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.

(Yahoo)   Scalia says the Supreme Court should not be in the business of "inventing new minorities". Dammit, and I was so looking forward to them releasing the long-rumored Blasian, Caucexican and Hinjew models   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Justice Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court, new class, Bozeman, minorities  
•       •       •

1481 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Aug 2013 at 11:28 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-08-20 10:09:12 AM  
Reported for callin' out a Farker in the headline.
 
2013-08-20 10:12:53 AM  
You know what's quickly becoming a minority? Old white conservative men.

/I mean, if you can even call Italians "White".
 
2013-08-20 10:16:21 AM  
Scalia needs to read the Fourth Amendment, because it appears he is completely unfamiliar with its content.
 
2013-08-20 10:16:24 AM  
Changes to the Constitution were made to protect minorities and to give women the right to vote, but that's not how the court operates today, he said.

You don't farking say! The court not protecting minorities and  voting rights is kind of one of the reasons people will cheer when you leave the bench.
 
2013-08-20 10:17:20 AM  
*juvenile snicker at "Hinjew"*
 
2013-08-20 10:22:49 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: You know what's quickly becoming a minority? Old white conservative men.

/I mean, if you can even call Italians "White".


that Depends, are they Scicilian?
www.gmanreviews.com
 
2013-08-20 10:41:00 AM  
Is Jedi a protected class now?
 
2013-08-20 10:43:03 AM  
Hinjew?

How long were you sitting on that one  subby?
 
2013-08-20 10:44:26 AM  
Funny that he throws out the "special protections" argument in reference to gay marriage.  It seems like gay couples were granted "normal protection" enjoyed by other citizens in that decision.  That decision works to remove them from a detached minority into the mainstream.
 
2013-08-20 10:53:08 AM  
Just for clarification, Justice Scalia, they do not want "special" protections, they want equal protections under the law that doesn't discriminate by sexual orientation.

also "Of all the three branches, we are the one that knows the least about the nature of the threats to the country, and we have the least ability to find out about it," Scalia said. "Except when it comes to minorities voting, then we totally know better than the unanimous vote of the Senate, and 90% of the House."
 
2013-08-20 10:53:52 AM  
Was that... was that a Coach Bigot reference? If so, kudos to subby.
 
2013-08-20 10:57:51 AM  
Should we be making more of them?
 
2013-08-20 10:59:33 AM  
Well I guess its a good thing they've been people all along then.
 
2013-08-20 11:05:36 AM  

nmrsnr: Just for clarification, Justice Scalia, they do not want "special" protections, they want equal protections under the law that doesn't discriminate by sexual orientation.

also "Of all the three branches, we are the one that knows the least about the nature of the threats to the country, and we have the least ability to find out about it," Scalia said. "Except when it comes to minorities voting, then we totally know better than the unanimous vote of the Senate, and 90% of the House."


Not to mention that if he thinks that the Court is the least-informed branch, then there's a simple way to alleviate that.  When someone comes before them asking for a ruling then just ask whatever questions you need to ask to make an informed ruling.  Start by shoving a crowbar in Thomas's mouth and actually get him to participate.

Seriously though, can someone give me a date as to when conservatives started being proud of their ignorance?
 
2013-08-20 11:09:33 AM  

nmrsnr: Just for clarification, Justice Scalia, they do not want "special" protections, they want equal protections under the law that doesn't discriminate by sexual orientation.


THIS
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-20 11:14:32 AM  

Karac: Seriously though, can someone give me a date as to when conservatives started being proud of their ignorance?


Right about the time that Southern Democrats became "conservatives".
 
2013-08-20 11:21:03 AM  
You know, when you stop creating exclusions for people, when instead you include them, it makes them part of the majority.  It's by saying, "Your group falls under law X and yours under Y that you 'create minorities'."  This guy should teach a master's class in trolling.
 
2013-08-20 11:30:10 AM  
So minorities should only have rights if the majority think they should, eh.
 
2013-08-20 11:30:26 AM  
Gay people are a new minority?
 
2013-08-20 11:32:16 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: You know what's quickly becoming a minority? Old white conservative men.

/I mean, if you can even call Italians "White".


With their greasy hair and North African intermarriage? Hardly.

Anglo-Saxon is the only true white. Everyone else is Huns and Tartars.
 
2013-08-20 11:32:35 AM  
"It's not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections,"

How come these nitwits can never seem to articulate what these 'special protections' are?
 
2013-08-20 11:32:38 AM  
He then went on to state the complete opposite, because precedent doesn't matter.
 
2013-08-20 11:35:41 AM  

I for one was looking forward to worshiping with my fellow Hinjews

www.satirewire.com
Milk and meat at the same time?, That's just meshugina talk.

 
2013-08-20 11:35:57 AM  
 
2013-08-20 11:37:10 AM  
Cracking up... I have a Jewish friend who was born in Mumbai (Bene Israel family), and I've never heard 'Hinjew'. Although I'm betting he has, now that I think about it.
 
2013-08-20 11:38:06 AM  
He concluded his speech with, "Now Russia... Those guys... If only... (swooning sigh)"
 
2013-08-20 11:38:25 AM  
I agree with Scalia.  So does the US Constitution.

Every American citizen is an American... and that should be enough.
 
2013-08-20 11:40:39 AM  
Troll Scalia is projecting again?
 
2013-08-20 11:41:03 AM  

nmrsnr: Just for clarification, Justice Scalia, they do not want "special" protections, they want equal protections under the law that doesn't discriminate by sexual orientation.


Well, i think he means the special levels of scrutiny given to cases alleging unequal treatment under the law for particular groups.  Not that i disagree with the point of your statement, mind you.
 
2013-08-20 11:41:26 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: I agree with Scalia.  So does the US Constitution.

Every American citizen is an American... and that should be enough.


alphabet soup/poop/better argument
 
2013-08-20 11:41:29 AM  

Karac: When someone comes before them asking for a ruling then just ask whatever questions you need to ask to make an informed ruling.


Scalia showed during the Prop 8 case that he is perfectly capable of being given information and either ignoring it or lying about it later. He doesn't seek out facts to decide his opinion, he uses his opinion to decide the facts.
 
2013-08-20 11:42:17 AM  

Rev.K: How long were you sitting on that one subby?


Since he saw it on Chuck?

static.tvfanatic.com
 
2013-08-20 11:42:37 AM  
He's sort of right, but not in the way he meant it.  Part of SCOTUS's job is to make sure that if such new minorities are indeed created (although they're more likely to be imported into the US) they still keep their basic civil rights intact.
 
2013-08-20 11:43:17 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: You know what's quickly becoming a minority? Old white conservative men.

/I mean, if you can even call Italians "White".



See, that's just what you 'thought' (and hoped for).  But liberals have shot them selves in the foot by inventing the new race, white-Hispanic.  Their numbers are legion and they are 2nd Amendment supporters.

So that makes you wrong.
 
2013-08-20 11:43:49 AM  
I can't wait for this judicial robe-garbed troll f*ck to retire.
 
2013-08-20 11:43:49 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: I agree with Scalia.  So does the US Constitution.

Every American citizen is an American... and that should be enough.


But it's demonstrably NOT enough.

Did you read the article? Scalia is basically saying "I don't feel that the Supreme Court should extend rights to Americans that have been unconstitutionally denied their rights, because that might make them feel special"
 
2013-08-20 11:43:59 AM  

nmrsnr: Just for clarification, Justice Scalia, they do not want "special" protections, they want equal protections under the law that doesn't discriminate by sexual orientation.

also "Of all the three branches, we are the one that knows the least about the nature of the threats to the country, and we have the least ability to find out about it," Scalia said. "Except when it comes to minorities voting, then we totally know better than the unanimous vote of the Senate, and 90% of the House."


In conservative mythology, acknowledging the rights of minorities means that the rich elites LOSE freedoms and protections. To many conservatives, freedom and protections are finite...you can't give something to a minority without taking it away from someone else. It's a zero sum game.

I didn't say they were sane or logical, just that's how conservatives view civil rights and protections.
 
2013-08-20 11:45:32 AM  
While I don't disagree with the general idea that the court should leave expansions of existing law mostly to the states and congress in the absence of a compelling equal protection argument, I'd have to point out that:

1. Such an argument has, by most people's standards, been convincingly presented, and

2. many and perhaps most states have assigned sexual orientation some level of status as a protected class.

So even acknowledging the theoretical validity of his general assertion, he's still wrong on both theoretical and practical grounds regarding the specific things he's complaining about.  And also he's wrong that it's "new".

Neighborhood Watch: I agree with Scalia.  So does the US Constitution.

Every American citizen is an American... and that should be enough.


Protected classes are criteria on which you are  not allowed to differentiate.  You seem to have it almost exactly backwards.  It's an attempt to suppress existing tribalism, and is essentially never used to allow new distinctions.
 
2013-08-20 11:47:03 AM  
Oh and by the way you vapid fark, YOU were one of the assholes on the court who 'created a new minority' when you ruled that corporations are people.

Truly, a farking disingenuous piece of maggot shiat. When this guy dies, our country will be better off for it.
 
2013-08-20 11:47:41 AM  
Satire Wire was awesome. BBSpot was really good too.

Man I feel old. Well, internet old, at least.
 
2013-08-20 11:48:25 AM  

Magorn: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: You know what's quickly becoming a minority? Old white conservative men.

/I mean, if you can even call Italians "White".

that Depends, are they Scicilian?
[www.gmanreviews.com image 520x220]


assets.rollingstone.com

Approves.
 
2013-08-20 11:48:45 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: You know what's quickly becoming a minority? Old white conservative men.

/I mean, if you can even call Italians "White".


See, that's just what you 'thought' (and hoped for).  But liberals have shot them selves in the foot by inventing the new race, white-Hispanic.  Their numbers are legion and they are 2nd Amendment supporters.

So that makes you wrong.


What is this I don't even
 
2013-08-20 11:48:53 AM  
Why can't he just have one more meatball and have a lethal heart attack?  Why?  Why are we cursed with this fat fark's continued existence?
 
2013-08-20 11:51:02 AM  
Scalia said it is not the function of the courts to create exceptions outside the Constitution unless a majority of people agree with them.

First of all, that's not how the constitution works.  Second,

He said the court will have to take those cases as they come, but his approach will be to apply the historical understanding of the Second Amendment, which was not just in self-defense against animals and home intruders, but for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical leader.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't his argument in Heller, although my memory might not be exact.
 
2013-08-20 11:53:19 AM  
In 1776, Abigail Adams admonished husband John Adams to "Remember the Ladies" while considering laws to be considered if and when the Rebellion succeeded.  In re: a "Petticoat Revolution" John replied:

"After stirring up Tories, Landjobbers, Trimmers, Bigots, Canadians, Indians, Negroes, Hanoverians, Hessians, Russians, Irish Roman Catholics, and Scotch Renegadoes, at last they have stimulated the [Ladies] to demand new Priviledges and threaten to rebell."

 /not at all unlike the contemporary FARK user base
 
2013-08-20 11:53:44 AM  

Neighborhood Watch: I agree with Scalia.  So does the US Constitution.

Every American citizen is an American... and that should be enough.


It should be enough, but once you get to about...Year 1? 2? of the American experiment, you'll realize that it wasn't and isn't enough.

The Constitution that said that not only can black people be bought and sold, but protected a state's right to require kidnap and return of "fugitive property" if found within their borders. The Constitution that said that slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person (because we wouldn't want slaves thinking they can effect any sort of change by voting, but we still want high population numbers). The Constitution that didn't explicitly say that all Americans have the right to vote and use public(ly-financed) accommodations - to get the same benefits of government that "everyone else" did - until the 1880s, and not even applied fully until the 1960s or 70s, so people saw fit to unequally apply those rules to things like voting, districting, lending (with funds backed by the FDIC).

In short, libertarians like you are just as deluded as communists who think that commune living should be enough.
 
2013-08-20 11:53:58 AM  

Dahnkster: Oh and by the way you vapid fark, YOU were one of the assholes on the court who 'created a new minority' when you ruled that corporations are people.Truly, a farking disingenuous piece of maggot shiat. When this guy dies, our country will be better off for it.



Corporations were deemed to be 'people' a long, LONG time ago.  One is example is Title 26, the Federal Income Tax code.  That was set up a 100 years ago.

But long before that, corporations could have bank accounts, make contracts, own property, sue & be sued, etc.


/the more you know...
 
2013-08-20 11:55:03 AM  
He prefers original arrangement: straight, white, Christian males and "other"
 
2013-08-20 11:56:35 AM  
In what sense is ruling by fiat that corporations are people not creating a new protected minority?
 
2013-08-20 11:56:38 AM  

Dr Dreidel: The Constitution that said that not only can black people be bought and sold, but protected a state's right to require kidnap and return of "fugitive property" if found within their borders. The Constitution that said that slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person (because we wouldn't want slaves thinking they can effect any sort of change by voting, but we still want high population numbers). The Constitution that didn't explicitly say that all Americans have the right to vote and use public(ly-financed) accommodations - to get the same benefits of government that "everyone else" did - until the 1880s, and not even applied fully until the 1960s or 70s, so people saw fit to unequally apply those rules to things like voting, districting, lending (with funds backed by the FDIC).

In short, libertarians like you are just as deluded as communists who think that commune living should be enough.



Amendments, which are PART of the Constitution, addressed those wrongs.

Don't like the Constitution?  Amend it.  It's designed that way.
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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