Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Jan-05-11 06:29 AM
Original message
Scalia should be impeached immediately
There is no excuse whatsoever for the United States to delay impeaching Justice Scalia and removing him from the court.
He has openly asserted that women have no rights, and that women are not human beings, and have no human rights.
"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws."
Has this imbecile ever read the United State Constitution?
Right there, in the open, the 14th amendment states, quite clearly:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Apparently Scalia doesn't consider women to be "persons."
There is no reason that the man should be allowed to serve on the nation's highest court. He is not of this century. He is not of humanity.
The Congress should gather their reserve and remove this despicable man from the court and send him into retirement, without pension or admiration.
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-05-11 06:29 AM
Original message
Right there, in the open, the 14th amendment states, quite clearly:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex.
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-05-11 06:29 AMSilly stupid DUmmies. Is that why you bend over backwards for the throwbacks so much? Ever seen/heard how they treat their women?
Original message
Scalia should be impeached immediately There is no excuse whatsoever for the United States to delay impeaching Justice Scalia and removing him from the court.
He has openly asserted that women have no rights, and that women are not human beings, and have no human rights.
Scalia just feels that "special rights" should come from the Legislatures.
Special Rights???
Which ones are those? Where can I sign up?
You're a white male, you're totally excluded!
Ain't that the ****in' truth! I'm puttin' my business into "Toots'" name in order to get the ****in' tax breaks!
Pitiful, ain't it? The Caucasian "white" male built this country and now we're suckin' hind tit!
[DU] My Grandpa and Father would be proud! [/DU]
When you think about it, white males are basically being treated like 2nd class citizens, things like hate crime legislation seems to only apply to women, minorities and homosexuals, commit a crime against 1 of those groups and you could get more time in prison. Silly me to think that all crime is wrong no matter who it's committed against.
Ain't that the ****in' truth! I'm puttin' my business into "Toots'" name in order to get the ****in' tax breaks!
Pitiful, ain't it? The Caucasian "white" male built this country and now we're suckin' hind tit!
[DU] My Grandpa and Father would be proud! [/DU]
Toots will make it worth your while, I'm sure!
Cindie
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-05-11 06:29 AMI haven't heard what Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner's position is on impeaching Justice Scalia. Strikes me as unlikely he's interested in that. I want to always remember to refer to him as "Speaker Boehner" because it's been so sickening for the past few years to read a gazillion DUmp references to "Speaker Lugosi".
Original message
Scalia should be impeached immediately
There is no excuse whatsoever for the United States to delay impeaching Justice Scalia and removing him from the court.
That reminds me. Remember when the DUmmies wanted to impeach Dubya after he had left office?
Maybe you idiots can go back out to the Left Coast and build another human impeachment sign. Worked miracles last time.
Do they know what impeachment even means? :mental:
1> Chimpeachment
2> BOOOOOOSHfrog marchedperp walked before the Hague
3> something...
4> WE WIN!!!!(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:JaWZfiBHQVTcyM:http://blog.iwantbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/gnomes1.jpg&t=1)
and,
5> Kerry takes office, since he got second most votes.
The news may not be shocking to originalist interpreters of the Constitution. But this morning, the left is up in arms over Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s comments in a recent magazine interview that the 14th Amendment and the “Equal Protection†clause was not penned for the goal of preventing sex discrimination.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/scalia-sex-discrimination-not-inherently-prohibited-in-constitution/
In the January 2011 edition of “California Lawyer,†Scalia was asked:
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?
He responded by explaining that sexual discrimination was not the goal, but that doesn‘t mean that United States doesn’t have the proper means to still prevent such discrimination:
Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
But while it seems Scalia is simply outlining the checks-and-balances system of the United States government, and explaining how democracy works, the left is making Scalia out to be a a sexist homophobe.
....his dissent in that case, United States v. Virginia, pointed out that there is a normal democratic process for making laws:
…the tradition of having government funded military schools for men is as well rooted in the traditions of this country as the tradition of sending only men into military combat. The people may decide to change the one tradition, like the other, through democratic processes; but the assertion that either tradition has been unconstitutional through the centuries is not law, but politics smuggled into law.