"james g. keegan jr." wrote:

Ten Things President Bush Doesn't Want You To Know About Scalia and
Thomas

December 20, 2004

SCALIA OPPOSES EFFORTS TO DESEGREGATE SCHOOLS:

False....

In his concurrence on
Freeman v. Pitts, Scalia indicated he would favor stripping the authority
of Federal courts to regulate school desegregation, "even for those
schools
that remain significantly segregated." [Freeman v Pitts 1992]

Scalia supports upholding the constitution.

Unlike liberal activist judges, "conservative" judges (i.e.
constitutionalists--what they really are), don't misuse the Federal
courts to impose their personal views.

THOMAS FAVORS STATE-SPONSORED RELIGION: Thomas has "advanced the
position"
that constitutionally mandated church/state separation applies "to the
federal government, but not to individual states - a position that would
allow Virginia, for example, to declare a state religion." He would allow
individual states to "adopt particular religions and use tax money to
proselytize for them." [Elk Grove v. Newdow, 2004]

Again, it is Thomas in this case upholding the constitution. The right
to legislate on this issue is reserved to the states. Separation of
church and state also means that federal laws cannot bar states from
sponsoring religion.

Btw, whether he personally believes that a state SHOULD sponsor a
particular religion cannot be determined. His arguments are legal ones
- not personal opinion. And that is something that liberals who have
abused the courts to extend its power dangerously beyond the
constitutional mandate just don't "get". If liberals got their way the
court would be utterly out of control and states would no longer have
any power to legislate except in a way that radical liberals - who
exploit the courts but have no loyalty to the US system - would want.

SCALIA SUPPORTS SEX DISCRIMINATION: Scalia dissented from the Court's
7-to-
1 decision that rejected the Virginia Military Institute's male-only
admissions policy. He called the male-only admissions standard at the
school a "well-rooted" tradition. [U.S. v. Virginia, 1996]

Most people support sex discrimination. Look at all the women-only
colleges and man-only military academies.

in human nature itself. The people who oppose it wherever it appears
are the radical liberals, the control freaks, the radical feminist
hypocrites. It's those people who would tell private institutions how
they should conduct themselves, and private citizens who they should
associate with.

Btw, check out the utter failure of the radical left to get support to
force Augusta National to comply with their insane agenda. This is not
a winning issue, fool.

THOMAS WOULD ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO EFFECTIVELY WAIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS:
In last term's confrontation over detainees in the war on terror, eight
of
the nine Justices squarely rejected the Bush administration's sweeping
claim that it could detain citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants
based
merely on the executive branch's assertion of enemy combatant status.
"Only Thomas supported the Bush administration's position." He claimed
"due process requires nothing more than a good-faith executive
determination." [Rasul v. Bush, 2004]

SCALIA AND THOMAS OPPOSE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE: The Family and Medical
Leave Act "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care
for a loved one." Last year, the Court upheld the law, but Scalia and
Thomas voted to strike it down, arguing that Congress exceeded its power
in
passing the law. [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003]

Another Federal law.

Libs think that the Federal government is there to rule every man
woman and child in every each state in the US, even if those are laws
that those states don't want. (Let's be frank: ESPECIALLY when it's
laws that those states don't want. And I don't see conservatives
abusing the courts in that way.)

SCALIA AND THOMAS SUPPORT EXECUTING THE MENTALLY RETARDED: Scalia and
Thomas dissented from the Court's 6-3 ruling that executing mentally
retarded convicts constituted "cruel and unusual punishment." [Atkins v.
Virginia, 2002]

SCALIA AND THOMAS SUPPORT BRUTALITY AGAINST PRISONERS: A recent case
considered a Louisiana inmate who "was shackled and then punched and
kicked
by two prison guards while a supervisor looked on." The beating left the
inmate "with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate."
The Court ruled the inmate's treatment violated the Eighth Amendment's
prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, but Scalia and Thomas
dissented, arguing "the Eighth Amendment was not violated by the
'insignificant' harm the inmate suffered." In another case last year,
Scalia and Thomas dissented from a 6-3 decision to ban the Alabama
practice
of chaining prisoners to outdoor ''hitching posts'' and abandoning them
for
hours without food, water, or a chance to use the bathroom. [Hudson v.
McMillan, 1992; Hope v. Pelzer, 2002]

SCALIA AND THOMAS SUPPORT CRIMINALIZING CONSENSUAL SEX: Scalia and Thomas
dissented from the Court's 6-3 decision to strike down a Texas state
"sodomy" law, "banning private consensual sex between adults of the same
sex" and approvingly cited the execution of homosexuals during colonial
times.

Where did he say that?

Scalia lashed into the decision for pandering to the "so-called
homosexual agenda." [Lawrence v. Texas, 2003]

Liberals say, "There is no homosexual agenda"

Try to lie convincingly. We're not deaf blind and dumb, we can read
the news.

SCALIA AND THOMAS OPPOSE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF POLLUTERS:
Scalia and Thomas voted to strip the EPA "of the authority to prevent
damaging air pollution by industries when state agencies improperly fail
to
do so." They dissented from the Court's decision that the EPA could make
polluting companies use the "best available control technology" to limit
pollution when they built new facilities. [Alaska v. EPA, 2004]

Yet another valid legal point on Federal regulation versus States'
rights. Which is really what most of these decisions are about.

Libs just don't get it because the only way they can pass their
legislation in many states is by getting the Supreme Court to impose
forceably. As with abortion.

SCALIA AND THOMAS WOULD ALLOW STATES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE
DISABLED:
After a Tennessee man was arrested for failure to appear in court because
he was unwilling to crawl or be carried up the stairs to his second-story
courtroom, Scalia and Thomas argued the state was right to arrest him
because the Americans with Disabilities Act could only be enforced at the
federal level. [Tennessee v. Lane, 2004]

Another legally valid point of view, as they all are. All you can
produce are emotional arguments designed to make judicial activism
look good, when virtually all of these decisions are about states'
rights. IOW, they're not even matters for the Supreme Court.

The states are free to pass their own laws on those matters not
explicitly mandated by the constitution. Blue state liberals can't
seem to bear the idea that they don't have any say in other states'
laws....

"james g. keegan jr." wrote:

In his concurrence on
Freeman v. Pitts, Scalia indicated he would favor stripping the authority
of Federal courts to regulate school desegregation, "even for those schools
that remain significantly segregated." [Freeman v Pitts 1992]

Scalia supports upholding the constitution.

Unlike liberal activist judges,

"james g. keegan jr." wrote:

In his concurrence on
Freeman v. Pitts, Scalia indicated he would favor stripping the
authority of Federal courts to regulate school desegregation, "even
for those schools that remain significantly segregated." [Freeman v
Pitts 1992]

Scalia supports upholding the constitution.

Unlike liberal activist judges

"james g. keegan jr." wrote:

Ten Things President Bush Doesn't Want You To Know About Scalia and Thomas

December 20, 2004

SCALIA OPPOSES EFFORTS TO DESEGREGATE SCHOOLS:

False....

In his concurrence on
Freeman v. Pitts, Scalia indicated he would favor stripping the authority
of Federal courts to regulate school desegregation, "even for those schools
that remain significantly segregated." [Freeman v Pitts 1992]

Scalia supports upholding the constitution.

Unlike liberal activist judges, "conservative" judges (i.e.
constitutionalists--what they really are), don't misuse the Federal
courts to impose their personal views.

THOMAS FAVORS STATE-SPONSORED RELIGION: Thomas has "advanced the position"
that constitutionally mandated church/state separation applies "to the
federal government, but not to individual states – a position that would
allow Virginia, for example, to declare a state religion." He would allow
individual states to "adopt particular religions and use tax money to
proselytize for them." [Elk Grove v. Newdow, 2004]

Again, it is Thomas in this case upholding the constitution. The right
to legislate on this issue is reserved to the states. Separation of
church and state also means that federal laws cannot bar states from
sponsoring religion.

Btw, whether he personally believes that a state SHOULD sponsor a
particular religion cannot be determined. His arguments are legal ones
- not personal opinion. And that is something that liberals who have
abused the courts to extend its power dangerously beyond the
constitutional mandate just don't "get". If liberals got their way the
court would be utterly out of control and states would no longer have
any power to legislate except in a way that radical liberals - who
exploit the courts but have no loyalty to the US system - would want.

SCALIA SUPPORTS SEX DISCRIMINATION: Scalia dissented from the Court's 7-to-
1 decision that rejected the Virginia Military Institute's male-only
admissions policy. He called the male-only admissions standard at the
school a "well-rooted" tradition. [U.S. v. Virginia, 1996]

Most people support sex discrimination.

Look at all the women-only
colleges and man-only military academies.

Sex discrimination is rooted
in human nature itself. The people who oppose it wherever it appears
are the radical liberals, the control freaks, the radical feminist
hypocrites. It's those people who would tell private institutions how
they should conduct themselves, and private citizens who they should
associate with.

Btw, check out the utter failure of the radical left to get support to
force Augusta National to comply with their insane agenda. This is not
a winning issue, fool.

THOMAS WOULD ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO EFFECTIVELY WAIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS:
In last term's confrontation over detainees in the war on terror, eight of
the nine Justices squarely rejected the Bush administration's sweeping
claim that it could detain citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants based
merely on the executive branch's assertion of enemy combatant status.
"Only Thomas supported the Bush administration's position." He claimed
"due process requires nothing more than a good-faith executive
determination." [Rasul v. Bush, 2004]

SCALIA AND THOMAS OPPOSE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE: The Family and Medical
Leave Act "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care
for a loved one." Last year, the Court upheld the law, but Scalia and
Thomas voted to strike it down, arguing that Congress exceeded its power in
passing the law. [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003]

Another Federal law.

Libs think that the Federal government is there to rule every man
woman and child in every each state in the US, even if those are laws
that those states don't want. (Let's be frank: ESPECIALLY when it's
laws that those states don't want. And I don't see conservatives
abusing the courts in that way.)

SCALIA AND THOMAS SUPPORT EXECUTING THE MENTALLY RETARDED: Scalia and
Thomas dissented from the Court's 6-3 ruling that executing mentally
retarded convicts constituted "cruel and unusual punishment." [Atkins v.
Virginia, 2002]

SCALIA AND THOMAS SUPPORT BRUTALITY AGAINST PRISONERS: A recent case
considered a Louisiana inmate who "was shackled and then punched and kicked
by two prison guards while a supervisor looked on." The beating left the
inmate "with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate."
The Court ruled the inmate's treatment violated the Eighth Amendment's
prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, but Scalia and Thomas
dissented, arguing "the Eighth Amendment was not violated by the
'insignificant' harm the inmate suffered." In another case last year,
Scalia and Thomas dissented from a 6-3 decision to ban the Alabama practice
of chaining prisoners to outdoor ''hitching posts'' and abandoning them for
hours without food, water, or a chance to use the bathroom. [Hudson v.
McMillan, 1992; Hope v. Pelzer, 2002]

SCALIA AND THOMAS SUPPORT CRIMINALIZING CONSENSUAL SEX: Scalia and Thomas
dissented from the Court's 6-3 decision to strike down a Texas state
"sodomy" law, "banning private consensual sex between adults of the same
sex" and approvingly cited the execution of homosexuals during colonial
times.

Where did he say that?

Scalia lashed into the decision for pandering to the "so-called
homosexual agenda." [Lawrence v. Texas, 2003]

Liberals say, "There is no homosexual agenda"

Try to lie convincingly. We're not deaf blind and dumb, we can read
the news.

SCALIA AND THOMAS OPPOSE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF POLLUTERS:
Scalia and Thomas voted to strip the EPA "of the authority to prevent
damaging air pollution by industries when state agencies improperly fail to
do so." They dissented from the Court's decision that the EPA could make
polluting companies use the "best available control technology" to limit
pollution when they built new facilities. [Alaska v. EPA, 2004]

Yet another valid legal point on Federal regulation versus States'
rights. Which is really what most of these decisions are about.

Libs just don't get it because the only way they can pass their
legislation in many states is by getting the Supreme Court to impose
forceably. As with abortion.

SCALIA AND THOMAS WOULD ALLOW STATES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE DISABLED:
After a Tennessee man was arrested for failure to appear in court because
he was unwilling to crawl or be carried up the stairs to his second-story
courtroom, Scalia and Thomas argued the state was right to arrest him
because the Americans with Disabilities Act could only be enforced at the
federal level. [Tennessee v. Lane, 2004]

Another legally valid point of view, as they all are. All you can
produce are emotional arguments designed to make judicial activism
look good, when virtually all of these decisions are about states'
rights. IOW, they're not even matters for the Supreme Court.

The states are free to pass their own laws on those matters not
explicitly mandated by the constitution. Blue state liberals can't
seem to bear the idea that they don't have any say in other states'
laws....