He still makes the argument as resolutely as ever; it has just become transparent rather than convincing. His circuitous argument against judicial review itself moots much of his argument AND job. I have more faith in John Marshalls constitutional interpretation (and that of all his successors) than in Anton Scalias, and not just because Marshalls ruling PRECEDED his dotage. How selectively self-serving is Scalias supposedly strict constructionism:
So where was Scalias strict construction when he voted with the majority to jump into Floridas 2000 election and forbid the statewide recount the STATE Supreme Court ordered? Answer: It disappeared in a puff of partisanship.
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.—US Constitution, Art. I Sec. 4
So where was Scalias strict construction when he voted with the majority to jump into Floridas 2000 election and forbid the statewide recount the STATE Supreme Court ordered? Answer: It disappeared in a puff of partisanship.
That bit of the constituion you sited clearly refers to Senators and Representatives, and not Presidential elections, though.
I should have, since it is in Article I, always a dead give away a clause concerns Congress. Article II does not even explicitly say individual citizens have a vote for president, only that the state legislatures choose electors. Presumably that means every presidential election in US history was unconstitutional.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 12/12/2012 at 07:29:49 PM
SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia is brilliant, just brilliant -
11/12/2012 05:09:19 AM
- 986 Views
WTF does "I don’t care what their intent was. I care what it was that they intended" mean?
11/12/2012 09:03:23 PM
- 552 Views
Yeah I read that twice to see if that was right *NM*
11/12/2012 09:36:55 PM
- 269 Views
Part of me pities Scalias decline, because he could once nimbly and convincly argue black is white.
12/12/2012 07:09:56 PM
- 525 Views
More like disapeared in a puff of Florida's own law that they were trying to ignore.
12/12/2012 08:13:13 PM
- 518 Views
Florida state law does not and did not prohibit statewide recounts.
16/12/2012 01:45:52 PM
- 519 Views
Spoken like a true lib.....I could have written that for you.
12/12/2012 05:08:42 AM
- 551 Views
The people of WA and CO just decided pot should be legal; think Scalia agrees?
12/12/2012 07:25:11 PM
- 534 Views
FreshMints decided that the almond aroma of radioactive arsenic is very pleasing...
12/12/2012 08:09:39 PM
- 558 Views
I am aware of Scalias "logic," and his rejection of it about a year later with Robamacare.
16/12/2012 01:51:16 PM
- 538 Views
But you didn't.
13/12/2012 04:06:05 PM
- 530 Views
Yup, yup; the Constitution is all about majority rule WITH minority rights.
16/12/2012 01:56:15 PM
- 463 Views
Your whole rant lacks any logic
12/12/2012 03:46:34 PM
- 559 Views
His comment references the authors (NOT words) intent in both negative and affirmative.
12/12/2012 06:45:02 PM
- 518 Views
I was stumped by his phrasing as well
12/12/2012 09:31:53 PM
- 424 Views
But we must go by his words and his understanding of their meaning, without interpretation.
16/12/2012 01:40:23 PM
- 512 Views
The SCotUS is no place for raging homophobes.
13/12/2012 04:48:30 AM
- 654 Views
Sorry you don't like it, but what he said is true.
13/12/2012 03:11:42 PM
- 573 Views
Lol. Homophobia is synonymous w/ homonegativism. It's not meant to convey a true phobia *NM*
13/12/2012 03:28:01 PM
- 333 Views
Only for people who don't know actually know how to read and understand words. Nice spin though. *NM*
13/12/2012 05:54:29 PM
- 212 Views
So then what we need is a definition of homophobia?
13/12/2012 09:56:15 PM
- 600 Views
Re: So then what we need is a definition of homophobia?
13/12/2012 11:16:46 PM
- 546 Views
-phobe : Greek -phobos, adj. derivative of phóbos fear, panic
13/12/2012 11:32:14 PM
- 561 Views
Do you have a similar problem with "xenophobia?" Because it's exactly the same thing.
14/12/2012 01:30:24 AM
- 486 Views
xenophobia is the fear of the alien... WTF are you trying to say?
14/12/2012 03:03:09 AM
- 549 Views
No. You are patently, objectively incorrect.
14/12/2012 08:39:00 AM
- 478 Views
Don't believe me, ask a Greek it is after all THEIR word. I gave you some extra capitals, happy now? *NM*
14/12/2012 02:56:09 PM
- 336 Views
stop being obtuse
14/12/2012 05:10:41 PM
- 531 Views
Hmmmm lets see, people misuse a word, perverting its meaning...
14/12/2012 07:29:11 PM
- 497 Views
If everyone "misuses" a word, that becomes an acceptable use of it.
14/12/2012 10:14:23 PM
- 517 Views
Re: If everyone "misuses" a word, that becomes an acceptable use of it.
15/12/2012 12:12:18 AM
- 541 Views
and if everryone jumps off a cliff to splatter on the rocks I should just be a good little lemming.
15/12/2012 07:13:27 AM
- 437 Views
actually, you have already chosen stupid by pretending the word means something it does not
15/12/2012 03:34:35 PM
- 450 Views
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, my friend John would strenuously disagree.
16/12/2012 06:50:19 AM
- 572 Views
and you are a small-minded buffoon who can't come up with real arguments so you resort to nitpicking
17/12/2012 11:48:25 PM
- 497 Views