The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
LOL @ SCALIA'S MAF STATEMENT IN ARIZONA DISSENT CASE
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:19 PM contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent. |
 |
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:21 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:23 PM |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2012 10:42 AM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:23 PM |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 10:48 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 3:31 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:26 PM |
|
Date: July 26th, 2012 12:30 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:27 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:30 PM |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 10:25 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:32 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:33 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:35 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:36 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:39 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:42 PM
moreover, my post was not an ad hominem, dumdum. it was pointing out that it's awfully strange for a dumbfuck like yourself to be criticizing someone as accomplished as Scalia for being 'intellectually disingenuous', especially considering a) you give absolutely no indication of what makes him 'intellectually disingenuous' and b) you likely have no idea what disingenuous means.
hth. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:44 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:45 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:46 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:49 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:52 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:53 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:56 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:58 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:50 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:46 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:49 PM
|
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:51 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:52 PM
gas yourself you queer. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:54 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:57 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 11:02 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 11:03 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 11:05 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 11:05 PM |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 11:09 AM |
|
Date: July 6th, 2012 3:55 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:40 PM
his dissent reads like "like I've been sayin' all along, motherfuckers..." |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 1:36 AM |
|
Date: July 21st, 2012 3:26 PM |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 6:47 PM
scalia is so full of shit and ragu im surprised it isnt oozing out from his ears |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:22 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:26 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:27 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:28 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:28 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:22 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:26 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:28 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:31 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:32 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:34 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:32 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:38 PM
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646.pdf
Both the provenance and philosophical basis for this [evolving standards of decency in evaluating criminal punishment] standard were problematic from the start. (Is it true that our society is inexorably evolving in the direction of greater and greater decency? Who says so, and how did this particular philosophy of history find its way into our fundamental law? And in any event, aren't elected representatives more likely than unaccountable judges to reflect changing societal standards?) But at least at the start, the Court insisted that these "evolving standards" represented something other than the personal views of five Justices.
FUCKING THROWDOWN |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:40 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:43 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:46 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:51 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:57 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 11:04 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 11:05 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 11:09 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:43 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:45 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:43 PM
2. The determination of evolving standards assume that decency is improving.
3. There is no coherent analysis for determining the evolving standards. It is all inward looking and now ignores legislative judgments. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 11:00 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 11:02 PM |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 11:26 AM
*is offended*
*is conflicted* |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 6:46 PM |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 1:41 AM
tcr
Devastating dissent - he really highlighted how utterly and consistently full of shit Kennedy has been for the past decade on that front. What a thoroughly unprincipled fuck that guy is, and his wishy-washy horseshit has now basically gutted 1/10 of our Bill of Rights. Thanks Tony! |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:29 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 10:55 PM
explain to me why this will not happen. |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 11:01 PM |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 11:04 PM
how is nojerbpwnage?
|
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 12:12 AM |
|
Date: June 26th, 2012 1:45 AM |