Scalia Jumps On The Anti-Seventeenth Amendment Bandwagon

  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Nov 15, 2010 6:32 PM GMT

    Scalia Jumps On The Anti-Seventeenth Amendment Bandwagon

    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/15/scalia-seventeenth/

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Nov 16, 2010 1:05 AM GMT
    It will be a happy day when this man is D-E-A-D.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2010 1:15 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidIt will be a happy day when this man is D-E-A-D.


    Or perhaps retire and take a lobbying job.
  • OklahomaBreak...

    Posts: 167

    Nov 16, 2010 3:27 AM GMT
    It's sad the buying of America is so blatant. What happened to the old days when us commoners at least thought we had some control over our country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2010 3:34 AM GMT
    jprichva saidInteresting post today somewhere on the Huffington Post about why these people are so hot to get rid of this seemingly non-controversial amendment.

    If senators go back to being appointed by state legislatures, it is much easier and cheaper for the billionaires to buy up a whole legislature than to back even one candidate for US Senate (see Fiorina, Carly, $97 million and bupkes to show for it.)

    So the debate's over whether voters or state legislatures elect Senators. I think Scalia helped form the "new normal" of corporations electing Senators, at least until Congress addresses the SCOTUS' irresponsible decision:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
  • Hunter9

    Posts: 1039

    Nov 16, 2010 3:58 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidIt will be a happy day when this man is D-E-A-D.


    What a mean thing to say, Webster-the-Devil. icon_twisted.gif


    Disagree... this world would be better off if select people were in fact dead, and Scalia would be towards the top of the list... and yes, I should be the one who decides who is on the list.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2010 3:59 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidIt will be a happy day when this man is D-E-A-D.


    What a mean thing to say, Webster-the-Devil. icon_twisted.gif


    maybe Webster can summon his powers and help move the process along

  • Nov 16, 2010 4:14 AM GMT
    This is kind of an interesting comment from Scalia, isn't it? I suppose I've never read any of his comments on Constitutional interpretation when it comes to amendments, but is he saying that the appropriateness of the amendment should be measured by what the Framers would have thought about it? And any amendment that violates the Framers' intent violates the Constitution?

    Good stuff, though...does anyone have a link to the audio from the Texas Tech event?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2010 4:33 AM GMT
    The 17th amendment doesn't seem broke to me. It seems to be working just fine. Someone please educate me about how it really might need to be repealed.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2010 4:57 AM GMT
    My favorite comment on trying to divine the original content of the constitution comes from Justice Robert H. Jackson, and which Stevens quotes in his memoir and is as follows:
    ''Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh."

    It's hubris to assume that you can divine what the founders would or would not have done in our current circumstances, but then Scalia was never one not to indulge in hubris, nor the delusion that his beliefs are derived from ideology rather than what the country's founders may or may not have posited.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Nov 16, 2010 5:39 AM GMT
    rightasrain said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 saidIt will be a happy day when this man is D-E-A-D.


    What a mean thing to say, Webster-the-Devil. icon_twisted.gif


    maybe Webster can summon his powers and help move the process along





    Actually, Alito should be the first to go.
    He's the youngest of the Court's Nazi wing.
    Probably incurable ass cancer would be appropriate for him.


    Ideally, Scalia and his lap dog Clarence Uncle Tomas would be in a head on collision with Alito and Roberts, with no air bags and nobody wearing seat belts, both cars going 90 miles per hour.

    Yes, I'm serious.
    Talk about "activist judges..."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2010 5:55 AM GMT
    Here's the thing about this Constitutional Amendment talk: it's all just a distraction. They're busy jangling the shiny keys in their left hand so that you don't notice the revolver they're loading in their right. No Amendments are going to be repealed.

    Whenever this kind of topic comes up I'm reminded to call for a hand check.
  • NursePractiti...

    Posts: 232

    Nov 16, 2010 6:06 AM GMT
    Anyone care to lay bets on how long before FOX noise, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and the rest of those lying blowhards start calling for it's repeal?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2010 6:17 AM GMT
    metta8 said
    Scalia Jumps On The Anti-Seventeenth Amendment Bandwagon

    http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/15/scalia-seventeenth/



    I really don't see how this has become such a Tea Party issue, if the Tea Party platform is built on empowering citizens and voters. As a student of history in Alaska, I can tell you that (although we were a territory, and had observers instead of voting members) our senators were literally bought and sold by the f*cking salmon industry before the 17th Amendment. Nobody wants a senator who can be bought out by canned food, let alone BP or Halliburton.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 16, 2010 11:35 AM GMT
    Another reason why republicans as President have disastrous effects that last for years after they leave office
    This man has and will shape our legal issues that will be anti-gay
    anti-woman and anti-middle class
    To argue against that statement is silly at this point
    as it is now
    if you think that if DADT or Prop 8 comes to the Supreme Court and that this court will judge favorably on these issues you're not listening to what they say
    Elena Kagen has already stepped aside because she had adjudicated on the issue previously meaning that she will do so again when it really comes before them
    so all they need for a majority now is 4 instead of 5
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Nov 16, 2010 10:52 PM GMT
    If radical right wing morons, like Scalia, want to pare the Constitution back to it's original form, we'd have to do away with all of the Amendments. That would mean that the 3 women on the Court would not have the right to vote, and somebody would OWN Clarence Uncle Thomas !

    Somebody needs to slap him up side of his fat head and remind him of "Government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE... ?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 12:05 AM GMT
    GQjock saidAnother reason why republicans as President have disastrous effects that last for years after they leave office
    This man has and will shape our legal issues that will be anti-gay
    anti-woman and anti-middle class
    To argue against that statement is silly at this point
    as it is now
    if you think that if DADT or Prop 8 comes to the Supreme Court and that this court will judge favorably on these issues you're not listening to what they say
    Elena Kagen has already stepped aside because she had adjudicated on the issue previously meaning that she will do so again when it really comes before them
    so all they need for a majority now is 4 instead of 5


    No...four justices cannot overrule a lower court decision. With Kagan recused if there is a 4-4 split whatever the Court of Appeals decides on Prop 8 would be affirmed.

    Also two of the most pro-gay rights opinions of the Court were made possible by Republican appointees comprising most of the majority (Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter).