Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself
...with all the confidence of the moth who says HELL YA!Scalia had no problem interpretting the constitution his own way in Heller or Citizen's United.
He interpreted the document correctly. The libturds having a hissy fit because they think the government can limit the First Amendment rights of private citizens are wrong.
and then dive bombs into the bug zapper.
Anthony Scalia, on government limiting rights of private citizens Because: First Amendment!
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.
On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.
Also, too:
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."
And, finally:
It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in;
but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
LINK
Society evolves
Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed
The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society
That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on
The Constitution was not "written broadly." If you want to change what it says, it allows for amendments. the Supreme Court was not given the job of redefining what it says. Those redefinitions have nothing to do with any "needs of the 21st Century." They are simply the result of subversives attempting to implement their anti-American agenda.
1. It's not a Living Organism, that's correct, sometimes I'm not sure he is either, it's a Living Document.The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Do you suppose they will accept what this Supreme Court justices has to say?
Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism' | Fox News
During a speech in Atlanta Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday defended interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written and intended.
Scalia delivered a speech titled "Interpreting the Constitution: A View From the High Court," as part of a constitutional symposium hosted by the State Bar of Georgia. Originalism and trying to figure out precisely what the ratified document means is the only option, otherwise you're just telling judges to govern, Scalia argued.
"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."
Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself
Nope, of course not. I'm not the one who claims the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court decides it says. I'm also not the one who believes such idiocy, but you are such a moron.
Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself
The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Do you suppose they will accept what this Supreme Court justices has to say?
Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism' | Fox News
During a speech in Atlanta Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday defended interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written and intended.
Scalia delivered a speech titled "Interpreting the Constitution: A View From the High Court," as part of a constitutional symposium hosted by the State Bar of Georgia. Originalism and trying to figure out precisely what the ratified document means is the only option, otherwise you're just telling judges to govern, Scalia argued.
"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."
Scalia is right, and RIGHTWINGER, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!!
Scalia had no problem interpretting the constitution his own way in Heller or Citizen's United.
He interpreted the document correctly. The libturds having a hissy fit because they think the government can limit the First Amendment rights of private citizens are wrong.
Society evolves
Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed
The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society
That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on
The Constitution was not "written broadly." If you want to change what it says, it allows for amendments. the Supreme Court was not given the job of redefining what it says. Those redefinitions have nothing to do with any "needs of the 21st Century." They are simply the result of subversives attempting to implement their anti-American agenda.
This Conservative does....guess that shoots your quip all to hell...Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself
Did the three laws of motion stop because Newton died?Scalia says we need to go back to original intent...what is missing from this equation?
Oringinal Intenders?
No, they went on, and were expanded upon as we learned more.Did the three laws of motion stop because Newton died?Scalia says we need to go back to original intent...what is missing from this equation?
Oringinal Intenders?
Did the three laws of motion stop because Newton died?Scalia says we need to go back to original intent...what is missing from this equation?
Oringinal Intenders?
If your name is bripat and you sport a toddler flipping the bird as your avi, I suppose so.This Conservative does....guess that shoots your quip all to hell...Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself
Actually, no they weren't. The Three laws stand today as they did then. We have learned more based upon the foundation they taught us. But we don't change the laws of motion to make boats larger and still float, do we?No, they went on, and were expanded upon as we learned more.Did the three laws of motion stop because Newton died?Scalia says we need to go back to original intent...what is missing from this equation?
Oringinal Intenders?
I use adblocker for that, and most other avatars.If your name is bripat and you sport a toddler flipping the bird as your avi, I suppose so.This Conservative does....guess that shoots your quip all to hell...Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself
YOu said rightwing, not bripat....As a Conservative, I guess that puts Me in the right wing.If your name is bripat and you sport a toddler flipping the bird as your avi, I suppose so.This Conservative does....guess that shoots your quip all to hell...Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself
