Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 64

Thread: Scalia shoud be on Fox News

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4421225]right...and thats why their main slogan is "fair and balanced"


    :zzz:[/QUOTE]

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

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    17,275
    Didn't Scalia state that if we are going to require people to purchase health insurance than perhaps we can require them to exercise?

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;4421305]Maybe it should be "Move Forward".... :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

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

  4. #24
    [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?

  5. #25
    [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.

  6. #26
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,466
    [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.

  7. #27
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,649
    [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!

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,344
    :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]

  9. #29
    [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.

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,985
    [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.

  11. #31
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,475
    Using the OP's logic...Ginsburg and Sotomayer should be on MSNBC because of their jurist philosophy.

  12. #32
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [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.

  13. #33
    [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.

  14. #34
    [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

  15. #35
    [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.

  16. #36
    The Democrats have never read the constitution!

  17. #37
    [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.

  18. #38
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [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

  19. #39
    [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.

  20. #40
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,475
    [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.

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