Freepmail or ping me on the thread to be added to the John Armor for Congress ping list.
John / Billybob
I agree with your opinion completely. I heard the interview on CBS radio, saw it on 60 minutes and read the transcript.
The written exchange is better than the other two. Ms. Stahl’s sarcasm and snide attitude don’t tarnish Scalia’s well-reasoned answers in the written version.
Unfortunately reason and logic don’t necessarily come through a distainful questioner’s attitude. TV and even radio are the wrong media for Scalia.
What is the point of a Constitution if it does not have a fixed meaning upon which one can base and judge governmental action? That is why the Ginsburgs and Breyers of this world are so dangerous.
Scalia was outstanding last night! I wish everyone had seen it. He put Leslie in her place a couple times. These liberal media types just don’t get it.
There should be no "cutting room floor" when dealing with 60 Minutes or any other of the left's propaganda arms. Always have your own videotape made AND get a 100% complete copy of all tapes made by the interviewers as a condition for the interview. If they know you can rebut them with their own unedited videotape, they are less likely to edit your words beyond recognition.
Yes, that is my understanding of the meaning of having a constitution; rights and processes which do not change haphazardly over time as the whims of the people flutter hither and yon.
Listen to Ginsberg and Stahl and you end up with a feminist constitution, a White constitution, a Black constitution, a constitution of the proletariat, and . . . .
Near-sighted liberals (excuse the redundancy) want a ‘living’ Constitution subject to the whimsy of the courts only so long as the whimsy of the courts favor them. They can’t seem to comprehend a world where judges, unfettered by legal restraints, might not support abortion, affirmatice action or tax funded social engineering. While conservatives contemplate, as did our founding fathers, a long term, stable government that ensures economic prosperity by protecting individual initiative, the liberals espouse the quick fix to social ills, both real and imagined, without regard to equity or stability in the long run. That’s why liberals beget socialists who beget communists who ultimately abandon the rule of law and resort to force and terrorism to endure.
This is the assumption of the Constitution. The actual wording and meaning of the law contained in the Constitution (the intended meaning of which can be derived from the many source documents written by the authors of the Constitution) cannot be changed without an amendment. However, the application of these laws are fluid and are malleable as the times change.
The liberals, who by-and-large, don't believe in God, find it impossible to understand the very fundamental truth of our country's philosophical foundation: Our rights of life, liberty, and pursuit are God-given and therefore inalienable. They are not man-given. The liberals don't like this and can't even understand this. They certainly do not want to be tied to the Constitution, which has always been our greatest protection against tyranny. The liberals are fascists that show themselves as such - they're really lovers of tyranny.
I continue to maintain that Gore's petition to the courts, and Bush's subsequent lawsuit, represented nonjusticeable political questions, whose resolution is clearly provided for in Article II and Amendment XII.
At the worst, there would have been two slates of electors transmitted to the seat of government of the United States from Florida, one appointed constitutionally (by the Legislature) and the other illegally (by the SCoFLA). The Congress would then have resolved the issue, as they are entitled to do.
This had absolutely nothing to do with the courts, and they should have stayed out of it.
God gave you buckets of brains, family taught you how
to spend those brains. Awesome
Why? Because Leslie does not understand the Constitution first of all and its original intent, and second, neither does she understand the complexities behind rulings behind Constitutional Law cases even though the Articles and Bill of Rights are pretty much straight foreward.
I admired and at the same time was saddened to hear Scalia say that some time back he was frustrated and bored with his job because to him, it seemed like the daily grind was more repetition to explain the logic and fact behind his descents.
I admit he's right, though different cases, the same underlying logic, fact and interpretations are explain week in and week out in the courts.
I wonder just how many hours Ms. Stahl has sat in silence listening to Supreme Court cases?????
Good work, John!
You are like a watchman on the wall. I pray that you be elected to congress. I also remind all of FreeRepublic that you need funds to run.
Throughout the last several months, I've read so many posts from freepers stating that they are not going to send money to the Rep party and are withholding funds from other candidates because they are fed up with this or that.
Well folks here's a candidate we know and can trust.
John is a true warrior and champion and we should support his candidacy financially.
The law of averages say that if each of you disappointed FR members would donate in kind to Johns campaign well he'd probably be able to take his mind off fund raising and get on with the business of dispatching his adversary.
You can reach John by clicking on the redirect link above.
Freepmail or ping me on the thread to be added to the John Armor for Congress ping list.
read later
Scalia didn’t have the time nor the inclination to educate Stahl. He would have wasted his time explaining why interrogation is not punishment and therefore cannot be “cruel and unusual punishment”. “I’m right”, coming from a Supreme Court justice renders her opinion moot.
Post production she probably researched the matter and wrote a thank you note to Scalia./S
Les Moonves can’t shut down the CBS News division soon enough.
Excellent work! As to expected.