Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Justice Alito sounds the air-raid sirens: "You will see there is an amendment that comes right after the First Amendment, and there's another that comes after the Ninth Amendment"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 368
    More: Scary, Alito, First Amendment, Robert Bork, Federalist Society, Roberts Court, corporate lawyers, texas senators, federalisms  
•       •       •

10197 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Nov 2012 at 8:19 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



368 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-28 08:24:45 AM  
Alito gave a very illuminating post-election speech recently to the 30th Anniversary Gala of the conservative Federalist Society.

[snip]

He quoted from Reich's bestselling "The Greening of America," in which the author painted a frightening picture of a disintegrating society and called the era a "moment of utmost sterility, darkest night, most extreme peril."

Here, Alito paused and, to the delight of a crowd dismayed by Obama's re-election, added, "So our current situation is nothing new."


I love non-partisan Supreme Court Justices.
 
2012-11-28 08:25:46 AM  
By this article's interpretation, I'm a tenther too. That doesn't mean I think that the powers of government are inherently immutable: only that there is a well-defined process for doing that, and that when one wants to change the powers of government, this process should be followed. It is more difficult than simply ignoring Constitutional limits or creatively "reinterpreting the law" to mean whatever you please, but there are very good reasons for that.
 
2012-11-28 08:26:03 AM  
This is why there's 8 other people on the Court
 
2012-11-28 08:26:10 AM  
Remember folks, it's the other guys who are activist judges.
 
2012-11-28 08:27:27 AM  
"Tenther"? Stop adding "er" to the ends of words to make them refer to groups of people!
 
2012-11-28 08:30:08 AM  
Yeah, I'm a Skarekroer!
 
2012-11-28 08:30:55 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: "Tenther"? Stop adding "er" to the ends of words to make them refer to groups of people!


"Tenth-ist", then?
 
2012-11-28 08:30:56 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: "Tenther"? Stop adding "er" to the ends of words to make them refer to groups of people!


Would you prefer us to refer to him as a "Tenthist"? Perhaps he's a "Tenthaholic"? He's wrapped up in "TenthGate"?
 
2012-11-28 08:31:31 AM  
*spikes football*
 
2012-11-28 08:32:05 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: *spikes football*


*angry fist of rage*
 
2012-11-28 08:33:11 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: "Tenther"? Stop adding "er" to the ends of words to make them refer to groups of people!


You sound like a Trekker.
 
2012-11-28 08:35:33 AM  
A philosophy is too restrictive for him, he needs the freedom to advance short term GOP agendas regardless of any thought.
 
2012-11-28 08:35:57 AM  

Millennium: Rev. Skarekroe: "Tenther"? Stop adding "er" to the ends of words to make them refer to groups of people!

You sound like a Trekker.


At least he's not a Tenthie.

Damn Tenthies.
 
2012-11-28 08:36:33 AM  
You mean Alito actually acknowledges there's a 9th amendment? It's the second most ignored amendment after the third.
 
2012-11-28 08:36:44 AM  

Cythraul: I love non-partisan Supreme Court Justices.


I dislike Alito, but why can't a judge be partisan? Supreme Court Justices are called on to judge law, not facts; by definition they're making decisions about abstract, ideological concepts as opposed to just deciding whether someone robbed someone else, or something.

It seems to me that someone who pretends to be non-partisan about things like "how do we interpret the constitution" are being intellectually dishonest.
 
2012-11-28 08:37:31 AM  

Millennium: Rev. Skarekroe: "Tenther"? Stop adding "er" to the ends of words to make them refer to groups of people!

You sound like a Trekker.


Trekist

/ducks
 
2012-11-28 08:38:31 AM  
Pffut, he'll be out of office in 30 years or so how much damage can he do
 
2012-11-28 08:38:57 AM  
There is also a Fourteenth Amendment... and don't forget Article1 Section8
 
2012-11-28 08:41:13 AM  
He was a proud member of an conservative organization at Princeton who actively and vocally opposed minorities and women being admitted into the university. Of course he's against the federal laws mandating civil rights. This is hardly a groundbreaking moment of revelation.
 
2012-11-28 08:42:02 AM  

ReluctantPaladin: Millennium: Rev. Skarekroe: "Tenther"? Stop adding "er" to the ends of words to make them refer to groups of people!

You sound like a Trekker.

Trekist

/ducks


"May the Force be with you".

/runs and hides
 
2012-11-28 08:43:42 AM  
As one who is a big fan of the 10th Amendment, I sure Alito will have no problem with states legalizing same sex marriages.
 
2012-11-28 08:43:43 AM  
Oh noes, a federalist. How evil and inhumane! Wow, what hyperbole.

How dare someone see what is happening in California and believe it is not the best model for a national level.

How dare people believe states should have some decisions in how they are governed.

How dare some people actually understand the constitution and the list of enumerated powers given to it.

How dare they understand the constitution was a granting of powers to the federal government and not a listing of rights to the states or people.

Scary boogeyman, boo!
 
2012-11-28 08:45:24 AM  

PanicMan: ReluctantPaladin: Millennium: Rev. Skarekroe: "Tenther"? Stop adding "er" to the ends of words to make them refer to groups of people!

You sound like a Trekker.

Trekist

/ducks

"May the Force be with you".

/runs and hides


Live long and may the force be with you
 
2012-11-28 08:45:28 AM  

PanicMan: "May the Force be with you".


And also with you.
 
2012-11-28 08:46:22 AM  

MyRandomName: Oh noes, a federalist. How evil and inhumane! Wow, what hyperbole.

How dare someone see what is happening in California and believe it is not the best model for a national level.

How dare people believe states should have some decisions in how they are governed.

How dare some people actually understand the constitution and the list of enumerated powers given to it.

How dare they understand the constitution was a granting of powers to the federal government and not a listing of rights to the states or people.


So you have no problem with states legalizing same sex marriage as well.
 
2012-11-28 08:47:39 AM  
A supreme court justice speaks about following the constitution. I can see why fark libs are outraged. 

www.funny2k.com
 
2012-11-28 08:48:06 AM  
So he's saying the states have the right to shoot Obama?
 
2012-11-28 08:48:09 AM  

mattharvest: Cythraul: I love non-partisan Supreme Court Justices.

I dislike Alito, but why can't a judge be partisan? Supreme Court Justices are called on to judge law, not facts; by definition they're making decisions about abstract, ideological concepts as opposed to just deciding whether someone robbed someone else, or something.

It seems to me that someone who pretends to be non-partisan about things like "how do we interpret the constitution" are being intellectually dishonest.


In theory the non-partisan judge would look at the law and say, I don't agree with the outcome here, but this is what the law means. If somebody is partisan the opposite will happen, they want a specific outcome and they don't really care what the law says, but aim to interpret however possible to support that outcome.

People can still have biases and objectively look at things if they are smart enough and honest enough to recognize their biases and set them aside. So yes, you can interpret the constitution in a non-partisan way even if you have views that lean one way or the other. It's intellectually dishonest to claim this is not possible.
 
2012-11-28 08:48:12 AM  

MyRandomName: How dare people believe states should have some decisions in how they are governed.


You should bring back the National States Rights Party. It will go great.
 
2012-11-28 08:48:17 AM  

MyRandomName: Oh noes, a federalist. How evil and inhumane! Wow, what hyperbole.

How dare someone see what is happening in California and believe it is not the best model for a national level.

How dare people believe states should have some decisions in how they are governed.

How dare some people actually understand the constitution and the list of enumerated powers given to it.

How dare they understand the constitution was a granting of powers to the federal government and not a listing of rights to the states or people.

Scary boogeyman, boo!


We tried a federalist government. It didn't work.
 
2012-11-28 08:49:54 AM  
I believe that each state does have rights to legislate where there are openings in the Constitution. Alcohol and drugs seem to be the only things that really come to mind though....lol.

However doesn't that whole states rights stuff conflict with GOP foundations? Except of course when it involves letting a super corp do whatever it wants.
 
2012-11-28 08:51:03 AM  
Muta



So you have no problem with states legalizing same sex marriage as well.


Vast majority of conservatives don't have a problem with this. States should define it. But if at the time, you lose the argument, don't run to federal court and attempt to usurp the will of the people by claiming "equal protection"
 
2012-11-28 08:51:44 AM  

mattharvest: Cythraul: I love non-partisan Supreme Court Justices.

I dislike Alito, but why can't a judge be partisan? Supreme Court Justices are called on to judge law, not facts; by definition they're making decisions about abstract, ideological concepts as opposed to just deciding whether someone robbed someone else, or something.

It seems to me that someone who pretends to be non-partisan about things like "how do we interpret the constitution" are being intellectually dishonest.


Because there's a farkload of difference between, "This is what my legal/historical/constitutional expertise tells me the constitution means" and "This is what I'm pretending the constitution means because my political party wants me to". Constitutional law should not be a game of "how can we torture this tiny scrap of language to mean what we want it to". That's the side of the law that gives lawyers the reputation of being lying, self-serving, money-grubbing scum.

I'm sorry, but plenty of recent decisions (like Bush v. Gore, for example) have nothing to do with scholarship and conscience. They diminish everything the SCOTUS is supposed to represent. I've lost a lot of respect for the Court in recent years personally. Out of everyone in government, they're the ones who are supposed to be above shiat like this.
 
2012-11-28 08:54:28 AM  
The 10th amendment is still there. We largely ignore it but it is still there. The nuts on the left pretend like it doesn't exist and then insult those who believe in it. That's how nuts things have become.
 
2012-11-28 08:54:33 AM  
ObamaThe federalists won. Get over it.
 
2012-11-28 08:55:29 AM  

mattharvest: Cythraul: I love non-partisan Supreme Court Justices.

I dislike Alito, but why can't a judge be partisan? Supreme Court Justices are called on to judge law, not facts; by definition they're making decisions about abstract, ideological concepts as opposed to just deciding whether someone robbed someone else, or something.

It seems to me that someone who pretends to be non-partisan about things like "how do we interpret the constitution" are being intellectually dishonest.


So basically, a Supreme Court Justice's job is to have a political goal in mind, and then use an interpretation of the law is a means to an end?

Is it any wonder why lawyers are so endlessly mocked and reviled in our society? The entire practice of law is nothing but a pointless intellectual circle jerk. Might as well just do away with all the Supreme Court justices, replace them with 9 old farts sitting around a booth at McDonalds drinking morning coffee and shooting the shiat, and basically accomplish the same thing.
 
2012-11-28 08:55:46 AM  

Buffalo77: Muta



So you have no problem with states legalizing same sex marriage as well.

Vast majority of conservatives don't have a problem with this. States should define it. But if at the time, you lose the argument, don't run to federal court and attempt to usurp the will of the people by claiming "equal protection"


Just like segregation.
 
2012-11-28 08:57:04 AM  

Buffalo77: Muta



So you have no problem with states legalizing same sex marriage as well.

Vast majority of conservatives don't have a problem with this. States should define it. But if at the time, you lose the argument, don't run to federal court and attempt to usurp the will of the people by claiming "equal protection"


Hahahaha, wow.
 
2012-11-28 08:57:24 AM  

Hagbardr: PanicMan: "May the Force be with you".

And also with you.


So say we all.
 
2012-11-28 08:57:49 AM  

Buffalo77: So you have no problem with states legalizing same sex marriage as well.

Vast majority of conservatives don't have a problem with this.



I don't believe you know what "vast majority" truly means.
 
2012-11-28 08:58:25 AM  

Buffalo77: Muta



So you have no problem with states legalizing same sex marriage as well.

Vast majority of conservatives don't have a problem with this. States should define it. But if at the time, you lose the argument, don't run to federal court and attempt to usurp the will of the people by claiming "equal protection"


Vast majority, eh? Sorry. Not buying that. Maybe in 15 years. Not today.

"Running to the courts" for equal protection--sounds like opponents of female suffrage of yore.
 
2012-11-28 08:58:32 AM  
One other thing that bothers me about the right, why do they think they are the only ones that own guns? I know they probably believe in their own bullshiat about limp wristed liberals that piss their pants at the sight of a gun, but seriously. All this second amendment solution stuff should be seen for what it is, a cowardly threat that if they don't get their way legally they will do it through violence.

Well guess what, the left has just as much access to the benefits of the 2nd amendment as them. Do they really imagine that the rest of the country will just roll over and let them institute their theocratic vision for America through violence?
 
2012-11-28 08:59:14 AM  

Buffalo77: Vast majority of conservatives don't have a problem with this.


Who voted for DOMA then? Crypto-liberals?
 
2012-11-28 08:59:46 AM  

Buffalo77: States should define it.


Why should the state have any more right to trample on my rights than the federal government?
 
2012-11-28 09:01:11 AM  

Buffalo77: Muta



So you have no problem with states legalizing same sex marriage as well.

Vast majority of conservatives don't have a problem with this. States should define it. But if at the time, you lose the argument, don't run to federal court and attempt to usurp the will of the people by claiming "equal protection"


So, you are stating that there are not elected conservatives pushing to make same sex marriage illegal everywhere? There are not many conservatives saying an ammendment should added to the constitution to make it illegal?

Really?
 
2012-11-28 09:01:48 AM  

Buffalo77: Muta



So you have no problem with states legalizing same sex marriage as well.

Vast majority of conservatives don't have a problem with this. States should define it. But if at the time, you lose the argument, don't run to federal court and attempt to usurp the will of the people by claiming "equal protection"


Was the 14th Amendment repealed?
 
2012-11-28 09:01:52 AM  
Everyone send him a basket of cured meat for xmas.
 
2012-11-28 09:02:33 AM  

Buffalo77: Muta --
Vast majority of conservatives don't have a problem with this. States should define it. But if at the time, you lose the argument, don't run to federal court and attempt to usurp the will of the people by claiming "equal protection"


What is wrong with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?
 
2012-11-28 09:02:54 AM  
Hey look, it's been a while since we needed to impeach a USSC justice for taking up party lines.
 
2012-11-28 09:03:12 AM  
An example of correct usage of the phrase "vast majority":

A vast majority of conservatives believe that Obama wants to take away their guns, that he committed a criminal coverup regarding Benghazi, that he has repeatedly apologized to the world for American exceptionalism, that his use of a teleprompter is evidence of his incompetence, and that he is redistributing wealth from working Americans to lazy blah people.
 
Displayed 50 of 368 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report