13

Antonin Scalia dies at 79

Posted by $ WilliamShipley 8 years, 3 months ago to Politics
76 comments | Share | Flag

This is a catastrophe for anyone who thinks the constitution shouldn't be reinterpreted in favor of the latest liberal clause. We've had a lot of 5-4 decisions, most recently the suspension of the EPA's energy plan.


All Comments

  • Posted by starznbarz 8 years, 3 months ago
    Given Justice Scalias unabashed (and correct) belief that the Constitution must be upheld as written, as opposed to what politicians "think" it should mean, every action and policy pushed through by Obama must have chafed on him greatly. Do you think its possible this champion of Liberty may have left a file somewhere, to be made public upon his death, that would provide the required information to charge and prosecute this president and this administration for corruption, or conspiring with America`s enemies? Would a crafty old Constitutional Patriot consider that?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    but i still gave you points because i consider you better than that and worth debating the issue which other folks cannot do....so ? Don't get mad get even....don't get upset it's your clock and there is no timer..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    still dodging ducking weaving....you don't think just change the subject. that's what you call a direct comment.....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You seem to think that you can buy votes. You can't it's illegal. Money wont buy you a single vote

    In order for money to buy votes you have to use it to buy advertising to get your message to the average voter who isn't paying attention and is swayed by advertising campaign. This is speech.

    Yes, if you have more money you get a better "sound system", but in the end, it's speech that makes each voter decide which way to cast his ballot.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm not sure you can use a recess appointment with the Supreme Court. That is for Federal judges. Supreme Court Justices must have Senatorial approval.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    All of his talk about creating jobs already seems to be attracting blue collar crowd, and one union has already endorsed him. I guess all of the socialist talk from Clinton and Sanders has the remaining moderate Democrats nervous. The more frantic Clinton gets about not being far left enough to beat Sanders means the less likely she can credibly attract those voters in the general election. If Bloomberg enters the race, he won't draw many Republicans, but he will attract the few remaining non-socialist Democrats. Like it or not, we better be prepared to see the Trump show rumble into the White House.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That scenario would be the match to the powderkeg which this country has become in the last several years.
    The other possibility is that the "o" will ignore his term of office, find a "crisis" to use and declare Martial Law, effectively extending his time in the WH until the "crisis" has passed. Which will never happen, of course.
    Both of these scenarios scare the crap outta me because I can see the possibility of either one happening given the political climate we have now.
    Maybe its just me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by minorwork 8 years, 3 months ago
    No autopsy. Like it's normal to be found dead with your head UNDER a pillow. Nothing suspicious there.

    President Obama nominates himself for the Supremes or President Hillary Clinton nominates him. Oh joy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You weren't at HP when Condi was on the BOD, were you?... around the time of Carly's reign?
    She did about as much to help HP as Kerry or Hillary has done for the US' foreign relationships.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Something in my knowledge of Citizens United and the way your wrote the comment. The rest of your answer was anr attempt at reframing but having nothing to do with anything was only an attempt.

    You are judged by the words you use and a real dictionary....not by the words you try to put in others comments.

    I would appreciate being judged by the words I use and a pre-PC dictionary. I'm perfectly capable of putting my own foot in my own mouth assuming some one else hasn't used the space first.

    Citizens United is not exactly a Constitutional Centrist forum..the attempt is the kick off for getting the much wanted 'direct contact' prohibition lifted.

    One of their biggest supporters is George Lakoff and the Secular Progressives.....read his elephant book. It's in the end pages...along with a really nice but a little twisted version of the whole money as free speech scam.
    Except he takes credit for that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What on earth led you to conclude I'm defending unions ?!?!!! My point was that LIBERALS, via unions, have been donating endlessly so now that Citizens United has leveled the playing field by allowing other than liberal big money to enter the race, sudddnly NOW everyone thinks big mobey is bad.
    But you dont seem like outside $ is truly your beef. If a tiny town had one fat cat who wanted to throw a disproportionate ( to what the rest of the town folk could donate) amt of $ that sounds like you'd find that unfair too, b/c "everyone" couldnt do likewise.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, in theory he could pick a well qualified jurist who advocates for original intent and the Republicans might approve.

    Of course the odds of that ...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    OK to destroy your liberal reasoning. Unions may not donate because they may not vote. They may work within their own group to influence the vote. Corporations may not because they may not vote. Etc. etc. etc. Which is the way it should read instead of Citizens votes may be bought and sold.

    Any entity that may not vote should confine it's activities to it's own group. If the candidate didn't have fight big bucks interfering it might be just a tid bit easier but then I'm talking all levels you are stuck worrying about the upper crust. Which is where those wealthy enough to buy votes usually reside. There is a whole series of articles of information but you have to be able to read...up in the archives...that tracks how this idiotic idea came to be law and not one amendment involved. ust bought and paid for judges....IF you can afford their buying price.

    I am a union member we also got to donate tax payer money courtesy of Davis Bacon inflated local wages and watch them laundered into campaign funds. If we wanted to work we had to chip in stated amounts. it's a huge criminal enterprise but when you sought to defend unions you walked right into it and federal employees are the worst of the lot. And that status was one of my unions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But its ok for you that unions could ( have for years and still do) pour billions into campaigns ? Money doesnt equate to votes. Money only gets out a message. The candidate still must have political talent and be promulgating the right message. I would have thought Objectivists would support more information. That is what money equates to. Each constituent still only gets one vote.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    the current law nationwide per the Supreme Court is money is free speech and anyone through a PAC or Super Pac or any corporation including LLC may donate any amount to any political purpose anywhere without restriction. I couldn't find a restriction in that conservative court passed opinion to restrict foreign funding.

    The current effort is to change that deleting the need to go through a PAC or other such organization...

    If you want to see those candidates win move there and sign up to vote as a local citizen of the state, city, county or whatever. But then the rest of us don't have the money to buy as much free speech as some of you.....

    Fine...you get two choices left wing of left and right wing of left.

    No wonder the Constitution and the Republic is dead.

    The reason we used to have 50 separate states was to provide for differences and that used to mean much more than your big bank account versus my small one.

    It isn't worth fighting for...I am so glad we never swore an oath to the country. Which just leaves the Constitution and I hope the military does do it's duty and take over...

    Civilians don't have what it takes to run a constitutional Republic...too many on the take
    and willing to crap on everyone else's rights and freedoms for their own narrow interests.

    So learn this it' s your thoughts reduced to a sentence.. 'I have the right without explanation to take all of your rights without exception.'

    It's exactly what you just said you stood for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I completely disagree. Especially when it comes to congressional or senatorial campaigns. Or, depending on the issues involved, to gubernatorial races outside of my state. I've donated to WI, UT, VA AND IA. (I don't live in any of those states) But there were candidates and/or issues in each of those instances that I really wanted to see win. (And they all did!) And each of the congressional candidates CAN/ DOES effect me too ! And the governor issue in WI I felt was also related to me, insofar as I think rolling back union influence everywhere is a good thing. First WI, then ( I hope) my state ! And believe you me, these candidates are THRILLED to get donations from non-constituents as well as constituents. I also know people who volunteer on campaigns even if they dont live in the district. As far as PACs in local races, I am not aware of that occuring in my state. But each state can legislate local money as they see fit.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well you aren't in the fight unless the left wing gangs up on you and I've got the minus points to prove it. What are they afraid of? They already have rigged the elections and excluded nearly half the population... Sorry Comrades I don't serve your party
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Excellent summation. It won't be debated straight up and up front all you will get is propaganda and personal opinion disguised as something more than it is. In short...you'll get BS and Hot Air. But points for putting it so neatly.

    Citizens United doesn't stop there. They are now going after the right for anyone with money to directly approach and fund candidates and elected officials. In some places that's called bribery or mordida. Here it's not called influence peddling and buying it's called free speech. No more need to use Pacs, super Pacs, or corporations. as bagmen.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But you are talking only Presidential level races for the two federal positions. Are you considering the State level positions? The State delegates to the federal government. Are you considering the internal state positions Governor and legislative and judicial. How about cities and towns the Mayors and councils? County Commissioners...Should money along be the driving factor in the election of key officials in areas where the donor does not live and is not registered to vote simply because they are richer than Hillary? think of it htis way If you MAY NOT vote you MAY NOT contribute. Doesn't deny anyone the right to donate at the top level for President or Vice President. Doesn't deny anyone the right to contribute within each State for the State level positions. But it protects the lowest precincts from ward heelers who live fifteen states awaway . The precinct voters pamphlet and ballot is the guiding factor. If you have no geo-political interest why, besides being rich, do you have the right to interfere? Use that one sentence and leave the right to donate as much as they want with no limit...within their own voting precinct's. And tell me what do you get out of this money is free speech crap? Answer your vote becomes a corporate commodity but you get nothing. it's a one sided deal If money is free speech then free speech should have a value from ALL. What did you get paid?

    Ah yes that's right you didn't get a thin dime. and al the thin dimes in your precinct went to someone from New York City when you live in Elkol, Nevada. "

    They not only control your precinct you got nothing for it? That went o ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN and the New York Times....

    When you sell out...you should get paid..... when they buy you they should pony up some cash for their purchase....Otherwise money is not free speech it's just another way of rigging the election.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bethesda-gal 8 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So true. Big $$$ doesnt guarantee a political win. Besides Jeb's unlikliness to prevail despite his superPACs gazillions, just look at Bloomberg's 'Mayors Against Guns' or whatever he called it, that put tons of $ into races and I dont think they had a single win. Money is A factor in politics but far from THE factor.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo