A democrat appointed SCOTUS Justice = goodye constitution

[Skip Reming]

With the death of Scalia, it is very scary that we could lose our freedoms as listed in the constitution.
As far as SCOTUS goes, left judges vote left and conservative vote FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

Basically Scalia was already the tie breaker so that hate speech could not be deemed illegal. So basically any criticism about how the teachings of islam could lead to terrorism could be ILLEGAL!
Also, as far as upholding the 2nd amendment. If we had another left justice states could take away your right to bear arms.

Scalia believed that the constitution meant what it meant what is was written. This makes sense. This is the conservative view.
The liberal view (which has 4 votes) says the constitution actually means not what it meant when it was written, but what it means now. This means that the justices can apply their OWN morality to the text of the constitution.
Do you want this?

One of the great things about our country is the constitution and how it protects us. The left/dems/libs will take this away if the get one more justice. Period. It will be 5-4 left ON EVERY VOTE. They will legislate from the bench.

It isn't oh a justice is going to vote republican or democrat. Is is that a republican nominated justice will vote for the CONSTITUTION and that a democrat nominated justice will vote for how he interprets the constitution based on his morality and current times.

This is not "who will fuck up the country less" because there are no great candidates for president this election cycle, lets be honest. But a dem win = your Constitution is at jeopardy

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...reme-court-should-interpret-the-constitution/
pew research basically saying dem interpret Constitution as it means now
and conservative votes for the original meaning when the constitution was written, which IMO makes more sense


beginning of this video shapiro breaking down what Scalia's death means.

 

[Gutter Chris]

Your whole post is scare tactic loaded horse shit fyi.

 

[VivaRevolution]

LOL, Scalia voted to strike down a 100 year old Montana State campaign finance laws, because you know State Rights.

1 of 2 things is true about Scalia, he was either bought and paid for when he allowed unlimited money into our elections, and signed onto a ruling that said this will not create more corruption, or he is dumb as rocks and actually believed it.

CITIZENS UNITED = TREASON!!

 

[kpt018]

So liberal positions are inherently unconstitutional? SMH, you can't make this stuff up.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The simple fact of the matter is, it was a conservative supreme court that is responsible for the most damaging decision in modern times in Citizens Untied.

Abortion, guns, gay marriage, none of it matters compared to legalized corruption.

 

[Handsomebwonderfull]

With the death of Scalia, it is very scary that we could lose our freedoms as listed in the constitution.
As far as SCOTUS goes, left judges vote left and conservative vote FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

Basically Scalia was already the tie breaker so that hate speech could not be deemed illegal. So basically any criticism about how the teachings of islam could lead to terrorism could be ILLEGAL!
Also, as far as upholding the 2nd amendment. If we had another left justice states could take away your right to bear arms.

Scalia believed that the constitution meant what it meant what is was written. This makes sense. This is the conservative view.
The liberal view (which has 4 votes) says the constitution actually means not what it meant when it was written, but what it means now. This means that the justices can apply their OWN morality to the text of the constitution.
Do you want this?

One of the great things about our country is the constitution and how it protects us. The left/dems/libs will take this away if the get one more justice. Period. It will be 5-4 left ON EVERY VOTE. They will legislate from the bench.

It isn't oh a justice is going to vote republican or democrat. Is is that a republican nominated justice will vote for the CONSTITUTION and that a democrat nominated justice will vote for how he interprets the constitution based on his morality and current times.

This is not "who will fuck up the country less" because there are no great candidates for president this election cycle, lets be honest. But a dem win = your Constitution is at jeopardy

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...reme-court-should-interpret-the-constitution/
pew research basically saying dem interpret Constitution as it means now
and conservative votes for the original meaning when the constitution was written, which IMO makes more sense


beginning of this video shapiro breaking down what Scalia's death means.

F*ck Scalia. He was a horrible human being. Death doesn't clear up what he did in life.

 

[Fawlty]

5 Conservative Justices = The sacred constitution is upheld and America is amazing
5 Liberal Justices = The constitution's ink shall run from its pages with the urine of the communists

That sound about right? I want to be fair to the OP since I'm not going to read it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, the framers of the Constitution were very clear that only Republicans should have input on the SCOTUS. They intended for Republicans to take power by any means necessary if the voters got it wrong.

 

[sloppypie]

the only reason republicans sound like this is b/c they think the two lesbians having abortions next door to them infringes their religion.

and by infringe, i mean they are upset they've lost their religious oppression stranglehold on once vulnerable people. it's why they come up with shit like "gay mafia" and "left wing agenda." noone is out to get you - people are just tired of living under the thumb of republican bullshit. and it's why the party suffers now and is becoming less and less socially relevant.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Scalia believed that the constitution meant what it meant what is was written.sense

And only Scalia knew exactly what they meant .

 

[Skip Reming]

And only Scalia knew exactly what they meant .

Scalia believed that the constitution meant what it meant when it was written, not what it means under liberal ideology.
Again, it is dems = justice pushing AN IDEOLOGY which is scary
republs = justice pushing orignal meaning of constitution
How is this even up for debate???

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.
- alexander hamilton

But the judges under this constitution will controul the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress; they are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment...There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.
- Robert Yates

Scalia in action for 1st and 2nd ammendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Decision
The Supreme Court held:[43]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[44]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
In a 1990 First Amendment case, R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Scalia wrote the Court's opinion striking down a St. Paul, Minnesota, hate speech ordinance in a prosecution for burning a cross.[99] Scalia noted, "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire."[100]

^ notice how these are 5-4s???

again, it is Constitution vs my interpretation of the constitution under my own morality.

 

[Ruprecht]

Scalia believed that the constitution meant what it meant what is was written. This makes sense.

Cracked me up with this line...

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Ts you miss my point entirely, anything written has to be interpreted, especially something written over 200 years ago , two people can read the same thing and take away different things .

 

[sloppypie]

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature

if you really think this is what they do, then you are too stupid for rehabilitation. just lock the door and don't ever leave the house.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Scalia believed that the constitution meant what it meant when it was written

Amusingly the founders themselves disagreed on what the constitution "meant" and they wrote the damn thing. Good thing a fervent catholic 230 years later was able to clear it up for them.

Also, many (most?) first amendment cases are unanimous or nearly so. Notably, Scalia openly opposed freedom of the press protections afforded under an earlier major SC case (NYT v Sullivan 1964).

 

[K1levelgrappler]

What an absolute infant you have to be to believe that republican/conservative = constitutional.

 

[electricfuneral]

came here expecting to see skip frothing at the mouth. Was not disappoint.

 

[Rhood]

Scalia = Stalin 2.0
If he wasn't born in America, he'd be a phony hack. Oh wait..

 

[Rod1]

Scalia voted against Hobby Lobby?

 

[UpaLoompa]

Scalia voted against Hobby Lobby?

He voted with the majority.