Amen. Scalia speaks like a man wielding power not a Supreme Court justice.

+mike spence Are you suggesting that a child can not confront a parent with a reasonable and pervasive argument given the context of the circumstances? You are saying that someone of Scalia's resume can not be inexact or disillusioned with his subjective interpretation of laws and the constitution? That's called arrogance and it was the eventual trait that consumed this man and gave him peace of mind in his final moment of existence.

+Trent Timoy Most great philosophers, writers, and lawyers would argue that you have ineffective communication skills. When developing an argument, you should be more direct and avoid using extravagant words. Regardless of your feelings towards the man, it is undeniable that Scalia had an adept understanding of law and the constitution. He simply explains originalism, and that his personal beliefs should not effect how he interoperates the constitution as it was originated.

+Ed Molloy Reasonable and pervasive are extravagant words? Have you tried rehab to give up your crack addiction? That might explain all of the extravagant attitude in your inept and highly toxic response.

+Trent Timoy I just stated that you present a weak argument. You responded by saying that I have a crack addiction. So it is safe for me to assume that we are in agreement?

Ed Molloy In agreement that you are pervasively and reasonably moronic? By all means.

you have a bad understanding of the the constitution.

i would attempt to do so, but i am under the impression that for you there would be no amount of logic or reason that you would consider a sufficient explanation. in other words, if you dont get it, i dont think you ever will.

***** yup. fucking pwnt.

Same sex marriage is settled law now. Get over it.

Last time I checked, the 14th amendment guaranteed that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the law. In this case, Ohio denied same sex couples equal protection in the right of marriage, and failed to provide a legitimate reason to do so.

+ubermensch826 yeah he read the NYT and new yorker lol

+Alex woods He burns in hell, as we speak-

Martin Pescador Fuck You

"Martin Pescador Fuck You" Typical 'right'-wing wisdom.

@@martinpescador5642 Why? For doing his job the way it was intended to be done??

@@davegreene8588 =💩

Seems to me that no genius would regard the death penalty as constitutional.

+Justin Hopkins You seem to have good intentions and I also dislike the death penalty. But this is a democracy and we can only change this if we get together and amend constitution to end the death penalty. Ultimately this law is a state issue. God bless.

+Brandon Petruska He was one of the smartest people in politics, but he did not always act honestly. A lot of his views were contradictory.

***** Republican see it as different to fit there belief you have that backward. This country was not based on religion found farther were not Christian for most part. They were wise to see the conflict established religion causes. NRA twist constitution there as well. They take gun rights out of context with slavery when it was written in period and context of slave patrols. A agreement between north and south civil war.

Brandon Petruska lol then SOME? There’s plenty others that share his views, I’m one of them.

+Kati Braun It's a shame that he was likely murdered by the New World Order. But all of humanity is awaking to their plans and good will overcome evil, once again.

+2Truth4Liberty He was murdered by Monsanto, Huston Steak House, Ben and Jerry, The Blue Bonnet Girl, C&H Sugar, Libby, Budweiser, and Philip Morris.

***** Clever and appreciated.

***** We're good

Mark Marsh IKR. He was a bigot who leveraged any hope of a future where Washington would be - for the people and by the people. He took a legislation of sluts and turned them into crack whores doing anything for money.

Exactly.

+Carson Zickefoose Are you being sarcastic?

Fuck Him, he’s a tool. Glad he’s gone, and back where he belongs. (Piers)

+lekoman "I haven't been charged with making the Constitution come out right every time." What that means is that it is up to We The People to amend flaws in the constitution. And it is exactly what you want your judges to say rather than take things into their own hands. They are given a job (whether they like the outcomes or not). An when the uphold their oath in that way, they are to be commended.

lol

+darkpill Wtf? get your dome checked bro

+darkpill Good goddamned riddance..!!!

Feel good inside to hate someone you know nothing about?

jim Hol I know he was a racist and a bigot. He's catholic too - so not the brightest lightbulb ...

Spoken like a true christian :D

Not all torture is enticing a preconceived confession. If you think about it you can use it to get missing pieces that no one else would know. And if they don't know, they really don't know. I believe there would be proper techniques to this that would save lives and be of the greater good.

_Love him or hate him, Scalia knew that he wasn't a king and didn't treat his role in interpreting the Constitution like he was such. If only the same could be said about most of these liberal justices._ Oh, it CAN and needs to be said about 'all of these liberal justices' - but not by you, evidently.

bigoz145 Justice Scalia is often referred to as an "intellectual giant ".

You're most definitely correct. As baffling as it is, I'm seeing many people hailing Scalia as a genius. I'm not aware any person fitting the description of genius advocating for inequality. I have to question the character of those in agreement with this man. Also, I agree with your "live and let live" statement. The foundation of the worlds issues resides in viewing different groups as lesser than oneself. This causes tremendous division. Religion is one of its biggest contributors. I'll never know why people find it so difficult to get along, as it's much easier than being divisive, and in general nasty. Though, it can be said that the idiots of the world have always had the loudest voice.

David K no. It was amended... so the constitution he read always had the 13th amendment in it

***** That went over your head, I think.

MWSloat Care to elaborate?

***** said "Yeah...you don't see it. That's why HE's the supreme court justice. ------------------------------ “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State … .” Scalia said that it was implausible that this right is militia related (which it OBVIOUSLY is) because the militia is mentioned elswhere in the same constitution. You tell me how any of the following makes it implausible that the right above is militia related. I mean, isn't the purpose of a state militia to defend the state? XIV. That the Senate and House of Commons shall have power to appoint the generals and field-officers of the militia, and all officers of the regular army of this State. XVIII. The Governor. for the time being, shall be captain-general and commander in chief of the militia; and, in the recess of the General Assembly, shall have power, by and with the advice of the Council of State, to embody the militia for the public safety. XXXV. That no person in the State shall holtl mole than one lucrative office, at any one time: -- Provided, That no appointment in the militia, or the office of a Justice of the Peace, shall be considered as a lucrative office.

Guns were a fact of everyday life for many people. The idea that people back then only owned guns for a militia back then is ridiculous, but the other reasons they owned guns had nothing to do with the constitution, so it wasn't mentioned. Therefore, the idea that the founders would have only allowed people to own guns for a militia purpose is ridiculous. It kind of reminds me of the argument we hear from the religious right when they say people shouldn't really expect a separation of church and state because that wasn't actually in the constitution, it was based on a personal letter to Danbury Baptists. And Scalia already said he wasn't a strict constructionist.

sam little said: "Guns were a fact of everyday life for many people. The idea that people back then only owned guns for a militia back then is ridiculous,.." --------------------------------------- True. But the fact that some people owned guns for private purposes at the time isn't evidence for the purpose of the Second Amendment. But let's stick to the point of Scalia & Co distorting this militia provision from North Carolina. From Heller: "North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State … .”... This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia-but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly." But the references to the militia elsewhere in the same constitution DON'T make it implausible that this provision is a militia provision. XIV. That the Senate and House of Commons shall have power to appoint the generals and field-officers of the militia,... Which militia if not the one in the arms bearing provision? So it isn't just "plausible," it's OBVIOUS that this provision is about rendering military service in the state militia for the security of the state. It's actually evidence for the REAL meaning of "bear arms" because it's clearly a militia provision even though it doesn't contain the word "militia."

+jimmi izzy There is a Supremacy Clause, and an Equal Protection Clause, and penumbral rights contained in the Bill of Rights, and the Due Process Clause (which contains both procedural and substantive rights that Scalia recognized). All of these would prevent what you're describing. Also, he was not a "judge." Torture is not "punishment" according to the Eighth Amendment. That is all he was saying. No need to read anything else into his words. Scalia was perhaps the most ardent defender of one's right to a fair trial and right to be free from arbitrary government action. I suggest you read his opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld again (or once, at least) before you mischaracterize his views like this.

jimmi izzy well, its torture, not torture as punishment given by the courts. During the wars of 1812, british prisoners were tortured as to extract information from them.