The talking heads and political bloviators are all talking in unison about Scalia. But that doesn't mean what they're saying makes any sense.

I've been flipping between the channels this morning and every channel has them all saying this...


"I never agreed with him about anything but I so admired his thoughts and his brilliance"

My question is,  how could they see him as being so brilliant when they never agreed with him about anything?  
Wouldn't that be about like saying this...

"I never liked to listen to anything Elvis ever sang but I so admired his brilliant singing ability"  lol

You just can't make this shit up.

He largely followed the constitution and respected it's limits. Leftists prefer judicial activistism and interpretation.

What they deserve and where we are headed under their delusion is to be dominated by the whims of autocrats.

PkrBum wrote:He largely followed the constitution and respected it's limits. Leftists prefer judicial activistism and interpretation.

What they deserve and where we are headed under their delusion is to be dominated by the whims of autocrats.

Are you really going to sit there and say that Bush v. Gore or Citizens United v FEC weren't judicial activism?

Yes, of course...Democrats just LOVE autocrats...

Who's delusional?

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:He largely followed the constitution and respected it's limits. Leftists prefer judicial activistism and interpretation.

What they deserve and where we are headed under their delusion is to be dominated by the whims of autocrats.

Are you really going to sit there and say that Bush v. Gore or Citizens United v FEC weren't judicial activism?

Yes, of course...Democrats just LOVE autocrats...

Who's delusional?

Gore lost... get over it. Citizens untied simply said that people are free to pool their money or spend it as they like.

The leftist judicial activism basically calls for legislating from the bench and creating laws to rule over innocent citizens.

Fricking commies.

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:He largely followed the constitution and respected it's limits. Leftists prefer judicial activistism and interpretation.

What they deserve and where we are headed under their delusion is to be dominated by the whims of autocrats.

Are you really going to sit there and say that Bush v. Gore or Citizens United v FEC weren't judicial activism?  

Yes, of course...Democrats just LOVE autocrats...

Who's delusional?

Gore lost... get over it. Citizens untied simply said that people are free to pool their money or spend it as they like.

The leftist judicial activism basically calls for legislating from the bench and creating laws to rule over innocent citizens.

Fricking commies.

******************************

Gore lost... get over it.

Pretty bold statement but does accurately describe Scalia's retort. Truth is we will never know who really won and it was judicial arrogance to halt the counting of ballots in such an important election . . . . . . talk about judicial over reach! Historic . . .

It is an illusion if anybody thinks Scalia did not legislate from the bench. All judges to some degree on some issues. I felt his criticism of Roberts on the Affordable Care Act was contrary to his philosophy both written and his prior statements. He contradicted his own writings about the plenary powers of Congress in regard to taxation. However, I agreed with his precision and consistency on protecting the fourth Amendment rights. I can respect a brilliant man who I mostly disagree. I respected Scalia. There is nothing contradictory in the same.

knothead wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:He largely followed the constitution and respected it's limits. Leftists prefer judicial activistism and interpretation.

What they deserve and where we are headed under their delusion is to be dominated by the whims of autocrats.

Are you really going to sit there and say that Bush v. Gore or Citizens United v FEC weren't judicial activism?  

Yes, of course...Democrats just LOVE autocrats...

Who's delusional?

Gore lost... get over it. Citizens untied simply said that people are free to pool their money or spend it as they like.

The leftist judicial activism basically calls for legislating from the bench and creating laws to rule over innocent citizens.

Fricking commies.

******************************

Gore lost... get over it.

Pretty bold statement but does accurately describe Scalia's retort.  Truth is we will never know who really won and it was judicial arrogance to halt the counting of ballots in such an important election . . . . . . talk about judicial over reach! Historic . . .  

NOT TRUE...AGAIN! Why is it that Progressives are so accomplished in ignoring facts so readily available...if only they WANTED to know the FACTS.

USA Today
5/15/2001

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

Perhaps you could enlighten yourself by not limiting your sources to CNN, MSNBC, The Nation, the DailyKOS or the like.

Bob wrote:I've been flipping between the channels this morning and every channel has them all saying this...


"I never agreed with him about anything but I so admired his thoughts and his brilliance"

My question is, how could they see him as being so brilliant when they never agreed with him about anything?
Wouldn't that be about like saying this...

"I never liked to listen to anything Elvis ever sang but I so admired his brilliant singing ability" lol

You just can't make this shit up.

I'm sorry that concept is over your head. Surely you are being facetious are you not?