A Tribute Thread to SC Justice Scalia

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 04:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  Guess I'm just conservative because I consider pissing on the guy's grave to be in poor taste.  

Yep that is exactly correct.  The only reason you are thinking like this is because you are a conservative who agrees with him.

You sure didn't have any problem with pissing on Michael Browns grave immediately after he was killed.  So clearly your high morals are reserved for the people who agree with you.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-15-2016, 04:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yep that is exactly correct.  The only reason you are thinking like this is because you are a conservative who agrees with him.

You sure didn't have any problem with pissing on Michael Browns grave immediately after he was killed.  So clearly your high morals are reserved for the people who agree with you.

I really am surprised at this.  I did think pretty highly of you, even if we disagreed, but I still thought you to be a bit more stand up.

This is disgusting.  I can't even put into words a response to this.  I have seen low, but this is pretty damn low.  Wow.

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 04:40 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I really am surprised at this.  I did think pretty highly of you, even if we disagreed, but I still thought you to be a bit more stand up.

This is disgusting.  I can't even put into words a response to this.  I have seen low, but this is pretty damn low.  Wow.

I am so sorry I offended you.

To make it up to you I will just show how highly I thought of Scalia by using the exact same words you used to show how highly you thought of me.

Scalia was an ignorant brainwashed *****.

Happy now that we are on the same level?  Over your high-and-mighty judgmental disgust?

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-15-2016, 04:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am so sorry I offended you.

To make it up to you I will just show how highly I thought of Scalia by using the exact same words you used to show how highly you thought of me.

Scalia was an ignorant brainwashed *****.

Happy now that we are on the same level?  Over your high-and-mighty judgmental disgust?

Doubled down.

You didn't offend me.  Just thought better of you.  Silly me, thinking the best of people.

[Vlad]

(02-15-2016, 04:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Scalia was an ignorant brainwashed *****.

Being a Constitutionalist is being brainwashed? Brainwashed by whom exactly?

The irony here is glaring. I could give names of a dozen possibilities that could have turned you into an ignorant brainwashed *****.

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 04:57 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Doubled down.

You didn't offend me.  Just thought better of you.  Silly me, thinking the best of people.

So what is the problem.

I just showed how highly I thinkof Scalia inbthe exact same way you showed how highly youbthink of me.

Same exact words in fact.

You can't be offended by your own words can you?

[Bengalzona]

(02-15-2016, 02:50 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Less than I expected from you. 


This guy that knows more about law and the Constitution that you, I, the guy that wrote the article, the guy that created the meme you quoted gave an affirmation of a SCOTUS decision and you guys throw this propaganda out the day after he dies because.....

He should have known more about the law and the Constitution. But he didn't always show it.

I am not happy that he died. That is unfortunate. I am relieved that he is no longer a SC justice. Not because he was conservative. But because he sometimes said inflammatory things just like a politician rather than a SC justice.

Is the stand alone comment taken out of context? I don't think so in that it never really fit into the context of the rest of his statement (and if it did, he deserves double the criticism for saying it). His point, as I understand it, is that he didn't believe that lower courts should be further burdened by people already convicted submitting new evidence of their innocence. It could be assumed that he meant someone else, such as higher courts, should assume that burden. Do you believe that is what he meant? If that is the case, then that statement doesn't fit and was probably rendered for some sort of shock purpose.

But if that wasn't what he meant, if he actually believes that someone already convicted should have no further recourse if new evidence is presented supporting their innocence.... well....

And why would we be left wondering what he meant?

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2016, 04:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yep that is exactly correct.  The only reason you are thinking like this is because you are a conservative who agrees with him.

You sure didn't have any problem with pissing on Michael Browns grave immediately after he was killed.  So clearly your high morals are reserved for the people who agree with you.

The fact that you compare a SCJ who lived his life serving his country to a criminal tells folks pretty much everything they need to know about you.

WTS, I never celebrated the death of Michael Brown, it was tragic. I did speak out against those that exploited his death. 

[Benton]

(02-15-2016, 02:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: http://news.lawreader.com/2008/08/30/barry-miller-widely-published-scalia-quote-re-innocense-is-inaccurate-we-have-to-agree/


This is what he said

 "There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."

Kick away...

So... he said what he said?

Thanks, thanks for reaffirming that.

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2016, 05:19 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: He should have known more about the law and the Constitution. But he didn't always show it.

I am not happy that he died. That is unfortunate. I am relieved that he is no longer a SC justice. Not because he was conservative. But because he sometimes said inflammatory things just like a politician rather than a SC justice.

Is the stand alone comment taken out of context? I don't think so in that it never really fit into the context of the rest of his statement (and if it did, he deserves double the criticism for saying it). His point, as I understand it, is that he didn't believe that lower courts should be further burdened by people already convicted submitting new evidence of their innocence. It could be assumed that he meant someone else, such as higher courts, should assume that burden. Do you believe that is what he meant? If that is the case, then that statement doesn't fit and was probably rendered for some sort of shock purpose.

But if that wasn't what he meant, if he actually believes that someone already convicted should have no further recourse if new evidence is presented supporting their innocence.... well....

And why would we be left wondering what he meant?

This may come as a shock to you, but many times SCJs interpret the law when giving their affirmation/distentions based on how they interpret the law and not always their personal opinion. If you think a professed Christian would want to see an innocent person die then there is where we disagree. IMO his words merely spoke to the rule of law.
Despite recent developments SCOTUS's job is the interpret the law, not make them.   

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2016, 12:03 PM)Benton Wrote: So... he said what he said?

Thanks, thanks for reaffirming that.

Yes he said what  he said, not what the meme said.

You're welcome. 

[Benton]

(02-15-2016, 11:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The fact that you compare a SCJ who lived his life serving his country to a criminal tells folks pretty much everything they need to know about you.

WTS, I never celebrated the death of Michael Brown, it was tragic. I did speak out against those that exploited his death. 

All life is sacred. And, in the end, all life is equal. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2016, 12:07 PM)Benton Wrote: All life is sacred. And, in the end, all life is equal. 

You really should see if Hallmark is hiring. 

You could have made this card for Hitler, it would have provided him comfort in his final days. 

[Benton]

(02-15-2016, 12:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes he said what  he said, not what the meme said.

You're welcome. 

.... which is what he said.

Paraphrasing or direct quote, Scalia still said what he said. And it was a horrible way to interpret the law.

[Benton]

(02-15-2016, 12:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You really should see if Hallmark is hiring. 

You could have made this card for Hitler, it would have provided him comfort in his final days. 

I'm surprised you can post with so few typos from up there on that high horse.

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2016, 12:14 PM)Benton Wrote: I'm surprised you can post with so few typos from up there on that high horse.

No doubt, it is almost like I think I have the ability to accurately interpret a SCJ's affirmation by taking one quote in it and paraphrasing it and do  so 1 day after his death was announced.

Damn me and my High Horse.  

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2016, 12:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt, it is almost like I think I have the ability to accurately interpret a SCJ's affirmation by taking one quote in it and paraphrasing it and do  so 1 day after his death was announced.

Damn me and my High Horse.  

Excuse me Your Highness, but you never answered my question about how long I have to fawn over him after his death before I can go back to telling the truth.

[Benton]

I would encourage everyone to stop tossing around the word "*****." Or use it and you can have a couple days off the boards.

I'd prefer to stop locking threads.

[Benton]

(02-15-2016, 12:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt, it is almost like I think I have the ability to accurately interpret a SCJ's affirmation by taking one quote in it and paraphrasing it and do  so 1 day after his death was announced.

Damn me and my High Horse.  

Quote:You really should see if Hallmark is hiring. 


You could have made this card for Hitler, it would have provided him comfort in his final days.

Where were you mentioning Scalia in that post?

I realize, it was probably hard to see what you were responding to up there.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-15-2016, 04:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am so sorry I offended you.

To make it up to you I will just show how highly I thought of Scalia by using the exact same words you used to show how highly you thought of me.

Scalia was an ignorant brainwashed *****.

Happy now that we are on the same level?  Over your high-and-mighty judgmental disgust?

(02-15-2016, 05:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So what is the problem.

I just showed how highly I thinkof Scalia inbthe exact same way you showed how highly youbthink of me.

Same exact words in fact.

You can't be offended by your own words can you?

You know, I don't think I ever called you a that word.  I could be wrong.  I called Oncemore, Patty and Dino that word, but I didn't call you that.


Brainwashed?  Sure, I have called you brainwashed.  Considering that the first thing you think of when I said I was a pro white - was that I am a white supremacist.  Remember when you said I was Pavlov's dog when we talked about socialism?  Same thing.

We are all ignorant about the experiences that other people go through. 

So if you think that it is appropriate to call a recently departed man a brainwashed ignorant person then that says something about you.

I still would have thought that you would have been a better person than what you have shown in this thread.

I will say it again, you don't have to worry about me calling anyone a that word.  I was told that it will not be tolerated, and I have agreed to comply with the request.

sorry Benton: I was posting this as you made your post, I have edited to comply.