BFFs Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia agree to disagree

LAT ^ | 6/22/2015 | DAVID G. SAVAGE

[Borges]

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia seem unlikely friends.

Though both grew up in New York City and graduated from Ivy League law schools, Scalia went on to become a lawyer in the Nixon administration and a founder of the conservative Federalist Society, and Ginsburg led the women's rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

He's brash and burly and believes in strict adherence to the Constitution's original text. She's soft-spoken and slight and believes in a "living Constitution" that can change with the times. On controversial cases, they are often the most likely of any pairing of the nine Supreme Court justices to disagree.

Despite their standing as the intellectual lions of the left and right, Ginsburg and Scalia have forged an uncommon bond on a court where close friendships outside of chambers are rare.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Its only taken Barky 6 years. Of course he could not have done it without the help of the Republicrats. :=)

[sakic]

If you want to form a country for protestants, run by Protestants, go ahead, but that ain’t the way it works here.

The Klan already lives by what you think should be the rules. You are free to join.

[Ransomed]

“Current court is so skewed, so out of line with the Americans, it might as well be called an Occupation Tribunal, dictating social policy.”

Blame lies squarely with all the Jewish and Catholic presidents and their crazy Jewish and Catholic nominating tendencies.

Freegards

[Regulator]

If you want to form a country for protestants, run by Protestants, go ahead, but that ain’t the way it works here

That's hilarious. You did read the previous post noting that the "Of the 56 signers of the Declaration, one was Catholic, two were Quakers, and the rest various forms of Protestant"?

Think that it was precisely that: a country formed by Protestants.

But Protestants being tolerant folks they always did want to include like minded people from the start. It's sort of the root rationale, right?

Thus you have America.

But ask yourself this...when we Americans are the minority, will it still be America? Or are you one of those people who think that "we are all immigrants"?

Because uh...3 centuries after my ancestors hacked out subsistence farms along the Yadkin, that jist ain't true.

[sakic]

You must be upset by the lack of Quakers on the Supreme Court.

Protestants are a majority, but I looked in the Constitution and couldn’t find the passage that proscribed a numeric connection between percentage religion of population and Supreme Court representation

There were no blacks on the Court in the beginning. Guess they shouldn’t be allowed. No Jews either.

Good luck marching backwards in time.

[Cboldt]

Scalia is a pragmatist. He’s willing to uphold unconstitutional laws, just as long as they have been on the books and upheld for a long enough duration.

[Regulator]

You must be upset by the lack of Quakers on the Supreme Court

It would help! But I prefer Anabaptists, for their Protestant fundamentalism.

Good luck marching backwards in time

Oh, Got It, you're a Progressive! Who knew.

Isn't it interesting how "progress" is defined as replacing egalitarian Anglo Protestant norms with regressive feudalist notions like Socialism, usually with the people who bear those ideas?

You'll forgive me if I regard that as ordinary Soviet propaganda tactics - inverting the meaning of a word and labeling it the latest thing.

[sakic]

The notion that the Court shouldn’t include Catholics or Jews is a repugnant motion to me. We disagree.

[donaldo]

Clarence Darrow thought a combination of six Jews and six Irishmen was the ideal makeup for a jury. With that combination in the box he boasted that he could’ve gotten Judas off with a $5.00 fine. Obama thinks in a similar manner. Just give him a rubber stamp Supreme Court who will never vote against anything liberal and he’ll always be upheld. He knows that the three Jews on the court will never do anything, and I mean anything, that would stifle a loose construction of the law. The constitution is a living breathing malleable piece of paper that means anything they say it means. Ditto the wise Latina. Kennedy and Roberts are also getting fairly predictable. Those three self-loathing Jews knew what they were doing. This was a deliberate and willful assault on the Christian religion and the rule of law. They’ve turned the constitution and federalism into toilet paper. And of course this is popular with the most self-absorbed egocentric generation in the history of mankind. Immediate gratification is all that matters to them. Spoiled brats all and they’re in control. Obama is the one person personification of that segment of our society, a man of the times for the times with a Supreme Court that will virtually rubberstamp anything he wants. Liberals want monologue, not dialogue. They want unanimity of opinion. They want to silence discussion. Oh yeah, they preach diversity, but won’t allow it, especially on college campuses which were at one time citadels of academic freedom. I despise them all.

[Regulator]

And you’re putting words in my mouth. No one said that except you, Mr. Progressive.

What’s repugnant to me as descendant of the founding stock is that we are to be judged by those who may be hostile and alien to us. No sensible nation submits itself to being accosted and judged according to the norms and laws of foreign and alien nations. Would you suggest that the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sit as presiding judge of the Israeli Supreme Court? Assuming of course that he simply declares himself to be of the Israeli nation?

Must be a good day for you. The alien filth on the “Supreme Court” just imposed it’s will on a truculent nation and struck down laws in all 50 states that have stood since before the Revolution, indeed, for thousands of years.

Wherever it was put to a vote this position was resoundingly defeated. Yet the robed tyrants put themselves above the nation and arrogantly impose what no civil and moral society has ever dared to do.

Tell me again how wonderful the composition of this court is, Mr. Gramsci?

[sakic]

You want an all Protestant Court.

I have no problems with Catholics and Jews on the Court.

What is “progressive” about that?

[Regulator]

Like I said Bubba...you be puttin' words in my mouth. Since you don't advocate personal excellence as a criteria, but rather ethnic identity, how 'bout proportional representation? That would mean that the court would have to follow these percentages:

Protestant 47%
No Religion 23%
Catholic 21%
Jewish 2%
Mormon >2%
Everything Else ~ 5%

Data from Evil Pew Center

Amazing that when I advocate representation for a shunned group, you get belligerent. Next you'll be telling us that minorities should only win elections, like the Leftists!

But maybe that's what ya be.

So let's see now...that means that the court should be

Protestant 4
No Religion 2
Catholic 2
Everyone else 1

We could alternate 1 Jewish member with one Mormon every decade or so.

So that's it Bunky. Your Catholo-Jewish court is absurd. It is so grossly mis-representative of the American populace it's comical. The opinions it comes up with are distorted diatribes of tiny minorities trying to rip gashes in the body politic.

I proposed a sensible solution earlier on this thread: the Court should have 1 each from the Federal Districts. That would be...drum roll please...9 Justices.

That they could be recalled by a majority vote of the State legislators in their district would be a helpful, federalist idea as well. We used to want to keep politics out of the Judiciary but apparently the Judiciary didn't have the self discipline to stay out of politics. So, we impose a political feedback loop on them.

But proportional representation in terms of religion is now necessary since the Court has declared war on religion in America.

[Regulator]

So see Post 32 for my latest proposal in the little tete-a-tete with the Progressive Mr. Sakic.

Summarized, it's

1 Justice each from the 9 Federal Districts And

They could be recalled by a majority vote of the State legislators in their district (similar to the Senate prior the 17th Amendment)

Sakic was upset that I thought there should be more Protestants on the court since there are currently NONE on the court, which is so out of balance with the Americans that it borders on ludicrous. That two of the "Justices" are Jewish females with long political activist histories is simply absurd and outrageous. You can't even put a fig leaf of legitimacy on them: Kagan was never a judge. How can someone say with a straight face that she was appointed based on her Brilliance as a Jurist?

So it's obvious they were nominated for their virulent and extremist views which are part of their ethno-religious identities. In their communities perhaps they are "normal", but it just proves that what is normal to them is grossly abnormal to the American populace. As for Catholics we have a two to one split; Kennedy is a product of California Leftism, a Liberation Theology Catholic who went off the cliff a long time ago.

But even silliness like this is just playing on the fringes. The Court long ago arrogated far too much power and has now insisted that they control the States in matters which they should have no say. My proposal is almost innocuous in comparison to their breathtaking destruction of foundational norms in Judeo-Christian society.

A Free Society is one that is Free to determine it's own structure, how it will live. The Court has just denied that to us, based on arrogating illegitimate power.

It's time to end this madness. We are not their Subjects.

[mware]

The author of this article most certainly did not read Justice Scalia dissenting opinion on the decision.

[sakic]

The only ridiculous thing proposed by either of us is your proposal that wants Protestants on the Court.

First you wanted all Protestants on the Court, because that’s what it was originally.

Now you’ve amended your position to want representation based on the religions of the general population.

Next, you’ll want something else.

Bunky? Bubba?

This is the first communication I have ever exchanged with a bad stereotype.