ditto all other ‘conservative’ lawyers.
Form an orderly queue to suck cock.
Gobble, gobble, gobble!
The Constitution and laws of the US, dipshit.
You’ll eventually get used to him. He’s actually kind of cute when he starts frothing at the anus.
I thought that was senator Santorum?
duffer:
Well, Scalia isn’t that bad. He’s unfit for the bench, of course, but doesn’t actually froth at the anus.
On reflection this has to be the most astounding sentence in American jurisprudence.
Christ, we liberals finally win something on an important issue and already we’re grousing that somebody didn’t see it our way. No wonder we suck at politics.
What get’s me is in the dissent, Thomas refers to Justice John Paul Stevens’ “unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare”. Stevens was in the Navy during WWII. Thomas has no military experience.
My limited understanding is that it doesn’t - that power actually comes from the Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803. Which is not to say it’s not essential to the form of our government. But the Constitution is a rather short document and many ideas we consider extremely important weren’t actually written into the Constitution.
We already knew Scalia takes the reactionary Federalist Society approach, which broadly denies the legitimacy of pretty much anything that’s happened in jurisprudence since before the Civil War, but now we find he wants to go back even further? To before 1803, fer Og’s sake? Just when exactly does he think we took a wrong turn - at independence? The Restoration, maybe? Or is he simply trying to rationalize a foundation for his simple partisanship?
I just wanted to mention that you have an interesting taste in women.
How on earth did that post wind up in this thread? It was supposed to go here, in IMHO. Would some kind person please report these two posts to a moderator before I turn appropriately red with embarrassment, white with mortification, and blue with dejection?
I’d be more concerned with Sevastopol ordering you to get in line. 
Siege, I moved your post to the appropriate thread. I also accidentally renamed the thread and moved it to the Pit in the process, but I think everything is OK now.
On the upside, I’m fairly certain that Scalia’s teeth are of the removable sort.
:o <----- Scalia
Duh.
There are in fact Dopers who also ascribe to the Federalist Society philosophy. Might it just be possible to draw them out a bit about their views of Scalia’s remarkable statement before such an abrupt dismissal? :dubious:
Thanks. That may have turned me off forever.
Where’s the blue-black stubble?