Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases

[Uve]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
way to miss the entire point...
you are advocating for judicial activism....
and you will also cry about the R appointees...
I need to get off this thread, the level of ignorance is just too much...

Yes you do, your ignorance and bigotry is showing, just like all your other posts

[Uve]

miller wrote:

<quoted text>Homosexuality, or the claim of it, isn't analogous to being born black, Japanese, Indian, what have you.
The government singled out for disparate and negative treatment these races and ethnicities, which all undoubtedly included a small number of homosexuals. The government didn't and shouldn't concern itself with the trivial, such as whiners whining about being some sort of queer.

So says the POS bigot

[RnL2008]

Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:

<quoted text>Same for you missy, but you stopped at hers to voice your displeasure.

Hey doc........Jane Dough ain't a her, but a him......sort of like you pretending you're a human being.........lol!!!

[Uve]

Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:

<quoted text>You are the bigot and racist, if you compare a sexual behavior to a race. If homosexuality were a valid cause, it could stand on it's own. During the Civil rights movement, racial discrimination was it's own cause, because it was a cause.

And just how do you figure that? Seems like YOUR more concerned with 'sex acts' than I am. You also seem to not know sh*t about the Civil Rights movement either....

[WMCOL]

Quest wrote:

So, Scalia, as a "textualist" believes that anything that was legal, illegal or not understood cannot legally change over time?
Because he feels we should try to interpret the thought processes and beliefs of the founders and ensure that the current laws reflect them?
And he believes that as long as something has believed or done for a long time, that the laws enforcing that belief should remain ever intact?
Slavery should not be illegal.
Women should not vote.
Women should have no property rights, and be chattel to their husbands.
Young children should enter the workforce.
Women should, in all circumstances, be forced to carry a baby to term.
We can decide which minorities are entitled to equal protection under the law, based only on how we feel of them, with no state interest whatsoever.
The income taxes that pay his salary, pension, and medical expenses are illegal.
Is the man out of his freaking mind? he must be livid that a black man is president, since he believes that slavery is a hallowed and necessary institution, as the founding fathers did.

==========
All good reasons why we must NEVER let a right-wing extremist like Mitt become President. It's about preserving liberty and freedom and while Obama is not a great President, he is much better than Romney.

[WMCOL]

How does a person decide to not be a certain skin color? Do a Michael Jackson?

A black person for example, cannot choose to manifest as not having black skin, or blood.

But a gay person can choose to not manifest gay behavior. Being gay has a choice of behavior that being black does not have.

[DaveinMass]

WMCOL wrote:

But a gay person can choose to not manifest gay behavior. Being gay has a choice of behavior that being black does not have.

Then the same must be true for you heterosexuals.

[WMCOL]

DaveinMass wrote:

<quoted text>
Then the same must be true for you heterosexuals.

==========
Heterosexuals who are black cannot choose to not manifest black skin or blood either. Just further proves the comparison of sexual orientation treatment to race discriminaton is misplaced.

[Uve]

WMCOL wrote:

How does a person decide to not be a certain skin color? Do a Michael Jackson?
A black person for example, cannot choose to manifest as not having black skin, or blood.
But a gay person can choose to not manifest gay behavior. Being gay has a choice of behavior that being black does not have.

It's not a choice clown, You think people would choose to be focus of your bigotry? Did YOU choose to be heterosexual?

[Curteese]

Jedi Mind_Tricker wrote:

<quoted text>Even if you did, that is sex and your gay cause has hated blacks and shown it. By the way, during slavery there were southern whites who opposed the majority action too. However, if you compare gay sex with black racism, then you hate blacks and just love any kind of sex. Your sexual desires with black men, I am sure is just selfish. A man can have sex with a prostitute and women and still be a misogynist, and women and gays have no problem making that distinction.

Really, I have had a couple of highly supportive relationships with black men. One of them was an author and I spent untold hours helping him refine his book and finally he got it published. He sadly passed away due to cancer several years ago, but there was NO racism in our relationship.

[Curteese]

WMCOL wrote:

<quoted text>
==========
Heterosexuals who are black cannot choose to not manifest black skin or blood either. Just further proves the comparison of sexual orientation treatment to race discriminaton is misplaced.

To semi-quote Dr. Martin Luther King, if one is oppressed, we all are oppressed. No one should be oppressed, and save us your petty "what about child molesters, or polygamists, or whatever," You know very well what I mean. No law abiding person should be oppressed.

[Cletus]

Curteese wrote:

<quoted text>Really, I have had a couple of highly supportive relationships with black men. One of them was an author and I spent untold hours helping him refine his book and finally he got it published. He sadly passed away due to cancer several years ago, but there was NO racism in our relationship.

Did the black Sambo do you up the butt?

[Lawrence Wolf]

Cletus wrote:

<quoted text>Did the black Sambo do you up the butt?

No, when he got through with you, he lost his desire.

[Jerald]

LlE Buster wrote:

<quoted text>What Scalia said was that the 13th and 14th Amendment had to be added to the constitution to give blacks rights not already there.

Wrong. The rights were already there. Blacks were prohibited from enjoying them because they were not legal persons or citizens, they were legal property.

Gay people are citizens, and entitled to the equal protections of the law in every state, as are all citizens. That's what the 14th Amendment guarantees.

LlE Buster wrote:

<quoted text>He then said that you bigot gay racist who hate blacks need to do the same and ratify the constitution with 38 states agreeing to change the constitution.

Why? What change is needed? There is no legal prohibition on marriage based on sexual orientation. Gay people can marry in every state. Indeed, gay COUPLES can marry in every state, provided in most of them one partner has to be a gay male and the other a lesbian female.

The restriction is based on gender, not sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has ruled over a dozen times that civil marriage is a fundamental right. And there is no compelling governmental interest in denying the right to civil marriage based on the gender of the partners.

Scalia's error in interpretation is exactly why James Madison initially resisted an adoption of a Bill of Rights. Madison was concerned that someone would come along later (someone like Scalia) and insist that the only rights a citizen had were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution -- and no more. When Madison realized that a Bill of Rights was necessary to win ratification of the Constitution, he drafted the document himself, but included the Ninth Amendment, which specifies that citizens enjoy OTHER rights not specifically enumerated. These are rights citizens enjoy, including the right to vote, travel, marry, privacy, and none of which are guaranteed in the Constitution.

LlE Buster wrote:

<quoted text>That is why you freaks want special rights, you want rights that were not even given to blacks.

Feel free to articulate exactly what "special right" gay and lesbian people are demanding that heterosexual people don't already or wouldn't enjoy.

You should try actually reading the Constitution sometime. It might help. But based on your apparent limited critical thinking skills, somehow I doubt it.

[Curteese]

Cletus wrote:

<quoted text>Did the black Sambo do you up the butt?

How odd life is, that talented man is dead and you are running free, alive. Why aren't YOU lying in your muddy grave? Oh, how sweet your funeral will be! I'll be there, wearing an aloha shirt and shorts. After everyone leaves, all 2 of them, I'll piss on your grave and you can drink my root beer, then if it I am able, I will take a big dump on your grave and you can eat grave meat loaf, while I am at it, I'll piss on your vile old mother's grave to teach her a lesson for giving birth to a walking abortion like you.

[WMCOL]

Uve wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not a choice clown, You think people would choose to be focus of your bigotry? Did YOU choose to be heterosexual?

==========
>>>Did YOU choose to be heterosexual?<<<

No, but acting in a heterosexual way is a choice, just as acting in a homosexual way is a choice, unless gays, unlike heterosexuals, cannot control their behavior.

[WMCOL]

Curteese wrote:

<quoted text>To semi-quote Dr. Martin Luther King, if one is oppressed, we all are oppressed. No one should be oppressed, and save us your petty "what about child molesters, or polygamists, or whatever," You know very well what I mean. No law abiding person should be oppressed.

==========
"With due respect to Dr. King, not much can be done about the legions who are hell bent on causing their own oppression by behaving in certain unnatural, abnormal, unseemly, unbecoming ways. A change of behavior would change the oppression, but a black cannot change colors." - WMCOL

[snyper]

WMCOL wrote:

<quoted text>
==========
"With due respect to Dr. King, not much can be done about the legions who are hell bent on causing their own oppression by behaving in certain unnatural, abnormal, unseemly, unbecoming ways. A change of behavior would change the oppression, but a black cannot change colors." - WMCOL

Why should we have to?

[snyper]

Could Scalia's comment be ground to demand his recusal?

[WMCOL]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Why should we have to?

==========
You don't have to, but behavior has consequences, and you choose which ones to suffer or not. It's your call.