Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court War Ahead
#21
(03-14-2016, 07:51 PM)Palladin Wrote: Scalia never saw a federal power or surveillance ability he disliked...

You taint Scalia's life. He was the strongest Originalist on the court, and his decisions and reports are taught in Law Schools and support the Constitution. Your post suggest you listen to those in Huffington Post and other Leftwing sites that tried to dirty Scalia as soon as he died. They said what you did about Heller and Boumediene v. Bush. In Heller, he struck down the D.C. ban on hand guns, and in so doing cast aside the key 1939 precedent of United States v. Miller, which rejected the individual rights theory of the Second Amendment in Heller. In Boumediene each Gitmo detainee will get a meaningful hearing, not the sham process of "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" that the administration hoped to use. Not the full-bore code of Citizenship legal status, just fair judicial review with the habeus corpus thrown in. Understand, Habeus Corpus is not in the Bill of Rights. It precedes it in the body of the Constitution.

It is evident that those wishing to hurt Scalia's legacy would search out controversial cases - but Scalia was definitely one of the good guys.
Reply
#22
That's not true. Thomas is far and away the Originalist. After all, he's the only true Liberal on the court. Here's what I mean.

Just take 1995's "McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. In this one Thomas and Scalia were on opposite sides. And note that while Scalia was a true Federalist, Justice Thomas was and still is, an Anti-Federalist, i.e. a Liberal of the true fashion.

Here's his concurring comments on the decision.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#23
Scalia's life is whatever it was.

Scalia was a statist of the first order. if someone says they are into original intent, apparently that's all you need to assume they mean it.

I don't, I go by what they do and Scalia never met a security or authority law, rule or regulation he did not support that gave the federal state more power over your life.

You could post evidence where I am wrong. I'll admit it.
Reply
#24
(03-15-2016, 03:48 PM)John L Wrote: That's not true. Thomas is far and away the Originalist. After all, he's the only true Liberal on the court. Here's what I mean.

Just take 1995's "McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. In this one Thomas and Scalia were on opposite sides. And note that while Scalia was a true Federalist, Justice Thomas was and still is, an Anti-Federalist, i.e. a Liberal of the true fashion.

Here's his concurring comments on the decision.

The problem with States outlawing anonymous printed statements also involves habeus corpus, which Scalia was proud to defend. Remember there were two rights put in the body of the Constitution because they were considered too important to be part of an added-on Bill of Rights. They were Habeus Corpus and trial by a jury of peers. The British courts treated a litigated person as guilty, and who had to prove one's own innocence. Habeus Corpus compelled an accuser to face the accused. How does one do that if the accuser is anonymous?

BTW, Thomas always has the clearest and most common-sense opinions.
Reply
#25
What, if I am ask, does "McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission" have to do with habeas corpus?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#26
Quote:U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor submitted a racially-charged dissent in a Fourth Amendment case on Monday, which commentators hailed as a “Brown/Black Lives Matter manifesto.”

The case, Utah v. Strieff, was occasioned when police stopped Salt Lake City man Edward Strieff on leaving a house suspected to quarter drug activity. The state of Utah concedes the initial stop was illegal, as the officers in question had no probable cause to seize and search Strieff.

During the course of the stop, officers discovered Strieff had an outstanding warrant for a small traffic violation, and methamphetamine in his pocket. The Court was asked to decide whether the exclusionary rule — which prohibits police and prosecutors from using evidence obtained illegally — applies when an officer learns during an illegal stop that there is a warrant for an individual’s arrest, and finds additional contraband while executing the arrest on said warrant.

The High Court ruled 5-3 that the arrest, and the evidence obtained during the arrest, were legitimate, even if the initial stop was not. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito.

With Scalia gone, and a 4-4 split - the Progressives are trying to get through many bills passed with a 5-4 majority which can be backed out because Scalia died before the cases were finalized.

Sotomayor filed a peppery dissent, joined in part by Justice Ginsburg.

Quote:...The white defendant in this case shows that anyone’s dignity can be violated in this manner,” she wrote. “But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. For generations, black and brown parents have given their children ‘the talk’— instructing them never to run down the street; always keep your hands where they can be seen; do not even think of talking back to a stranger—all out of fear of how an officer with a gun will react to them.

We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are ‘isolated,’” she continued. “They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere.

Just another case of the fruit of the tree defense. A guy is definitely guilty, but the all-Holy technicality is more important than justice. Even in this, Sotomayor uses it to champion Black Lives Matter. She lost 5-3, but still wants to roil the water.
Reply
#27
Which one do you want to delete Bill?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#28
[Image: Screen-Shot-2018-11-07-at-6.39.21-AM.png...C427&ssl=1]


Now, here's something that Jackasses may want to invest their future ability in which to regain control of the Supreme Court.  Personally, I find this to be quite scary.  Shock

New 'Ginsborg' proposed after recent fall

Quote:...........A KeepOurRuth.org spokesperson held a press conference this morning with the following statement about the procedure's purpose and potential benefits. "We all know she's been a bit wobbly the last few years, but we need her on the Supreme Court. Since we can't possibly pass most of our revolutionary ideas in Congress, we need like-minded jurists in the courts to force those ideas on a grateful public. We've been doing that at the Federal Judiciary level for decades, but the Supreme Court is like a weapon of mass destruction for this type of stuff. They can really put a smack-down on all this ‘rule of law’ nonsense if properly staffed. A Ginsburg Cyborg could stay on the court indefinitely as long as spare parts are available."

The spokesperson went on to say, "We're also looking at the same procedure for other prominent but decrepit stalwarts of our causes. I won't say who is next, but don't be surprised if someday you see 'I'm Still With Her: 3016' bumper stickers on the flying car hovering in front of you."

[Image: Ginsborg_GInsburg_Eternal_Justice.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#29
Oh Boy! I'm looking forward to watching the next Supreme Court Nominee process. The Senate Judiciary Committee is getting a new chairman, and he is not putting up with any schist. The Jackasses had better learn to be gneiss. S13

BOOM! Bulldog Lindsey Graham Just Got A New Job and Dems Are MORTIFIED


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton Is Like Herpes, "She Wont Go Away" - Anna Paulina
Reply
#30
Quote:...........Since we can't possibly pass most of our revolutionary ideas in Congress, we need like-minded jurists in the courts to force those ideas on a grateful public. We've been doing that at the Federal Judiciary level for decades, but the Supreme Court is like a weapon of mass destruction for this type of stuff. They can really put a smack-down on all this ‘rule of law’ nonsense ...


Yeah, can't have any of that "rule of law" stuff. Better to have "rule of what I think"!

Yikes!
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Supreme Court Now Considering ObamaCare John L 95 34,926 02-14-2016, 03:12 PM
Last Post: John L
  Supreme court:: a human embryo is not a person quadrat 18 5,181 05-07-2012, 02:18 AM
Last Post: John L
  marijuana, Federalism, and the Supreme Court John L 20 4,470 01-25-2011, 02:06 PM
Last Post: Huh...What?
  Elena Kagan is Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Ron Lambert 102 26,601 08-08-2010, 08:07 PM
Last Post: ghoullio
  Barak Obama as a Supreme Court Justice? John L 2 747 02-18-2010, 11:05 PM
Last Post: Canuknucklehead
  Supreme court overturns campaign spending limits Huh...What? 6 1,372 01-25-2010, 12:21 PM
Last Post: John L
  CA Supreme Court Takes Up Gay "Marriage" Ban ghoullio 0 723 11-20-2008, 01:33 PM
Last Post: ghoullio
  Supreme court powers over marriage rights Thaiquila 4 1,228 11-12-2008, 02:37 PM
Last Post: John L
  2nd Amendment Supreme Court ruling helps Obama scpg02 24 3,808 07-04-2008, 11:58 AM
Last Post: Palladin
  The impact of Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court John L 2 1,177 06-19-2007, 10:18 AM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)