Originally Posted by HeywoodJablomi

I'm really sick of stuff like this and this happening, and all the Dems can say is, "Oops, I thought this was a dog show."

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 Constitution 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.

Originally Posted by HeywoodJablomi

Don't try to argue with dicks in your mouth. It's confusing and insulting to people who are trying to have real debate.

Originally Posted by HeywoodJablomi

Don't try to argue with dicks in your mouth. It's confusing and insulting to people who are trying to have real debate.

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

LOL, what is really funny is you probably miss the irony in your response.

Originally Posted by wyatt earp

I guess most of you all did not bother to watch 60 minutes last night. When ever you hear a name that gets your dander up to go into the mode of killing the messenger, instead of the message. One thing I did not know we have the most stupidest self serving judges on the Supreme court, They get full salary after 65 years old, all the old farts who are on there now over the age of 65 are there only becasue they think they are special, they are working for free.

Originally Posted by A. Crowley

So, this is yer new handle, Superdoofus?

Clever.

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.

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

LOL, what is really funny is you probably miss the irony in your response.