Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     




    Your level of argument is a childish cartoon, true enough..

    Scalia noting that the Voting Rights Act section 5 only applies to 9 states, stated it will be difficult for politicians to ever reverse this law...because of the race card, even though there is no more issue of blacks voting...Mississippi has the highest level of minority voting, Massachusetts the worst...Mississippi has the most black elected officials of any state...it is not 1964 any more, when the Democratic Party in the South after a century was still conspiring to deny blacks the vote.

    Scalia said during the oral argument that the Voting Rights Act was necessary when enacted and one of the most important and effective pieces of legislation ever enacted, 40 years ago. But that statement is ignored by attack  dog liberals.

     WaPost: "...it€™s irresistible for liberals to demagogue and hand-wring over the very notion that the Voting Rights Act may no longer be applicable as it was intended. If voters€™ rights are being threatened, then they need to be protected. But where is the evidence that the states that needed Justice Department oversight in 1965 still exclusively need such oversight today?"

    Civil rights workers were murdered in 1964, to give the precious right to vote...now liberals mock their sacrifice and their cause,  by claiming that a basic voter ID requirement to prevent fraud is equivalent to beating and harassing blacks from voting...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    In response to portfilio's comment:

    Scalia does not deserve to be in the US Supreme Court as he allows his political bias to govern his rulings.  Moreover, there have been many accounts of him bullying lawyers who appear before the court.  Tact and reason are two things he seriously lacks.




    What a bunch of low-information voters.  Crackup has it right,  Maddow is lying through his teeth.  Go stir the pot somewhere else.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     




    Your level of argument is a childish cartoon, true enough..

    Scalia noting that the Voting Rights Act section 5 only applies to 9 states, stated it will be difficult for politicians to ever reverse this law...because of the race card, even though there is no more issue of blacks voting...Mississippi has the highest level of minority voting, Massachusetts the worst...Mississippi has the most black elected officials of any state...it is not 1964 any more, when the Democratic Party in the South after a century was still conspiring to deny blacks the vote.

    Scalia said during the oral argument that the Voting Rights Act was necessary when enacted and one of the most important and effective pieces of legislation ever enacted, 40 years ago. But that statement is ignored by attack  dog liberals.

     WaPost: "...it€™s irresistible for liberals to demagogue and hand-wring over the very notion that the Voting Rights Act may no longer be applicable as it was intended. If voters€™ rights are being threatened, then they need to be protected. But where is the evidence that the states that needed Justice Department oversight in 1965 still exclusively need such oversight today?"

    Civil rights workers were murdered in 1964, to give the precious right to vote...now liberals mock their sacrifice and their cause,  by claiming that a basic voter ID requirement to prevent fraud is equivalent to beating and harassing blacks from voting...




    Another liberal idea that won't die.  Sure, it was needed at one time.  the quetion that liberals don't want to answer honestly is:  Is it needed now? Usurping state power is a serious issue.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     




    Your level of argument is a childish cartoon, true enough..

    Scalia noting that the Voting Rights Act section 5 only applies to 9 states, stated it will be difficult for politicians to ever reverse this law...because of the race card, even though there is no more issue of blacks voting...Mississippi has the highest level of minority voting, Massachusetts the worst...Mississippi has the most black elected officials of any state...it is not 1964 any more, when the Democratic Party in the South after a century was still conspiring to deny blacks the vote.

    Scalia said during the oral argument that the Voting Rights Act was necessary when enacted and one of the most important and effective pieces of legislation ever enacted, 40 years ago. But that statement is ignored by attack  dog liberals.

     WaPost: "...it€™s irresistible for liberals to demagogue and hand-wring over the very notion that the Voting Rights Act may no longer be applicable as it was intended. If voters€™ rights are being threatened, then they need to be protected. But where is the evidence that the states that needed Justice Department oversight in 1965 still exclusively need such oversight today?"

    Civil rights workers were murdered in 1964, to give the precious right to vote...now liberals mock their sacrifice and their cause,  by claiming that a basic voter ID requirement to prevent fraud is equivalent to beating and harassing blacks from voting...



    But Br'er Crankup ..... you guys would like to takes us back to those Golden Days of the 1890's and before the days of the "Black and Tan Revolution" took place  where many Americans thought it's was their "God Given Right" to disenfranchise  African American and poor White voters.

    Overturning the 1965 Voter's Right Act gets the GOP's foot in the door to make voter's suppression legal.

    Next y'll be trying to say James O'Keefe is an Unsung American Hero . 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    skeeter if your ears start burning .... it's just a Bronx Cheer from me to you !

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    Br'er Crankup my childish cartoons are more to the point than any of your long winded cut and paste jobs...... mine are easy to read and easy to understand.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

     

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

     




    Your level of argument is a childish cartoon, true enough..

    Scalia noting that the Voting Rights Act section 5 only applies to 9 states, stated it will be difficult for politicians to ever reverse this law...because of the race card, even though there is no more issue of blacks voting...Mississippi has the highest level of minority voting, Massachusetts the worst...Mississippi has the most black elected officials of any state...it is not 1964 any more, when the Democratic Party in the South after a century was still conspiring to deny blacks the vote.

    Scalia said during the oral argument that the Voting Rights Act was necessary when enacted and one of the most important and effective pieces of legislation ever enacted, 40 years ago. But that statement is ignored by attack  dog liberals.

     WaPost: "...it€™s irresistible for liberals to demagogue and hand-wring over the very notion that the Voting Rights Act may no longer be applicable as it was intended. If voters€™ rights are being threatened, then they need to be protected. But where is the evidence that the states that needed Justice Department oversight in 1965 still exclusively need such oversight today?"

    Civil rights workers were murdered in 1964, to give the precious right to vote...now liberals mock their sacrifice and their cause,  by claiming that a basic voter ID requirement to prevent fraud is equivalent to beating and harassing blacks from voting...

     



    But Br'er Crankup ..... you guys would like to takes us back to those Golden Days of the 1890's and before the days of the "Black and Tan Revolution" took place  where many Americans thought it's was their "God Given Right" to disenfranchise  African American and poor White voters.

     

    Overturning the 1965 Voter's Right Act gets the GOP's foot in the door to make voter's suppression legal.

    Next y'll be trying to say James O'Keefe is an Unsung American Hero . 




    Right.  It is all about "going back to jim crow" or some other liberal canard.

     

    Tell me:  who isthe racist?

    The one who declares it without facts?

    -or-

    the one that asks the tough questions in order to determine if it really exists?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    skeeter are you saying the only way to find out if racism exist in the Good Old U.S. of A. is to ask tough questions .......... i.e. "Mr Romney because your father was born in Mexico can we see birth certificate ?" I would like to know why  that question was never asked of Mr 47% but it was constantly thrown in the face of Obama ? Is it because Obama doesn't look like one of us but one of ........ ?

     

    BTW explain your question Mr Wizard ....  are you saying that you are a racist ?

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    skeeter are you saying the only way to find out if racism exist in the Good Old U.S. of A. is to ask tough questions .......... i.e. "Mr Romney because your father was born in Mexico can we see birth certificate ?" I would like to know why  that question was never asked of Mr 47% but it was constantly thrown in the face of Obama ? Is it because Obama doesn't look like one of us but one of ........ ?

     

    BTW explain your question Mr Wizard ....  are you saying that you are a racist ?



    The question is, does racism exist in respect to voting inthese areas.  If it does, people ought to be frogg-marched to jail.

    But, insterad, you make it an emotional issue, as if everyone doesn't want honest voting, every legitimate voter getting to vote once per election, not denied for any reason, not allowedto vote multiple times, like some Obama voters.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    Or is the question, does it exist in this generation's form, anywhere?  I don't have a problem with the Supreme Court of all the land taking a decision that applies to all the land -- Massachusetts included.  But if the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia and skeeter20@14,000 are still asking the question, implying a right answer, it can't be time for roll back, let alone repeal.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    Okayyy... If it's not about voting, then why are they bothering with it?

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    Sounds like we disagree to agree...

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    Except for this part?

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    Its about the constitutionality of subjecting 9 states to a law written half a century ago, while 41 get a pass.  If I were in congress, I'd expand it to all 50 states, but we all know who'd obect to that now don't we.

    [QUOTE]

    Because in everything he's said, her favorite justice wants to repeal it - the Voting Rights Act, Section 5.

     



     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    Rachel Maddow is not MSM.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    Sure sounded sure up to this point, where it sure sounded like we agreed...

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    [QUOTE] 

    Its about the constitutionality of subjecting 9 states to a law written half a century ago, while 41 get a pass.  If I were in congress, I'd expand it to all 50 states, but we all know who'd obect to that now don't we.

    [QUOTE] 

    Never mind.



     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    Scalia was obviously referring not to voting, but to the Voting Rights Act, Section 5.

    Exactly. And the behaviors of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan during this proceeding were disgraceful.

    Sotomayor wouldn't let the lawyer for the Alabama county speak, she kept interupting him. Then Kagan interupted both the lawyer and Scalia and actually started arguing with him on the bench. Is this what we are to expect from Supreme Court justices from now on?


    In any case, Scalia was not talking about the "voting rights act" per se, he was talking specifically about section 5 which requires that changes to election law in certain states be reviewed by federal courts before they can be implemented. That probably made sense 50 years ago when Democrats were blocking the entrance to courhouse doors but things are probably a little bit different now.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "[Antonin] is the most brilliant legal mind, and finest human being I have ever known" - Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  For be it from me to disagree

    [/QUOTE

    What year did Ginsburg say that ........ age is catching up with that old wind bag Koch Brothers hack , Scaila .

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Is Justice Scalia a dishonorable person ?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

     

    skeeter are you saying the only way to find out if racism exist in the Good Old U.S. of A. is to ask tough questions .......... i.e. "Mr Romney because your father was born in Mexico can we see birth certificate ?" I would like to know why  that question was never asked of Mr 47% but it was constantly thrown in the face of Obama ? Is it because Obama doesn't look like one of us but one of ........ ?

     

    BTW explain your question Mr Wizard ....  are you saying that you are a racist ?

     



    The question is, does racism exist in respect to voting inthese areas.  If it does, people ought to be frogg-marched to jail.

     

    But, insterad, you make it an emotional issue, as if everyone doesn't want honest voting, every legitimate voter getting to vote once per election, not denied for any reason, not allowedto vote multiple times, like some Obama voters.




    If the soon to be extinct GOP  can't win an election they want to put their thumbs on the scales and devalve the vote of the Democrats.

     

Share