Scalia Scary!

Taichiliberal said:
I'm always honest....something a man with his ass in his hat just cannot accept.

Bottom line: Scalia was proven WRONG. And as usual, willfully ignorant sheet wearers like yourself try to lie about the reasons for a law that you don't like: Affirmative Action was enacted to correct the congenital bias against black Americans in the admissions/hiring system in various aspects of American society. It wasn't gender specific, and I defy you to produce the language in the law that states such in no uncertain terms.

Was it a perfect solution? No. But until you REMOVE such things as "legacy" admissions into college/university (i.e., GW Bush getting into Yale), then Affirmative Action will remain.
Click to expand...
And thats it from our resident hypocrite, TCLib....

Who now equates the Legacy admissions to college with racial preferences....
next he'll claim bowling balls are flat and blacks are really Caucasian...:palm:
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I'm always honest....something a man with his ass in his hat just cannot accept.

Bottom line: Scalia was proven WRONG. And as usual, willfully ignorant sheet wearers like yourself try to lie about the reasons for a law that you don't like: Affirmative Action was enacted to correct the congenital bias against black Americans in the admissions/hiring system in various aspects of American society. It wasn't gender specific, and I defy you to produce the language in the law that states such in no uncertain terms.

Was it a perfect solution? No. But until you REMOVE such things as "legacy" admissions into college/university (i.e., GW Bush getting into Yale), then Affirmative Action will remain.
Click to expand...


bravo said:
And thats it from our resident hypocrite, TCLib....

Who now equates the Legacy admissions to college with racial preferences....
next he'll claim bowling balls are flat and blacks are really Caucasian...:palm:
Click to expand...

:palm: Bravo, just when I think you can't get any dumber, you exceed my wildest expectations!

What am I being hypocritical about, exactly?

And if you weren't sitting on your brains, you'll note that by the very definitions of discrimination that Asshat (and obviously you) abide by, legacy admissions does discriminate against white males...and females, and male/females of every race, creed and color.

I'll dumb it down for you by example: GW Bush DID NOT have the grades to get into Yale....but he was admitted because his Daddy and Grand-daddy were alumni who were heavy weights in the donations dept. So a student who WAS QUALIFIED DID NOT GET IN because he wasn't connected to rich folk. Hell, that's class discrimination straight up.

So like I told the other imbecile, when you eliminate one, you eliminate the other and then play fair for all. Got that bunky?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Not merely my opinion, DY...FACT: EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS IS NOT GENDER SPECIFIC.

You and Scalia can repeat your attempts at "exception to the rule" until doomsday, but that won't make you correct. 7 other Justices logically demonstrated how this applies to the case at hand...which makes Scalia look like just some insipidly stubborn old fogey stuck in his mysogynist ways. You're entitled to your beliefs and opinions, DY.....but facts and logic have a way pointing to the truth....and a decision becomes a ruling of law.
Click to expand...
The chronology of the posts prove that Scalia used logic in his reasoning and you failed to dispute that.
 
This is what's wrong with "literal" textual analysis. Instead of reading the words that are written on the page and interpreting the obvious consequences of those words, Scalia goes back into the mind of a 19th century bigot and guesses what they thought about the amendment when they passed it.

The amendment says "equal protection". That's about as clear as it gets. If they meant just equal protection for blacks, they should have written "equal protection for blacks but not any other group". The fact that they did not means that we can interpret the obvious consequences of their words.

In this case, Scalia just lacks common sense, just like all conservatives. Instead of reading what's on the page literally, he "interprets" what he guesses other people thought. Only a conservative!
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Relax folks...put everything in context....keep everything in perspective, if you have the intelligence to do so....

This was a philosophical debate on the Constitution....it goes to intent of Amendments at the time and in the time they were written and voted on...
===========================================

You believe in an enduring constitution rather than an evolving constitution. What does that mean to you?
In its most important aspects, the Constitution tells the current society that it cannot do [whatever] it wants to do. It is a decision that the society has made that in order to take certain actions, you need the extraordinary effort that it takes to amend the Constitution. Now if you give to those many provisions of the Constitution that are necessarily broad—such as due process of law, cruel and unusual punishments, equal protection of the laws—----if you give them an evolving meaning so that they have whatever meaning the current society thinks they ought to have, they are no limitation on the current society at all. If the cruel and unusual punishments clause simply means that today's society should not do anything that it considers cruel and unusual, it means nothing except, "To thine own self be true."

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?


Read it.

http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=913358&evid=1
Click to expand...

It is not relevant what they thought if it conflicts with what they wrote. They did not specifically mention race. Therefore, it is not limited to race. If you take any other view of the clause, you are NOT reading the text literally, you are interpreting what other people meant when they wrote the text. Deciding what the originators meant when they wrote the text is only valid when there is ambiguity in their words. There is not ambiguity in the words of the 14th amendment. It is as clear as daylight.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
this absolutely true

federal or state laws put limits on society, but the constitution is strictly for the government
Click to expand...

The constitution is usually strictly for the government. You could make an amendment that dealt specifically with the people (the 18th comes to mind). And you could make statutes that restrict the government.
 
the woman in the interview took it way to personally. you can tell by her inflection in her voice that she knows deep down scalia is correct. but she wants to keep on her crusade of persecuting the white man.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Not merely my opinion, DY...FACT: EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS IS NOT GENDER SPECIFIC.

You and Scalia can repeat your attempts at "exception to the rule" until doomsday, but that won't make you correct. 7 other Justices logically demonstrated how this applies to the case at hand...which makes Scalia look like just some insipidly stubborn old fogey stuck in his mysogynist ways. You're entitled to your beliefs and opinions, DY.....but facts and logic have a way pointing to the truth....and a decision becomes a ruling of law.
Click to expand...


Damn Yankee said:
The chronology of the posts prove that Scalia used logic in his reasoning and you failed to dispute that.
Click to expand...

:palm: The chronology of the posts shows Scalia professing an OPINION that CONTRADICTS a basic fact that lies within the Constitution and Bill of Rights...legal precedents that the 7 other Justices pointed out makes Scalia's "logic" in error, as Scalia's "logic" belies EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Your insipid stubborness on this issue is inconsequential, Damned Yankee....so repeat yourself ad nauseum to no avail.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: The chronology of the posts shows Scalia professing an OPINION that CONTRADICTS a basic fact that lies within the Constitution and Bill of Rights...legal precedents that the 7 other Justices pointed out makes Scalia's "logic" in error, as Scalia's "logic" belies EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Your insipid stubborness on this issue is inconsequential, Damned Yankee....so repeat yourself ad nauseum to no avail.
Click to expand...
No Scalia's legal opinion is different that others' legal opinions. You again failed to show how what he said was not factually correct, so repeat yourself ad nauseum. The chronology of the posts proves this.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The chronology of the posts shows Scalia professing an OPINION that CONTRADICTS a basic fact that lies within the Constitution and Bill of Rights...legal precedents that the 7 other Justices pointed out makes Scalia's "logic" in error, as Scalia's "logic" belies EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Your insipid stubborness on this issue is inconsequential, Damned Yankee....so repeat yourself ad nauseum to no avail.
Click to expand...


Damn Yankee said:
No Scalia's legal opinion is different that others' legal opinions. You again failed to show how what he said was not factually correct, so repeat yourself ad nauseum. The chronology of the posts proves this.
Click to expand...

:palm: And here folks, is a perfect example of neocon willful ignorance and insipid stubborness reflected in DY's latest retort.

DY states the painfully obvious regarding Scalia's legal opinion is "different"....No Kidding? Isn't that the basis for this thread's discussion? Then DY claims that I "failed" to show how Scalia was wrong. Evidently, DY covered his eyes when I presented the link and the quote from the 7 other SCOTUS judges, who EXPLAINED why and how Scalia was wrong.

As I said, DY is just one frustrated and stubborn neocon. His attempts to mock my sayings is testament to DY's lack of creativity and ability to engage his cognitive reasoning skills. So he'll next either lie, deny or repeat his Damned Yankee assertions....I leave him to it.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: And here folks, is a perfect example of neocon willful ignorance and insipid stubborness reflected in DY's latest retort.

DY states the painfully obvious regarding Scalia's legal opinion is "different"....No Kidding? Isn't that the basis for this thread's discussion? Then DY claims that I "failed" to show how Scalia was wrong. Evidently, DY covered his eyes when I presented the link and the quote from the 7 other SCOTUS judges, who EXPLAINED why and how Scalia was wrong.

As I said, DY is just one frustrated and stubborn neocon. His attempts to mock my sayings is testament to DY's lack of creativity and ability to engage his cognitive reasoning skills. So he'll next either lie, deny or repeat his Damned Yankee assertions....I leave him to it.
Click to expand...

No, they explains their opinions of why they think that he's wrong. The rest of your post is pure irony.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And here folks, is a perfect example of neocon willful ignorance and insipid stubborness reflected in DY's latest retort.

DY states the painfully obvious regarding Scalia's legal opinion is "different"....No Kidding? Isn't that the basis for this thread's discussion? Then DY claims that I "failed" to show how Scalia was wrong. Evidently, DY covered his eyes when I presented the link and the quote from the 7 other SCOTUS judges, who EXPLAINED why and how Scalia was wrong.

As I said, DY is just one frustrated and stubborn neocon. His attempts to mock my sayings is testament to DY's lack of creativity and ability to engage his cognitive reasoning skills. So he'll next either lie, deny or repeat his Damned Yankee assertions....I leave him to it.
Click to expand...


Damn Yankee said:
No, they explains their opinions of why they think that he's wrong. The rest of your post is pure irony.
Click to expand...

Someone calls Damn Yankee's momma and have her explain to the little dope that the SCOTUS is to use legal precedent, facts and LOGIC to arrive at a decision that affects the LAWS of the country.

Examination of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and legal precedent shows that Scalia's "opinion" violates the very tenant of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. That YOU and Scalia don't like it is irrelevent, because neither can logically or legally prove otherwise.

But Damn Yankee is just insipidly stubborn, and will continue in the vein he's already demonstrated. He may do so alone, as I tire of his silliness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top