Scalia On '60 Minutes'

Amazed · #**111** (**permalink**) 05-05-2008, 03:42 PM

There is nothing but one obscure Blog reference Jet, I "googled" it the other day.

More personal attacks, why? Because I have proven you wrong...again.

Amazed · #**112** (**permalink**) 05-05-2008, 04:03 PM

Your "proof"?

Two former prisoners, Abdul Jabar and Hakkim Shah, who recalled seeing Mr. Dilawar at Bagram, said the conditions to which they themselves were subjected at the time included standing naked, hooded and shackled, being kept immobile for long periods and being deprived of sleep for days on end.

Oh the Horror....

The spokesman for the United States-led force in Afghanistan, Col. Roger King, said in an e-mail message that the choice of the box ''homicide'' to describe the death meant only that ''the doctor felt something besides the other choices listed (natural, accident, suicide) led to the death.''

Of course, according to Jet, this General being an American would only lie.

What exactly Dr. Rouse meant by ''homicide'' is not clear. Nor is the precise way in which Mr. Dilawar was treated, but Mr. Shah, the former prisoner, said he had seen Mr. Dilawar with his feet chained. He could not attest to other specific conditions of the dead man's detention.

yes, of course. we can ALL believe the Terrorist....

THREATS AND RESPONSES: PRISONERS; U.S. Military Investigating Death of Afghan in Custody - New York Times

Your great "source" is nothing more than allegations and unproven accusations. Sorry.

1wiseguy · #**113** (**permalink**) 05-05-2008, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

You are not understanding what Scalia is talking about. The amendment process is in the Constitution, as such it is the Constitutional way to change the Constitution. Scalia has no issue with changes that occur this way. What Scalia is talking about is current attempts to apply different definitions to words in the Constitution in order to affect a change in law.

So what Scalia is saying is that the Constitution means something specific, it is a set of fixed statements. It is not something that changes meaning with every change in public fancy. It prevents the justices from being able to trump the collective wisdom of the founders, Americans since that date, all the Congresses and the 225 years of jurisprudence.

If people want to change the Constitution, fine, do an amendment; don’t try to stack five members on the Supreme Court to change it for you.

Oh, and shut up about Bush vs Gore, SEVEN justices agreed that the FSC had acted wrong. Two wanted to send it back to them again to get them to get it right (i.e. allow Bush's win to stand), however seven agreed with the decision. Besides every rational recount shows that Bush won.

Finally, some one gets it right! Words mean things and the constitution by design was meant to impede radical changes and to keep changes from happening too quickly to ensure good, sound changes -- not changes that happen by whim or "fad".

George O Well · #**114** (**permalink**) 05-05-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

made legal the murder of the unborn based soley on a phantom right and not the original intent of the document.

You don't know the original intent of the Constitution regarding abortion, so you can quit sounding like the buffoon you are. Either that or have Scalia legislate some more bullshit from the bench.

Skinny Fatts · #**115** (**permalink**) 05-05-2008, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

You don't know the original intent of the Constitution regarding abortion,...

Very true...and then the court shouldn't have been involved at all in Roe...throw that out and let the states determine if they want to legalize it.

George O Well · #**116** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 10:59 AM

The southeastern states would make abortion illegal while the rest of the country would have it legal. All that means is that babes in the southeast states would have a slightly longer drive than they do now.

wow · #**117** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 11:06 AM

Abortion is nothing more than the legalized lynching of black Americans, it's all about racial bigotry and huge profits!

George O Well · #**118** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wow

Abortion is nothing more than the legalized lynching of black Americans, it's all about racial bigotry and huge profits!

I don't know any black women who have had abortions. I do know that abortions were hugely popular in my all-white high school. And (I only hear this), abortions are hugely popular among Texas debuttantes. How many black Texas debuttantes do you know?

bluedog · #**119** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

You don't know the original intent of the Constitution regarding abortion, so you can quit sounding like the buffoon you are. Either that or have Scalia legislate some more bullshit from the bench.

Anyone with a little common sense can certainly know the intent of the constitution when it came to abortion, in fact for two hundred years prior to Roe v. Wade precedent had been established that left the state laws as paramount in determining the rights of any citizen within their borders. Just how many times is Life and Liberty mentioned by our founders as being of paramount concern? Just what source was most referenced by our founders in drafting our common laws? According to history actual it was Blackstone's theory of Law and its adherence to the transcending authority of the righteousness of the "CREATOR". For any man made law to be considered valid and righteous it must not come into conflict with any decree from the "Creator". Simply do a little research into finding any "decree" from the Creator that would prohibit said legalizing of abortion and you have your answer in consideration of MORALITY in relation to the taking of any LIFE. Don't buy into the "feminine liberal" ideology that espouses the propaganda that "Religion" had no part in the founding of this nation, and in particularly the religion of "Christianity", its so easy to debunk as the lie that it is. BD

smart makes a comeback · #**120** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

Anyone with a little common sense can certainly know the intent of the constitution when it came to abortion, in fact for two hundred years prior to Roe v. Wade precedent had been established that left the state laws as paramount in determining the rights of any citizen within their borders. Just how many times is Life and Liberty mentioned by our founders as being of paramount concern? Just what source was most referenced by our founders in drafting our common laws? According to history actual it was Blackstone's theory of Law and its adherence to the transcending authority of the righteousness of the "CREATOR". For any man made law to be considered valid and righteous it must not come into conflict with any decree from the "Creator". Simply do a little research into finding any "decree" from the Creator that would prohibit said legalizing of abortion and you have your answer in consideration of MORALITY in relation to the taking of any LIFE. Don't buy into the "feminine liberal" ideology that espouses the propaganda that "Religion" had no part in the founding of this nation, and in particularly the religion of "Christianity", its so easy to debunk as the lie that it is. BD

The original intent of the constitution was aslo to have slavery, NO standing army, and terrifs between states, so whats you point you child molesting hillbilly ?
What you call " common sense " is nothing but your own band of ignorance and stupidity