Would Scalia survive if another conservative were replaced with a liberal?
| stirring new version | 06/26/15 | | doobsian space toaster | 06/26/15 | | Primrose ceo | 06/26/15 | | doobsian space toaster | 06/26/15 | | stirring new version | 06/26/15 | | Umber Comical Voyeur Area | 06/26/15 | | cowardly zombie-like fanboi halford | 06/26/15 | | geriatric kitty cat state | 06/26/15 | | cream black woman | 06/26/15 | | Citrine bateful bawdyhouse legal warrant | 06/26/15 | | geriatric kitty cat state | 06/26/15 | | Citrine bateful bawdyhouse legal warrant | 06/27/15 | | Citrine bateful bawdyhouse legal warrant | 06/26/15 | | Cobalt marketing idea gas station | 06/26/15 | | cowardly zombie-like fanboi halford | 06/26/15 | | cream black woman | 06/26/15 | | Citrine bateful bawdyhouse legal warrant | 06/26/15 | | cowardly zombie-like fanboi halford | 06/26/15 | | Cobalt marketing idea gas station | 06/26/15 | | cowardly zombie-like fanboi halford | 06/26/15 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 26th, 2015 8:31 PM Author: stirring new version
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: Citrine bateful bawdyhouse legal warrant
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: Citrine bateful bawdyhouse legal warrant
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) |
|
|