Scalia's objectivity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 11:22 AM
Scalia's objectivity
In this Huffington Post article, Scalia outlines his dissent and this comment pretty much sums it up.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 11:39 AM
RE: Scalia's objectivity
(26-06-2015 11:22 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  In this Huffington Post article, Scalia outlines his dissent and this comment pretty much sums it up.

The moron doesn't even understand how our democratic system works if he thinks the Supreme Court's decisions somehow trump a democracy. If the people don't like the ruling, then they elect people who make an amendment to the constitution that makes it explicitly illegal in the constitution.

What. A. Dumbass.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
26-06-2015, 11:41 AM
RE: Scalia's objectivity
(26-06-2015 11:22 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  In this Huffington Post article, Scalia outlines his dissent and this comment pretty much sums it up.

He is a truly disgusting individual. The day he leaves the bench will be a great day for the US.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
26-06-2015, 12:24 PM
RE: Scalia's objectivity
Wow, I've seen some truly dickish Opinions from Scalia... but this one is... insane. I mean, actually insane!

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me," Scalia offers. "It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

Not the choice of capital R in Ruler. This makes plain that in his opinion... er, Opinion, the Supreme Court has supplanted God (apparently for all 320 million Americans, who in Scalia's mind are/were all Christians, it would seem), and this makes his entire Opinion a rant about the loss of Christianity's fairytale Deity's ability to control yet another liberty of American citizens. He even whines about the idea that we think we have a liberty interest in intimacy, which he also whined about over a decade ago when Lawrence v. Texas decided that we DO have a Liberty Interest in sexual privacy (what we like to call intimacy), even in homosexual relationships.

In other words, Scalia is a religious lunatic, and this has finally outed him in unequivocal terms. He has previously (minority Dissent) opined that the "establishment of religion" restriction in the Constitution did not refer to a right to be an atheist, but that his Strict Constructionalist ideas meant it was about not favoring one Christian denomination over another. Seriously. So we already knew. But I think it's time to press for calls to "forced-retire"/remove this cranky old jackass from the bench. He may have finally stepped over a line.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-06-2015, 12:26 PM
RE: Scalia's objectivity
(26-06-2015 11:22 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  In this Huffington Post article, Scalia outlines his dissent and this comment pretty much sums it up.

I read this, and all I can hear is:

[Image: wambulance.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 02:40 PM
RE: Scalia's objectivity
Here's part of a Scalia interview from 2013. This guy is a delusional Christian supremacist and he is on the US Supreme Court!!!!!


SCALIA: I even believe in the Devil.

NY MAGAZINE: You do?

SCALIA: Of course! Yeah, he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that.

NY MAGAZINE: Every Catholic believes this? There’s a wide variety of Catholics out there …

SCALIA: If you are faithful to Catholic dogma, that is certainly a large part of it.

NY MAGAZINE: Have you seen evidence of the Devil lately?

SCALIA: You know, it is curious. In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He’s making pigs run off cliffs, he’s possessing people and whatnot. And that doesn’t happen very much anymore.

NY MAGAZINE: No.

SCALIA: It’s because he’s smart.

NY MAGAZINE: So what’s he doing now?

SCALIA: What he’s doing now is getting people not to believe in him or in God. He’s much more successful that way.

NY MAGAZINE: That has really painful implications for atheists. Are you sure that’s the ­Devil’s work?

SCALIA: I didn’t say atheists are the Devil’s work.

NY MAGAZINE: Well, you’re saying the Devil is ­persuading people to not believe in God. Couldn’t there be other reasons to not believe?

SCALIA: Well, there certainly can be other reasons. But it certainly favors the Devil’s desires. I mean, c’mon, that’s the explanation for why there’s not demonic possession all over the place. That always puzzled me. What happened to the Devil, you know? He used to be all over the place. He used to be all over the New Testament.

NY MAGAZINE: Right.

SCALIA: What happened to him?

NY MAGAZINE: He just got wilier.

SCALIA: He got wilier.

That exchange concluded with an apparently unhinged Scalia going off on the reporter.

"You’re looking at me as though I’m weird," the now 79-year old Roman Catholic conservative jurist cried. "My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the Devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the Devil! It’s in the Gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil! Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 02:52 PM
RE: Scalia's objectivity
I find Roberts' opinion rather shocking. He seems to think that states have the right to regulate marriage. I want to corner him, and ask him if HIS right to marry his wife came from his state.

Undoubtedly, he will say it comes from his (Catholic) god, and that straight people have an inalienable right to get married.

Idiot can't even think through his own idiotic positions.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-06-2015, 03:41 PM
RE: Scalia's objectivity
(26-06-2015 12:24 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Wow, I've seen some truly dickish Opinions from Scalia... but this one is... insane. I mean, actually insane!

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me," Scalia offers. "It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

Not the choice of capital R in Ruler. This makes plain that in his opinion... er, Opinion, the Supreme Court has supplanted God (apparently for all 320 million Americans, who in Scalia's mind are/were all Christians, it would seem), and this makes his entire Opinion a rant about the loss of Christianity's fairytale Deity's ability to control yet another liberty of American citizens. He even whines about the idea that we think we have a liberty interest in intimacy, which he also whined about over a decade ago when Lawrence v. Texas decided that we DO have a Liberty Interest in sexual privacy (what we like to call intimacy), even in homosexual relationships.

In other words, Scalia is a religious lunatic, and this has finally outed him in unequivocal terms. He has previously (minority Dissent) opined that the "establishment of religion" restriction in the Constitution did not refer to a right to be an atheist, but that his Strict Constructionalist ideas meant it was about not favoring one Christian denomination over another. Seriously. So we already knew. But I think it's time to press for calls to "forced-retire"/remove this cranky old jackass from the bench. He may have finally stepped over a line.

I know. That quote was awful. He would legislate from the bench if he could.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 04:11 PM
RE: Scalia's objectivity
As wacko as Scalia seems to sound at times, he's still not even the most delusional of the bunch to me. It seems Clarence Thomas is firmly in that group who in his comments doesn't want to accept that his court even holds any sway over anything. It's like he thinks the power of the Bill of Rights is the end of the line for amendments and the rest aren't really valid to be taken into account nor the decisions he and his court has made over the centuries.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: Scalia's objectivity
(26-06-2015 02:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I find Roberts' opinion rather shocking. He seems to think that states have the right to regulate marriage. I want to corner him, and ask him if HIS right to marry his wife came from his state.

To be fair, if you accept that the State has a right to regulate marriage at all, then there's an argument to be made that federalism leaves that right entirely to the states. The states issue the licenses, not the feds, and therefore (in his mind) they could decide to whom to issue them, and to whom they should not. That's part of why the age at which one may get married varies, state to state. For instance, you can still get married at 15 in my home state of Louisiana, with parental signature and permission. Not so in other states.

That's why this case was so important, in recognizing that the 90s-00s trend of ignoring federal oversight of the tendency of states to restrict the rights of unfavored minorities that are freely disbursed to the favored majority, despite the (ever-weaker) 14th amendment originally passed to stop exactly that sort of thing, needed to be soundly reversed. It's why I compared it to the Lawrence case, another that went against the tide of allowing states to do to their citizens as they please while the feds sat idly by.

Atheists, even those who have no interest in the politics of gay rights ordinarily, should be heavily aligned with their Civil Rights battle, because there is much crossover into the religious rights of minority groups against the Christian majority. The principles are the same between sexual and religious/secular privacy, in the end, even though they are different parts of the First amendment.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: