Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Scalia on 60 Minutes

  1. #1

    Scalia on 60 Minutes

    Entertaining viewing. I like him.

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2750851]Entertaining viewing. I like him.[/QUOTE]

    I don't...I think he is a pure politcal tool....but he is brilliant..can't deny that.

  3. #3
    He uses the constitution as it was written as the law! Something Liberals dont do!

  4. #4
    :zzz:Great quote.

    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2751121]He uses the constitution as it was written as the law! Something Liberals dont do![/QUOTE]

  5. #5
    [quote=piney;2750985]I don't...I think he is a pure politcal tool....but he is brilliant..can't deny that.[/quote]

    I disagree with almost every legal position he's taken on major issues - but I can't dislike the guy. He's got a sense of humor and he's a brilliant writer in addition to thinker. I also don't think he's a political hack. He has a worldview and a judicial philosophy, yes - but he comes by them honestly. And he has the chops for the job.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;2752204]I disagree with almost every legal position he's taken on major issues - but I can't dislike the guy. He's got a sense of humor and he's a brilliant writer in addition to thinker. I also don't think he's a political hack. He has a worldview and a judicial philosophy, yes - but he comes by them honestly. And he has the chops for the job.[/QUOTE]

    You see this is what I dont understand. What legal positions has he taken that you dont agree with. Just because you are pro abortion, for example does not necessarily mean you agree with the majority in Roe V. Wade. If you said I disagree with Scalia's personal/social opinons, I wouldnt respond to your post, but the whole he is wrong on his legal opinions stands out to me. I personally am pro women's choice, but the majority in Roe V. Wade completely ignored what the role of the supreme court was intended for. That is a classic example of legislation from the bench, and even the most liberal of scholars law professors site this as a horrible decision. Again, I am pro choice, but I would have been much happier if they went about legalizing abortions by either creating a new amendment to the constitution or having each state decide whether or not it should be legal. Thus, until I see something telling me otherwise, I am strongly against the supreme court justices inflicting their own personal values over those of the legislators, who represent the will of the people for whom they represent.
    Last edited by mallamalla; 09-15-2008 at 12:59 PM.

  7. #7
    [quote=mallamalla;2752272]You see this is what I dont understand. What legal positions has he taken that you dont agree with. Just because you are pro abortion, for example does not necessarily mean you agree with the majority in Roe V. Wade. If you said I disagree with Scalia's personal/social opinons, I wouldnt respond to your post, but the whole he is wrong on his legal opinions stands out to me. I personally am pro women's choice, but the majority in Roe V. Wade completely ignored what the role of the supreme court was intended for. That is a classic example of legislation from the bench, and even the most liberal of scholars law professors site this as a horrible decision. Again, I am pro choice, but I would have been much happier if they went about legalizing abortions by either creating a new amendment to the constitution or having each state decide whether or not it should be legal. Thus, until I see something telling me otherwise, I am strongly against the supreme court justices inflicting their own personal values over those of the legislators, who represent the will of the people for whom they represent.[/quote]

    Well, we can start with this quote from [I]Lawrence[/I]: "a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation."

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us