Re: Replacing Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia
Reply #97 –
Could you be a little more incoherent, Bel?
Justice Scalia was a Catholic. ersi claimed that he was a "friend of creationism" and Intelligent Design Theory (…I'd dispute the appellation "theory," because it doesn't provide testable predictions; but that's another topic.) — which "has lost in [the] courts" and, hence, his replacement is beside the point!
Do you (…can you follow that logic?!)
If so, please explain it to me…
First, creationism and Intelligent Design are not matters for any American court. Nor is Neo-Darwinism or any other form of the Theory of Evolution. We don't "settle" matters of philosophy and science by judicial fiat; that's not their ambit.
Antonin Scalia certainly understood that!
Second —until I see specific cites showing otherwise— I'll keep my original estimation of J. Scalia: a good judge and committed constitutionalist. That is to say, I doubt he'd let his religious feelings trump his scholarly understanding of the law… (Not to say he wouldn't say where traditional morality had been transgressed!)
Third, just because someone has died doesn't mean their life and works disappear… There's history, you know! (Are double-negatives so common in Portuguese? How are they interpreted? Try using elementary logic, or struggle to use Venn Diagrams or the syllogistic…)
Fourth, I don't have a fourth point. Kinda like you didn't have a first one! But, in your defense, neither did ersi…!
——————————————————————————————————
(This was added while I was typing…)Merely posting imbecilities doesn't give you any credit at a civilized european forum dear Oakdale.
There's an obvious retort —that I won't use!— but your so-called "civilization" seems to be coming apart at all of its seams…
Is everything you can't understand imbecilic, Bel?