Here's a novel idea:
How about a person who actually has read the constitution and rules according to what the document actually says?
Report: Justice Antonin Scalia found dead
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Here's a novel idea:
How about a person who actually has read the constitution and rules according to what the document actually says?
Scripture ?
Perhaps we should at least wait for Scalia's funeral before indulging in yet another fanatical rant!
I thought for sure that you'd be spitting on Scalia's grave by now jgarden, after all, he has been dead for about a day. I guess that's what liberal forums are for huh?
Actually some do their spitting in private here on TOL:
patrick jane: Scalia was a pig wasn't he ?
Yes, the LGBTQ movement really did and still does HATE Antonin Scalia.
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
I was studying scripture probably before you were born.
...looking for all of the good parts that could be taken out of context.
There, finished that sentence for ya.
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
From Numbers comes the command to number the males of Israel.
" . . .Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. . . -- Numbers 3:15-16 "
And as to the "week" I am reminded, that in Jewish law, immediately after birth, a woman is considered niddah and must remain sexually separated from her husband for a period of seven days after the birth of a male child and 14 days after the birth of a female child. Lev. 12:2. This separation is the same as the regular monthly niddah separation. . ." I appear to have confused the two time periods.
Certainly, as far as Numbers is concerned, a child was not counted as an Israelite until they were a month old. Leviticus also echoes this;
" . . .And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6 . . ."
drbrumley
Well-known member
And this means what to you?
"ACultureWarrior's" definition of "out of context" is anything that doesn't conform to his interpretation!
journey
New member
It sounds like you would dance on his grave if you could.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
musterion
Well-known member
Practice saying ihe shahada.
They will make a lot of noise, then roll over and play dead.
He was one of the few people on the court with a decent head on his shoulders. I've read Scalia's writing before. His "philosophy" as a supreme court justice was that he was simply applying the law, as written, to the cases before him.
You don't like Scalia because he actually followed the law and wasn't willing to throw out the law to suit his own activist agenda.
He would have been willing to suit his own religious agenda if he needed to.
Scalia was brilliant, his decisions were often masterful and make good reads.
His position on the Constitution however was troubling. He was unwilling to interpret it in light of today's culture, in part I think, because it would require information beyond the written document. He would rather have gone back to the culture of the late 1700's when it was written. But to do that it seems to me to also require information beyond the written document and makes a determination that the founders would have reached the same conclusions today that they did then.
One of the geniuses of the founders was that there are parts of the Constitution that are open to interpretation. Perhaps they were aware of how the world changes over time to a greater extent than Justice Scalia.
The constitution is not a product of today's culture. A court justice does not and should not need information beyond the written document. The law that they are applying is the constitution as it is written. End of story.
One striking example of this that I recall Scalia talking about is about how the court ruled, against his vote, that it's acceptable at least in some cases to prevent a defendant from directly facing his accuser, face to face, in court, if that accuser is a minor.
Scalia's answer? It's a constitutional right, and for darned good reason: it's to ferret out lying witnesses.
No further "information" is required to see what the law said and what the law intended.
The law is the law is the law.
If you don't like the law, then you should be demanding that congress amend the constitution. Otherwise? The law says what the law says, and the role of a supreme court justice is simply to apply the law, not to make their own.
Period.
Got it, "as written". Then it should be easy to explain the term "due process". In 10 words or less.
See the 5th to 8th amendments. Nuff said.