Scalia was an intellectual phony: Can we please stop calling him a brilliant jurist?

christiefan915 said:
"Over and over during Scalia’s three decades on the Supreme Court, if one of his cherished interpretive principles got in the way of his political preferences, that principle got thrown overboard in a New York minute."
Click to expand...


can you or your dumbfuck OP author back this up, Chrispie?.......or is it just another Deshclone "cheater!" moment.......
 
christiefan915 said:
Do I think Scalia's dissent in Obergefell, for instance, carries with it a right to think of that dissent as fucking dumb? Yes, I do.
Click to expand...

then, as you are such an expert on legal brilliance I'm sure you can articulate why he was wrong......

perhaps you might start by critiquing this section....

These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is
contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as
government itself, and accepted by every nation in history
until 15 years ago,21 cannot possibly be supported by
anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are
willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with
that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the
unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies,
stands against the Constitution.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious
as its content is egotistic.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
anatta said:
Corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group.
"corporations are people" is such a dishonest dumbed down meme -it's despicable. The OP is almost pure trash not worth time to critique
Click to expand...

Yet you did, and incorrectly unless you are saying you support CU. FYI nothing moderate about supporting CU. That is a far right position.
 
Rune said:
Yet you did, and incorrectly unless you are saying you support CU. FYI nothing moderate about supporting CU. That is a far right position.
Click to expand...
It's not "support " or "don't support". It's whether CU is the proper interpretation of money=political speech.
Absent public financing/Amending the Constitution it is; there is no Constitutional way to limit political spending - it's why McCain/Feingold was overturned.

I support public financing
 
Pastor PiMPle said:
he stood up against you left wing ideologues.......
Click to expand...

He won't any more. He's gone to the Big Ranch, and he' ain't coming back.

nod-1432321770.gif
 
christiefan915 said:
He gave three examples in the article, dummy. Or are you flapping your gums without having read it?
Click to expand...

Example 1.....
I will give just three out of many possible examples. In affirmative action cases, Scalia insisted over and over again that the 14th Amendment required the government to follow color-blind policies. There is no basis for this claim in either the text or history of the amendment. Indeed Scalia simply ignored a rich historical record that reveals, among other things, that at the time the amendment was ratified, the federal government passed several laws granting special benefits to African-Americans, and only African-Americans. No honest originalist reading of the Constitution would conclude that it prohibits affirmative action programs, but Justice Scalia was only interested in originalism to the extent that it advanced his political preferences.
Click to expand...

The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States in "Executive Order No.10925",[6] signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."[7] In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Any person means any person, regardless of race
Dumbed down for liberals.... color blind policies just as Scalia believed.....
 
christiefan915 said:
Explain these.
Click to expand...

Example 2
Similarly, the men who drafted and ratified the First Amendment would, it’s safe to say, been shocked out of their wits if someone had told them they were granting the same free speech rights to corporations they were giving to persons. Again as a historical matter, this idea is an almost wholly modern invention: indeed it would be hard to come up with a purer example of treating the Constitution as a “living document,” the meaning of which changes as social circumstances change. In other words, it would be difficult to formulate a clearer violation of Scalia’s claim that the Constitution should be treated as if it is “dead dead dead.”
Click to expand...


Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law. Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature).

Despite not being human beings, corporations, as far as the law is concerned, are legal persons, and have many of the same rights and responsibilities as natural persons do. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[4][5] and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.

A collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence.
— A Treatise on the Law of Corporations, Stewart Kyd (1793–1794)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top