Supreme Court justice Scalia died.

[OB1]

Give me your address.  I will come over and smack the shit out of you.

LOL!
I doubt you are able to do any serious harm.
Anyway...
That proves nothing.

[The True Adonis]

We will most likely never meet.  By your standards, I should not believe in your existence.  You could be anybody form anywhere, just mindlessly typing away.  If I don't meet you, I cannot believe in you nor your existence.  I don't care about pictures.  I don't care about film or audio recordings.  This isn't about a poor man's version of the Lazarus Bowl, you know.

But again, I believe you to exist without real proof and that being by your own standards. In the coming centuries you will not exist to anyone at all and will not be remembered nor cared about nor thought well or ill of.  You will be just another ibid in the book of names.  To paraphrase a mutual friend, we are all destined to be nothing new under the sun and the same old shit six feet under the soil.  

But Jesus of Nazareth?   Wisdom for the ages.  Past, present and future.  

Again, I believe you to be you and that being without ever meeting you.  Faith comes in many forms and at many levels.  This is but one.  You cannot make a leap of faith in two jumps unless you have someone there to catch you.

For many, that would be the Christ.  

I don't care that you don't believe in Jesus for that is not a pre-requisite for friendship.  However, good manners are.    We shall "talk" again, my invisible, imaginary friend!  

Your whole argument is a false equivalency.

[Straw Man]

Yup.  Only words, written by men I have never met.  I've never met you in person.  I've only read your words here and still I have faith that you exist.  Does that make you a "god" and me a mindless believer?

Not hardly, my friend.   

Great point
The men who wrote the many things that were compiled to make the bible likely did exist.
That doesn't lend any credence to what they wrote

[The Scott]

Your whole argument is a false equivalency.

Who is arguing?  Oh...You.   I merely state what I hold true and this time I used your standards but given who I am, I disagree and still believe that you really are, that you do exist.

Stop arguing and start accepting that neither of us is the other and this in defiance of the fact that we are more alike than disparate.  I don't want to save you from anything, least of all yourself.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Yup, it took two months for Elena Kagan to get to the bench.

Now he gets to nominate another single woman, maybe an Asian this time. (Gotta have the SCOTUS representative of our nation, right? Oh, wait - Asians are much less than 1/9 of the population.  )

He will nominate a liberal with NO chance of being approved by this senate, and Republicans will be accused of racism, sexism, etc.  He might actually have to offer a second nominee, and then it'll be Election Day - this would create drama and tension thus occupying the media, and distract us from last 11 months as POTUS.

If Obama was really smart he'd nominate a moderate Republican who he knows isn't really a republican but playing one. That would put a lot of pressure on the Republican's not to bloke it through. But lets be real. Obama can barely read of Teleprompter. He'll be told who to nominate.

No tie and can barely fucking read what was written for him. Why the fuck wouldn't you at least put a tie on? This is a Supreme Court Justice who lost his life and you're talking to the Country. I know he was coming from the golf course but Jesus that was odd...

[The Scott]

Great point
The men who wrote the many things that were compiled to make the bible likely did exist.
That doesn't lend any credence to what they wrote

Wisdom can be for the moment or the millennia but rarely is it by chance. 

[Coach is Back!]

Give me your address.  I will come over and smack the shit out of you.

With what? Your spatula? How about I give you my address? I already know where you live you sissy.

[Straw Man]

Wisdom can be for the moment or the millennia but rarely is it by chance. 

nice jibberish

any actual reply to what I wrote

[polychronopolous]

[The True Adonis]

Scalia was worthless.  Fundamentalist religious wack job. Glad hes gone.

[The True Adonis]

Thomas Jefferson would have rolled over in his grave at someone like Scalia as a Supreme Court judge.  What a piece of shit.



On questions of separation of church and state, Scalia was a consistent voice for accommodation between the two, and against erecting a high wall of separation. When the court, by a 7-to-2 vote, struck down a Louisiana law that mandated the teaching of creationism in school if evolution is taught, Scalia was dismissive of evolution, calling it merely a "guess, and a very bad guess at that."

[The Scott]

nice jibberish

any actual reply to what I wrote

Where did I make light of  your words? 

As you have done, so shall I.  If my words went over your head it is only because it was so far up your own ass and not because you were too ignorant to understand their meaning.

Or are you?  Why is it that instead of an exchange of thought you simply wish to trade sophomoric insults?  For the record, yours are feeble as a Wiggsian treatise on Nibiru. 

I try to be nice and this is what I get, but then what should I expect from an infant playing at being a juvenile?  Typist.

[oldtimer1]

A voice of reason in the Supreme court who followed the Constitution instead of trying to create laws through decisions. When the Supreme courts acts like a branch of Congress it becomes dangerous. He protected against that.

[SilverSpoon]

A voice of reason in the Supreme court who followed the Constitution instead of trying to create laws through decisions. When the Supreme courts acts like a branch of Congress it becomes dangerous. He protected against that.

He fully realized the role of the Supreme Court.

Understood that the Constitution is NOT a living document.

[drkaje]

Kind of funny how the political wheel has to keep turning.

[Raymondo]

Thomas Jefferson would have rolled over in his grave at someone like Scalia as a Supreme Court judge.  What a piece of shit.



On questions of separation of church and state, Scalia was a consistent voice for accommodation between the two, and against erecting a high wall of separation. When the court, by a 7-to-2 vote, struck down a Louisiana law that mandated the teaching of creationism in school if evolution is taught, Scalia was dismissive of evolution, calling it merely a "guess, and a very bad guess at that."

Evolution a "guess"

I guess all the evidence in natural museums must be faked.

[drkaje]

His being dismissive of evolution is irrelevant.

[LurkerNoMore]

Scalia was worthless.  Fundamentalist religious wack job. Glad hes gone.

This.  He is a hero to fundies and wackos of the right wing. Noted for both his errors in properly understanding the Constitution and his arrogance in confidently defending those errors.

The next SCJ won't be one that thinks there is a King James Version of the Constitution.

[Raymondo]

His being dismissive of evolution is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? It indicates dismissal of evidence. It's a massive error of judgement.

[drkaje]

Irrelevant to what? It indicates dismissal of evidence. It's a massive error of judgement.

People are dismissive of religion. Things balance out; It's not nearly as big of a deal as people pretend it to be for the purpose of political argument.

Generally speaking: I believe the original goal of lifetime appointments was to keep interpretation of Constitutional rights relatively consistent over time. It was intended to prevent the political process from using it as an opportunity to initiate social change. We've gone mentally soft enough to allow litmus tests on a few issues and don't care about what happens to the rights of Americans over time.

[Raymondo]

People are dismissive of religion. Things balance out; It's not nearly as big of a deal as people pretend it to be for the purpose of political argument.

Generally speaking: I believe the original goal of lifetime appointments was to keep interpretation of Constitutional rights relatively consistent over time. It was intended to prevent the political process from using it as an opportunity to initiate social change. We've gone mentally soft enough to allow litmus tests on a few issues and don't care about what happens to the rights of Americans over time.

Non sequitur, but I'll give it another shot...

If you have a judge on a top position who is dismissive of evidence, isn't it a cause for worry?

[mazrim]

x2. Yes, last thing I want is a supreme court judge who thinks there is a magical being in the sky who cares if you masturbate-and if you masturbate, your damned to hell or all eternity.

You don't vote so it doesn't really matter what you think..... Lol, at someone who comments on political issues yet doesn't even care/too lazy to vote. Your arguments/point of view is basically worthless.

[drkaje]

Non sequitur, but I'll give it another shot...

If you have a judge on a top position who is dismissive of evidence, isn't it a cause for worry?

Evidence changes all the time. Also, let's be brutally honest with ourselves about the extent evidence affects people's thought process. Many keep looking until finding evidence that agrees with whatever their opinion happens to be.

If someone proved Creationism (tomorrow), would you go all Bible-thumping? Of course not.

The argument against/for justices is 100% based upon the extent their interpretation of laws agrees with the prevailing political will.

[gmflex]

I know what you want.
But you won't get it.

Lmao
 

[Raymondo]

Evidence changes all the time. Also, let's be brutally honest with ourselves about the extent evidence affects people's thought process. Many keep looking until finding evidence that agrees with whatever their opinion happens to be.

If someone proved Creationism (tomorrow), would you go all Bible-thumping? Of course not.

The argument against/for justices is 100% based upon the extent their interpretation of laws agrees with the prevailing political will.

So it doesn't matter if Scalia brushed aside scientific evidence, because evidence changes all the time.

Right.

If Scalia was presiding over a trial of a traditionalist Roman Catholic and the prosecution presented forensic evidence (which is scientific) that the defendnant was guilty, would Scalia get away with saying "evidence changes all the time"?