Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS: "Step Away From The Vehicle" Applies To Police, Too. (248 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dems2004, AUBoy2007

    but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I disagree vehemently with most of Scalia's world view and how he comes down in most issues and cases, but he is not an idiot at all. He is actually one of the sharpest minds on the bench, which is why he is so damn dangerous.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    January 20, 2009... the end of an error.

    by Lestatdelc on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:28:17 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Oh come on (0+ / 0-)

      Didn't you even read this part of my comment?:

      By the way, I should point out that by "idiot" I'm obviously NOT referring to their IQs or knowledge in general.

      ----------------

      In other words, yeah I KNOW Scalia is a brilliant guy. I thought I made that perfectly clear. "Idiot" can be used in any number of ways, ya know... it doesn't necessarilly imply ANYTHING to do with intelligence. I could have just as easily used the word "scumbag", but I generally try to reserve that for the more deserving (like Bush and Cheney).

      "Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media." -- Noam Chomsky

      by ratmach on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 05:38:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, he's an utter moron (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lotlizard

      but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

      Says you:

      The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a state brought by "Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." But it's been interpreted to block suits by a state's own citizens - something it clearly does not say. How to get around the Constitution's express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that "despite the narrowness of its terms," the 11th Amendment has been understood by the court "to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms." If another judge used that rationale to find rights in the Constitution, Justice Scalia's reaction would be withering. He went on, in that 1991 decision, to throw out a suit by Indian tribes who said they had been cheated by the State of Alaska.

      Too bad, so sad.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site