another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

Ginsberg
O'Connor
Breyer
Kennedy
Souter
Steven
Rehnquist
ScaliaThomas

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

What scary telling is that all the lefties end in Scalia Thomas. You have no variation or individual opinion between yourselves. When you have meetings can you order lunch for each other?

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

I agreed with Scalia on the flag burning thing. I would have thought that would have bumped him up on the list a little.

Charlton Heston's Stones
 

I'm not very religious, but isn't there something in the Ten Commandments about not worshipping idols and not using the Lord's name in vain?

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

#1 Breyer
#2 Ginsberg
#3 Souter
#4 O'Connor
#5 Kennedy
#6 Stevens
#7 Rehnquist
#8 Scalia
#9 Thomas

So, what's for lunch today, Shapey?

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

I am similar, yet different. No lunch for me.

1 Ginsburg
2 O'Connor
3. Breyer
4. Souter
5. Kennedy
6. Scalia
7. Stevens
8. Thomas
9. Rehnquist

aV

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

I learned from the tv that you can just scrape the mayo off on the side of the table. You'll be fine.

Go Figure
 

Are you speaking in general terms, or are you referring to your list?

another quiz, jurisprude-style
 

No difference between O'Connor & Ginsberg?

OK. All that proves is that Scalia and Thomas are "out of the mainstream."

Establish this, Antonin.
 

In a piece about the oral argument yesterday in a pair of cases about the public display of the Ten Commandments, Dahlia Lithwick suggests that Scalia is the only justice on the court being honest about the issues. Scalia said: "When someone walks by the commandments, they are not studying the text. They are acknowledging that the government derives its authority from God."

Points for honesty, but can someone explain to me where this leaves the Establishment Clause? The view that "the government derives its authority from God" is a belief, not a "fact" (as Scalia reportedly said in the newspaper account I read). It's certainly not verifiable (right Hank?). Is Scalia's view that the Establishment Clause allows government to promote Christianity in a relatively generic way, but not to promote one sectarian view over another? Meanwhile, those whose religions does not lend their imprimatur to the government (Buddhists, say) are supposed to go pound sand -- the First Amendment doesn't extend to them? Scalia may be honest, but I don't get it.

Activist Judge's Relatives Murdered
 

You are fucking idiot. She was appointed by Clinton but she was a respected magistrate before that and well regarded on both sides of the aisle. There is no rationale that justifies or mitigates what happened here and your post is a shitstain effourt that implies that there is. The only right minded result here is that her families killers are caught, over 18 and executed and before that brutally gangraped in prison.

Establish this, Antonin.
 

Why do you equate a belief in god with Christianity or religion?

Establish this, Antonin.
 

I sure as shit ain't getting into this chestnut with you- why don't you go back to old threads and argue this with Fluffy or not me or whoever engaged you back- you're a mod- you can still edit to make snappy new comebacks!

Meanwhile, I don't see how "In God We Trust" or "God save this Court" is okay but a dumb statute is different. Hell you might walk into court not knowing what the statute is, in Court you will hear "God save." Throw it all out or relax. I don't care.

I post now only to clarify my position on your junk science posts. I posit that if Scalia was a scientist, and constitutional analysis a science, your ilk would not question "the government derives its authority from God." That you do question what he said takes it out of the range of what I complained about. You don't need to verify to listen to a theory, but don't tell me its true unless you question.

You can question Scalia- fine- go forward with your commentary. You cannot question your scientists? Then STFU.

Establish this, Antonin.
 

I think I was referring more specifically to the view that government derives its authority from God. That's not necessarily Christian -- I think Islam takes the same view -- but there are other religions that see things differently.

Establish this, Antonin.
 

If only I were snappier.

Maybe the difference is that putting "In God We Trust" on money is almost devoid of meaning at this point. Certainly, I doubt we would be doing it if not for tradition and/or the desire of religious people to get the government to endorse their views.

(1) Huh?
(2) I have no ilk, though I have eaten elk, and it is tasty.
(3) Constitutional analysis is not and never will be a science.
(4) I find the idea that government derives its authority from God bordering on bizarre. It derives its authority from the consent of the governed and -- in our case -- the Constitution.