My 66-year-old MIL threw a "**** you" in my face in front of my daughter last night because I had the audacity to respond to her whining about Obamacare (she didn't understand why her ex-high school classmate, who also used colorful language when whining that his coverage would be too expensive, would have to pay so much when he's diabetic and has had cancer and I just said it's better than not being able to get insurance at all).
Objection! goes to motive. Say a accused killer was pleading insanity and said the corporal image of the devil told him to kill, could Scalia think he was insane or would his belief in the existence of the devil make so it the man might be sane and telling the truth?
Federal judiciary is not an elective position, so I don't think any aspect of their profile needs to align with the majority of a country of 315 million people. Even so, the majority of Americans are Christians and the devil is a central character in Christian dogma; so trying to paint him as out of touch is false.
Are you making a Phoenix Wright reference there? Those were some great games... Anyway, you might want to rethink your hypothetical. Such an issue would never come before the Supreme Court. Insanity is a question of fact typically decided by juries (i.e. in lower courts), who see all the evidence and witnesses (as opposed to the SC who only sees a bunch of documents). Given that jury verdicts are given the benefit of the doubt appellate bodies, any appeal would likely just involve the process of conviction/acquittal and not merits of the actual defense. Do you really believe that no killer in the history of the US has tried this or a similar defense before? Why do you think such a case has never reached the SC? In the unlikely event that such a case ever got to the SC, I would hope that Scalia would base his opinion on case law from around the US that deals with such defenses and not on his personal beliefs.
I am not saying it doesn't happen. It is just not surprising or curious to me that Scalia would say what he did regarding it.
You can't go to a movie--or watch a television show for that matter--without hearing the constant use of the F-word--including, you know, ladies using it _____ You're ignoring the majority of his comment to make a point -- you can in fact watch TV and go to the movies and not constantly hear the f-word.
Have you never heard someone exaggerate when he/she is annoyed? Don't be a dick and logically argue a simple statement just because you don't like the guy. Maybe look at the implicit meaning: he thinks profanity is a bad aspect of society.
There was a time I hated Scalia. David Souter was always my favorite. But I have always been a constitutionalist, too, when it comes to Supreme Court decisions. Don't make laws from the bench. There is nothing wrong with Scalia, as much as might disagree with his voting. The Supreme Court should always have someone like him on the bench, AND IT ALWAYS HAS! That's what makes the Supreme Court beautiful. imso, anytime a Justice says "I can't vote for this because the Supreme Court is not supposed to have this power" they have my respect. Scalia has said that.
Did you read the interview? He's not out of touch because he believes a magical wizard with horns is orchestrasting your damnation at this moment. Though he probably is far from the majority in that regard even give the silly skewedness of religulous polls in America. He's out of touch because its apparent from the interview that he literally never ventures outside the right wing bubbleosphere. He reads only the Washington Times and the WSJ, considers the Washington Post- a noxiously pathologically centrist rag which regularly upublishes pinkos like Chucky K and George Will to be an organ of the Comintern, and thinks public gayness is ooky. Basically he lives in the same "unskewed polling" alternate reality where Romney wins in a landslide. Very sad and lame for somebody with life tenure to have stopped actually living life a few decades ago. He should be removed for cause really.
Maybe that's who he is. And why shouldn't that voice be on the Supreme Court. Come on. That's an insult to all of the Justices. None...NONE...of them would agree with that statement. Don't be an idiot and make such statements like this. Do you think Ruth Bader Ginsberg agreed with your assessment of Justice Scalia. by definition, polls don't affect the Supreme Court. So, why mention polls? Look, the Supreme Court is awesome. They are the best branch in govt. They are going to have dissenting voices. All you are saying is the ones you don't agree with should be removed. I often don't agree with Scalia, but I'm trying to change the law. He isn't, as much as you and me are. It's not his job. And he sticks to that more than you want the Supreme Court to stick to it. Think about that for a second. You and I, and the Tea Party actually want to change the law more than Scalia does. You are probably wrong more often than Scalia is.
Um, no. Clarence Thomas is an excellent Supreme Court Justice, in that his opinions are generally supportable by the Constitution of the United States. His separate dissent in National Federation of Independant Business v. Sebelius (the Obamacare case) is a concise criticism of where the court has been on the wrong track for 70 years. Robert Jackson and William O. Douglas are at the other end of the spectrum. Jackson came up with the idea that growing and consuming wheat on your own land can be regulated by Congress under the interstate commerce clause, despite the fact that it is neither interstate nor commerce. Douglas put forth the idea that constitutional rights can be located in the penumbras and emanations of the constitution. Yes, that soft glow surrounding each amendment in the Bill of Rights has been hiding some other rights that no one noticed until the '60s. Thomas doesn't truck in such nonsense.
Ah the drunken HP "**** it I'm just gonna type!" troll job. You should read the interview in a moment of lucidity. Its not my words you're disputing, it's his.
Nope on every count. You know my headquarters is in Germany and I have to sometimes field midnight, managerial phone calls and read you guy's drivel in D&D to keep me awake, because the coffee shops are closed. If it's not the weekend and I'm up late, count on me being sharper and more lucid than you. I read the interview, and you are being pretty illucid in your remarks. How long have you been doing this today? Make no mistake. It is your words I'm disputing. But go ahead an ignore me. Because, I'll probably not be coming back in to read your reply. This thread is really stupid dude. And it embarrasses me as a Liberal.
I don't know anything about your consignment to a German labor camp. I do know that you're taking issue with Nino's xlaim that he is a WT/WSJ exclusivist. If so your beef is with him - I'd suggest dropping an email but I don't think he has an Addy.
Scalia has said that but he also has legislated from the bench too in rulings like Citizen's United. Also if you respect Scalia as a Constitutionalist consider he contradicted his own stated views on the Constitution in Bush V. Gore.