Worst Supreme Justice EVER

[Lois]

"States Rights" is just a cover.  Scalia personally believes that homosexuality is wrong.  So he starts from his belief, and then writes his opinions based on that.

Read what Toe wrote above.  He's got Scalia pegged, and he did it without creating any santorum.

[thetaxmancometh]

He can believe that homosexuality is wrong, the majority of the justices may believe that based on their religious beliefs... but that doesn't matter. You asserted that he made his rulings based on his religious beliefs... do you think Kagen or Sotomajor do as well? No. Your issue with him is a simple one... he is a conservative and you are not.

States rights, much as the liberals want to believe it, is not a cover issue. It is one of the most fundamental parts of the Constitution, Amendment 10, and it is what secures most of your rights... or it should. He has been consistently a state's rights judge (as they all should be) through his entire career.

You have still not supported your assertion. I am going to operate under the assumption that you can't. If you wish to discuss this further then specifically address me with something like "thetaxman, have you thought about..." and I will respond. If not, feel free to place down whatever rebuttal you like and I will just let that stand.

Again, your issue with him is that he is a conservative, nothing else.

[Katiebee]

So you, by extension believe that the secession from the Union by the Confederate states was justified. That was specifically justified by "States Rights".

[MissBarbara]

So he starts from his belief, and then writes his opinions based on that.

And Scalia is the only justice in the entire history of the U.S. Supreme Court who has ever done that.

[MissBarbara]

States rights, much as the liberals want to believe it, is not a cover issue. It is one of the most fundamental parts of the Constitution, Amendment 10, and it is what secures most of your rights... or it should. He has been consistently a state's rights judge (as they all should be) through his entire career.

I do not consider myself a Liberal, but I agree completely that States Rights is a cover issue.

As you did in another thread, and as I similarly responded there, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of both the purpose and scope of the U.S. Constitution, and of the intentions of the framers of the Constitution.

[thetaxmancometh]

I am not sure what you are referring to Barb, please direct me to what you are talking about? We may have a fundamental disagreement about the Constitution, but I think I have a fairly good grasp of its' intent, scope, and limitations....

The 10th amendment, to a strict constitutionalist like myself, is pretty clear. Anything not covered by the Constitution is to be handled by the people and the states. The states were intended to be laboratories of democracy so if one state thought that gay marriage or a 95% tax rate should be passed, then they could do so and other states could watch and see what happened. I know that the modern liberal isn't a fan of states rights, but they are an important part of the constitution that the modern liberal would like eclipsed by the elastic clause. That may or may not apply to you Barb, I don't know you well enough to say.

Katie, I think that the succession was  legal, though I am very glad that it didn't succeed. Wheither it was justified or not is a different matter that really is an opinion question that everyone can come to their own conclusions on. The question of wheither it is legal or not has been debated since the Civil War and there are valid arguments on both sides, but, for me, the question is "Did the States voluntarily agree to band together for mutual good and, if so, can they voluntarily leave?". Not to open a can of worms in this thread (we can start a new one if you like?), but the Civil War wasn't about slavery. How can I state that with certainty? Slavery still existed in the Northern states during and after the Civil War. Slavery was certainly one of the major sources of tension, no question, and a part of the "states rights" argument, but it wasn't the defining issue.


That said, I am off to see my parents for Father's Day, will be back Sunday or Monday. If anyone has a question for me about my opinions between now and then well.... you will just have to be in suspense until I get back

[MissBarbara]

I am not sure what you are referring to Barb, please direct me to what you are talking about? We may have a fundamental disagreement about the Constitution, but I think I have a fairly good grasp of its' intent, scope, and limitations....

The 10th amendment, to a strict constitutionalist like myself, is pretty clear. Anything not covered by the Constitution is to be handled by the people and the states. The states were intended to be laboratories of democracy so if one state thought that gay marriage or a 95% tax rate should be passed, then they could do so and other states could watch and see what happened. I know that the modern liberal isn't a fan of states rights, but they are an important part of the constitution that the modern liberal would like eclipsed by the elastic clause. That may or may not apply to you Barb, I don't know you well enough to say.

Katie, I think that the succession was  legal, though I am very glad that it didn't succeed. Wheither it was justified or not is a different matter that really is an opinion question that everyone can come to their own conclusions on. The question of wheither it is legal or not has been debated since the Civil War and there are valid arguments on both sides, but, for me, the question is "Did the States voluntarily agree to band together for mutual good and, if so, can they voluntarily leave?". Not to open a can of worms in this thread (we can start a new one if you like?), but the Civil War wasn't about slavery. How can I state that with certainty? Slavery still existed in the Northern states during and after the Civil War. Slavery was certainly one of the major sources of tension, no question, and a part of the "states rights" argument, but it wasn't the defining issue.


That said, I am off to see my parents for Father's Day, will be back Sunday or Monday. If anyone has a question for me about my opinions between now and then well.... you will just have to be in suspense until I get back

To put it as simply as possible, the concept of states rights, in a Constitutional sense, must always be examined with the concept and context of the Constitution. Though individual states pre-existed the Constitution, whatever sovereignty they may have had before the Constitution went into effect was eliminated by the Constitution, and sovereignty thenceforward lies in the federal government, and not the states.

Certain rights have been reserved to the states, either by the Constitution, by subsequent court decisions, by legislation, or simply by tradition. Marriage laws, to use your example, are the best example.

I've written about this extensively elsewhere on this Board, and I'm too lazy to search it out right now, but when I have the time/energy, I'll find it.

Something else I've written about extensively on the Board is the argument, posed by modern-day neo-Confederates and states rights advocates, that "the Civil War wasn't about slavery" has no merit or basis. The best (and simplest) refutation of this assertion comes from the Confederate states themselves. If you read their individual post-secession constitutions, every single one of them states, quite plain, that slavery was the reason for their secession, and for the subsequent Civil War.

Your insistence on using labels, in this case, "liberal," does your argument a disservice. You are creating straw (wo)men, and arguing with them.

P.S. If the framers wanted the Constitution to be strictly constructed, they never would have included Article V.

[Katiebee]

Taxman, you obviously have NOT read any of the articles of secession then. Many, if not most specifically include as a reason for secession the peculiar institution with which they wished to continue. The states right they were wanting to uphold WAS slavery.

[GEMINIGUY]

Katie, i've been lurking in this Thread, reading Taxman's comments, and I think his whole purpose for posting here is he just loves to argue. :^)

[MissBarbara]

Taxman, you obviously have NOT read any of the articles of secession then. Many, if not most specifically include as a reason for secession the peculiar institution with which they wished to continue. The states right they were wanting to uphold WAS slavery.

Exactly.

I searched in vain for that thread I alluded to above, but in it I pulled quotes verbatim from the Confederate states' constitutions, all of which directly cite the right to own slaves as the reason for secession. That's not liberals bending the truth, that's from the Confederates mouths.

Here's a very precise summary from one of my favorite authors:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html

[Lois]

Good article.

[thetaxmancometh]

To put it as simply as possible, the concept of states rights, in a Constitutional sense, must always be examined with the concept and context of the Constitution. Though individual states pre-existed the Constitution, whatever sovereignty they may have had before the Constitution went into effect was eliminated by the Constitution, and sovereignty thenceforward lies in the federal government, and not the states.

Valid opinion, certainly, and that is one that many legal scholars take... but it is an opinion only and one that many legal scholars disagree with. The sovereignty of states is not referred to in the Constitution, you know that, and at the time that the Constitution was ratified, the vast majority of Americans considered the States to be far more important to them then the federal government. In fact, we were designed to be a federalist nation with the federal government having much less power then the state governments. That evolved over time, but that was not the design.

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

Certain rights have been reserved to the states, either by the Constitution, by subsequent court decisions, by legislation, or simply by tradition. Marriage laws, to use your example, are the best example.

You need to brush up on your Constitution wording, perhaps, but your understanding is flawed on this point. Here is the 10th:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

The article is very clear, any power not delegate as a power of the US federal government is, instead, kept for the states and the people. Hard to get more clear then that.


I will be happy to discuss slavery's role in the Civil war in a different thread, as I stated, but I am concerned with some of your language. You have made a couple of statements now like suggesting that I don't understand the Constitution and now stating that my belief that "Slavery was certainly one of the major sources of tension, no question, and a part of the "states rights" argument, but it wasn't the defining issue." makes me a Neo-Confederate or at least groups me with them. I want you to think how you feel when people group homosexuality with pedophilia.... that is essentially what you are doing. We can discuss and disagree about a lot of things and the power of the States is certainly an issue that many disagree on without you feeling the need to demonize me. I have talked directly to you and I don't think that you mean your language to sound like that, but that is how I am taking it. If I am wrong, please let me know. If you think this is something we should talk about in PM's instead, please also let me know.

Can you explain how you believe that Article 5, referring to making amendments, invalidates strict Constitutionalism? Constitutionalists don't believe that the Constitution is an inviolate document that can never be changed, they believe that it can only be changed in certain ways. Article 5 explains how it can be changed and no where does it mention that the Courts can reinterpret the document to say things it doesn't or to not say things it does. We have changed the Constitution many times and we can certainly do so again... but only by legal means.

Katie, not only have I read all the articles, I have understood them. Do you think that they refer to state's rights? Edit: Ooops, feel free to discuss this in another thread if you like, I am going to refrain from talking about it in this thread. Too many understand too little of their history and it tends to be, 150 years later, a hot button issue.

Gemini, if you have something meaningful to offer, please do. I understood going into this that almost all people here are to the left of me, politically, and most are far to the left. I have no problem discussing my thoughts with people but I also have no desire to be personally attacked by anyone. Anyone is welcome to attack my opinions or statements, but that is all. I am happy to leave this board and let it be a liberal circle jerk if the community desires it, but I personally learn more by discussing things with those who disagree with me then by discussing them with those who agree with me. This comment isn't addressed solely to you, just a statement of my intent in general.

[GEMINIGUY]

Why, yes, I do have something meaningful to offer, sir. One, don't go making eveybody here your enemies. And two, I can say anything I want, and I call it like I see it. ;-)

[thetaxmancometh]

I havnt made anyone an enemy, I have been respectful to everyone.. certainly the reverse isn't the case.

Second, you are certainly able to say and act however you like, just letting you know how I will respond to it. <shrug>

[Athos_131]

[MissBarbara]

To put it as simply as possible, the concept of states rights, in a Constitutional sense, must always be examined with the concept and context of the Constitution. Though individual states pre-existed the Constitution, whatever sovereignty they may have had before the Constitution went into effect was eliminated by the Constitution, and sovereignty thenceforward lies in the federal government, and not the states.

Valid opinion, certainly, and that is one that many legal scholars take... but it is an opinion only and one that many legal scholars disagree with.

It was the opinion of the framers, the men who conceived, debated, and wrote the Constitution. And that fact, to my mind, certainly does make it a "valid opinion."

The sovereignty of states is not referred to in the Constitution, you know that, and at the time that the Constitution was ratified, the vast majority of Americans considered the States to be far more important to them then the federal government. In fact, we were designed to be a federalist nation with the federal government having much less power then the state governments. That evolved over time, but that was not the design.

In another thread last week, you demanded that a poster provide back-up to facts in a post. Well, now it's your turn.

Specifically, I'd love to read something from the framers and the attendees at the Constitutional Convention demonstrating that the Constitution's goal was to create a country "designed to be a federalist nation with the federal government having much less power then the state governments."

If you read the "Federalists Papers," or dozens of other primary source writings, you'll find that the reality was precisely the opposite. 

P.S. "The sovereignty of states" was not referred to in the Constitution because it was unnecessary to do so. The entire point of the Constitution -- and this is the key element that you fail to grasp -- was to define the powers of the Federal government in the face of state sovereignty -- which, as I indicated above, pre-existed the Federal government defined by the Constitution -- and to outline the balance of powers between the two.

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

Wikipedia? Really?

Certain rights have been reserved to the states, either by the Constitution, by subsequent court decisions, by legislation, or simply by tradition. Marriage laws, to use your example, are the best example.

You need to brush up on your Constitution wording, perhaps, but your understanding is flawed on this point. Here is the 10th:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

The article is very clear, any power not delegate as a power of the US federal government is, instead, kept for the states and the people. Hard to get more clear then that.

I'll credit that you have the wording down precisely. What you fail to grasp is the meaning.

The 10th Amendment -- which conservative commentators have latched onto, especially recently -- does not mean that every single detail not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is reserved to the states and lies outside the powers of the federal government. That was not the intention of James Madison when he composed the text, nor, more important, has it been the decision of the Supreme Court in interpreting the text. In fact, the Supreme Court specifically determined that the text of the 10th Amendment was not to be read literally.

To be sure, the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, ruled in favor of individual states and against the Federal government via the 10th Amendment in specific instances where the respective powers of the state and federal governments have come into conflict.

But, bear in mind that the 10th Amendment has also been misinterpreted many times, especially during the civil rights era, in attempt to nullify federal laws (e.g. the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws of the mid-1960s) and Supreme Court Decisions (e.g. Brown v. Board of Education).

I will be happy to discuss slavery's role in the Civil war in a different thread, as I stated, but I am concerned with some of your language. You have made a couple of statements now like suggesting that I don't understand the Constitution and now stating that my belief that "Slavery was certainly one of the major sources of tension, no question, and a part of the "states rights" argument, but it wasn't the defining issue." makes me a Neo-Confederate or at least groups me with them. I want you to think how you feel when people group homosexuality with pedophilia.... that is essentially what you are doing. We can discuss and disagree about a lot of things and the power of the States is certainly an issue that many disagree on without you feeling the need to demonize me. I have talked directly to you and I don't think that you mean your language to sound like that, but that is how I am taking it. If I am wrong, please let me know. If you think this is something we should talk about in PM's instead, please also let me know.

Can you explain how you believe that Article 5, referring to making amendments, invalidates strict Constitutionalism? Constitutionalists don't believe that the Constitution is an inviolate document that can never be changed, they believe that it can only be changed in certain ways. Article 5 explains how it can be changed and no where does it mention that the Courts can reinterpret the document to say things it doesn't or to not say things it does. We have changed the Constitution many times and we can certainly do so again... but only by legal means.

Go ahead and start that thread, and I'll happily respond to you there.

In the mean time, your argument that slavery was not the reason for the civil war is the same as that offered by the neo-Confederates, both in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, and up to today. Thus, my comfort is stating that your argument parallels theirs. If that label makes you uncomfortable, or if you find it offensive, well, perhaps you need to re-examine your reasoning and arguments.

Ironically, there is a very close parallel between that arguments that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War and all homosexuals are pedophiles. Both are factually incorrect, and both can be easily proven incorrect by a mountain of factual data.

[thetaxmancometh]

I am sorry, I had started on a reply then I noticed your tone yet again. You are under the mistaken opinion that you are a Constitutional scholar and also the very mistaken opinion that you understand it better then I do. I told you in my last post that your remarks attacking me and not my argument were not appropriate. You failed to respond to that and you kept doing the same thing. I don't mind discussing anything but I have no real desire to get into a "flame war", something that you seem to prefer. When and if you want to have a civil discussion, we can do so.

I have demonstrated in all my postings that I am quite willing to have a difference of opinion, quite willing to support my opinion, and even willing to admit when I am wrong.. but I limit myself to attacking arguments, not arguers (the one time I attacked an arguer I immediately retracted it and apologized). You should as well if you want to discuss anything with me. If not, no skin off my back.

Let the liberal circle jerk commence

[Katiebee]

well your true trollishness has revealed itself once again.

[GEMINIGUY]

WOO to Katie! Calling it as she sees it, you rock, Katie!

[MissBarbara]

I am sorry, I had started on a reply then I noticed your tone yet again. You are under the mistaken opinion that you are a Constitutional scholar and also the very mistaken opinion that you understand it better then I do. I told you in my last post that your remarks attacking me and not my argument were not appropriate. You failed to respond to that and you kept doing the same thing. I don't mind discussing anything but I have no real desire to get into a "flame war", something that you seem to prefer. When and if you want to have a civil discussion, we can do so.

I have demonstrated in all my postings that I am quite willing to have a difference of opinion, quite willing to support my opinion, and even willing to admit when I am wrong.. but I limit myself to attacking arguments, not arguers (the one time I attacked an arguer I immediately retracted it and apologized). You should as well if you want to discuss anything with me. If not, no skin off my back.

Let the liberal circle jerk commence

If by "your" you're referring to me, than I've no idea what you mean by "my tone." They're words on a screen, and any "tone" that is given to the words is done by you. Believe me -- and other here will verify this -- if I were attacking you personally, you'd be perfectly aware of the fact.

And if you consider me deeming your arguments "neo-Confederate" to be an attack on your personally, well, that's exactly the same as your frequently labeling those you disagree with as "liberals." I don't consider the latter offensive or a personal attack.

This isn't a college debating society. It's a discussion. And a discussion on a dusty little board in one of the farthest corners of the Interweb. Even though I could, I'm not going to pepper my posts with citations and footnotes.