The Supreme Court conducted a vile smear against the noble state of Arizona today by shooting down most of SB 1070, the law that restricts illegal Mexicans from existing. Our old pal Antonin Scalia, writing the dissenting opinion, simply didn't care for his peers' decision. As Scalia sees it, states = sovereign, so states can do whatever they want, however they want it, to keep the filthy Mexicans outside looking in. Where is the
3/5ths wasn&#039;t exactly <em>removed</em>, per se, but the &quot;all other persons&quot; category to which it applied was eliminated when Abe Lincoln shifted most of them into the &quot;free Persons, excluding indians not taxed&quot; category and the 13th Amendment completed the process and prohibited them from being moved back.
I&#039;m guessing the proportion of the subset of the population which has &quot;syzygy&quot; in their productive vocabulary who are also Scrabble players (or I guess these days &quot;Words with Friends&quot;, <em>as if there&#039;s a difference</em>) is quite high.
&ldquo;This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is &lsquo;actually&rsquo; innocent.&rdquo;
Their intellectual dishonesty is why they were appointed. It&#039;s a feature, not a bug.
For proof, note the 5-4 party-line decision that it&#039;s OK for billionaires to buy elections for Republicans, even in Montana. I have no doubt whatsover these fuckers would have voted the other way, if it was Democrats getting the billions.
I agree, they can&#039;t die or retire soon enough.
What makes you think he didn&#039;t? Have you checked out <a href="http:\/\/www.salon.com\/2012\/06\/13\/sheldon_adelson_big_money_bogeyman\/" target="_blank">Sheldon Adelson</a>, the guy Scalia just greenlighted for the purchase of elections?
No it&#039;s not wrong - I fervently wish that one day Scalia has a cilice-induced fever dream wherein his delusion of God tells him something that the God he should&#039;ve been reading about in the New Testament might say, and in that epiphany he realizes the dreadful harm he&#039;s done and continues to do and does the honorable thing and retires immediately to go join a Benedictine monastery.
Scalia&#039;s the biggest lover of the death penalty on the court, though, what with his fetish for still executing people who have subsequently proven their innocence.
3/5ths wasn&#039;t exactly <em>removed</em>, per se, but the &quot;all other persons&quot; category to which it applied was eliminated when Abe Lincoln shifted most of them into the &quot;free Persons, excluding indians not taxed&quot; category and the 13th Amendment completed the process and prohibited them from being moved back.
He says that doesn&#039;t count because states are sovereign, independent nations derp.
I&#039;m guessing the proportion of the subset of the population which has &quot;syzygy&quot; in their productive vocabulary who are also Scrabble players (or I guess these days &quot;Words with Friends&quot;, <em>as if there&#039;s a difference</em>) is quite high.
Also that in light of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, Dred Scott is no longer controlling.
Yes indeed:
&ldquo;This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is &lsquo;actually&rsquo; innocent.&rdquo;
You mean Viagra isn&#039;t a constitutional right?
Yeah, but...Originalism!
It&#039;s OK, he can still be the Original Asshole.
Their intellectual dishonesty is why they were appointed. It&#039;s a feature, not a bug.
For proof, note the 5-4 party-line decision that it&#039;s OK for billionaires to buy elections for Republicans, even in Montana. I have no doubt whatsover these fuckers would have voted the other way, if it was Democrats getting the billions.
I agree, they can&#039;t die or retire soon enough.
Wondering, or wishful thinking?
If nothing else, the man is consistent.
What makes you think he didn&#039;t? Have you checked out <a href="http:\/\/www.salon.com\/2012\/06\/13\/sheldon_adelson_big_money_bogeyman\/" target="_blank">Sheldon Adelson</a>, the guy Scalia just greenlighted for the purchase of elections?
No it&#039;s not wrong - I fervently wish that one day Scalia has a cilice-induced fever dream wherein his delusion of God tells him something that the God he should&#039;ve been reading about in the New Testament might say, and in that epiphany he realizes the dreadful harm he&#039;s done and continues to do and does the honorable thing and retires immediately to go join a Benedictine monastery.
Look, mommy, no violence! ;)
Scalia&#039;s the biggest lover of the death penalty on the court, though, what with his fetish for still executing people who have subsequently proven their innocence.
Not if they&#039;re campaign finance laws, obviously.
Someone remind him Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned, please, before he decides to cite it next.