America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I suppose his homophobic comments and unfortunately racist statements are in line with the consitution of the founding fathers - in the narrowest possible view.

So maybe your right - he could have been just common right wing.

Scalia was one of the most brilliant minds to ever grace that bench.

He points out that because of their color, a student is allowed to attend a college that they would normally not make the cut and then they struggle with grades, if not just outright drop out. So he suggests that maybe a college that would be easier to get into, would be a better fit as they would not struggle as much.

Is that racist, or just an astute observation?

To you it is racist, but then to a libby dem, race first and always.

And the S.C. ignored the will of the people...even Cali voted 3 times to not consider marriage between the same sex a marriage.

And guess what? 70% of blacks voted to keep marriage traditional. some 60% of latinos.

So go embrace the LGBT on your own dime and stop foisting it on the rest of us.

Foister!

No, Scalia was single minded and narrow visioned. He held that the letter of law was more important than justice.

And when was justice ever as simple as a rule?

And why would you not embrace LGBT?
Does your singular vision of morality dictate it?
Did your god tell you not to?

BTW, the SC is supposed to provide justice, not the will of the people.
As sometimes the people are bigoted....

At that level the letter should always be more important except in an incredibly rare instance.

Did the SC provide justice in the Dred Scott case? How about Plessy vs. Ferguson? How about FDR's baby, the Korematsu case?

The law was bastardized in those cases by these "supreme intellects."
Where was your justice?
So many times the S.C. is bigoted- how can that be? The peon civilians are the racists.

I don't care what the gay community does, or the trans, or the bi-s.
But, when that community pushes their agenda and forces everyone to accept it as the new normal, or be called homophobes or that we are Bible clingers, then I have an issue. Trying to pass off transgender/transexuals/ transwhatevers as normal and acceptable and "you better embrace it or else" is reCOCKulous.

And as a side note, are Bi-sexual people put upon in society-when did that happen?

Back to original intent of the judicial system. Justice is supposed to be blind to the parties and follow the law and pass judgements based on the law. We now have the judiciary legislating from the bench.

How is THAT tolerable?

Following the law is what judges are supposed to do. It may not give out the justice that one wants, but when you have judges individually deciding what they think is justice, that is a recipe for lawlessness.

Maybe he tapped out banging Ruth Batty Ginsu.

Or smoked too much of water Kennedy hits.

^ +1

+1

+1

I think Mitch is a bad joke; and he is one of my senators. We not only need balance in the Court but also the checks and balances in the rest of the government. We for too long have had a "House divided against its self" in our government because our politicians have been more concerned with keeping or getting more personal power then effective governance. I think Scalia would not be in favor of waiting till after the election. Because, for all of his faults, I think he did believe in the letter of the constitution and the rule of law.

The court should be made up of a non-biased third party... to be fair and stuff...

Of course I never suggested that the justices were fully successful. They are after all humans that carry the values of their time and culture – so it goes.

If laws did not require interpretation, we would have little need of judges – but they do require interpretation. That’s because laws are never perfectly written or account for all circumstances – or always have agreement between them. It is a gross oversimplification to believe that justice is always served by the letter of the law. A true worm’s eye view of things….

And I get it the LBGT folks make you uncomfortable.
Now get over it.

yes, i accept your nomination

I disagree with a great deal of what you post, but I generally support your right to hold and state your opinions. I suppose that I still do, but after that abhorrent post, that support is waning. Sad and ugly, Brew.

...riiiiight

It was a pathetic comment and a telling one, given the one who posted it.

This is fun...
Ok... By your claims, Scalia is a constitutionalist. Also, by your claim, the Constitution provides the president the power to appoint the supreme Court justices... Without Senate approval even...(I'm just following your exact statements)

But despite you believing these two things, you believe that scalia would support some sort of end run around the Constitution because it could prevent him from being replaced by "lefty hacks" ... Who you don't believe would follow the Constitution.

And you stated all of this without any intended irony.

....

Who knows maybe out of a Random act of kindness or complete foolishness Obama will appoint the most conservative, constitutionalist, states-rights judge this nation has ever seen.

First off I was kidding.
Second, I wrote that after reading some of Teddy's rantings - so just like the rest of us, my judgment and sensibility were temporarily impaired.
Thirdly, Sorry my crass humor offended your delicate sensibilities.
And lastly, Thank you dstieger, for your ongoing support and patronage. It is hard to put a value on it.
But I'll try....

Yes he was a Constitutionalist and yes the Constitution provides that the Pres. nominates S.C. Justices.
(lets keep up with the actual Constitution, Maynard)

And there is no "end run" around the Constitution as, again according to the actual written text in the Constitution, there
is nothing that states the Senate need act on a nominee. It is up to the Senate.

And it is not like I believe "lefty hack" justices don't follow the Constitution, they actually look for ways to interpret the Constitution to bastardize its meaning to push their agendas.

...and you followed along without any cliffs notes.

Hey, we can't all come up with the laughable chit T-ball comes up with.

So what if it is pure BS? It sounded plausible – and that’s all it takes in the political forum.
Or it could be that I was reading other threads that TBG wrote – yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket. I was, uh, reading other stuff that he wrote and it threw me off, made me all light headed and stuff. I could have been hurt…..That guy is dangerous. We should regulate that stuff he writes. It’s like toxic waste, or SARS, or anything Bill O’Rielly says….

Huh, that rhymes…

dude i really didnt/dont think you were joking
we all have our differences but that comment was unbecoming considering what i know of you
and id like to think it was a comment of passion that isnt reflective of your character

Go to Oprah... Go to Oprah...

bunch of girls. get over it.

shes skinny again i think

maybe tw wants us to get some weight loss tips?

it's all staged.... or so I heard...