RSS
Antonin the Magnificient
Here's a transcript of Antonin Scalia interview on 60 Minutes last night.
I was too busy watching the Sixers jump out to a 10-point first half lead against Detroit and then collapse in the second half to watch it live. But it's good stuff and a faster read than the video.
Early Money Q:
"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," he says.
"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.
"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.
"As opposed to what people today think it means," Stahl asks.
"As opposed to what people today would like," Scalia says.
"But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asks.
"That's fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution," Scalia argues.
Exactly.
I was too busy watching the Sixers jump out to a 10-point first half lead against Detroit and then collapse in the second half to watch it live. But it's good stuff and a faster read than the video.
Early Money Q:
"It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend," he says.
"But what you're saying is, let's try to figure out the mindset of people back 200 years ago? Right?" Stahl asks.
"Well, it isn't the mindset. It's what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution," Scalia says.
"As opposed to what people today think it means," Stahl asks.
"As opposed to what people today would like," Scalia says.
"But you do admit that values change? We do adapt. We move," Stahl asks.
"That's fine. And so do laws change. Because values change, legislatures abolish the death penalty, permit same-sex marriage if they want, abolish laws against homosexual conduct. That's how the change in a society occurs. Society doesn't change through a Constitution," Scalia argues.
Exactly.
posted by Spencerblog at
8:05 AM
67 Comments:
The greatest threat to our society other than foreign terrorism is the domestic terrorism of Liberalism being implemented by Lib operative justices abusing their power and twisting the Constitution.
Forget that stupid war; those two Supreme Court appointments were what the 2004 election was all about. And with more justices ready to retire, that too is what this election is really about.
And just what sort of justices do you suppose The Most Radical Liberal in Congress would appoint should he end up the decider?
This is what the Libs don’t tell you as they offer distractions like the war.
Funny how when the Repubs held all three branches the Left weeped endlessly about a lack of “checks and balances”. What do you think the chances are that we will continue to hear this weep from them should they take Congress, the Presidency and the Supreme Court? About as likely as B. Hussein Obama embracing his white side and denouncing Muslim radicals and black militancy.
Randal:
Right on. The real domestic danger in this country is the liberal left. They want to pervert our system by having liberal judges legislate that which they can't get at the ballot box. The quickest way to ruin this country and to create a society that is ruled by the elites, is to allow judges to ignore the legal importance of the US Constitution, and the Constitutions of the various states.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
This post has been removed by the author.
a recent ruling regarding photo-ids to vote as a further attempt to suppress the votes of the poor
Don't be silly, Liar Dave. This was done to stop the rampant voter fraud that the Left and particularly minority communities are guilty of.
Surely you would want to stop such fraud if it were the Right that was doing it. Hehe...
Do you ever tell the truth? Ever?
This post has been removed by the author.
Peter Puffer Diano:
You are such an ass! The Constitution means something and that is the whole point. Why have a Constitution if it is going to subject to the whim of the majority or the MINORITY. If you don't like the Constitution then move and live with the Taliban under Sharia law, or shut up and seek to amend the document.
Diano, everything you say is folly. Photo ID's are not mentioned in the Constitution, but neither are drivers licenses, and lots of other things. If you want to vote then show proof of your identity. What is the big deal. Randal is right, if the republicans were accused of rampant voter fraud you would be saying that this requirement is the least intrusive way to make sure that only eligible voters vote. Liberal Justice Stevens authored the majority opinion today.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
Oh, don’t make such a big weepy deal of it, you liar. This isn’t small town 1808 where everyone knows everyone else, Dave, this is America 2008 with 300 million residents. It is not asking too much to make people produce ID to vote. I think everyone should be required to show ID every time they vote, not just their first time.
This post has been removed by the author.
Peter Puffer Diano:
Are you kidding me? Is that as good as it gets for you. Voting, like having a driver's license, has restictions and qualifications. Voting rights have been expanded over time through Constitutional Amendments not liberal judicial decisions. Read them!
All of your other assertions are pure blather - like saying that the poor people get machines that break down, etc... and there is a delay in getting them repaired... Where is this happening?
Also, I am not a fan of Justice Stevens, but it does appear that even he couldn't fake the opposite decision on this one.
As for the intent of the Constitution to protect the minority - where does it say that?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
The Constitution has the clear intent that the rights of the minority are to be respected/protected within the context of whatever policies are implemented.
Uh, yeah. And it says noting about accommodating their unreasonable or ridiculous wants and demands and fabricated “rights”.
With all those forms of ID being acceptable, how in the world can an apologist Lib even weep that it is somehow unfair to make people show ID to vote? You’re a silly dope, AD. And you play the Stirring Racial Suspicion Game with your unsubstantiated accusations. This, not so silly.
This post has been removed by the author.
Peter Puffer Diano:
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ignorance. We are a democracy where the majority rules. The Constitution was not designed to protect he minority, it was designed to give government a frame work and to protect rights that were God given, and also to prevent the excesses of government power. Hence we have a bill of rights, which has been perverted by the liberal left. The framers were also smart enough to allow for the document to be amended.
Gore asked the Supreme Court to intercede, and the vote was 7-2 to stop the voting. Even the NYT came out after the fact and said that Gore was a loser anyway. Had Gore won his own state the result would have been different, but he couldn't carry his own state.
Lastly, requiring a photo id is not a burden, according to a majority of the Supreme Court, as led by Justice Stevens in his majority opinion.
Understand one thing, we are a democratic society and the majority wins. It is an injustice for the majority to legislate and then have liberal judges make up rights that don't exist in the document. I can give you examples, but I won't.
One last thing, Congress has 2 chambers, the Senate and the House. Each state gets 2 senators and a proportionate number of house members based on population.
Question: Was it fair for the house to be controlled by the dems for the forty or so years prior to 1994?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
This post has been removed by the author.
Gil, I made the Same Mistake - That is, Watched the Sixers.
They looked like they were really going to pull it off in the first half. The second half, they floundered. I hope that half isn't the dagger that polishes off this series...
Oh, and whatever we're debating over here (too lazy to read this morning), C. Scott's right and etc...
They looked like they were really going to pull it off in the first half. The second half, they floundered. I hope that half isn't the dagger that polishes off this series...
I don’t know, Steve, sounds to me like you were commenting on the Donkey primary.
;)
Question: Was it fair for the house to be controlled by the dems for the forty or so years prior to 1994?
ABSOLUTELY! Because during that time they improved the lives of the poor and underprivileged more than any other time in our history and fought for civil rights.
What Dave means to say here as he failed to answer the question is that the End Justifies the Lib Means. It doesn’t. And maybe someone should remind him that civil rights were mostly opposed and obstructed by –dunt-dunt-DUNN!... Democrats!
T-shirt: “Democrats, liking blacks since about 1964.”
Too much of that progress was washed away during GOP control, but with Dem President and Congress, the progress of the past can resume.
Shrill baseless lies. Exactly what progress was “washed away”?
Oh, and can we expect to hear you weep about a lack of “checks and balances” should the Dem hold both the White House and Congress like we have the past number of years they were under Repub control, Dishonest Dave? (snicker)
"R":
The liberals hate recorded history as it is contrary to everything they say. You are absolutely right that to the liberals, the ends justify the means. They don't care about civility, the Constitution, or legal interpretations, they only care about the agenda. Sadly, many people don't get this and gladly sing kumbaya while the liberal elites fleece them to death.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
This post has been removed by the author.
Democratic principles and control was a great "means", so nothing needs to be justified for an "end" that was already long overdue.
Says you. That's not very democratic.
And the rest of your drivel is just blahblah.
"R":
Diano is dangerous and acts like a fascist like most liberals. For anyone else reading these messages Diano is all you need to read to see how evil liberalism is and how liberals want to control you and how you think.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
This post has been removed by the author.
Keep your gay job, Dave.
"r":
The most democratic thing a democratic government can do is to honor the will of the majority, period. Protections for the minority by elitists to the exclusion of majority rule who decide on a whim what is good for all of us, thus circumventing the democratic process, is called communism, and in some respects fascism.
The more Diano writes the more foolish he looks. I hope that he has not polluted the earth with his sperm.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
The more Diano writes the more foolish he looks.
This is exactly why I draw him out. I can always count on him to go off on his ridiculous Lib rants. And I always say that the more Libism that gets spouted the better for people to see its inherent childish idiocy. He’s one of the easier Libs I’ve toyed with. I couldn’t do what I do without him. I think he actually believes that he’s winning or doing good or somehow helping his cause and the world. Lol… Talk about delusions of grandeur…
This post has been removed by the author.
The gun law in Philly, voted on my the majority of city council and desired by the majority of the voters.
Umm, you’re forgetting the part where this was illegal and unconstitutional. That’s not “democracy”, that’s law breaking. I know such things are little more than pesky details to you Libs …except when you weep shrill about how “Bush is shredding the Constitution! Whaaaa!” Lol…
Keep up the good work, Dave, my little bitch. You’ve got me right where you want me. ;) Lol…
Peter Puffer Diano:
Constitutional rights are not subject to a simple vote of the majority to overturn. The only way to do it is by amendment and going through the process.
Speaking of minorities, I have heard that Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote and Bush did... Esplain that to me Lucy!
One last thing, you must be aghast at smoker's minority rights being eliminated by a majoritarian democratic policy.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
ww.shieldsandhoppe.com
Man, Mr. S, don't ya ever get tired of slapping Dave around like that?
Nah, me neither! Lol...
"R":
Most liberals will never debate us as they know that their liberal speak does not hold any water. It is the truly useful idiots like the Puffer who keep feuding with "reason and truth" using their old and tired liberal talking points.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
This post has been removed by the author.
There you go again Puff Daddy Diano. You should publish a list of liberal rules to live by and perhaps you can save us all from ourselves. We are all so dumb compared to you.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
Hey, I just had a great idea! Someone contact that boxing promoter Feldman guy and let’s organize a charity boxing match between Mr. Shields and Lib Dave! We can bill it as “Right vs. Wrong!” or something! Lol…
Here’s betting our resident Lib Coward is trembling at the thought. Try not to pee yourself, Dave! Lol…
"R":
I would love that! However, if Peter Puffer Diano declines and instead wants to challenge me to needlepoint, rug hooking, knitting, or interior decorating I will have to concede that he wins.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
LMAO!
What say you, Coward Dave?
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Puff Daddy Diano:
That means I got 3,328 more votes than you did. What have you ever done or accomplished in your life?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
diano, why are you resorting to personal attacks? You criticize others when they do but you've sunk to that level!
Sunk to that?? Are you kidding, Steve? That’s all Petty Dave has done since he’s been here! On every topic in every single thread. This is the surest sign that one holds little faith in their own “arguments”. But then all one has to do is read his childish Lib offerings here to understand why. Lol…
No “school yard taunts”, Coward Dave. This isn’t like your not so veiled threats of violence you spout whenever you’re losing an argument. We’re talking about an organized charity boxing match. That is, unless you are afraid of getting into the ring with Mr. Shields. No surprise there. (snicker)
"r":
I would even be willing to accept a girly man challenge from him to a bout of needlepoint, knitting, rug hooking, tiddly winks, don't break the ice, rock em sock em robots, etc... But I will need to start taking estrogen as part of the training regimen.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
How about this… The door proceeds go to the winner’s county political committee. For Mr. Shields I’m guessing this would be the Delco Repubs while Dave, were he to win –Lol- could go to the Dems. Or, perhaps more appropriately, the Dems’ women’s auxiliary. Lol…
This post has been removed by the author.
Peter Puffer Diano:
Truth be told, I did not campaign and I spent very little money. I didn't expect to win, but my attempts to get the Republican endorsement forced me to stay on the ballot. The endorsement process is a sham, and I proved that. Bottom line though is that I have brass balls, and you have no balls!
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
This post has been removed by the author.
Peter Puffer Diano:
The endorsement process in Delco is not geared towards getting the most qualified candidates. In fact, the party leadership selects their candidates without any input from other local leaders. Every other County I know of solicits candidates and then properly vets their qualifications through a series of straw polls from local leaders. I was clearly the most qualified candidate and I was shut out of the selection process the same as Rich Cappelli and Tom Gannon.
As for my baldness, I decided to shave my head because it was more comfortable in a helmet while playing ice hockey. Ice Hockey is one of the manly sports that you probably don't understand. It is also a favorite sport of choice of middle aged surgeons. It is cheaper and safer than being a liberal.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
Man, Dave be hatin on people’s jobs and educations and even their political campaigns when he could never get on any ballot. He sure is a smug scumbag Modern Liberal. It’s showing more and more as he posts. So much for all that Lib “tolerance” we’re always hearing them whine about.
Daly’s Libism did him in. Good thing that guy isn’t sitting in judgment of others from the bench. Talk about unfit… Lol… But I’ll bet Dave blindly voted for him anyway.
This post has been removed by the author.
A low scoring, full contact ice-ballet of ballerinas with sticks hitting each other or a little puck into a net. As exciting as watching paint dry or soccer. So manly. So boring. Yawn.
LOL! How did I know Dave doesn’t like sports? Even ridicules those who do! Man, you sure are a feminine girlie Lib coward. No wonder you’re so afraid to fight Shields even with gloves and headgear.
Peter Puffer Diano:
You brought up the bald thing, you dope. Also, I never said the endorsement process was corrupt, I said that it excludes qualified candidates. I will put my resume and qualifications along side any other lawyer. I have far more courtroom experience, constitutional law experience, and a more varied practice than any lawyer I know.
What are your qualifications?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
This post has been removed by the author.
Peter Puffer Diano:
I know Mike Farrell and I think he is a very fine lawyer. I do, however, have far more experience than he does, but that doesn't mean that I didn't vote for him, because I did.
Are you up for the Mr. Magoo fag challenge?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
Won’t drink… afraid to fight… can’t reason… isn’t funny… Man, you’re a mess, D.
No, you should fight him. You're the cock Lib that talks so tough. Let's see whatcha got, Dave.
You're the cock Lib that talks so tough.
I meant to write "cocky". But that works too. Lol...
This post has been removed by the author.
Nah. But in my younger years I would have kicked your cowardly Liberal ass just because you so need and deserve it. And because it would be fun to make you snivel and cry like a little girl and beg forgiveness. Maybe even make you suck… Nah, you might enjoy that!
This post has been removed by the author.
I just don’t like letting arrogant bullies that are really cowards get away with their crap. But anymore I just make you guys cry with words on this screen.
If you weren't a coward you would debate or box Shields.
This post has been removed by the author.
lets have more discussions on 'shaved balls'
Yeah. Dave's pretty much third grade. And his new tact is to accuse other of that which he is guilty.
And he is a coward. Lol...
Diano is the one who recently advocated that several of the posters on this blog should have been aborted. Not very nice and certainly intolerant. I don't believe that anyone has ever suggested that Diano be harmed, however he has no problem name calling and then yelling see see see when he gets a response. Very childish in an adult liberal sort of way.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
Sure. Dave has repeatedly made veiled threats of violence against others here just because he disagrees with their words posted on the screen before him. (He’s even called for the murder of company executives whose products he doesn’t like!) Like that’s stable! Lol…
And all the while really he’s just a cowardly and dishonest Lib big mouth who hides behind his computer.
He doesn’t do much to dispel the commonly held notion that "Libs are evil liars and cowards".
This post has been removed by the author.
Peter Puffer Diano:
I challenged you to a debate or any other challenge, including a physical challenge. That was some time ago. You declined since you are too afraid to engage in a debate because it would require that you leave the safety of your computer screen. "r" has now revived the challenge of a boxing match, which I think is pretty clever. I support that and I would do that. We could bill at "Right v. "Wrong" (as r suggested), or we could bill it Real Men v. Fags.
To be clear, I don't want to hurt you physically and I would never ask anyone to harm you physically of intellectually. I recognize the need for having people like you in our society. You remind all believers that there is evil in this world, and you do a good job of converting people that once thought like you.
You are a very shallow man, and you have bought into all that ails this world. Will I see you at Equality Forum?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
This post has been removed by the author.
My, all those cutesy words. I am distracted from the fact that Dave is nothing more than a mouthy coward. Lol…
And he threatens to tell “Daddy” on the big mean man! LMAO!... What a p...
Post a Comment
<< Home