Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

And in other news...

Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid may support Scalia for Chief Justice (but not Clarence Thomas)

1 posted on 11/21/2004 12:08:57 AM PST by AM2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: AM2000

Riiiiiiight, so Arnie can be president. And then Terayyyyysa.


2 posted on 11/21/2004 12:10:45 AM PST by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000
Scalia indicated that he's aware his opponents see him darkly, as someone who wants to curtail rights. But he said he'd have sided with the anti-segregationists in two landmark Supreme Court rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1878, and Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
The writer needs a fact checker. Plessy was decided in 1896.

Scalia is extremely sound on the law as written, but IMO he's a little bit too trusting of the whims of the majority. The Framers placed strict limits on what government could do, and made it tough to loosen those limits, with good reason.

-Eric

3 posted on 11/21/2004 12:16:25 AM PST by E Rocc (Four More Years - Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000
he'd change in the Constitution would be to make it easier to amend

Yeah, the liberals would love that...then they wouldn't have to go through all the trouble of redefining all those words...like "welfare," "marriage," etc.
4 posted on 11/21/2004 12:17:12 AM PST by w6ai5q37b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000
"He had a pretty impressive record and for those of us who are really concerned about social justice, he has a pretty depressing record," said Derek Smith, one of the students.

And just who defines what "social justice" consists of sweetie pie? You? A wet behind the ears little twerp who hasn't experienced much of anything yet? No thanks. I don't want some judge to define for me either.

7 posted on 11/21/2004 12:52:03 AM PST by ladyinred (Congratulations President Bush! Four more years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000

He talks one game, but I'm more than certain that when he votes, he votes my way.


8 posted on 11/21/2004 12:59:34 AM PST by SoDak (Home of Senator John Thune)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000

"He said the only thing he'd change in the Constitution would be to make it easier to amend. "

I don't know what he's getting at with this. Seems to me that if it was easier to amend it would look like some kind of unrecognizable frankenstein monster in another hundred years.


10 posted on 11/21/2004 1:26:06 AM PST by orangelobster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000
He said the only thing he'd change in the Constitution would be to make it easier to amend

In other words, just throw it out?

13 posted on 11/21/2004 1:54:28 AM PST by mtbopfuyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000
He said the only thing he'd change in the Constitution would be to make it easier to amend.

I'm likely one of the few that believes our Constitution was Divinely inspired, and has served us quite well all these years. Leave it alone.

Oh yes, and I'll take a pass on judicial activism too.

14 posted on 11/21/2004 1:54:58 AM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000

Rule by referendum/popular will = Rule of the Sheeple.


16 posted on 11/21/2004 2:16:28 AM PST by Clemenza (Gabba Gabba Hey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000
He also says Constitution should be easier to amend

Sounds good to me, hehe. Where is that map of red states vs blue states?

18 posted on 11/21/2004 3:00:58 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000

I am so glad our Founding Fathers had greater insight and fundamental patriotism.

If the Constitution were easier to change, etc., it would be 1000 pages in length by now as each passing whim came, got an amendment, went.

LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE, except for good cause. Whims are not good causes.

Just in the last few years, some suggested amendments have included:

==Allowing Presidents to run for more than 2 terms (specifically, so Bill Clinton could have run, but now that Bush is President, the libs aren't crying to allow a 3rd term).

==Allowing foreign born to run for the Presidency (Orin Hatch).

==Allowing illegals to vote (Orin Hatch needs to consider retirement).

==Doing away with the Electoral College and electing by popular vote (2000 when Al Gore got more popular votes) (but not in 2004 since George Bush got more popular votes).

Etc.----Whim changes are not good for America's future.


19 posted on 11/21/2004 5:57:45 AM PST by TomGuy (America: Best friend or worst enemy. Choose wisely.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000

SCALIA is the greatest. My only disagreement with him is that I would NOT wish to see the Constitution more easily amended. Other than that, he is the best.

Oh, and he should listen to his wife more. If you are a strict-constructionist, you should know that it is not necessary to interpret everything as free speech from a constitutional viewpoint. The courts have broadened the meaning of free speech to include various acts, and even pornography, which was not the original intent of the Bill of Rghts. The courts have also ignored some very clear provisions of the Bill of Rights, merely because they were inconvenient to their ideological predilections.

It is good to see someone like Scalia well received in Univ. of Michigan, one of the most liberal places in the land. Notice what the demonstrators were like! The were, first, sneaky. They were, as usual, rude.

They were from the "social work" area, one of the saddest groups around. If they ever finish their studies, they will get paid less than someone with a small lawn-mowing business, and the law-mowing business at least accomplishes something.

I think that it is highly unprofessional for an instructor to lead students in political activity like this, because it sets the stage for favoratism based on the degree of cooperation of his students. If this were sexual harrassment, people would be pointing out that the professor is in a power position, unfairly extorting favors from his underlings. It is the same here: the ones who help stroke the professor in his political activities will get the good grades and recommendations.

That also explains why leftism gets entrenched in many areas: conservative academics have an uphill struggle even to survive long enough to get tenured.


22 posted on 11/21/2004 6:44:10 AM PST by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000

EEEEEEKKKK!!! Don't mess with the Constitution!


23 posted on 11/21/2004 6:46:51 AM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000
...they kept their protest signs hidden in backpacks...

Security is so lax that backpacks are being permitted into this kind of venue? I'm sure the enemy has noted that with interest...

24 posted on 11/21/2004 6:51:35 AM PST by JimRed (Investigate, overturn and prosecute vote fraud; turn more counties red!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000

No it SHOULDN'T. It's like this for certain and I don't want it to change. We will turn into Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia if it is changed.


25 posted on 11/21/2004 6:52:43 AM PST by JOE43270 (JOE43270 America voted and said we are One Nation Under God with Liberty and Justice for All.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000

Scalia said that's why he supports the death penalty and believes abortion shouldn't have become legal by the court's ruling in 1973.



Something tells me Scalia didn't phrase it this way. Roe did "make abortion legal." It prevented states from making it illegal during the early term of pregnancy.


26 posted on 11/21/2004 7:29:19 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: AM2000
in the past 40 years a majority of the high court has interpreted the Constitution to create rights

The high court re-interperted the Constitution. The Supreme Court serves to judge the constitutionality of all other law by comparing that law to the Constitution. The Constitution is the reference upon which all other law is compared and a reference is not subject to re-interpertation.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

28 posted on 11/21/2004 7:42:01 AM PST by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson