With Liberty, and Justice for Straight, White, Male Property Owners.

[SmokeALib]

Lol the OP just had to throw the word "straight" in there, as if sexual perversion was some kind of race. Fuckin idiot.

That was added for the benefit of Mr Scalia - he personified the concept of "paranoid homophobia".

"Paranoid Homophobia?" Must be one of them new terms that are irrelevant, kinda like "restless leg syndrome". Just made up words to benefit the authors.

 

[JQPublic1]

Except that isn't how the 2nd was interepreted for 200 years prior to Heller. for 200 years, courts have held that the MILITIA has the right to bear arms, not the Crazy Guy who thinks he's the Joker.

Uh..guy. Who is the militia?

We are.

Except ex cons! Even the nonviolent ones. But is THAT Constitutional?

 

[Blackrook]

I'm a straight, white, male property owner. Does the OP have a problem with me?

 

[JQPublic1]

Nothing better than a hit piece written after someone is dead and can't defend themselves..

The Author is a coward for writing it, and you are a rube for swallowing it.

Scalia had plenty of time when he was alive to espouse his noxious views, thanks.

the fact he's taking a dirt nap makes the country a brighter place.

Which of his views were "noxious," the proposition that the Constitution should actually be followed?

That is what he projected but his interpretations and opinions often did not follow the Constitutional script. His opinions were distortions tailored from bits and pieces of the Constitution to satiate the cravings of his conservative" base

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing better than a hit piece written after someone is dead and can't defend themselves..

The Author is a coward for writing it, and you are a rube for swallowing it.

Scalia had plenty of time when he was alive to espouse his noxious views, thanks.

the fact he's taking a dirt nap makes the country a brighter place.

Which of his views were "noxious," the proposition that the Constitution should actually be followed?

That is what he projected but his interpretations and opinions often did not follow the Constitutional script. His opinions were distortions tailored from bits and pieces of the Constitution to satiate the cravings of his conservative" base

For example?

 

[JQPublic1]

I'm a straight, white, male property owner. Does the OP have a problem with me?

Are you a "conservative' bigot who feigns Christianity while secretly deploring the idea one nickel of 'YOUR" tax dollars is going to feed or clothe some poor child in the ghetto through welfare? do you hate the present President of the USA more than any past presidents? Go on... tell the truth, YOU DO. You probably meet the specifications of the preceding description of a White male conservative. If so, a lot of people are having problems with you. And ; I only mentioned tow things that typifies your ilk!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed. Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor....."

True.

Scalia dedicated his professional life to making war on the most fundamental principles of Constitutional jurisprudence: the settled and accepted case law that serves as the underpinning of the rule of law, safeguarding our rights and protected liberties from the capricious whims of the 'will of the people,' and the desire of many to codify their fear, ignorance, hate, and bigotry.

It is indeed fortunate that Scalia mostly failed, but that doesn't mean our rights and protected liberties are no longer in jeopardy – a republican president in the WH next year would result in a Supreme Court packed with reactionary conservative ideologues, disciples of Scalia's errant, wrongheaded dogma of 'originalism,' justices likewise hostile to the inalienable rights of the people and the rule of law.

 

[defcon4]

"Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed. Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor....."

True.

Scalia dedicated his professional life to making war on the most fundamental principles of Constitutional jurisprudence: the settled and accepted case law that serves as the underpinning of the rule of law, safeguarding our rights and protected liberties from the capricious whims of the 'will of the people,' and the desire of many to codify their fear, ignorance, hate, and bigotry.

It is indeed fortunate that Scalia mostly failed, but that doesn't mean our rights and protected liberties are no longer in jeopardy – a republican president in the WH next year would result in a Supreme Court packed with reactionary conservative ideologues, disciples of Scalia's errant, wrongheaded dogma of 'originalism,' justices likewise hostile to the inalienable rights of the people and the rule of law.

^^^^fails as composition fallacy

 

[JQPublic1]

Nothing better than a hit piece written after someone is dead and can't defend themselves..

The Author is a coward for writing it, and you are a rube for swallowing it.

Scalia had plenty of time when he was alive to espouse his noxious views, thanks.

the fact he's taking a dirt nap makes the country a brighter place.

Which of his views were "noxious," the proposition that the Constitution should actually be followed?

That is what he projected but his interpretations and opinions often did not follow the Constitutional script. His opinions were distortions tailored from bits and pieces of the Constitution to satiate the cravings of his conservative" base

For example?

5. Shelby County v. Holder, 2013:

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court decided to strike down parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This weakened the Voting Rights Act and is considered by many an attack on the civil liberties of black voters. Scalia said, in 2013 in a speech at the University of California Washington Center, the following:

“Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. Who’s going to vote against that?”

 

[bripat9643]

Nothing better than a hit piece written after someone is dead and can't defend themselves..

The Author is a coward for writing it, and you are a rube for swallowing it.

Scalia had plenty of time when he was alive to espouse his noxious views, thanks.

the fact he's taking a dirt nap makes the country a brighter place.

Which of his views were "noxious," the proposition that the Constitution should actually be followed?

That is what he projected but his interpretations and opinions often did not follow the Constitutional script. His opinions were distortions tailored from bits and pieces of the Constitution to satiate the cravings of his conservative" base

For example?

5. Shelby County v. Holder, 2013:

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court decided to strike down parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This weakened the Voting Rights Act and is considered by many an attack on the civil liberties of black voters. Scalia said, in 2013 in a speech at the University of California Washington Center, the following:

“Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. Who’s going to vote against that?”

Scalia was right. Those who consider it an attack on civil liberties are all brainwashed leftwing drones. The parts struck down were themselves attacks on civil liberties.

 

[JQPublic1]

Scalia had plenty of time when he was alive to espouse his noxious views, thanks.

the fact he's taking a dirt nap makes the country a brighter place.

Which of his views were "noxious," the proposition that the Constitution should actually be followed?

That is what he projected but his interpretations and opinions often did not follow the Constitutional script. His opinions were distortions tailored from bits and pieces of the Constitution to satiate the cravings of his conservative" base

For example?

5. Shelby County v. Holder, 2013:

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court decided to strike down parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This weakened the Voting Rights Act and is considered by many an attack on the civil liberties of black voters. Scalia said, in 2013 in a speech at the University of California Washington Center, the following:

“Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act. Who’s going to vote against that?”

Scalia was right. Those who consider it an attack on civil liberties are all brainwashed leftwing drones. The parts struck down were themselves attacks on civil liberties.

Can you elaborate or am I the only scholar around here?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Why did Obama attend his funeral?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

This is sarcasm. Thank God someone was willing to tell the truth. AS a white male property holder I was wondering when someone was going to stick up for my rights. Bring back the old days of slavery. I sure do miss them good old days. That was sarcasm.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

It is really impossible to interpret something more than one way since so many people lie maliciously. A person who wants XYZ result may lie and come up with good justification for that lie. We now create a false interpretation that seems plausible to the average unsuspecting person. We now have a previous true interpretation and many false ones floating around. Are we aware that crucial legal documents in this country now have multiple interpretations whereas a child's novel doesn't. Shouldn't we be a little suspicious that this even occurs in the first place considering that a child's bedtime story, which is a document in itself, gets one interpretation.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm a straight, white, male property owner. Does the OP have a problem with me?

Not based on on those criteria. Based on the label-list above, we have a LOT in common. (like 100% )

And I don't even have a 'problem' with you based on the disagreements that we have. I find your inability to look beyond your beliefs and see the cold unfairness of the subject of this thread curious to frustrating, but I'm capable of agreeing to disagree... it's your opinion and how you feel.

Beer? ​

 

[Deleted member 53821]

What is so wrong with sticking up for white male property owners? Are they not the same citizens of this country who should get the same rights as black people get? When will we get affirmative action just like they do? What about free admission and lower standards at many universities? We demand equal rights for all!

 

[JoeB131]

Which of his views were "noxious," the proposition that the Constitution should actually be followed?

The view that people could be executed even after exculpatory evidence was discovered after their conviction.

The view that the wealthy should be able to buy elections through the use of Dark Money.

The view that Corporations should be able to dictate the health care choices of their employees based on their religious superstitions.

The view that we should award the presidency to the guy who lost because his brother rigged the vote in one state.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

At least the left is reliable. Can always count on them to spread race baiting hate!

 

[SwimExpert]

Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed. Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor.....

Antonin Scalia brought his own brand of hate to the court and he was poison to tolerance and freedom.

From the article:

He pioneered “originalism,” a theory holding that the Constitution should be interpreted in line with the beliefs of the white men, many of them slave owners, who ratified it in the late eighteenth century.

more...
Antonin Scalia: Looking Backward

Scalia was Ronald Reagan's biggest mistake.

Republican nightmare:

"After successfully thwarting Obama's attempts to put a more moderate voice on the Supreme Court, President-Elect Bernie Sanders has nominated Barack Obama as the next Justice. His swift confirmation is expected when the newly elected senate convenes in January."

​

Be careful what you wish for.

Been drinking that Flint water again, eh?

 

[Pete7469]

The Bush case I agree was a clusterfuck, either way the court decided the other side would throw a fit, and both sides would have a right to be angry.

As for heller, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not the state, not the militia, not the government only, the PEOPLE.

And as for citizens united, forming a corporation doesn't mean you lose your 1st amendment rights.

It delights me when these sniveling bed wetters continue to piss and moan about 2000, just because the SCOTUS put an end to algores attempts to recount the election over and over until he wore the ballots out. Even Al-CNN "journalists" admitted the Bush election was legit, but our in house moonbats are still foaming at the mouth. Keep beating that dead horse bed wetters, it's almost as amusing as a " Whaa!! I hate Sarah Palin! Whaa!!" thread.

I'm also delighted that you still have sand in your vag because of Heller. The RKBA is the one thing that keeps your ultimate agenda from being fully realized.