Scalia: Foreign law isn't ours

Houston Chronicle ^ | November 19, 2008 | MARY FLOOD

[itsahoot]

The SENATE (or at least 41 members of it) gets to determine what judges are appointed.

That is sad but true, however GW could have recess appointed every time they took a break. Kept the issue on the front page, but he chose the McCain way, setting a "New Tone" of cross the Isle cooperation. Yes I know about Grahamnesty and McCain and the band of 14. He could have pressured the Republican Senate to actually force an actual Filibuster. Oh well, same old crap coming again soon.

[Daffynition]

"Whatever became of our constitutional republic? Did it become passe?"

Sure. Why not. The Constitution is a living, breathing document, no? /sarc GGGRRRRRRRRRRR!

[Daffynition]

My favorite photo of The Man:

[LurkedLongEnough]

The Federalist Papers should be required reading for high school graduation.

For those of you who would rather listen to the Federalist papers, here is another link with audio & mp3 downloads:

http://www.americanaphonic.com/pages/federalistshow.html

[fortunecookie]

Kudos to Scalia.

[amchugh]

Very good, I was going to make the same point, but even so there seems little point in citing post-revolutionary foreign precedent vs making up an interpretation based on similar US cases.

Some exceptions to common law include Louisiana, and the concept of community property which derives from Spanish legal traditions.

Bubba Ho-Tep, are you a Joe Lansdale fan?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Bubba Ho-Tep, are you a Joe Lansdale fan?

Not really. Nothing against him, just not that familiar. The name comes from the fact that I'd literally seen the movie the night before and it was the first thing that came to mind.

[jtom36]

-- the bulk of the document, like the First and Second Amendment, reflects basic standards of government which are to be altered only through the amendment process.

The First and Second Amendments reflect our basic standards of rights -- to life, liberty, and property..
Rights which cannot be altered or infringed, even through the amendment process. -- Any 'amendments' that violated our basic rights would be unconstitutional, - null & void from enactment. [see Marbary v Madison]

Does Obama know that?

You better believe that obama contends that the bulk of the document, like the First and Second Amendment reflects basic standards of government which can be altered through the amendment process.
He is a democratic 'majority rule' socialist, bet on it.

[Skooz]

My favorite photo of The Man:

Nice photo, but wheredit go?

[Daffynition]

Sorry .... it *was* there ... really! I've mysteriously lost a few in the past few days and can't figure out why. Here's another attempt ...