Since you have provided no evidence you are, you lose. If you were, you would provide it. Since you don't, it falls into the same category as you saying you signed your food stamp paperwork when you really didn't. Your lack of evidence is all I need to know you aren't on it.
Scalia was an intellectual phony: Can we please stop calling him a brilliant jurist?
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
Since you have provided no evidence you are, you lose. If you were, you would provide it. Since you don't, it falls into the same category as you saying you signed your food stamp paperwork when you really didn't. Your lack of evidence is all I need to know you aren't on it.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
You made the claim. Can't prove it, you take the shame.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Ginsberg?......
As I've shown...."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."
And as such, any of those people can be sentenced to prison, as they ARE REAL PEOPLE.....so I don't know wth you're talking about, and neither do you.
I looked through the dissenting opinions and saw no lashing out at anyone nor any insults by Scalia....
I saw a well reasoned argument for his point of view according to law and his views about legislating from the bench.
I didn't read the dissenting opinions of the other 3 judges......
Never said they shouldn't be taxed. You don't want them having a say as a "person" yet you don't mind taxing them the same as you tax "people". I said if you are going to tax them like a person, treat them like one. You want them to be taxed like people but treat them as a corporation instead of a person. In other words, you operate under the typical double standard.
You dumb shits think that whatever amount you get from them actually costs them anything. Those costs are transferred to consumers in the end.
Are you claiming that you are? Simple yes or no question. Your failure to answer is all the proof I need.
christiefan915
Catalyst
The two examples below weren't color blind policies. Does anybody resent the government for having done this?
"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."
The Freedmen's Bureau Bill, which established the Freedmen's Bureau on March 3, 1865, was initiated by President Abraham Lincoln and was intended to last for one year after the end of the Civil War...
The Bureau helped solve everyday problems of the newly freed slaves, such as obtaining clothing, food, water, health care, communication with family members, and jobs. It distributed 15 million rations of food to African Americans,[SUP][7][/SUP] and set up a system where planters could borrow rations in order to feed freedmen they employed...
And
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 27) was a momentous chapter in the development of civic equality for newly emancipated blacks in the years following the Civil War.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Why did it take until 2007 and a SCOTUS decision if it was a given from the beginning?
christiefan915
Catalyst
"The Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion..."
"what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch..."
"They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else
in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis,
William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not..."
"Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often incoherent..."
"Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms?
And my favorite. Irony was dead to Scalia.
"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances,
even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so."
"The Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion..."
"what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch..."
"They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else
in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis,
William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not..."
"Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often incoherent..."
"Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms?
And my favorite. Irony was dead to Scalia.
"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances,
even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so."
Very eloquent I would say.... exercising the power of fluent, forceful, and appropriate speech....legislating from the bench and finding imaginary rights where none
exist requires a certain about of incoherent logic and that needed to be pointed out.
Akin to finding the freedom to kill unborn infants on demand hiding under the guise of privacy.....a stunning find that would have Madison and Jefferson gaping with open mouths.....
Yes, who ever would think that that intimacy and spirituality were freedoms in the context of same sex marriage hiding in the Constitution....certainly not the
"Founding Fathers"......the majority opinion was a coup d'état accomplished by bastardizing and corrupting the purpose and meaning of what they wrote so long ago....
Yes....eloquent is way I would describe it.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
because no one tried to stop them before.......
Did you not notice the dates??
The Treatise on the Law of Corporations, in by Stewart Kyd (1793–1794)
Dailykos? Really? You don't expect them to show how Obama himself did what he now says is wrong do you? You don't expect them to show how Democrats did to Robert Bork what they now say is wrong?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Scalia always whined about substantive due process and incorporation via the 14th ammendment throughout his entire career, he wanted to tear down Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, and all the cases that it was based upon. But then a gun case comes up to him, and in an act of total hypocrisy, he entirely reverses his position and bases his opinion on, guess what, substantive due process and incorporation via the 14th amendment. He's a hypocrite and twisted the constitution however he wanted to shove rightist ideology down the throats of the American people.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It isn't the fault of the court if people in the past were not smart enough to see the clear conclusions of their own words and violated their own laws. Any obvious reading of the 14th amendment precludes racial discrimination, but for the longest time the court upheld racial discrimination. Why? Because they were cowards. Because they bowed to the political pressure of the day. We are not bound by their lack of foresight.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
They should pass a law abolishing corporations, and then pass a new law establishing a new form of legal contract that is equivalent in every sense except not having the rights of persons or being recognized as such.
Corporations are creatures of the law, they have no right to exist outside of the laws strict legal bindings.
Corporations are creatures of the law, they have no right to exist outside of the laws strict legal bindings.