This could be the ApocAlito!
This man is a patriot. This man has courage.
Godspeed.
Come think of it AD I don't think our American founding fathers knew what abortion was
So he has point
Scalia, arguing that nothing in the Constitution supports abortion rights and the use of race in school admissions.
Duh. I've read the U.S. Constitution many times and find the same thing as Scalia. Plus, I challenge the liberals/communists/democRATs to find the word "education," anywhere in the Constitution.
5.56mm
bttt
That's not true. The Constitution validates the Declaration of Independence as a document of legislation. The Declaration expresses our inalienable Right to Life.
We need to hear from Scalia on how the 14th Amendment bars "anchor babies", and how radical homosexual groups like the GSA and GSLED have no right to push perverted propaganda in our schools under the guise of "equal rights".
Moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue.
Well then it's even less likely that there's anything in there that says it's ok to use race in college admissions but only for another 25 years (i.e. the U of Michigan affirmative action case.)
Ever since that ruling, whenever someone mentions Sandra Day O'Connor I think of that flaky opinion of hers. I just can't believe a Supreme Court justice could write that.
BUMP
Occasionally, IMHO, Scalia sometimes missteps as on the Raich case. Thomas does too, though not usually as often.
One thing I wish the Supreme Court could be to issue an initial decision against one party with instructions for that party to present a certain argument on appeal. There are very good reasons why the Court cannot consider arguments not placed before it, but sometimes bad precedents can get set when the proper decision cannot be supported by the presented arguments and rather than using the right arguments the court stretches those that were presented. Lawrence v. Texas was a prime example of this.
I would argue that there should be a general legal principle that if it is widely known that the police are aware of a particular activity and do not act upon it, it should not be possible to prosecute someone for that same activity unless it can be shown that there was some legitimate rational basis for prosecuting the defendant but not the others doing the same thing, and that the defendant was or should have been aware that his action was different.
IMHO, the proper outcome for Lawrence would have been for the case to have been remanded to trial court, with instruction to determine whether there was basis for charging the defendants while not charging other people engaged in sodomy whom the police knew about but left alone.
Unfortunately, the defendants refused to make any such argument, putting the court in the position of either finding against defendants for whom, at least in the public's eye, such an argument might have worked, or else finding for the defendants without any real constitutional basis for doing so, and then stretching things to pretend the decision is legitimate.
I absolutly LOVE this guy.
God bless that man!
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Constitution expressly prohibits taking a human life without due process.
IOW, it bans abortion.