Skip to main content

View Diary: Ken Cuccinelli says crazy conservative Justice Scalia isn't conservative enough (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think he has a point... (9+ / 0-)

    As I understand it, from the 1930s onward the Supreme Court actually read the "well-regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment. Until Scalia decided to read a penumbra of self defense in the words "well-regulated milita", including deciding that trigger locks were unconstitutional because Scalia, himself, is too blind to operate them without his glasses (makes one wonder what Scalia expects to shoot at if he can't see).

    Just as with his losing argument on health care reform, where he decided his own precedents didn't mean squat.

    •  Apparently that penumbra covered up the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Australian2

      well-regulated part too, since it now means any jackass who say he feels threatened can stand his ground against an unarmed teenager and blow him away just for looking different.

      Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

      by tekno2600 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 06:52:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Emanating Penumbras... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tekno2600, tofumagoo, madgranny

        Scalia is too blind to operate a trigger lock, and therefore DC cannot require trigger locks. So...in what sense can Scalia be a member of a well-regulated militia, do such militias now seek out blind members? Is this the same sort of "well-regulated" that led Cheney to shoot his hunting partner in the face because he shot upward at birds whose wings had been clipped so they couldn't fly anyway?

        ("penumbra" was a joke at the right-wing objection to Roe v Wade...)

        •  Yes, but at least with Roe a right to privacy (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LeftCoastTom, cybersaur, madgranny

          could be reasonably inferred. In Scaly Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, he simply ignores the first and controlling part of the phrase and makes a decision that contradicts vast numbers of precedents.

          Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

          by tekno2600 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:27:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Substantive Due Process (0+ / 0-)

            Other decisions inferred the right to privacy from a substantive due process interpretation of the 14th amendment, which makes more sense to me. But even ignoring that, I think its fun to throw R/W bullshit back at the right-wing.

            Hunter's riff on Scalia just phoning it in made a lot of sense to me.

          •  What about "prefatory" and "operative" don't ... (0+ / 0-)

            ... you understand? Words mean what Tony Scalia says they mean.

            The divination of "original intent" is given to Justices like Scalia and Thomas and removed from others.

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:37:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Or Bush v Gore, where it was stated that (6+ / 0-)

      it shouldn't be used as precedent.

      Does anyone know what his statement was referring to? What is the context? Or better, does it even make sense if you know the context?

      •  Made no sense to me (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HappyinNM, BachFan, irishwitch, pademocrat

        I'm not a lawyer, but I did read that insanity - I'd love to have those minutes of my life back. It made no more sense to me than it does to you. In fact, a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit decided they would cite it as precedent in ruling that the CA Governor recall attempt of Gray Davis was unconstitutional. I really wish the full circuit had let that go through just to make Scalia respond, but sadly they decided to be adults. :-(

      •  I think the Cooch is... (11+ / 0-)

        complaining, generally, about stare decisis and saying he wants justices like Clarence Thomas not like Antonin Scalia. Scalia claims to show deference to long-standing legal interpretation even when he thinks the interpretation wrong.

        Thomas, however, thinks judges should move aggressively and without deference to overturn decisions he feels were wrongly decided.

        Of course, they're both hypocrites who lack core principles and are willing to throw their supposed "beliefs" in the garbage the moment it interferes with their rightwing agenda.

        States' rights is a prime example. When a state is doing something conservative, they support it. When a state is doing something liberal, they attack. Consider gay marriage, pot legalization, voting rights act compliance, Bush v. Gore, etc...

    •  Listen, gun violence is the foundation (0+ / 0-)

      of democracy, don' cha know!

      The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

      by helfenburg on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 03:25:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site