Would Scalia survive if another conservative were replaced with a liberal?
| sepia volcanic crater | 06/26/15 | | multi-colored dun psychic shrine | 06/26/15 | | Orange Heaven Wrinkle | 06/26/15 | | multi-colored dun psychic shrine | 06/26/15 | | sepia volcanic crater | 06/26/15 | | titillating potus | 06/26/15 | | house-broken mind-boggling travel guidebook | 06/26/15 | | confused lilac ticket booth indirect expression | 06/26/15 | | Aquamarine Zombie-like Kitty | 06/26/15 | | Spectacular deranged institution voyeur | 06/26/15 | | confused lilac ticket booth indirect expression | 06/26/15 | | Spectacular deranged institution voyeur | 06/27/15 | | Spectacular deranged institution voyeur | 06/26/15 | | Sick field tank | 06/26/15 | | house-broken mind-boggling travel guidebook | 06/26/15 | | Aquamarine Zombie-like Kitty | 06/26/15 | | Spectacular deranged institution voyeur | 06/26/15 | | house-broken mind-boggling travel guidebook | 06/26/15 | | Sick field tank | 06/26/15 | | house-broken mind-boggling travel guidebook | 06/26/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 26th, 2015 8:31 PM Author: sepia volcanic crater
Let's say Thomas croaks and is replaced by Goodwin Liu.
Almost all the big stuff goes the liberal way.
Scalia dissents mightily for a while but blows a gasket and falls dead.
Yet another liberal replaces Scalia.
Now SCOTUS has a 6.5 justice liberal majority.
What do the Republicans do?
Kennedy is no longer important. He tries to hang out of Roberts and Alito, but they're sick of his shit.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2920422&forum_id=2#28207887) |
Date: June 26th, 2015 9:06 PM Author: Spectacular deranged institution voyeur
Lol, Scalia is losing it. He claims no precedent for gay marriage but claimed in Lawrence the case was precedent for gay marriage.
I worry about his health and how many meatballs he is eating.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2920422&forum_id=2#28208118) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 10:48 AM Author: Spectacular deranged institution voyeur
In Lawrence, Scalia wrote: "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding."
In Obergefell, Scalia wrote "I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy." The opinion he joined "in full" states, "The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent." And "Ultimately, only one precedent offers any support for the majority’s methodology: Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45."
So it's a fair question to Scalia whether Lawrence is or is not precedent for Obergefell.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2920422&forum_id=2#28210481) |
|
|