Scalia shoud be on Fox News - Page 2

DeanPatsFan · 03-29-2012, 09:09 AM

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4421225]right...and thats why their main slogan is "fair and balanced"

:zzz:[/QUOTE]

Maybe it should be "Move Forward".... :rolleyes:

Apache 51 · 03-29-2012, 09:50 AM

Didn't Scalia state that if we are going to require people to purchase health insurance than perhaps we can require them to exercise?

intelligentjetsfan · 03-29-2012, 09:52 AM

[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;4421305]Maybe it should be "Move Forward".... :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

nah, Fox News should consider; "Lending a voice to the wealthy Since 1996"

DeanPatsFan · 03-29-2012, 10:00 AM

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4421365]nah, Fox News should consider; "Lending a voice to the wealthy Since 1996"[/QUOTE]

Hasn't your man accumulated a billion dollar war chest for this upcoming election?

Where did he get all of that money from, Joe The Plumber?

SONNY WERBLIN · 03-29-2012, 10:09 AM

[QUOTE=cr726;4421230]But that seems to be an on-going theme with him, his ideology has been a constant during these hearings.

In no way am I saying he is not qualified.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure every Supreme is driven by their idealogy, that's why there is always a huge fight over appointees.

That said, it's telling how the supreme's following their own conservative ideology can sometimes find themselves agreeing on the outcome of a case with the democratic appointees, but it seems the opposite is rarely if ever true. I would contend that while most of the conservative judge's are ideology driven in their decisions, many, if not all, of the liberal judge's are politically driven.

shakin318 · 03-29-2012, 10:12 AM

[QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;4421391]I'm pretty sure every Supreme is driven by their idealogy, that's why there is always a huge fight over appointees.

That said, it's telling how the supreme's following their own conservative ideology can sometimes find themselves agreeing on the outcome of a case with the democratic appointees, but it seems the opposite is rarely if ever true. I would contend that while most of the conservative judge's are ideology driven in their decisions, many, if not all, of the liberal judge's are politically driven.[/QUOTE]

The difference is that in virtually every case, the conservative justices are basing their decisions on the Constitution (which happens to be their job), while the liberal justices are not.

Bonhomme Richard · 03-29-2012, 10:18 AM

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4421365]nah, Fox News should consider; "Lending a voice to the wealthy Since 1996"[/QUOTE]

Ah, class warfare.

Subvert the dominant paradigm, comrade!

Trades · 03-29-2012, 10:58 AM

:yes:

[QUOTE][B]Justice Scalia is always the most entertaining justice during oral arguments. Today was no exception. Here are Scalia’s greatest hits:[/B]

Scalia asked whether the standard for striking down an entire law was whether Congress would have enacted the law without the unconstitutional provision:

That would mean that if we struck down nothing in this legislation but the – what’s it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay? When we strike that down, it’s clear that Congress would not have passed it without that.

Constitutional prescription of venality? Boom goes the dynamite!

On reading the whole bill to determine what provisions should stick and which should be tossed, rather than tossing the whole thing:

What happened to Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through 2,700 pages?

The Eighth Amendment, for the constitutionally impaired, prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

On whether his clerks should be forced to read the entire bill:

I don’t care whether it’s easy for my clerks. I care whether it’s easy for me.

Perhaps the best exchange came when H. Bartow Farr, arguing for the [I]amicus curiae[/I] – friends of the court arguing for severability – said that Congress, when it deemed the individual mandate “essential,” didn’t really mean “essential,” it really meant “useful.” This meant, said Farr, that Congress was for severing the clauses if they were found to be unconstitutional. Justice Scalia, a stickler for language, didn’t like this at all:

SCALIA: Is there any dictionary that gives that definition of “essential”? It’s very imaginative. Just give me one dictionary.

FARR: Well, but I think my point, Justice Scalia, is that they are not using it in the true dictionary sense.

SCALIA: How do we know that? When people speak, I assume they are speaking English.

Oral arguments aren’t exactly amusing. But Scalia makes them interesting, which is no easy task.
[/QUOTE]

cr726 · 03-29-2012, 11:04 AM

[QUOTE=shakin318;4421396]The difference is that in virtually every case, the conservative justices are basing their decisions on the Constitution (which happens to be their job), while the liberal justices are not.[/QUOTE]

Please feel free to document it.

parafly · 03-29-2012, 11:07 AM

[QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;4421391]I would contend that while most of the conservative judge's are ideology driven in their decisions, many, if not all, of the liberal judge's are politically driven.[/QUOTE]

This is utter nonsense.

PatriotReign · 03-29-2012, 11:48 AM

Using the OP's logic...Ginsburg and Sotomayer should be on MSNBC because of their jurist philosophy.

JetPotato · 03-29-2012, 11:56 AM

[QUOTE=PatriotReign;4421523]Using the OP's logic...Ginsburg and Sotomayer should be on MSNBC because of their jurist philosophy.[/QUOTE]

Was going to say the same - Ginsburg is an absolute joke.

intelligentjetsfan · 03-29-2012, 12:54 PM

[QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4421402]Ah, class warfare.

Subvert the dominant paradigm, comrade![/QUOTE]

no, class warfare is what happens after the majority stops swallowing the lies and stands up to the ruling class.

What we have right now is a population that varies from apathy to understanding that something is wrong yet is manipulated into blaming each other.

AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite · 03-29-2012, 01:19 PM

[quote]SCALIA: Is there any dictionary that gives that definition of “essential”? It’s very imaginative. Just give me one dictionary.

FARR: Well, but I think my point, Justice Scalia, is that they are not using it in the true dictionary sense.

SCALIA: How do we know that? When people speak, I assume they are speaking English.[/quote]

:rotfl:

I love this guy

cr726 · 03-29-2012, 01:35 PM

[QUOTE=PatriotReign;4421523]Using the OP's logic...Ginsburg and Sotomayer should be on MSNBC because of their jurist philosophy.[/QUOTE]

I have given examples. Feel free.

MnJetFan · 03-29-2012, 01:45 PM

The Democrats have never read the constitution!

chiefst2000 · 03-29-2012, 01:53 PM

[QUOTE=MnJetFan;4421688]The Democrats have never read the constitution![/QUOTE]

Most Liberals consider the Constitution an outdated and irrelevant relic. Same as what they think about the Bible.

JetPotato · 03-29-2012, 02:02 PM

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4421607]no, class warfare is what happens after the majority stops swallowing the lies and stands up to the ruling class. [/QUOTE]

FoxNews is the ruling class? The GOP is? Logic breakdown.

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4421607]
What we have right now is a population that varies from apathy to understanding that something is wrong yet is manipulated into blaming each other.[/QUOTE]

[I]"People get the democracy they deserve" [/I]- Alex de Tocqueville

cr726 · 03-29-2012, 02:08 PM

[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4421697]Most Liberals consider the Constitution an outdated and irrelevant relic. Same as what they think about the Bible.[/QUOTE]

Just because someone reads the constitution doesn't mean they understand the constitution.

PatriotReign · 03-29-2012, 02:16 PM

[QUOTE=cr726;4421678]I have given examples. Feel free.[/QUOTE]

Oh please, if you require internet links because you have no idea that MSNBC is as far left as Fox is far right I can't help you.:rolleyes:

Once again, you are correct that Scalia, Roberts, Thomas et al philosophy fits right in with Fox but you are either in denial or a shameless hypocrite if you think Ginsburg, Sotomyer, et al philosophy would be just as warmly embraced at MSNBC.

Watch Rachel Maddow during her coverage of this issue; her critiques of Scalia will be as blistering as Hannity's voice is supportive. Whatever the SC decsion regarding universal health care the MSNBC fawning will be lockstep supportive of the Liberal SCJ's just as Fox's will be about the conservative SCJ's.

03-29-2012, 12:54 PM	#33
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,307	[QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4421402]Ah, class warfare. Subvert the dominant paradigm, comrade![/QUOTE] no, class warfare is what happens after the majority stops swallowing the lies and stands up to the ruling class. What we have right now is a population that varies from apathy to understanding that something is wrong yet is manipulated into blaming each other. Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 03-29-2012 at 12:57 PM.

03-29-2012, 09:09 AM	#21
DeanPatsFan Lib Free Or Die..... All Pro Annoying Chowd Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,143	[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4421225]right...and thats why their main slogan is "fair and balanced" :zzz:[/QUOTE] Maybe it should be "Move Forward".... :rolleyes:

03-29-2012, 09:50 AM	#22
Apache 51 Let's Kill them all......... Hall Of Fame Join Date: May 2009 Location: In Morris Co.,N.J.,at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge Posts: 12,658	Didn't Scalia state that if we are going to require people to purchase health insurance than perhaps we can require them to exercise?

03-29-2012, 09:52 AM	#23
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,307	[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;4421305]Maybe it should be "Move Forward".... :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] nah, Fox News should consider; "Lending a voice to the wealthy Since 1996"

03-29-2012, 10:00 AM	#24
DeanPatsFan Lib Free Or Die..... All Pro Annoying Chowd Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,143	[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4421365]nah, Fox News should consider; "Lending a voice to the wealthy Since 1996"[/QUOTE] Hasn't your man accumulated a billion dollar war chest for this upcoming election? Where did he get all of that money from, Joe The Plumber?

03-29-2012, 10:09 AM	#25
SONNY WERBLIN Veteran Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,360	[QUOTE=cr726;4421230]But that seems to be an on-going theme with him, his ideology has been a constant during these hearings. In no way am I saying he is not qualified.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure every Supreme is driven by their idealogy, that's why there is always a huge fight over appointees. That said, it's telling how the supreme's following their own conservative ideology can sometimes find themselves agreeing on the outcome of a case with the democratic appointees, but it seems the opposite is rarely if ever true. I would contend that while most of the conservative judge's are ideology driven in their decisions, many, if not all, of the liberal judge's are politically driven.

03-29-2012, 10:12 AM	#26
shakin318 Beslubbering beef-witted lout Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Funkytown Posts: 7,182	[QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;4421391]I'm pretty sure every Supreme is driven by their idealogy, that's why there is always a huge fight over appointees. That said, it's telling how the supreme's following their own conservative ideology can sometimes find themselves agreeing on the outcome of a case with the democratic appointees, but it seems the opposite is rarely if ever true. I would contend that while most of the conservative judge's are ideology driven in their decisions, many, if not all, of the liberal judge's are politically driven.[/QUOTE] The difference is that in virtually every case, the conservative justices are basing their decisions on the Constitution (which happens to be their job), while the liberal justices are not.

03-29-2012, 10:18 AM	#27
Bonhomme Richard Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 4,103	[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4421365]nah, Fox News should consider; "Lending a voice to the wealthy Since 1996"[/QUOTE] Ah, class warfare. Subvert the dominant paradigm, comrade!

03-29-2012, 10:58 AM	#28
Trades Jets Insider VIP Join Date: May 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,558	:yes: [QUOTE][B]Justice Scalia is always the most entertaining justice during oral arguments. Today was no exception. Here are Scalia’s greatest hits:[/B] Scalia asked whether the standard for striking down an entire law was whether Congress would have enacted the law without the unconstitutional provision: That would mean that if we struck down nothing in this legislation but the – what’s it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay? When we strike that down, it’s clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. Constitutional prescription of venality? Boom goes the dynamite! On reading the whole bill to determine what provisions should stick and which should be tossed, rather than tossing the whole thing: What happened to Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through 2,700 pages? The Eighth Amendment, for the constitutionally impaired, prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. On whether his clerks should be forced to read the entire bill: I don’t care whether it’s easy for my clerks. I care whether it’s easy for me. Perhaps the best exchange came when H. Bartow Farr, arguing for the [I]amicus curiae[/I] – friends of the court arguing for severability – said that Congress, when it deemed the individual mandate “essential,” didn’t really mean “essential,” it really meant “useful.” This meant, said Farr, that Congress was for severing the clauses if they were found to be unconstitutional. Justice Scalia, a stickler for language, didn’t like this at all: SCALIA: Is there any dictionary that gives that definition of “essential”? It’s very imaginative. Just give me one dictionary. FARR: Well, but I think my point, Justice Scalia, is that they are not using it in the true dictionary sense. SCALIA: How do we know that? When people speak, I assume they are speaking English. Oral arguments aren’t exactly amusing. But Scalia makes them interesting, which is no easy task. [/QUOTE]

03-29-2012, 11:04 AM	#29
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,329	[QUOTE=shakin318;4421396]The difference is that in virtually every case, the conservative justices are basing their decisions on the Constitution (which happens to be their job), while the liberal justices are not.[/QUOTE] Please feel free to document it.

03-29-2012, 11:07 AM	#30
parafly so why side with anything? All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 6,301	[QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;4421391]I would contend that while most of the conservative judge's are ideology driven in their decisions, many, if not all, of the liberal judge's are politically driven.[/QUOTE] This is utter nonsense.

03-29-2012, 11:48 AM	#31
PatriotReign Asterisks of Excellence *** All League Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Boston area Posts: 4,353	Using the OP's logic...Ginsburg and Sotomayer should be on MSNBC because of their jurist philosophy.

03-29-2012, 11:56 AM	#32
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,142	[QUOTE=PatriotReign;4421523]Using the OP's logic...Ginsburg and Sotomayer should be on MSNBC because of their jurist philosophy.[/QUOTE] Was going to say the same - Ginsburg is an absolute joke.

03-29-2012, 01:19 PM	#34
AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite is all out of fuCks to give... All Pro Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,454	[quote]SCALIA: Is there any dictionary that gives that definition of “essential”? It’s very imaginative. Just give me one dictionary. FARR: Well, but I think my point, Justice Scalia, is that they are not using it in the true dictionary sense. SCALIA: How do we know that? When people speak, I assume they are speaking English.[/quote] :rotfl: I love this guy

03-29-2012, 01:35 PM	#35
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,329	[QUOTE=PatriotReign;4421523]Using the OP's logic...Ginsburg and Sotomayer should be on MSNBC because of their jurist philosophy.[/QUOTE] I have given examples. Feel free.

03-29-2012, 01:45 PM	#36
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	The Democrats have never read the constitution!

03-29-2012, 01:53 PM	#37
chiefst2000 Champion of Common Sense All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,838	[QUOTE=MnJetFan;4421688]The Democrats have never read the constitution![/QUOTE] Most Liberals consider the Constitution an outdated and irrelevant relic. Same as what they think about the Bible.

03-29-2012, 02:02 PM	#38
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,142	[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4421607]no, class warfare is what happens after the majority stops swallowing the lies and stands up to the ruling class. [/QUOTE] FoxNews is the ruling class? The GOP is? Logic breakdown. [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4421607] What we have right now is a population that varies from apathy to understanding that something is wrong yet is manipulated into blaming each other.[/QUOTE] [I]"People get the democracy they deserve" [/I]- Alex de Tocqueville

03-29-2012, 02:08 PM	#39
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,329	[QUOTE=chiefst2000;4421697]Most Liberals consider the Constitution an outdated and irrelevant relic. Same as what they think about the Bible.[/QUOTE] Just because someone reads the constitution doesn't mean they understand the constitution.

03-29-2012, 02:16 PM	#40
PatriotReign Asterisks of Excellence *** All League Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Boston area Posts: 4,353	[QUOTE=cr726;4421678]I have given examples. Feel free.[/QUOTE] Oh please, if you require internet links because you have no idea that MSNBC is as far left as Fox is far right I can't help you.:rolleyes: Once again, you are correct that Scalia, Roberts, Thomas et al philosophy fits right in with Fox but you are either in denial or a shameless hypocrite if you think Ginsburg, Sotomyer, et al philosophy would be just as warmly embraced at MSNBC. Watch Rachel Maddow during her coverage of this issue; her critiques of Scalia will be as blistering as Hannity's voice is supportive. Whatever the SC decsion regarding universal health care the MSNBC fawning will be lockstep supportive of the Liberal SCJ's just as Fox's will be about the conservative SCJ's.