Type scum bag, that is your go to argument.

So be was a scumbag that thought that creationist scumbags should be able to force their religious beliefs on people via the state yet wasn't actually one himself?

If this was true, it makes his position even more ridiculous and untenable.

Not that it is true. But if you're so sure the scumbag wasn't a creationist, surely you will be able to provide evidence supporting that assertion. Him stating he is not a creationist, or that he believes in evolution would suffice.
 
McConnell's own words:

Now: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/269389-mcconnell-dont-replace-scalia-until-after-election
"The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
Ludicrous given Obama was elected twice.

Unless we think "should" in that sentence is being misinterpreted and he really only meant it as a request of Obama.

Then: For the record, here's a quote from McConnell in 2005 when the shoe was on the other foot:
"The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators."

And:
"[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's 'advise and consent' responsibilities to 'advise and obstruct.'"


The blame is solely on the Republicans and they've been practicing an obstructionism that I can't believe the writers of the Constitution ever intended with their balance of powers design. Scalia would be rolling over in his grave if that were possible.
 
Last edited:
So be was a scumbag that thought that creationist scumbags should be able to force their religious beliefs on people via the state yet wasn't actually one himself?

If this was true, it makes his position even more ridiculous and untenable.

Not that it is true. But if you're so sure the scumbag wasn't a creationist, surely you will be able to provide evidence supporting that assertion. Him stating he is not a creationist, or that he believes in evolution would suffice.

Lolz, is this supposed to be a Poe?

Ignorance of how judges work does nor reflect well on your position.

You didn't read the correction, did you?

Type scumbag, that you are good at!
 
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.

Let us read Brennen here for the majority
The Creationism Act forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in "creation science." @ 17:286.4A. No school is required to teach evolution or creation science. If either is taught, however, the other must also be taught. Ibid. The theories of evolution and creation science are statutorily defined as "the scientific evidences for [creation or evolution] and inferences from those scientific evidences." @@ 17.286.3(2) and (3).
 
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.

Scalia was a Creationist and defended Creationism with his rulings. It would be easier if you simply stopped denying those facts.
 
Lolz, is this supposed to be a Poe?

Ignorance of how judges work does nor reflect well on your position.

You didn't read the correction, did you?

Type scumbag, that you are good at!
It doesn't reflect well on you if you actually believe that a judge who is not a creationist would be ok with forcing creationism in public schools. Not that I think you really believe that. You're just a sycophant of his (while laughably claiming to be a Democrat) and will say anything to defend him no matter what.

And yes, I read it. Gives no evidence whatsoever suggesting that he is not a creationist. Just, as I knew, you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that he is not a creationist. You just made that up.
 
Scalia was a Creationist and defended Creationism with his rulings. It would be easier if you simply stopped denying those facts.

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.
 
I noted upstream how odd I thought it was that he was enemies w/Sandra Day O', but best friends with R.B.Ginsburg.

Here is Ginsburg statement on Scalia.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sunday released a statement paying tribute to a man she called her "best buddy" — Justice Antonin Scalia, who died suddenly Saturday.

Ginsburg and Scalia had a famous, odd-couple relationship: She is perhaps the court's most liberal justice, while he was a conservative stalwart.

But the two often talked about their friendship in interviews. They and their families were known to spend New Year's Eve together. They even rode atop an elephant together during a trip to India.

Here is her full statement:
Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: “We are different, we are one,” different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the “applesauce” and “argle bargle”—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his “energetic fervor,” “astringent intellect,” “peppery prose,” “acumen,” and “affability,” all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.

Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pr_02-14-16.pdf
 
It doesn't reflect well on you if you actually believe that a judge who is not a creationist would be ok with forcing creationism in public schools. Not that I think you really believe that. You're just a sycophant of his (while laughably claiming to be a Democrat) and will say anything to defend him no matter what.

And yes, I read it. Gives no evidence whatsoever suggesting that he is not a creationist. Just, as I knew, you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that he is not a creationist. You just made that up.

There is no way you actually read his analysis of the lemon test, or have the first idea how Supreme Court judges do their jobs.

You didn't read the patheos article your pal posted, why start pretending you understood the dissent he wrote?
 
Lol, another article that contradicts your claims!

Do you stop reading halfway through or something?

You mean like this
Though Santorum is a social conservative Catholic and well-documented opponent of evolution, when pressed repeatedly by MSNBC host Chris Matthews earlier this year on whether he believed in evolution, Santorum said he did -- in a "micro sense."
That is code speak for creationsim
 
Sute, because southern distrust and animosity towards the north after the Civil War wasnt intense enough.

Considering the damage the Carpetbaggers did during Reconstruction, the North was frankly lucky that it had already killed most of the South's fighting-age men because they would have had another war on their hands if not for that.

Moving on, has anyone considered how odd it is for the TEAOPers to actually pull a stunt like this in an election year? They almost got the torch & pitchfork treatment in late 13 with the Shutdown and caved so it wouldn't become a political liability in 14. Now they pull this?

Makes me wonder if they know something we don't...could the "fix" already be in? We haven't had an honest election at least as far back as 00, so it's very possible.
 
There is no way you actually read his analysis of the lemon test, or have the first idea how Supreme Court judges do their jobs.

You didn't read the patheos article your pal posted, why start pretending you understood the dissent he wrote?
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.
 
You mean like this
Though Santorum is a social conservative Catholic and well-documented opponent of evolution, when pressed repeatedly by MSNBC host Chris Matthews earlier this year on whether he believed in evolution, Santorum said he did -- in a "micro sense."
That is code speak for creationsim

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.

:D
 
Scalia wrote the opinion that video games counted as free speech and California could not restrict the sales to minors. It was a 7-2 decision.
 
I don't think Obama would accept the nomination. Deep down in his subconscious, I think he knows that he is not up to snuff intellectually, and it will be very unpleasant to be subjected to analytical beatdowns over and over again by his conservative peers.

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>

Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
ODS is just so cute and adorable.
 

Back
Top Bottom