Supreme Court & Justice Scalia

A Supreme Court is the highest court within the hierarchy of many legal jurisdictions. Antonin Gregory Scalia (born March 11, 1936) is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 5.0/5

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Justice Kennedy Justice Breyer Justice Ginsburg Mitt Romney Barack Obama Pancreatic Cancer Eric Holder Supreme Court Justice Justice Antonin Scalia Supreme Court Justice Scalia Andrew Mccarthy Voting Rights Act Chief Justice Roberts

1. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, Justice Scalia's opi…
They'll just kill those on the Supreme Court like they did with Justice Scalia... democrats are demonic!
on the US Supreme Court still following me? Justice Scalia did. We shared alot of similar views. So listen to my plea now if you will. TY
BREAKING: Neil Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court, ending year-long battle over Justice Scalia's vacant seat
Could Scalia Thwart Trump's Agenda?: Justice Scalia is no longer on the Supreme Court, but his influence certainly……
released a new list of potential picks to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. ht…
Where Clinton regards Ruth Bader Ginsburg as her model Supreme Court Justice, Trump’s nominees will be in the tradition of Justice Scalia.
Justice Scalia's former law clerks line up as his casket is carried into the Supreme Court to lay in State. ht…
honor Justice Scalia's legacy. Block Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court.
Trump released list of people he considers potential replacements for Justice Scalia at the US Supreme Court. .
I want Hillary to select President Obama to the Supreme Court in place of Justice Scalia. Let's see how the repubs like that.
The is reportedly opposing plan to retroactively void all of Justice Scalia’s votes from his final lame duck year on Supreme Court.
Craft your media message like a Supreme Court Justice: 6 tips on how to be quotable like Scalia via
10 days before Scalia died, John Roberts criticized the Supreme Court confirmation process.
When Justice Scalia passed ,America lost the pillar of. Conservative jurisprudence in the Supreme Court. hope the Senate …
Of those left standing, only would appoint a Supreme Court Justice similar to Antonin Scalia.
 border=
If Anthony Scalia didn't want Obama to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice he would've waited until after January 20, 2017 to die.
"It was hard to escape the conclusion that the absence of the voluble Justice Scalia, who had dominated Supreme Court arguments…
Another nice tribute by a former clerk: Justice Scalia and his impact on the Supreme Court via
Who will replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court?
When news broke of Justice Scalia's death, happened to be at the Supreme Court building
Who do you think should choose the replacement for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court? Senator Chuck Shumer...
Justice Scalia's bench chair is draped in black at the Supreme Court
Justice Scalia will be greatly missed and leaves a huge void on our Supreme Court.
Senator Hatch will be joining momentarily to discuss the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia with
Justice Scalia's choice for Obama's prior Supreme Court nomination - on
Unlike most Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia didn't "grow" once he put on his black robe. Thank God.
Justice Scalia ascends to the highest Supreme Court...may his Spirit continue to influence Justice for mankind. Thank you Your Honor!
We lost a great man today. A distinguished Justice. Champion of our Supreme Court. A tall defender of our Constitution. R.I.P.Justice Scalia
My condolences go out to Justice Scalia and his family. A true champion of the Supreme Court and the conservative movement.
Today the Supreme Court and the American people lost a champion of the Constitution. Justice Scalia will be...
PerfectMatch - #1 Trusted Source in Online Dating
The sarcastic lines that made Justice Scalia the king of Supreme Court sarcasm My court opinion spirit animal.
Obama must be salivating at the thought of replacing Justice Scalia with a far-left liberal progressive Supreme Court judge.
mind the Supreme Court (fed) has the likes of Justice Scalia on it so...
Justice Scalia warns: US Supreme Court is causing the ‘destruction of our democratic system’
Justice Scalia would be a great Supreme Court Justice — if he lived in 1791 or 1868.
Well you know you've made it when Justice Scalia & Thomas quotes your lyrics in a Supreme Court decision
Justice Scalia warns the the Supreme Court is not interpreting the Constitution, but rewriting it.
Justice Scalia says it 'wouldn't surprise me' if Supreme Court strikes down death penalty
and Mike attack on Pat Robertson EMPTY, Roberts was saying the exact same as Justice Scalia statement that Supreme Court
is arguably the most influential Supreme Court Justice in a generation. Guess who's not honoring him.
Jon Stewart skewers Scalia after justice's string of Supreme Court outbursts - Yahoo Finance
Supreme Court unfair to Harper government, new Justice wrote Cdn Scalia? Harper's damage is long-lasti…
May God preserve Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Antonin Scalia.
Justice Scalia is the Supreme Court embodiment of Archie Bunker
Except for Justice Scalia,I have no faith in the Supreme Court,the *** marriage issue should be left for the voters of…
domain names
Recently the United States Surpreme Court denied a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, letting stand sentences of fifteen, sixteen, and nineteen years respectively imposed on three defendants convicted of distributing "very small amounts of crack cocaine". The sentencing Guidelines would have provided for sentences between two and five years, except that the trial judge found that the defendants had also committed the crime of "conspiracy to distribute drugs." He therefore calculated much higher sentencing Guidelines. Not only had the defendants not been convicted of conspiracy, they had actually been acquitted of it by the jury. Justice Scalia would have accepted the case for review by the Supreme Court and wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg. See, Jones v. United States, 574 U.S. ___ (2014)
"Is This Case About Scalia and Other Court Conservatives Imposing Their Religion?" "No: something nearer the opposite, really. This whole case involves a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a law that exists because of a controversial 1990 Supreme Court case called Employment Division v. Smith. Here's what happened: Alfred Smith and Galen Black worked at a rehab clinic, but were fired for using peyote, and denied unemployment benefits. They sued, claiming that they were using peyote for religious reasons, because they were members of the Native American Church. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Scalia, the Court held that a facially-neutral law could be applied across the board, even if it had the effect of hindering religious rituals. The case was explosive. In his dissent from Smith, Justice Blackmun noted that the “respondents' use of peyote seems closely analogous to the sacramental use of wine by the Roman Catholic Church.” Thus, the Smith decision seemed like it might al ...
When scientist fudge their numbers to make their points they are not practicing sience, but politics. Be careful believing science. Always be skeptical. It's the scientific way! Even the Washington Post has to debunk lies told to the Supreme Court as government scientists are caught fudging their statistics. It really does take faith to believe a scientist's conclusions. Were they biased? Were they competently reporting "facts". Here's the article: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said he thinks it is proper to settle questions early on in class-action suits. “The reason is the enormous pressure to settle once the class is certified,” Justice Scalia said. (Associated Press)By THE WASHINGTON TIMESMonday, June 23, 2014A fractured Supreme Court on Monday largely upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s radical rule designed to shut down the power plants that produce the most affordable electricity. The justices continue to accept the EPA’s labeling of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.” Th . ...
Today, we flew from Oakland to D.C. We were Looking Forward to the annual black tie dinner put on by the Supreme Court Historical Society. Our connecting flight was delayed in Chicago because of weather. I was fortunate that my son William (I call him Spankie) was available to drive us from Dulles to the office to change and then to the Supreme Court. Rubbing elbows with the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas while drinking cocktails was humbling experience. Getting to meet and exchange ideas with lawyers from all over the country was memorable. A great dinner followed by a concert by a band that played Civil War era music capped off a perfect evening. I guess age is catching up to me.
In cases raising First Amendment claims, a new study found, Justice Scalia voted to uphold the free speech rights of conservative speakers at more than triple the rate of liberal ones. So what are we supposed to do with a Supreme Court that is as infallible as the Pope? In an era of complete data on everything, shouldn't there be some sort of measurement of justices like Scalia that disciplines them, or even removes them? Check this out:
[Jonathan H. Adler] Justice Stevens made the same mistake before Justice Scalia: When the Supreme Court misrep...
(CUSA) - If you haven't been following the oppression of free speech in a lawsuit against Mark Steyn it is worth a look. We wrote about it in February, but the absurdity of persecuting a journalist for being a "climate change denier" continues. The mainstream media is so invested in a certain outcome that freedom has become at best an empty word, or worse, something to be rejected as evil. "Freedom is Slavery" as Orwell put it. In his blog, Mark Steyn updates us on the ongoing absurdity and how even some Leftists are becoming uncomfortable with the direction this is taking towards oppressing the Freedom of the Press: How bad are things for free speech in America right now? This week the Supreme Court turned its attention to an Ohio law under which people can be fined or jailed if the "election commission" pronounces them guilty of "lying" in a political ad. Orwell's Ministry of Truth, as Justice Scalia rightly called it, is alive and [...]
The Supreme Court is finally hearing the case (National Relations Board v. Noel Canning) and during the oral arguments last Monday, Justice Scalia slammed Obama’s blatant overreach of power. He said that in order to justify these recess appointments, a “self-interested” president would have to blatantly “ignore the Constitution.”
Justice Scalia was right: Based on the decisions in Utah & Ohio, all state laws forbidding same-sex marriage violate the US Constitution. Civil Rights litigation filed in the wake of the US Supreme Court's June 2013 Windsor v. United States opinion, which held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples, has begun to result in major victories for marriage equality advocates. In the last week, the Supreme Court of New Mexico held that all jurisdictions in that state must offer marriage licenses to all couples regardless of gender. The next day, Utah US District Judge Robert J. Shelby held that the Utah constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman violates the US Constitution and ordered that same-sex marriage be legalized throughout that conservative state. Subsequent attempts by the State of Utah to stay Judge Shelby's ruling pending the outcome of the state's appeal have been rejected on the basis that the state will ...
One of the great perks of working with The Rice Divorce Team is having the opportunity to attend special events and hear incredible speakers. On Wednesday, December 16, 13 members of our team had the pleasure of listening to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speak at the Peabody Hotel, Grand Ballroom. The invitation only luncheon was presented by the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law. After speaking briefly on our country, our Bill of Rights, and his belief that the most important court in the lives of the citizens is not the Federal Supreme Court but rather each individual states Supreme Court, Justice Scalia took questions from the audience. "Am I the last thing between them and the next course," he joked. It was with that mix of humor and a deep conviction for what he believes that lead his answers over the next 15 minutes. We at the Rice Divorce Team are incredibly lucky to have had the opportunity to learn from the longest serving Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
"Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't want to 'get upset' in the morning, we learned this week from his refreshingly candid interview in New York magazine. That's why he limits his newspaper consumption to The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times -- reliably conservative outlets -- and avoids the 'so shrilly, shrilly liberal' Washington Post. In the car to and from the Supreme Court, he listens mostly to conservative talk radio, including the call-in show of his 'good friend' Bill Bennett, Ronald Reagan's secretary of education. Bennett's producers, Scalia says, 'keep off stupid people'. Now, Justice Scalia has a tough job and deserves all the peace of mind he can muster. It's too bad, though, that he feels it necessary to inhabit a media bubble where his ideological convictions are always confirmed and never challenged. He's hardly alone, of course: Plenty of other people -- maybe even a liberal justice or two -- confine themselves to an opposing media diet of NPR, HuffingtonPost.com, and The New York ...
I’ve finally had a chance to go through some of the detail and analysis behind this week’s historic Supreme Court rulings on *** marriage.  But before I go into my own views on the Court’s rulings (as if anyone cares what I think about them) and what they might mean to me and the one I love, I did want to make a couple of random observations. First, it seems like there’s some journalistic law that any time you mention the phrase “Supreme Court ruling” somewhere near the end of the Court’s term, you also have to use the word “historic” or “landmark”.  Seriously, searching Google News for “historic Supreme Court” (with the quotes) or “landmark Supreme Court” each land over 1,700 articles. Secondly and perhaps more seriously, it must really suck to be one of the other cases.  I’m thinking in particular of Sekhar v. United States, the extortion case sandwiched on the last day between the two *** marriage cases and which even Justice Scalia mocked by introducing his opinion w ...
For those who believe that the Supreme Court's Prop 8 decision is partisan and an abuse of power in defiance of the people's will, take note. Among those in the majority are Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, two judicial conservatives who do not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Among those in the dissent are Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor, who seem sympathetic to the same-sex marriage movement. It seems that at least some of the Justices honestly believe that the Court has no authority to decide this case even if they would like to do so. Such a ruling ought to please those who complain about unelected judges exercising too much power. It is understandable that those who supported Prop 8 are disappointed with the case's practical implications, but their complaint should be with the California governor and attorney general who refuse to defend Prop 8, and who are controlled by voters. And perhaps we will discover that the complaint is also with voters whose will has chan ...
I'm wondering if Justice Scalia is having nightmares about 60,000 joyous *** and *** crowded into Candlestick Park to night cheering about today's Supreme Court decisions in U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry. Just read his concurrence in Barnes v. Glen Theatre (one of his greatest hits) to show those of you who don't know what I'm talking about. He's Eric Cartman as a Supreme Court Justice.
Spoof Alert! Supreme CoURT FREES AMERICANS FROM BURDEN OF VOTING WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) — By a five-to-four vote, the Supreme Court today acted, in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, “to relieve millions of Americans from the onerous burden of having to vote.” Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia stated, “Since 1965, citizens across the nation have lived under the tyranny of being forced to elect people to represent them. This is an important step to free them from that unfair and heinous obligation.” Justice Scalia added that the Voting Rights Act had “thrust upon the shoulders of millions of Americans the terrible and unwanted burden of exercising their rights in a democracy.” “Many of them have been forced to drive to polling places, wait in line, and then cast their vote because of the oppressive requirements of this Act,” he wrote. “It is our honor and duty to free them from those hardships.” In conclusion, Justice Scalia wrote, “Our message today to the Americ ...
“By tracking and recording the movements of millions of individuals the government can use computers to detect pat-terns and develop suspicions. There is something creepy and un-American about such clandestine and underhanded behavior. To those of us who have lived under a totalitarian regime, there is an eerie feeling of déjà vu.We are taking a giant leap into the unknown, and the consequences for ourselves and our children may be dire and irreversible. Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we’re living in Oceania.” ~ Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. Ringmaster of the Ninth Circuit, dissenting in U.S. v. Juan Pereda-Moreno (PDF file) [and for those professional and amateur legal beagles who are so sure that so-called “metadata” can be seized by our benevolent federal government without any Fourth Amendment implications, please be advised that Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court agree with Chief Judge Kozinski that it does, at least when it concerns GPS tracking data: (PDF file)]
Ken Bennett In 2004, Arizona voters enacted Proposition 200, a ballot measure that required voters to show ID at the polls and proof of citizenship when they register to vote. After nearly 10 years of legal proceedings, we were disappointed to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state’s ability to require additional documentation of citizenship from a voter who doesn’t provide it on the federal voter registration form. While disheartened with the court’s decision, we were encouraged by its recognition that Arizona is not prohibited from denying registration based on information in the state’s possession which indicates the applicant is not eligible — precisely the procedure currently employed by the state’s county recorders. In addition, we plan to renew our request of the Election Assistance Commission to include information necessary to determine eligibility on the federal form as suggested by Justice Scalia. If the Commission once again refuses, we plan to pursue further lit ...
Myriad BRCA Patents Ruled Invalid by US Supreme Court Roxanne Nelson Jun 13, 2013 In an highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court has effectively invalidated the patents held by Myriad Genetics for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. However, the ruling is not all bad news for Myriad. The Court unanimously ruled that although naturally isolated DNA is not patentable, synthetically created exon-only strands of nucleotides — complementary (c)DNA — is patentable. In essence, the Court ruled that 5 of Myriad's claims covering isolated DNA are not eligible for patents. But according to Myriad, the company holds more than "500 valid and enforceable claims in 24 different patents conferring strong patent protection for its BRACAnalysis test." The ruling was written by Justice Thomas, who was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan; Justice Scalia concurred in part. The Court held that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not pat ...
Apparently the rarefied air of the Supreme Court has so filled Justice Scalia's head that he has no idea what goes on across the nation during every election. What was he thinking about during the State of the Union speech when President Obama referred to a near centenarian (a woman of color) who was in the gallery who was forced to wait over six hours at the poll. He also never heard about the Eskimos whose local poll was moved over 100 miles away which would force them to take a plane to vote. I think he needs to get out more.
"Justice Scalia -- he is the Rush Limbaugh of the Supreme Court." -- Julian Bond (chairman emeritus of the NAACP)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Voting Rights Act should not be upheld because congress really didn't mean to vote unanimously for its enactment, and we should not rely on Congress for this matter and should ignore their intent. My question is this: Since Justice Scalia thinks we shouldn't listen to Congress for enactment of laws, does this also mean that we should ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court from now on? If so, I think Justice Scalia just argued himself out of a job.
Justice Antonin Scalia disgraced both himself and the Supreme Court when he described the 1964 Voting Rights Act, as well as the 1965 Civil Rights Act, as "racial entitlement.". These comments can be described as nothing less than preducial in the worst possible context. The fact that he would be such a loose cannon and fire off such a personal broadside ad hoc is more unconchable, as it shows lack of discretion and discipline. If he cannot or will not apologize for these unfortunate statements, Justice Scalia would serve any legacy he leaves behind, as well as the High Court, by just resigning. cmc
Video on msnbc.com: MSNBC's Ezra Klein has just released audio of Justice Scalia's controversial Voting Rights Act claim. NPR's Corey Dade joins Ezra for analysis of the Supreme Court audio.
Clarence Thomas, the only black U.S Supreme Court Justice sitting on the courts, sat and said NOTHING, when Justice Scalia said voting is "A Perpetuation of Racial Entitlement". Medgar Evers. Goodman,Chaney, Schwerner. Viola Luizzo. Jimmy Lee Johnson. All the named and Unnamed foot soldiers and Freedom Fighters who marched.And fought. And died,even for Clarence Thomas. And for him to sit there and say Nothing. You are a *** DISGRACE. AND FAR WORSE THAN SCALIA ANY DAY.
Justice Scalia was a judge appointed by Boss Hogg in the Dukes of Hazzard, before joining the Supreme Court.
Wonder how pending Supreme Court ruling might impact the single member district case against Farmers Branch. Heated debate on Voting Rights Act as Justice Scalia calls landmark law a “racial entitlement" liberals push back - By Todd J. Gillman/Reporter tgillmanFebruary 27, 2013 WASHINGTON –The fate of a landmark Civil Rights law that has ensured the right to vote for millions of people in Texas and other states is now in the hands of a deeply divided Supreme Court. An hour of heated oral arguments exposed the court’s ideological chasm, and a 5-4 ruling striking down key parts of the Voting Rights Act seemed plausible. The Shelby County, Ala., case amounts to the most potent assault to date on the law, in particular Section 5, which requires Texas and eight other states to seek federal permission before any changes to election rules. Parts of seven other states also are covered. The four liberals on the court were openly hostile to arguments that it’s time to end oversight in jurisdictions long cov ...
In June, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on a key provisiion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This concerns a part of the law that requires states with a "history of discrimination" ... to get approval before making changes in how they change election processes and regulations. Clearly, this has helped millions exercise their right to vote Justice Scalia said the law is a "perpetuation of racial entitlement". Justice Kennedy .. seems to be siding with the Conservatives on the court and could be the vote that counts; he said: Times change. Chief Justice Roberts ... cited stats showing greater racial disparities in some aspects of voting in Massachusetts compared to Mississippi. He asked, the government's top Supreme Court lawyer: does the Obama administratiion think "citizens in the South are more racist than citizens in the North"? The Solicitor General answered: No. Shelby County, Alabama is challenging the law, but Liberal Justice Sotomayor claimed that recent voting rights lawsuits in tha ...
Sitting here listening and watching News Nation with Tamron Hall on MSNBC! The main topic of today is about the Supreme Court's going over Section 5 of the Voters' rights act. Of course the Conservative/Republican members of Congress are leaning toward abolishing the act . (Justice Scalia and the rest of the Good Boys- Yeah I know Clarence Thomas doesn't have the color of the rest of the boys, but inside he's the same as the rest of them! It will be a significant blow to democracy should these pompous *** get rid of the act! Sadly there are those who want to take this nation back to it's inglorious past, a past where they felt comfortable! A past where minorities were treated with total with disregard to their being a member of the human race! A past where they could murder and rape and plunder with impunity! A past where no minority could challenge their behaviors! A past where Black people could not testify in a court of law against even the most crooked White person! A past were little Bl ...
Oh that pesky Second Amendment -- the one about those guns. There's been an ongoing argument here for the last 2 days about gun regulations. Can we regulate guns? Are universal background checks within the scope of the amendment? Several very persistent posters seem to believe that the 2nd Amendment is absolute -- a position that is no surprise to me. My father held the identical view. For all of you absolutists, I give you Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in the Heler decision: “Like most rights,” Justice Scalia said, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” And: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and car ...
In my exchange with Senator Leahy here is one small segment in our ongoing exchange.Senator Leahy made this comment: I grew up hunting in Vermont and am still an avid target shooter. I value our Second Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court has said definitively that Americans are guaranteed its protections. But like all of the rights guaranteed by our Constitution, it is not absolute. I agreed with Justice Scalia when he wrote in the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller decision that the Second Amendment does not prohibit reasonable regulations.
Justice Antonin Scalia: "Guns may be regulated" In July 2012, Justice Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative judges, said that the 2nd Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including "dangerous and unusual weapons." The justice also noted that there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening firearms and limited the locations where weapons could be carried.
“Justice Scalia clearly laid out in Heller what Second Amendements were and what they were not. The most Conservative justice on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, made it very clear: assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.” - Joe Scarborough.
I agree with my Steve Malone's post: I grew up with guns and was taught to respect them. I graduated from the New York State Municipal Police Academy while in college. I served twenty years in the United States Army, including a combat tour in the first Gulf War. I represented hundreds of clients accused of murder, including those charged with mass murder. I have seen first hand the destruction that guns can have in our open society, but I accept the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I don't want to take away handguns some own for self protection (even though I believe those guns make them and their family less safe). I don't want to take away shotguns and hunting rifles used for recreation. Those guns are protected by the Supreme Court's Heller decision. But I am convinced that semi-automatic assault rifles and high capacity magazines are "dangerous and unusual" weapons (Justice Scalia's words -- not mine) that must be banned. Even Justice Scalia who wrote Heller seems to make clear that those weapons ...
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with an Assault Weapons Ban: Gun loving Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy is that of constitutional originalism -- meaning the Constitution should be interpreted solely in terms of the framers' original intent. He professes to believe that the words in the Constitution must be interpreted to mean only what they meant when they were written -- no less, no more. So the Second Amendment ought to protect citizens' right to bear flintlock rifles & pistols -- no less, and no more!
"And what did Justice Scalia say? Pretty much that not only could Maine not secede (ironically enough, Maine is one of the three states that has no secession petition on the White House website), but the question is so firmly settled that it could not even get a hearing before the Supreme Court, because the United States government would refuse to entertain it: I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit."
Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy will retire this Presidential term leaving Supreme Court leaning left and the 2nd Amendment in trouble.
Powerful: December 13, 2012 "This past Monday, when speaking at Princeton University, Justice Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court made a grotesque and astonishing statement. In response to a student’s question about his unyielding support of laws that would ban consensual sexual relations between *** people, even in the privacy of their own homes, Justice Scalia responded, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?” That a sitting U.S. Justice could draw any kind of parallel between an act of love and tenderness on the one hand and an act of ultimate violence and evil on the other is more than disheartening; it sends a message to LGBT people everywhere that a member of our highest court cannot see us as anything but criminals, simply because of who we are and who we love. How can any *** couple coming before this court seeking equal treatment under the law have any realistic hope that Justice Scalia will fairly apply the rule of law and the principles of our ...
For my friends who have some hesitation to vote for Romney, I'd just ask you to keep these things in mind: 1. Justice Scalia just turned 78 2. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this yr 3. Justice Breyer will be 76 in Aug 4. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a wk ago. In addition, Justice Ginsburg has Pancreatic Cancer. 5 Justice Stephens has already said he would retire & is just waiting for Obama to be reelected. The next president could appoint as many as 5 new Justices over the next 4 yrs, or over the next 8 yrs if a new President gets a 2nd term. This election is about much more than the Obama-Care Tax. Whomever we elect as president in Nov is almost certainly going to choose at least 1 new member of the Supreme Court, in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come." If you don't think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, Think Again. So, for anybody who is thinkin ...
Justice Scalia said that outlawing homosexual sodomy was a "no-brainer" based on a strict reading of the Constitution. Speaking at a book reading and lecture at Washington’s American Enterprise Institute this week, the Supreme Court Justice called himself a "textualist," or someone who interprets th...
Scott Brown says that Justice Scalia is the justice he considers to be the "model" Supreme Court Justice. During an NPR interview Justice Scalia said that he decides cases based on whether or not the issue existed during the time of our Founding Fathers.anyone see a problem with deciding TODAY's issues based on whether or not it existed in the 1700's?
Justice Scalia must resign By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: June 27 Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court. He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem. So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court Justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona Immigration Law, should be the end of the line. Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood. “After this case was argued and while it was under ...
Our Times Square headquarters was the venue for a Newsmaker event on September 17 featuring Justice Antonin Scalia and Professor Bryan A. Garner in a lively discussion about their new book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts . 25 Sep 2012 Thomson Reuters Before a packed room of law students, customers and Thomson Reuters professionals, the conversation, moderated by Reuters News Editor-in-Chief Stephen Adler, explored a host of topics on modern judicial decision-making and principles of U.S. constitutional, statutory and contractual interpretation with frequent applause – and laughter – from the audience. In his welcoming remarks, Mike Suchsland, President, Legal, introduced Justice Scalia as a “jurist who is known for his entertaining style and his colorful analogies” and the judge did not fail to engage the crowd. Nominated to the court in 1986, Scalia is now the longest-serving justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, and has participated in 2,000 court decisions through which he’s had ...
So it's taken me 15 years to get to the stage where I get paid to write about my favorite topics, and granted I'm not making tons of money but it's pretty cool being asked to write a review of Justice Scalia's latest book about constitutional law/Supreme Court/judicial interpretation - Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. So far the best part is this case which demonstrates why we need textualism when interpreting the law, not a "living constitution" and trying to make crazy new interpretations of the law in order to insert the judges' own agenda. The Kansas Supreme Court held that roosters are not "animals," so that cockfighting was not outlawed by a statute making it illegal to "subject any animal to cruel mistreatment." State ex rel. Miller v. Claiborne, 505 P.2d 732, 733 (Kan. 1973)
Review "Who but Hadley Arkes could produce a page-turner on classic constitutional cases? Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths is just that-an intellectually thrilling hunt for truths about man, nature and government encoded in decisions so familiar that we have lost awareness of their deepest meanings." -Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard University Law School "With a rare combination of rigor and wit, Professor Arkes sheds new light on the principles animating Supreme Court cases long thought familiar. His penetrating analysis is a welcome challenge to understandings too often taken for granted in the academy and in the courts. This thought-provoking book will captivate anyone concerned about the legal and moral framework of our constitutional system." -Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit "For over a generation, Hadley Arkes has been America's most articulate and cogent defender of the limited, but important and indispensable, role of moral reasoning in constitutio ...
Carl Cecere is an appellate attorney at Hankinson LLP. Lorianne Updike Toler is founding president of The Constitutional Sources Project (ConSource), founder of her own legal history and international constitutional consulting practice, and currently pursuing an SJD at The University of Pennsylvania Law School. In the war of words over the role of history in constitutional interpretation, advocates on all sides, Originalist and Non-Originalist alike, try time and again to recruit the Supreme Court itself to their side, by arguing that their own preferred theory is more firmly rooted in the tradition of Supreme Court jurisprudence than all others. Witness the Battle Royale that consumed the legal academy this summer, which began when Justice Scalia cited a number of examples from such luminaries as Justice Holmes and Chief Justice Marshall in a book he co-authored with Bryan Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts , to demonstrate that his adopted interpretive theory, “textual originalism ...
Get 6 Free VitaTops
The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin. To be released tomorrow. Justice Scalia reportedly "enraged" by Chief Justice John Roberts' decision on "Obamacare." Already ordered this one.
The foundational principles of Native American tribal sovereignty established in Worcester v. Georgia, a landmark 1833 U.S. Supreme Court case, have been steadily eroded in the courts in recent years. Since 1985, Indian Nations lost more than 80 percent of tribal sovereignty cases. By 2001, Worcester's principles lay on their deathbed, as noted by Justice Scalia in Nevada v. Hicks (2001): "State sovereignty does not end at a reservation's border. Though tribes are often referred to as 'sovereign' entities, it was 'long ago' that "the Court departed from Chief Justice Marshall's view that the laws of [a state] can have no force within reservation boundaries." Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 8 L.Ed. 483 (1833).-University of Tulsa Worcester Sovereignty Project page
About to sit in on a class with Justice Scalia of the US Supreme Court. In the words of Howard Dean: Byah!
Other famous or semi-famous people I've seen at airport in my day: Supreme Court "Justice" Antonin Scalia and "Full House" 's Bob Saget
I want every member of Congress removed from power, the Electoral College dismantled and Justice Antonin Scalia taken off the Supreme Court.
My desire is that President Obama gets elected because we can't afford another Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas to be chosen to be on the Supreme Court. People I cetainly hope that you understand the ramifications of not voting. We can't afford to sit this one out.
Some in the media, including conservative media, are claiming that conservative Justice Antonin Scalia is saying the Supreme Court can limit the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Conservatives against Obama and his liberal adgenda. no longer bush's fault If you don't like Mitt Romney, consider this, Justice Scalia turned 79, Kennedy will turn 76, Breyer will be 74, and Ginsburg is 79. Whoever wins this election will get one possibly two lifetime appointments to the US Supreme Court. A write in vote or a third party vote and not only do we get Barack Hussein again, imagine a Justice Eric Holder. Ron
In this report from several years ago we can clearly see that Scalia is not a strict constructionist as Jefferson and Madison tried to define that position during the bank debate with Hamilton. He is saying pretty clearly here that the governement can take away any rights that are not actually required by the Constitution. I think Jefferson and Madison would have argued nearly the opposite position: the government cannot take away any rights unless the Constitution explicitly gives it the power to do so. ["While giving a lecture titled "Catholicism and Justice" at John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio on Tuesday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was asked whether he thought constitutional rights were being violated in America's new campaign on terrorism. Justice Scalia responded that the government would be justified in scaling down rights. "The Constitution just sets minimums," he said. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires." According to Scalia, du ...
After watching Justice Scalia comment on the Piers Morgan show tonight (11PM-11AM, CNN) I am convinced God prepared this man for the Supreme Court. He undestands the Constitution's intent to protect our God-given rights to worship God as we please and to enjoy freedom of speech. And, those are based on property rights, which are given to us by God himself; --- his promise to Abraham !
Justice Scalia shows Piers Morgan the "bowels" of the Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia said he hasn't had a "falling out" with Chief Justice John Roberts over the Supreme Court's landmark 5-4 decision validating much of President Barack Obama's health care overhau
Justice Antonin Scalia is not feuding with Chief Justice John Roberts, despite finding himself on the losing end of the Supreme Court's ruling on the health care law. In an interview broadcast Wednesday on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," the 76-year-old justice said there's no truth to recent reports...
With one syllable, Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday avoided a public discussion about whether the Supreme Court would be engaging in judicial activism — as President Obama has argued it would — if it struck down the 2010 healthcare law's individual mandate. When asked at a Long Island breakfast eve...
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., proved the unnamed butt of a joke at the Supreme Court hearing today, as the courtroom chuckled at Justice Scalia's suggestion that the court overturn the "Cornhusker Kickback" because it amounted to bribery.
In Tuesday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General and chief ObamaCare advocate Donald Verrilli was presented with a substantial portion of his own posterior by Justice Antonin Scalia. The summary execution began when Verrilli made the extraordinary mistake of schooling the Cour...
Ron Pagliarulo writes: Last but surely not least, to the four dissenting Supreme Court Justices, particularly Antonin Scalia, regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I quote a comment made by Justice Scalia following the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000, and apply it here: Get over it...
By voting to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), Chief Justice Roberts avoids ignominy and perhaps even infamy. He avoids the fate of his predecessors on the bench by learning from history rather than repeating it. Last Thursday the US Supreme Court issued a
The U.S. Supreme Court's Antonin Scalia discusses his public and private life in a remarkably candid interview with Lesley Stahl.
Thom Hartmann: On Tuesday - in his dissenting opinion to the Arizona immigration case - Justice Scalia lashed out at President Obama - for not doing enough to enforce Immigration Laws. With his blatant impartiality and total disregard for the institution of the Supreme Court - isn't it time Justice ...
I was amazed and heartened by today's announcement of the US Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act. I don't feel like "my side" won. In fact, I still have serious reservations with the ACA but for vastly different reasons than a majority of Americans who are upset by today's announcement. I am heartened because I am reminded that our system of government works--imperfectly, maddeningly, and surprisingly but it works. This was a heady week for the Court. I'm still disturbed--not surprised, but disturbed--by Monday's announcement overturning Montana's century-old Anti-corruption Law. I'm still perplexed by the Court's decision on the Arizona Immigration Law (particularly Justice Scalia's dissent). And today's announcement floored me, as much for the evidence of very self-aware Court as for the decision itself. I spent many years battling the cynicism towards American democracy we have bequeathed to younger generations. In my time away from teaching I have allowed myself a bit too much intimate ...
Departing from Supreme Court tradition, Justice Antonin Scalia published his concurring opinion on his new blog, It's Nino's Law: Get Used to It. In his opening post, Justice Scalia explained: Since my recent opinion in Arizona v. United States I've finally realized that what I've really always wanted to be is a conservative pundit. Therefore from now on all my opinions will appear as blog posts. Oh, and by the way, why does Barack Obama hate America?
Although no one knows how the Supreme Court will rule, Thursday, on ObamaCare, journalists over the past few months have dismissed and derided the concept that the President's signature legislation could be declared unconstitutional. CNN's Jeffrey Toobin predicted an eight-to-one vote upholding the law. Former New York Times Court reporter Linda Greenhouse said that Americans who think the law is unconstitutional are "wrong." Appearing on the March 23 Situation Room, Toobin hyped, "I actually think that Chief Justice Roberts and perhaps even Justice Scalia and Justice Alito might join Justice Kennedy in upholding the law." He added, "In striking this law down, it would really be a big change in constitutional law, and I'm not sure this court is ready to do it."
With his scathing dissenting opinion on the Supreme Court's overturning major parts of the Arizona illegal alien law, Justice Scalia is now my supreme hero. Chief Justice Roberts is a major disappointment in his lack of willingness to stand behind existing federal laws. I thought Roberts had more backbone.
Photos from Legal Studies students' visit to the Supreme Court last week, where Justice Scalia spoke
Video on msnbc.com: The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled today the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against *** couples. Legendary attorney David Boies and Zach Wahls join The Last Word to look at the case that could be headed to the Supreme Court.
a little annoyed with Justice Kagan on the Supreme Court, to say the least...thank goodness we have Justice Thomas and Scalia on the bench!!
Donald Verrilli (U.S. Solicitor General): "It is our position because the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government. Justice Scalia: "Well all that means, it gives authority over naturalization, which we've expanded to immigration. But all that means is that the government can set forth the rules concerning who belongs in this country. But if, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in Arizona, Arizona has no power?
Justice Breyer and Justice Scalia appeared before the Judiciary Committee on October 5 to discuss the role of Supreme Court Justices under the Constitution. ...
Trump Jr Donald Trump Jr White House Star Wars Donald Trump Maryam Mirzakhani Bastille Day Venus Williams Garbine Muguruza Ty Cobb Middle East San Francisco Roger Federer John Mccain Chris Froome Red Sox Will Smith Disney Parks Naomi Scott Elon Musk Ryan Lochte Wells Fargo Donald Jr Princess Diana Red Sea President Trump Jane Austen Theresa May South Africa Mitch Mcconnell Supreme Court Trump Tower New Zealand Marin Cilic Islamic State Last Jedi Manchester United Nelsan Ellis Social Security Sarah Palin Gary Oldman Daft Punk Zayn Malik Gold Cup Bill Maher Alfred Angelo Shepard Smith Las Vegas Long Island Man Utd Harry Potter Lonzo Ball True Blood Western Sydney Wanderers Kid Rock First Picture San Miguel Robin Williams Andy Murray Emmanuel Macron Walt Disney World Dirty Dancing Fran Lebowitz Watch John Oliver Princess Jasmine Honda Accord Grand Slam George Clooney Romelu Lukaku Kristen Bell Marco Polo Prince Harry Nevada Gov Mutual Fund First Lady Grenfell Tower Kezia Dugdale Des Plaines River Amazon Prime Day Kumail Nanjiani Love Island Southern Rail Des Plaines Premier League Whole Foods Real Madrid Jamie Dimon President Donald Trump Winston Churchill Selena Gomez Liu Xiaobo Brexit Britain Carrie Fisher Gigi Hadid Gianni Versace Fields Medal Jose Quintana Team Sky Lewis Hamilton Chuck Blazer
© 2017