A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Which current Supreme Court Justice most closely matches your own philosophy?

Ginsberg
O'Connor
Breyer
Kennedy
Souter
Steven
Rehnquist
ScaliaThomas

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Ginsberg
O'Connor
Breyer
Kennedy
Souter
Steven
Rehnquist
ScaliaThomas

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?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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?

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

[Shape Shifter]

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?

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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?

#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?

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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?

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

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by andViolins
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

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

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
Ginsburg
Scalia
Breyer
Kennedy
Souter
Thomas
O'Connor
Stevens
Rehnquist

#2 seems a bit out of place.

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

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What scary telling is that all the lefties end in Scalia Thomas. You have no variation or individual opinion between yourselves.

No difference between O'Connor & Ginsberg?

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
All that proves is that Scalia and Thomas are "out of the mainstream."

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.

[charlie the crocodile]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
She's probably an activist, given that Clinton appointed her and she worked full time for left-wing organizations before becoming a judge. If she is an activist, it's possible some right-wing wacko other than the white power dude killed her. Activist judges have many wacko enemies who believe their activities are an affront to God, racism, &c, &c.

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.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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?).

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why do you equate a belief in god with Christianity or religion?

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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!

If only I were snappier.

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.

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.

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.

(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.