Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 64

Thread: Scalia shoud be on Fox News

  1. #41
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't watch Maddow, although she was on Stern yesterday, I am commenting on his actual questions over the years. As a person he would be great to have a beer with.


    [QUOTE=PatriotReign;4421726]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.[/QUOTE]

  2. #42
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,480
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PatriotReign;4421726]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.[/QUOTE]

    I really think this will come out as a 6-3 decision. The justices are not fans of the way the court is viewed and will likely work hard to craft an opinion that more than a bare majority sign on to.

  3. #43
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4421774]I really think this will come out as a 6-3 decision. The justices are not fans of the way the court is viewed and will likely work hard to craft an opinion that more than a bare majority sign on to.[/QUOTE]

    which way? ;)

  4. #44
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4421705]FoxNews is the ruling class? The GOP is? Logic breakdown.



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

    not sure where the logic breakdown is for you; Corporate America is the dominate class and Rupert has given them their personal forum to shape public opinion.

    As for your quote, I agree 100%

  5. #45
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4421856]Corporate America is the dominate class and Rupert has given them their personal forum to shape public opinion.
    [/QUOTE]

    You seem to actually get about half of the story

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,432
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yup and the left-wing propagandists/B. Hussein cheerleaders Disney, CBS, Comcast, GE, NYT, Bloomberg, Cablevision, Gannett, Microsoft et al are NOT Corporate America ...got it!

    The SG was so lame Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg and It's Pat Kagan had to speak for him, and libs are crying about Scalia. :dizzy:
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 03-29-2012 at 08:46 PM.

  7. #47
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4421459]Please feel free to document it.[/QUOTE]

    I would only have to do that for the idiots who haven't been paying attention for the past 50 years.

    So, no.

  8. #48
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4422143]I would only have to do that for the idiots who haven't been paying attention for the past 50 years.

    So, no.[/QUOTE]

    Really?

    [QUOTE]When looking at the modern Court (from 1953 to 2003), we see that there is considerable variation in the data, with approximately a third of the votes over the past 50 years reflecting unanimity. Categorically, over the 50 years, three Chief Justiceships, and over 12,000 cases reviewed, we find that the United States Supreme Court voted unanimously 4,830 times[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/kaminski-shaffer.pdf[/url]

    2006:

    [QUOTE]At a graduation speech this week, Chief Justice John Roberts extolled the virtues of unanimous Supreme Court opinions -- which, under Roberts's leadership, the Justices have produced at a surprising rate this term.

    The numbers speak for themselves. This term, of the 44 cases decided as of last week, the justices disposed of 29 in unanimous opinions. At the same time last year, unanimous decisions numbered only 17.
    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20060525.html[/url]

  9. #49
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4421697]Most Liberals consider the Constitution an outdated and irrelevant relic. Same as what they think about the Bible.[/QUOTE]

    And that right there is the point. It comes down to strict constructionalism vs. the concept of a "living constitution." The former honors and abides by the constitution; the latter uses it as a doormat, and is practiced by liberal justices determined to legislate from the bench.

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,547
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yes but the Constitution does allow for change.

    Some people want to follow a strict interpretation while others view it as a guide. Kind of like the Bible.

    I think the problem is that some justices are activists which should never be the case for any jurist let alone a SCJ.
    Last edited by DDNYjets; 03-29-2012 at 10:19 PM.

  11. #51
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DDNYjets;4422210]Yes but the Constitution does allow for change.

    Some people want to follow a strict interpretation while others view it as a guide. Kind of like the Bible.[/QUOTE]

    And we're off! :D

  12. #52
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DDNYjets;4422210]Yes but the Constitution does allow for change.

    [/QUOTE]

    By the legislature and states, Not by the judiciary.

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,547
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4422219]By the legislature and states, Not by the judiciary.[/QUOTE]

    I agree.

    The problem is that the checks and balances are not balanced. I think everyone can agree that the judicial branch is the most powerful. And they know this and abuse it.

  14. #54
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,022
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=DDNYjets;4422226]I agree.

    The problem is that the checks and balances are not balanced. I think everyone can agree that the judicial branch is the most powerful. And they know this and abuse it.[/QUOTE]

    Checks and balances are pretty much out the window. But I'm not so sure the judiciary is the most powerful, what with the way Obama is running wild and exceeding his constitutional powers. Too bad no one on the legislature has the balls to call him out for it.

    Every branch of the government is a pitiful mess these days. I guess this is part of the "fundamental transformation of America" promised by the messiah

  15. #55
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4422238]Checks and balances are pretty much out the window. But I'm not so sure the judiciary is the most powerful, what with the way Obama is running wild and exceeding his constitutional powers. Too bad no one on the legislature has the balls to call him out for it.

    Every branch of the government is a pitiful mess these days. I guess this is part of the "fundamental transformation of America" promised by the messiah[/QUOTE]

    Once again you love to make sweeping generalizations without any facts. You were already dead wrong about your SC post, maybe you can actually document these generalizations?

    I'm sure Frequency has some Moonbatttery.com stuff for you. :zzz:

  16. #56
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Elena Keagan should be cleaning toilets, how hell is she on the Supreme Court is beyond belief. What is wrong with throwing at throwing millions of dollars for health care. Well dunce there is a fine(tax) attached to the money.
    A complete bonehead and did Ginsgurg make any arguments or did she sleep thru the proceedings. The President picked some real winners! I predict a 6-3 decision against Obamacare. One could blame Keagan for her influence on the writing of the bill!

  17. #57
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    something makes me think people don't really know anything about The Supreme Court and its history....


    not sure where I am getting that from....

    a lot of stuff here in this area....

  18. #58
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4422219]By the legislature and states, Not by the judiciary.[/QUOTE]

    So are you complaining about the Affordable healthcare because it wasn't done by the Legislature?

    Have you noticed you haven't had a valid point yet in this thread?

  19. #59
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Keagan is a moron what is wrong with throwing millions of dollars to the states. Why because there are strings attached. Like fines aka taxes. It is illegal to mandate AKA force someone to buy something they don't want!

  20. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4422092]Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg [/QUOTE]

    :rotfl:

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