Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Topic: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia (Read 60264 times)

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #100 – 2016-03-25, 01:41:01

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-25, 01:38:35

And yet you take the time to re-post…

Noblesse oblige dear ignorant.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #101 – 2016-03-25, 01:43:05

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #102 – 2016-03-25, 02:38:17

"Noblesse oblige"…? Don't you mean presumptuous twaddle?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #103 – 2016-03-25, 10:32:16

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-24, 17:34:23

How about something that Scalia himself wrote?

He wrote this:

Quote from: http://www.belcherfoundation.org/edwards_v_aguillard_dissent.htm

...reference to "creation" is not convincing evidence of religious purpose. [...] We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on earth. ...to posit a past creator is not to posit the eternal and personal God who is the object of religious veneration. Indeed, it is not even to posit the "unmoved mover" hypothesized by Aristotle and other notably nonfundamentalist philosophers. [Etc.]

In other words, creation is not religion or philosophy. It's science by virtue of being used in phrase "creation science".

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #104 – 2016-03-25, 19:43:11

Now, I don't deny creation science. I deny Scalia's shallow, illogical and anti-scientific notion of creation science. I also deny his denial of creation as a religious or philosophical concept. It's true that Scalia was not writing for the purpose of doing religion, philosophy, or science, but in light of what he wrote, he was not making any sense in terms of a legal judgement either. He was writing nonsense. That's all I have to say about Scalia.

Creation science can be science in the sense that "flood science" or "Noah's ark science" is science. It's more likely to end up a pseudoscience, even though not necessarily. In linear empirical terms, the problem with investigating these matters is that the evidence cancels itself out. Since the flood was meant to be utterly destructive, I don't expect to find much evidence for the flood or any antediluvian stuff, just like we don't find either forest or fire a while after a forest fire. And creation is as far antediluvian as it gets. This is the difficulty of this kind of science, logically. If one has more optimistic expectations, then one lacks common sense, which is not a good sign regardless if one is doing science, philosophy, religion or law.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #105 – 2016-03-25, 21:57:42

You might have read more of Scalia's dissent…rather than quote-mining!

Quote

Before summarizing the testimony of Senator Keith and his supporters, I wish to make clear that I by no means intend to endorse its accuracy. But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point. Our task is not to judge the debate about teaching the origins of life, but to ascertain what the members of the Louisiana Legislature believed. The vast majority of them voted to approve a bill which explicitly stated a secular purpose; what is crucial is not their wisdom in believing that purpose would be achieved by the bill, but their sincerity in believing it would be.
(II A ¶5)

Your characterization of Scalia's view is inapt, ersi. And an inept attempt show bias (or worse…) on Scalia's part.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #106 – 2016-03-25, 22:11:21

Actually, Scalia's attempt to present himself impartial is inept. He was dissenting, if you remember...

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #107 – 2016-03-26, 02:34:08

He was dissenting from the majority's opinion, and he stated his reasoning. You don't understand how that works?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #108 – 2016-03-26, 06:15:44

BTW: If you-all don't want to read the opinion, the paragraph ersi excerpted (and mangled…) reads

Quote

The Act's reference to "creation" is not convincing evidence of religious purpose. The Act defines creation science as "scientific evidenc[e]," § 17:286.3(2) (emphasis added), and Senator Keith and his witnesses repeatedly stressed that the subject can and should be presented without religious content. See supra, at 623. We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on earth. See n. 4, supra. Creation science, its proponents insist, no more must explain whence life came than evolution must explain whence came the inanimate materials from which it says life evolved. But even if that were not so, to posit a past creator is not to posit the eternal and personal God who is the object of religious veneration. Indeed, it is not even to posit the "unmoved mover" hypothesized by Aristotle and other notably nonfundamentalist philosophers. Senator Keith suggested this when he referred to "a creator however you define a creator." 1 App. E-280 (emphasis added).
(II B ¶5)

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #109 – 2016-03-26, 06:18:03

A man in North Caroline was stopped by a police car as the driver had a faulty tail light. As the policeman checked the situation he said he would have to arrest the man as there was a warrant outstanding. Seems the stopped man had not returned a video 14 years earlier! Kind of stretching the law a wee bit isn't it? And the shop the video came from is long closed!

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #110 – 2016-03-26, 06:22:21

Howie, what has this to do with replacing J. Scalia?

But, what the heck, why don't you provide a link to the story… (Note that -even in North Carolina- it seems unlikely that a warrant could be issued for failure to return a video. That's civil small-claims and collection agency stuff; not law enforcement.)

Ah, never mind. I'll do it myself: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/entertainment/arrest-for-14-year-late-video/index.html

BTW: Have you anything to say about replacing J. Scalia?

——————————————————————————————————————
Also of note is the first paragraph of section III, citing C.J. Rehnquist's dissent from the majority opinion (in WALLACE V. JAFFREE (1985)), concerning the infamous "wall of separation" and LEMON's three-prong test…
(Ted Cruz -ten years later- clerked for Rehnquist… Think he might have learned a thing or two?

)
——————————————————————————————————————–
Ya got anything else, ersi?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #111 – 2016-03-26, 07:31:36

You asked for what Scalia himself had written concerning his creation-friendliness. That's what he has written - dissenting creation-friendly opinions. Are you saying that the majority opinion was deluded in judging that creation is a religious thing? By what stretch of imagination is creation not a religious thing?

The original Act (Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act) says "Existing library acquisition funds shall be used to purchase nonreligious library books as are necessary to give balanced treatment to the creation-science model and the evolution-science model." This is the only place in the Act where religion is mentioned. Now, does this statement conjure nonreligious creation-science textbooks into existence? Do you know any? Have you read them?

The original Act also says "This Subpart is enacted for the purposes of protecting academic freedom." Do you believe this statement? On what grounds? What kind of science is creation-science so that it deserves academic freedom protected to it by a law? What other science has received such attention from legislators? Should legislators be listing sciences that deserve academic freedom?

Now, back to my original point. There was a verdict on the Act. Scalia dissented from the majority opinion by protecting the Act. You quoted that he said "But my views (and the views of this Court) about creation science and evolution are (or should be) beside the point." Do you believe his dissenting opinion actually conveys impartiality and the majority opinion was partial? On what grounds?

You have no answers to any of these questions.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #112 – 2016-03-26, 16:21:02

Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-03-26, 06:18:03

A man in North Caroline was stopped by a police car as the driver had a faulty tail light. As the policeman checked the situation he said he would have to arrest the man as there was a warrant outstanding. Seems the stopped man had not returned a video 14 years earlier! Kind of stretching the law a wee bit isn't it? And the shop the video came from is long closed!

Equally relevant to this thread is that I just had a blueberry bagel with whipped cream cheese. It was delicious and I'd give it four stars. The bagel toasted a little more would have pushed it to five

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #113 – 2016-03-26, 16:24:54

From what I understand, there is no statute of limitations on arrest warrants in the US even if the crime itself is past the statute of limitations. Although I'm not quite sure what that would mean in practice. To me it suggests you'd be arrested, transferred to the police station, and "immediately"(i.e., after some obligatory bureaucratic processing) released.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #114 – 2016-03-26, 16:27:15

Quote from: Frenzie on 2016-03-26, 16:24:54

From what I understand, there is no statute of limitations on arrest warrants in the US even if the crime itself is past the statute of limitations. Although I'm not quite sure what that would mean in practice. To me it suggests you'd be arrested, transferred to the police station, and "immediately"(i.e., after some obligatory bureaucratic processing) released.

Possibly so, if the police actually follows the procedures as supposed to.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #115 – 2016-03-27, 04:11:37

So many questions, ersi!

What you really want to ask is, why don't I agree with the libs on the courts…

That one I can answer: As Rehnquist and Scalia didn't tire of saying, our higher courts have become anti-religion; and the precedent that supports this is both a-historical and illogical.

We can start with the "wall of separation," if you'd like. (It would help if you knew something of the U.S. constitution, and the tradition of law it stems from.

)
But if you only want "your side" to win, why bother? The law doesn't matter; legal reasoning is beside the point.
If the only question you'll consider is How can I keep "the other side" from winning… Well, that's your choice. But I'd say a Supreme Court Justice shouldn't operate that way. Of course, you disagree — with anyone who disagrees with you! That's what you do, and -as far as I can tell- that's your ambit…

—————————————————————————————————
Regarding the matter Howie brought up, I still don't understand how a civil matter results in an arrest warrant… Can someone explain it to me?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #116 – 2016-03-27, 05:57:05

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 04:11:37

What you really want to ask is, why don't I agree with the libs on the courts…

No, I was really asking what I asked. Are you saying the majority opinion in Edwards vs. Aguillard was produced by those evil libs? Had they no right for it? Why? How? And the dissenting opinion was right how and why?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 04:11:37

That one I can answer: As Rehnquist and Scalia didn't tire of saying, our higher courts have become anti-religion; and the precedent that supports this is both a-historical and illogical.

They can say whatever they want. My question is why it should matter, why it should be considered right or true or better than the majority opinion.

Anyway, you have basically admitted by now that Scalia was ideologically predisposed to scribble whatever he scribbled, so there, he was lying when he said his personal opinion didn't matter (or shouldn't). He was religiously invested in the creationist cause, and his babble about creation as science was pure bunkum. You have not shown in what way one could understand his writing as anything other than sheer nonsense.

Since you atrociously failed to answer my questions, here are some of them again:
How is it sensible to say that creation is science? How is it sensible to say that creation is not religion or philosophy? What creation science textbooks have you read? Can you list some creation science textbooks (appropriately nonreligious of course) that you actually have there over the pond? Is it a good idea that legislators make their pick of sciences that deserve academic freedom? Why?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #117 – 2016-03-27, 06:47:00

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-26, 21:57:05

Anyway, you have basically admitted by now that Scalia was ideologically predisposed to scribble whatever he scribbled, so there, he was lying when he said his personal opinion didn't matter (or shouldn't). He was religiously invested in the creationist cause, and his babble about creation as science was pure bunkum. You have not shown in what way one could understand his writing as anything other than sheer nonsense.

I can see how you'd take it that way… In fact, knowing you, I can't see how you'd take it any other way!

Where -I ask you- in the U.S. constitution does it prescribe animosity to religious feelings or principles? In the 1st amendment? In Thom. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, twelve years later? In the 14th amendment's eventual "incorporation" doctrine?
More importantly, where does that animosity get its authority — to override legislative acts?

(I'd have been against "the Act," for other than legal reasons… But that's not what courts here are supposed to do.)

It had not been implemented; it had harmed no one. It (the case) was a then-becoming-common attack on religion… Or anything that might counter such attacks.
As Scalia said (from the second sentence on of his dissent…

Quote

The Louisiana legislators who passed the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (Balanced Treatment Act), La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 17:286.1-17:286.7 (West 1982), each of whom had sworn to support the Constitution, (1) were well aware of the potential Establishment Clause problems and considered that aspect of the legislation with great care. After seven hearings and several months of study, resulting in substantial revision of the original proposal, they approved the Act overwhelmingly and specifically articulated the secular purpose they meant it to serve. Although the record contains abundant evidence of the sincerity of that purpose (the only issue pertinent to this case), the Court today holds, essentially on the basis of "its visceral knowledge regarding what must have motivated the legislators," 778 F.2d 225, 227 (CA5 1985) (Gee, J., dissenting) (emphasis added), that the members of the Louisiana Legislature knowingly violated their oaths and then lied about it. I dissent.

But since you have opinions that preclude impartiality or opinions that you disagree with, you attack the motives of anyone with whom you disagree… Let us hope you never become any kind of judge!

Your "gut feeling" is not something that our Supreme Court should pay attention to, ersi!

Feel free to argue against Creation Science! I'll not only be there with you, but I'll do a better job. I know more, about biology and logic (and the logic of science) and rhetoric.

The LEMON test is broken and incoherent… That you don't see that is understandable; your whole experience is with authoritarian fiat!

You're complaint seems to be "How dare he disagree with a long-established majority?" We don't do things that way here —too often.

Do you remember Lysenko-ism? Were you taught about it?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #118 – 2016-03-27, 06:52:56

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 06:47:00

Where -I ask you- in the U.S. constitution does it prescribe animosity to religious feelings or principles? In the 1st amendment? In Thom. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, twelve years later? In the 14th amendment's eventual "incorporation" doctrine? More importantly, where does that animosity get its authority — to override legislative acts?

To try to make this even remotely relevant: How was the majority opinion guided by animosity towards religious feelings or principles? And, if the original debated Act was expressing religious feelings or principles that one could have animosity towards, then why on earth was Scalia persistently off topic, in fact babbling about something absolutely irrelevant?

Thanks for moving things so far that I can rest my case.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #119 – 2016-03-27, 06:59:35

As Scalia continued:

Quote

Had requirements of the Balanced Treatment Act that are not apparent on its face been clarified by an interpretation of the Louisiana Supreme Court, or by the manner of its implementation, the Act might well be found unconstitutional; but the question of its constitutionality cannot rightly be disposed of on the gallop, by impugning the motives of its supporters.

Of course, you disagree…
Heresy must be punished!

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #120 – 2016-03-27, 07:06:47

I'm not talking about heresy. The point is that the Act, as you nicely acknowledge and admit, was religious. At the same time, the Act itself babbles about "academic freedom" and makes its best to cover up its own religiosity. Scalia's entire point, if you call it a point, is insisting that creation has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science. So, he is acting like a total wacko nut, completely unhinged from any sense of reality. I have no problem with him being religious. The problem is that he is irrational and not fit to be a judge in a court.

In no way are the Act or Scalia supporting your intepretation of them. If you go by what they actually say, that is. If you don't go by that, then anything goes. You are about as good as Scalia in this respect.

Edit: You say that it was the libs trying to overturn the act from their sheer animosity towards religion. This assumption presupposes that the Act was religious. At the same time, the Act itself says its purpose is academic freedom. So, if I personally were a judge, I would overturn this Act for its own obvious hypocrisy. No hard feelings towards religion or anything. It would be aversion towards legislated hypocrisy and coverup guiding me, not animosity towards religion. Religious laws should be openly religious. This particular law was a mockery of common sense and dignity.

Of course, now you probably say that your Constitution doesn't preclude legislators cooking up any idiocy they feel like. Because it's a free country or something. Good. Stay there.

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #121 – 2016-03-27, 08:14:59

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-26, 23:06:47

Scalia's entire point, if you call it a point, is insisting that creation has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science.

No, sir! Scalia's whole point is that it is not the court's job to decide matters of "science" or "religion"… It's job is to decide matters of law! (Is that concept too abstruse for you…?

)
The 1st amendment's requirements about religion are pretty short; but their history is pretty-well documented. If you care nothing for that, I understand: That's how you roll!

Scalia (among others) thought and often said that the Supreme Court routinely got religious freedom issues wrong — and he made (…well, to me!) cogent arguments for that case.

You've said that legislatures shouldn't legislate "science". I'd agree; but our constitution doesn't forbid it. Still, requiring the teaching of "competing" theories isn't quite legislating "science"… What you likely mean is: You want ID or Creation Science to be ruled out of bounds, to be verboten — because it doesn't agree with your views. (Some would still like to see neo-Darwinism in the same boat! Scalia would agree (and did) that that shouldn't happen.)

Scalia was clear in stating that nothing had yet happened! It was purely a matter of interests taking the long view positioning themselves… The act had not been implemented… (Was this an example of a "trigger warning"? An example of "speech" being used to inhibit speech, rather than argue against it?) He thought that was bad for the law and bad for the country. (Obviously, horrible considerations for a judge to make!

)

Since the LA Supreme Court hadn't had the case, Scalia's argument was the only reasonable one: Send it back! It's not ripe… (That's a term of "art," ersi. You'll need to know such things, if you persist in posting about SCOTUS topics.)

I've tried to engage you about 1st and 14th amendment issues regarding the establishment clause and the free exercise clause… But you won't "play" — you'd rather exhibit your ignorance, and call names…
Hell, you might be another Trump!

Same way of reasoning! (But your English is better…!

)

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-26, 23:06:47

You say that it was the libs trying to overturn the act from their sheer animosity towards religion. This assumption presupposes that the Act was religious.

No; it assumes that those with the animosity presumed it to be… That's how they roll!

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-26, 23:06:47

At the same time, the Act itself says its purpose is academic freedom. So, if I personally were a judge, I would overturn this Act for its own obvious hypocrisy.

Because anyone who doesn't agree with you, about how to do things in a democracy, is wrong? A liar? A hypocrite? (You're another Howie, then! But you might merely be another Stalin…

You won't be.)

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-26, 23:06:47

No hard feelings towards religion or anything. It would be aversion towards legislated hypocrisy and coverup guiding me, not animosity towards religion.

Well, Solon, let's see what sort of society you engender…

You seem unable to see your own hypocrisies, ersi…
What are you doing, nowadays?

You're out of your depth, here — for sure!

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #122 – 2016-03-27, 09:21:52

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 08:14:59

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-26, 23:06:47
Scalia's entire point, if you call it a point, is insisting that creation has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science.
No, sir! Scalia's whole point is that it is not the court's job to decide matters of "science" or "religion"… It's job is to decide matters of law! (Is that concept too abstruse for you…? )

I understand well what you mean. I would also understand it if Scalia had said it, but he never did. Now, I of course noticed him being caught up in various legal technicalities, but inasmuch as the issue really was either religiousness or animosity towards religion, he should have been addressing what really mattered, right? Because as it is now, he allowed the majority completely get away with their animosity.

Of course, you have not yet shown any shred of evidence for the alleged animosity, and I don't expect you to. Your case was lost from the beginning, so I should not be hard on you. If you think your case is not lost, then proceed with proof in the order of relevance.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 08:14:59

The 1st amendment's requirements about religion are pretty short; but their history is pretty-well documented.

How does this statement of yours jibe with the following:

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 08:14:59

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-26, 23:06:47
You say that it was the libs trying to overturn the act from their sheer animosity towards religion. This assumption presupposes that the Act was religious.
No; it assumes that those with the animosity presumed it to be…

Now, either the alleged animosity was actually justified or it was merely presumed. If it was merely presumed, then prove it. If proven as merely presumed, then SCOTUS evidently decides cases based on mere presumptions. But if you are unable to prove that the alleged animosity was merely presumed, then you are yourself operating purely based on assumptions. Like Scalia.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 08:14:59

You've said that legislatures shouldn't legislate "science". I'd agree. But requiring the teaching of "competing" theories isn't quite legislating "science"…

Let me get this straight. You are saying that requiring the teaching of competing theories isn't quite legislating science. Are you really saying this? This is as straightforwardly legislating science as it gets.

Moreover, let's look at the substance of the matter. Which competing theories were set side by side? Are they equally theories? Equally scientific? If yes, how did the legislators determine this? If they did not determine this, then why are they legislating this? "For the purposes of protecting academic freedom"? They are legislating academic freedom why? This "isn't quite legislating science" how?

Besides, you put "competing" in quotes. Where are you quoting from? Not from the Act at any rate.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 08:14:59

What you likely mean is: You want ID or Creation Science to be ruled out of bounds, to be verboten — because it doesn't agree with your views. (Some would still like to see neo-Darwinism in the same boat! Scalia would agree (and did) that that shouldn't happen.)

What you likely mean is that you are a reactionary wingnut who sees the lib phantoms where there are none.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 08:14:59

Scalia was clear in stating that nothing had yet happened!

Okay. And, it's quite clear, if we have common sense, that nothing good to academic freedom could have happened, given the Act. The Act could not be furthering its stated purpose by any stretch of the imagination. But your imagination probably beats mine.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 08:14:59

I've tried to engage you about 1st and 14th amendment issues regarding the establishment clause and the free exercise clause… But you won't "play" — you'd rather exhibit your ignorance, and call names…

First you have to show how they are relevant. Let's see, 1st Amendment,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This can be relevant if the Act is about religion. The Act says it's about academic freedom rather, and about "nonreligious library books". So, either the Act is lying (in which case it must be overturned) or the Amendment is inapplicable. Which way is it? Your call.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 08:14:59

Because anyone who doesn't agree with you, about how to do things in a democracy, is wrong? A liar? A hypocrite?

Sorry, but this never was about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about having relevance or not, being true to the stated purpose or not. The Act is not true to its stated purpose.

In your kind of democracy, legislators are free to cook up any law they want - because it's a free country. Well, they are actually doing this. Enjoy it.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 08:14:59

You're out of your depth, here — for sure!

You mean you have dragged me down to your level and now beating me with experience?

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #123 – 2016-03-27, 09:55:34

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-27, 01:21:52

1st Amendment,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This can be relevant if the Act is about religion. The Act says it's about academic freedom rather, and about "nonreligious library books". So, either the Act is lying (in which case it must be overturned) or the Amendment is inapplicable. Which way is it? Your call.

I'm tired, so I'll start with this:
It's been rejected as an unacceptably religiously denigrated statute… But that's okay, nowadays; has been for more than 50 years…
Not everyone is okay with that.
And you think that's just "wrong"!

Quote from: ersi on 2016-03-27, 01:21:52

In your kind of democracy, legislators are free to cook up any law they want - because it's a free country.

They are! And if there's good reason to deem those laws unconstitutional, they'll be struck down.
Unless "democrats" rule — for democrats, the "will" of the "people" is what matters! Goals and plans! Of course, they'd kill all of the people to get what they want!
(Estonia has some experience with this ideology.)

Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia

Reply #124 – 2016-03-27, 10:20:32

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 09:55:34

I'm tired,...

What follows this, makes no sense at all. Try again. Take your time.

Edit: Remember the point - show how 1st Amendment is relevant here and helps your case. To me it is self-evident that if 1st Amendment is relevant here, it doesn't help your case at all. But let's first see you show how it is relevant.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 09:55:34

And if there's good reason to deem those laws unconstitutional, they'll be struck down.

Ah, so to you it only matters if the Act was technically constitutional or not. Because the Constitution naturally foresaw and provided for everything, right? Nevermind that Scalia, whenever there was a case concerning matters close to his heart, he always listened to his heart - while referring to the Constitution, because this makes it technically look better. But when the libs do the exact same thing, they are evil!

So, basically you think that the job of SCOTUS was to judge if the Act was constitutional or not. To make it simple, I repeat again one of my earlier questions another way: The majority opinion was wrong/misguided/carried by animosity as shown by the fact that it says (or fails to consider)...

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-03-27, 09:55:34

Of course, they'd kill all of the people to get what they want!
(Estonia has some experience with this ideology.)

You mean Soviets were liberals? And liberals are like Soviets? How about the current government of Estonia? Liberals too, because Estonia is experiencing heavier population loss now than ever before in history?

This is as clear as it gets that "libs" is just a curse word for you. You should stop cussing.