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

I went to a Scalia event here at U. of Missouri, Columbia a year or more ago. What a guy!

I am surprised that this article hasn't been posted here - I did a check...

Ashland, Missouri

1 posted on 01/12/2003 6:44:01 PM PST by rface
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: rface
this event happened at FREDERICKSBURG, Va......
2 posted on 01/12/2003 6:45:27 PM PST by rface (Ashland, Missouri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
Thanks for the encouraging post.
4 posted on 01/12/2003 6:50:40 PM PST by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
"That is contrary to our whole tradition, to `in God we trust' on the coins, to (presidential) Thanksgiving proclamations, to (congressional) chaplains, to tax exemption for places of worship, which has always existed in America."

Slavery was part of our tradition, too. Should we bring it back? Oh, those good old days, Tony.

5 posted on 01/12/2003 6:52:56 PM PST by jo6pac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
Scalia is interesting. He is an original-intent purist, right down to the last wart, which certainly is a position in favor of preserving robust Christian liberties but also puts him in the position of apologia for some indefensible things in other arenas.
6 posted on 01/12/2003 6:53:17 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
"The sign back here which says `Get religion out of government,' can be imposed on the whole country. I have no problem with that philosophy being adopted democratically. If the gentleman holding the sign would persuade all of you of that, then we could eliminate `under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. That could be democratically done," said Scalia.

That is a curious thing for an "Original Intent" jurist to say. I wonder what other things he thinks could be done "democratically"? If the majority of the people in this country convinced their reps and senators to ban firearms ownership, would that pass muster with him?

9 posted on 01/12/2003 7:04:15 PM PST by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
The recent travesty in Illinois where a Catholic governor knuckled under to the position of the Catholic church and effectively did away with the death penalty should be a wake-up call to all Americans on the importance of the separation of church and state. Not to pick on the Catholics particularly, but religions tend to look for a foot in the door, and when they get it, look out. Religion is a private matter. Our Founders understood that.
16 posted on 01/12/2003 7:14:20 PM PST by blau993
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
read later
19 posted on 01/12/2003 7:21:42 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
Slavery was part of our tradition, too. Should we bring it back?

Slavery is still alive and well in the U.S. The slaves just happen to be in third world nations. When you're paying a Chinese worker $0.20 an hour to make products for here and the CEO who moved our jobs over there is pocketing millions, what do you call it?

32 posted on 01/12/2003 8:31:52 PM PST by dirtydanusa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
Wouldn't have thought that Justice Scalia read Plasticman. LOL!
46 posted on 01/12/2003 9:55:03 PM PST by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
It is somewhat comforting to see a supreme court justice take a positive, and truly correct approach on the separation of church and state. As he said, the separation existed only on the national level, that Congress could make no religion supreme above all others. Today, that has been interpreted to mean that God doesn't belong in government. Surely, this is a dangerous trend. When you start to leave and deny the one person who protects this country out of the government, the moral fabrics of society begin to stretch, and over time tear. This is only one of the necessary reforms that the government must make to ensure our freedom as a nation. Well said, Mr. Supreme Court Justice, and thank you for defending God. It was a nice surprise, and I look forward to more of them.
59 posted on 01/13/2003 9:18:32 PM PST by curtis_ekstrom (Well Said! Mr. Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rface
Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.

65 posted on 06/03/2003 5:26:12 PM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ 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