US Elections 2016

[Namutree]

 

 

 

It's not just Liberals... I mean the Arch Conservative Abraham (or was it Ibrahim?) Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now.

 

It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression.

 

That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done.

 

 

Is it actually possible to graduate from school in USA without getting passing grade from course about constitution? (Not any way relating in topic, but I am just curios)

 

Yes.

[Gromnir]

repeated advice:

 

is only one example o' val misapprehensions 'bout the Constitution displayed on these boards.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69988-obama-to-propose-free-community-college/?p=1556763

 

do not accept anything val says 'bout law in the US. is possible that he has actual read the Constitution, but am absolute certain that he doesn't understand what he thinks he read. am more shocked when he manages to mistake his way into being correct.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[kgambit]

 

Btw, turns out the Senate is in recess unit Feb 22, so Obola could make a recess appointment if he hurries up.

 

 

For what it's worth, here is a link  containing a partial description of  the SCOTUS docket for 2016.

 

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/01/five-supreme-court-cases-to-watch-in-2016/

Edited February 14, 2016 by kgambit

[Meshugger]

repeated advice:

 

is only one example o' val misapprehensions 'bout the Constitution displayed on these boards.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69988-obama-to-propose-free-community-college/?p=1556763

 

do not accept anything val says 'bout law in the US. is possible that he has actual read the Constitution, but am absolute certain that he doesn't understand what he thinks he read. am more shocked when he manages to mistake his way into being correct.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Politicking aside, what's your opinion about the recently deceased Scalia's "most famous" decisions in the supreme court? I am interested in hearing from someone actually practicing law.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Meshugger

[Calax]

 

 

It's not just Liberals... I mean the Arch Conservative Abraham (or was it Ibrahim?) Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now.

 

It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression.

 

And yet the current GOP call themselves the party of Lincoln. And it's not like Bush Jr was any better about paying attention to the Constitution given that he sent American citizens to Gitmo to torture them for information about AlQueda and others.

 

That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done.

And yet you don't even seem to understand it yourself. You treat it as some sort of sacred text that shall never be changed because that's how it was, and how your founders created it. Never minding the fact that it was created with notes about how slaves counted for voting. And I'm not sure how you think Freedom of Religion is being misused, it's there to prevent the government from saying "We're Chrisitans, so hang up your stars and crecent moons, you're worshipping the cross or going to jail!"

 

Ultimately American student's don't study the Constitution because it doesn't really effect them day to day. The laws that do effect them are taught to them before they're six as part of standard socialization. After all, I don't think a 12th grader is going to argue their constitutional rights in front of a judge.. that's why we have lawyers. And most of the time those who think they are "properly educated" (as in they read what they wanted to) are usually just involved in the groupthink of their community. Ignoring the fact "Right to Bare Arms" didn't exactly have RPG's or Cannons in mind.

[Gromnir]

 

repeated advice:

 

is only one example o' val misapprehensions 'bout the Constitution displayed on these boards.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69988-obama-to-propose-free-community-college/?p=1556763

 

do not accept anything val says 'bout law in the US. is possible that he has actual read the Constitution, but am absolute certain that he doesn't understand what he thinks he read. am more shocked when he manages to mistake his way into being correct.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Politicking aside, what's your opinion about the recently deceased Scalia's "most famous" decisions in the supreme court? I am interested in hearing from someone actually practicing law.

 

is there a case you is most interested in discussing?  Scalia had a Long career and he authored many controversial opinions... though please keep in mind that while Scalia were peerless in areas o' antitrust n' such, Gromnir has no ear for such stuff.  

 

regardless o' whether you liked Scalia or hated him, he were doggedly consistent (with a couple notable and disappointing exceptions) and he were the most entertaining writer on the Court.  

 

(edit: we will insert some o' our favorite Scaliaisms from the cases noted)

 

The purpose of Indiana’s nudity law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into the Hoosier Dome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd.

 

barnes v. glen theatre inc

 

Displays containing some words -- odious racial epithets, for example -- would be prohibited to proponents of all views. But "fighting words" that do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender -- aspersions upon a person's mother, for example -- would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc. tolerance and equality, but could not be used by that speaker's opponents. One could hold up a sign saying, for example, that all "anti-Catholic [p392] bigots" are misbegotten; but not that all "papists" are, for that would insult and provoke violence "on the basis of religion." St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules.

 

r.a.v. v. city of st. paul

 

Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: Our decision in Lee v. Weisman conspicuously avoided using the supposed "test" but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so.

...

 

The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we invoke it; when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it entirely. Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its three prongs 'no more than helpful signposts.' Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him.

 

lamb's chapel v. center moriches union free school district

 

is not necessarily the most influential cases, but search for scalia quotes from the above and you will gets some o' the best Justice zingers o' all-time.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps is no coincidence we chose all First Amendment.  Scalia has other great stuff, but... *shrug*

Edited February 14, 2016 by Gromnir

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

It's not just Liberals... I mean the Arch Conservative Abraham (or was it Ibrahim?) Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now.

 

It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression.

 

And yet the current GOP call themselves the party of Lincoln. And it's not like Bush Jr was any better about paying attention to the Constitution given that he sent American citizens to Gitmo to torture them for information about AlQueda and others.

 

That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done.

And yet you don't even seem to understand it yourself. You treat it as some sort of sacred text that shall never be changed because that's how it was, and how your founders created it. Never minding the fact that it was created with notes about how slaves counted for voting. And I'm not sure how you think Freedom of Religion is being misused, it's there to prevent the government from saying "We're Chrisitans, so hang up your stars and crecent moons, you're worshipping the cross or going to jail!"

 

Ultimately American student's don't study the Constitution because it doesn't really effect them day to day. The laws that do effect them are taught to them before they're six as part of standard socialization. After all, I don't think a 12th grader is going to argue their constitutional rights in front of a judge.. that's why we have lawyers. And most of the time those who think they are "properly educated" (as in they read what they wanted to) are usually just involved in the groupthink of their community. Ignoring the fact "Right to Bare Arms" didn't exactly have RPG's or Cannons in mind.

 

 

'And yet', again, irrelevant.

 

What some of the GOP advertises themselves is as relevant as what snake oil X salesman says his concoction can do, and just about as sincere. The reality is that modern GOP has less in common with the Republican Party of Linoln's time than the Democratic Party of the same era did.

 

At the national level, both parties are corrupt to the core. The words that come out of their mouths, in particular the mouths of the party 'leadership' and the RNC/DNC are less sincere or factual than the average proverbial used car salesman's.

 

As for the rest of what you say: more irrelevant to what I was saying nonsense.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Calax]

 

 

 

 

It's not just Liberals... I mean the Arch Conservative Abraham (or was it Ibrahim?) Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now.

 

It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression.

 

And yet the current GOP call themselves the party of Lincoln. And it's not like Bush Jr was any better about paying attention to the Constitution given that he sent American citizens to Gitmo to torture them for information about AlQueda and others.

 

That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done.

And yet you don't even seem to understand it yourself. You treat it as some sort of sacred text that shall never be changed because that's how it was, and how your founders created it. Never minding the fact that it was created with notes about how slaves counted for voting. And I'm not sure how you think Freedom of Religion is being misused, it's there to prevent the government from saying "We're Chrisitans, so hang up your stars and crecent moons, you're worshipping the cross or going to jail!"

 

Ultimately American student's don't study the Constitution because it doesn't really effect them day to day. The laws that do effect them are taught to them before they're six as part of standard socialization. After all, I don't think a 12th grader is going to argue their constitutional rights in front of a judge.. that's why we have lawyers. And most of the time those who think they are "properly educated" (as in they read what they wanted to) are usually just involved in the groupthink of their community. Ignoring the fact "Right to Bare Arms" didn't exactly have RPG's or Cannons in mind.

 

 

'And yet', again, irrelevant.

 

What some of the GOP advertises themselves is as relevant as what snake oil X salesman says his concoction can do, and just about as sincere. The reality is that modern GOP has less in common with the Republican Party of Linoln's time than the Democratic Party of the same era did.

 

At the national level, both parties are corrupt to the core. The words that come out of their mouths, in particular the mouths of the party 'leadership' and the RNC/DNC are less sincere or factual than the average proverbial used car salesman's.

 

As for the rest of what you say: more irrelevant to what I was saying nonsense.

 

And yet they're the people who lead us, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. Meaning that the party line and leadership is going to be a significant factor in the US election in 2016. And that no matter what you think you know about the constitution or it's interpretation, that's worthless because you're just a random person on the internet/in the US who can effect the ultimate outcome, but can't control the choices within the election.

[Valsuelm]

And yet they're the people who lead us, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. Meaning that the party line and leadership is going to be a significant factor in the US election in 2016. And that no matter what you think you know about the constitution or it's interpretation, that's worthless because you're just a random person on the internet/in the US who can effect the ultimate outcome, but can't control the choices within the election.

You seem to like to imagine things that were not said, or are not there, as well as to argue these imagined things just to argue and save some kind of imagined face.

 

Alas, I am reminded of why I stopped coming here.

[Calax]

I'm not the one who flew off on a tangent about people not knowing what the constitution was. Otherwise your entire string of posts has had little to nothing to do with the actual election other than show off your personal views on the matter.

 

That said, I'm guessing at this point Rubio is going to be angling for a VP selection given how badly he's been mangled in the debates. I think the "establishment" will only allow Trump to sneak by as much as they hate it, because they can afford to stand Cruz less than Trump. Beyond that I don't know how the field is going to react. If Kasich stays strong he'd probably get the party on his side but the way the elections been going he'll fall apart.

[Barothmuk]

We're a laughing stock in foreign affairs because our enemies believe us weak and stupid.

In my experience that's not why we're laughing at you. Edited February 15, 2016 by Barothmuk

[Hurlshort]

 

Alas, I am reminded of why I stopped coming here.

 

 

Uh oh, Val is going to take his ball and go home.  We better lay off guys.

 

This whole courtroom is out of order!  Fantastic quotes of Scalia, btw Gromnir.  I don't know how they will replace his opinions.

[Rostere]

So, as you might have not missed, Trump's comments about Bush pushing for the Iraq War in spite of there being no evidence for WMDs has stirred up a veritable ****storm of journalists who claim in extremely strong terms that he "lost the debate" (in contradiction to every poll that has been made) and that this is the end for him, after having claimed the same thing repeatedly since last summer with increasing desperation.

 

Bill Kristol, the neocon infamous for co-founding PNAC and pushing for a US invasion of Iraq from the 1990s, has basically his entire twitter feed full of huffing and puffing over the indignity that Bush would have pushed for the Iraq War without evidence of WMDs, even though we still have seen no actual credible evidence to this day. It's hilarious and I recommend everyone to give it a read.

 

A summary of some of the best: Trump is now finally "exposed", "Dickerson should ask all the candidates whether would still support Trump if he were nominee.", "Tonight was a disaster for [Donald Trump]", "The other Republican candidates should be asked how they can continue to take the position they'll support Trump if he's the nominee.", "Before last night, when I said I couldn't support Trump if he won the nomination, friends said, "Oh, we can make the best of it." Not now.", "Trump has slandered the 43rd president and his colleagues by claiming they knowingly lied us into war. Are GOP primary voters OK with this?", "Trump has gone beyond being a critic of Iraq war. Now he says Bush purposely lied us into it. Something no responsible Democrat has said.".

 

But wait. How could Trump get booed all the time if he is the leading candidate, and every public poll showed him winning the debate? Yes, that's right, the audience was not made out of ordinary voters, but donors and party insiders. More here, here, here, here.

 

On a slightly related note, the moderator got booed for factchecking Cruz.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Alas, I am reminded of why I stopped coming here.

 

Uh oh, Val is going to take his ball and go home.  We better lay off guys.

 

You should know by now that asking people to play nice on the internet usually backfires. Unless you have some ulterior motives here...

 

This whole courtroom is out of order!  Fantastic quotes of Scalia, btw Gromnir.  I don't know how they will replace his opinions.

Vermin Supreme.

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

Alas, I am reminded of why I stopped coming here.

 

 

Uh oh, Val is going to take his ball and go home.  We better lay off guys.

 

This whole courtroom is out of order!  Fantastic quotes of Scalia, btw Gromnir.  I don't know how they will replace his opinions.

 

Vals dont overreact, this forum isn't that bad ....seriously of course Gromnir will challenge you on certain views you have about the Constitution. Can you blame him considering the fact he is a Constitutional Lawyer and he should give us the proper interpretation...its nothing personal. You should just look at this as way to improve your view on these matters, he isn't malicious and he doesn't feel the need to correct everyone so its not inordinate 

Edited February 15, 2016 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

We're a laughing stock in foreign affairs because our enemies believe us weak and stupid.

In my experience that's not why we're laughing at you.

 

Thats fine but you guys really need to start debating with me and then we can gauge who is the  most informed, its not about being superior. Its just a debate....but I'll be honest you seem to debate mostly using emotion which is influenced by a certain bias so because I can honestly support everything I say I doubt you would win..

But its just fun, I love having debates ....but I wont hold back 

[Calax]

So, as you might have not missed, Trump's comments about Bush pushing for the Iraq War in spite of there being no evidence for WMDs has stirred up a veritable ****storm of journalists who claim in extremely strong terms that he "lost the debate" (in contradiction to every poll that has been made) and that this is the end for him, after having claimed the same thing repeatedly since last summer with increasing desperation.

 

Bill Kristol, the neocon infamous for co-founding PNAC and pushing for a US invasion of Iraq from the 1990s, has basically his entire twitter feed full of huffing and puffing over the indignity that Bush would have pushed for the Iraq War without evidence of WMDs, even though we still have seen no actual credible evidence to this day. It's hilarious and I recommend everyone to give it a read.

 

A summary of some of the best: Trump is now finally "exposed", "Dickerson should ask all the candidates whether would still support Trump if he were nominee.", "Tonight was a disaster for [Donald Trump]", "The other Republican candidates should be asked how they can continue to take the position they'll support Trump if he's the nominee.", "Before last night, when I said I couldn't support Trump if he won the nomination, friends said, "Oh, we can make the best of it." Not now.", "Trump has slandered the 43rd president and his colleagues by claiming they knowingly lied us into war. Are GOP primary voters OK with this?", "Trump has gone beyond being a critic of Iraq war. Now he says Bush purposely lied us into it. Something no responsible Democrat has said.".

 

But wait. How could Trump get booed all the time if he is the leading candidate, and every public poll showed him winning the debate? Yes, that's right, the audience was not made out of ordinary voters, but donors and party insiders. More here, here, here, here.

 

On a slightly related note, the moderator got booed for factchecking Cruz.

I love the fact that Trump is already playing for the General election rather than the primary. Seriously, the fastest way to get voters to vote back republican would be to distance themselves from Bush.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I wouldn't doubt it, I firmly believe US is the greatest country in the history of the world. That's not Obola's achievement though, he'd like to destroy everything that makes US great.

 

As far as enemies, the usual, Russia, China, NK, Iran.

 

Btw, turns out the Senate is in recess unit Feb 22, so Obola could make a recess appointment if he hurries up.

Okay but you seemed to be concerned about the fact that Americas enemies were laughing at you because they see America as weak and stupid ...yet you mention countries that cannot laugh at either of those things  because Russia's economy is in recession and this wont change and the Chinese great economic experiment of a export driven economy and relying on state control in times of economic hardship has failed .....its really failed and the Chinese are now restructuring there entire economy to consumer based and industrialized. This makes sense but will take 3-5 years if it succeeds  

 

So think about it neither of those countries could possibly laugh at the USA when they failed to maintain there own economies. And this is a fundamental point that actually contradicts what certain right wing views espouse...and I'm worried they may be unduly influencing your view. I'm not suggesting you stupid at all but can you see how someone saying " America is now the laughing stock of its enemies due to Obama"  is factually not correct

 

And I'm not going to even mention NK or Iran as they are no real threat to the West

 

It's quite possible to have a bad economy yet still laugh at our inept foreign policy. Russian economy might be a wreck, but they managed to modernize their armed forces to be a real threat (and the nukes of course), and their foreign policy is at least partially working as witnessed by Assad's new found success and the fear Russia is inspiring in Eastern Europe. China hasn't become any less aggressive either in spite of their recent economic troubles. As far as NK not being a threat, their satellite passed over the Super Bowl stadium just after it ended, what if they put a nuclear device on a satellite and destroy our electric grid with an EMP? Not to mention their constantly improving ballistic missiles.

[Barothmuk]

Thats fine but you guys really need to start debating with me and then we can gauge who is the  most informed, its not about being superior. Its just a debate....but I'll be honest you seem to debate mostly using emotion which is influenced by a certain bias so because I can honestly support everything I say I doubt you would win..

But its just fun, I love having debates ....but I wont hold back 

I'm still waiting to read that debate between you and KP on the European debt crisis.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Thats fine but you guys really need to start debating with me and then we can gauge who is the  most informed, its not about being superior. Its just a debate....but I'll be honest you seem to debate mostly using emotion which is influenced by a certain bias so because I can honestly support everything I say I doubt you would win..

But its just fun, I love having debates ....but I wont hold back 

I'm still waiting to read that debate between you and KP on the European debt crisis.

 

You can find it here.

[BruceVC]

 

Thats fine but you guys really need to start debating with me and then we can gauge who is the  most informed, its not about being superior. Its just a debate....but I'll be honest you seem to debate mostly using emotion which is influenced by a certain bias so because I can honestly support everything I say I doubt you would win..

But its just fun, I love having debates ....but I wont hold back 

I'm still waiting to read that debate between you and KP on the European debt crisis.

 

Yes well thats  a good example, we started it but then I ended up dating with alum about GG but I'll be honest I think I went out or got stoned and lost interest

 

But I feel I have been rude to KP in the past and I'm tyring to understand his view...ultimately I can produce irrefutable links that describe how the Greeks mismanaged there economy for years...this is not a secret to anyone who works in any financial sector in any country. But end of the day I'm sure we will still disagree because he feels the austerity measures are crippling and cannot be successfully implemented 

 

He has more empathy than me, I respect that but for me the Greeks need to do what everyone else has to do and adhere to the austerity. I would be betraying my principles if I gave any European country a pass for not managing there own economies...I won't do this with any African country as I believe in the transformation of the continent but certain African countries and the whole AU needs to follow prudent Western principles around good governance and general Democratic values...if most African countries are doing it surly we can expect the Greeks to do it?

[Barothmuk]

@ Bruce, what do you think of Varoufakis?

[BruceVC]

@ Bruce, what do you think of Varoufakis?

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/18/yanis-varoufakis-how-i-became-an-erratic-marxist

 

This link summarizes his view and the main issues I have with him, he espouses archaic socialist policies and basically suggests that the EU is  a doomed institution. Its very myopic and is insulting

 

People like  him Baro just encourage people to now believe in ideological changes for the EU  that are not  sustainable ....yet he persists

 

He also seemed to have  a complete disdain for the EU when he was negotiating. I am not sure what he really believed he was doing back then? Did he actually help Greece at all?

[Meshugger]

 

 

repeated advice:

 

is only one example o' val misapprehensions 'bout the Constitution displayed on these boards.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69988-obama-to-propose-free-community-college/?p=1556763

 

do not accept anything val says 'bout law in the US. is possible that he has actual read the Constitution, but am absolute certain that he doesn't understand what he thinks he read. am more shocked when he manages to mistake his way into being correct.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Politicking aside, what's your opinion about the recently deceased Scalia's "most famous" decisions in the supreme court? I am interested in hearing from someone actually practicing law.

 

is there a case you is most interested in discussing?  Scalia had a Long career and he authored many controversial opinions... though please keep in mind that while Scalia were peerless in areas o' antitrust n' such, Gromnir has no ear for such stuff.  

 

regardless o' whether you liked Scalia or hated him, he were doggedly consistent (with a couple notable and disappointing exceptions) and he were the most entertaining writer on the Court.  

 

(edit: we will insert some o' our favorite Scaliaisms from the cases noted)

 

The purpose of Indiana’s nudity law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into the Hoosier Dome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd.

 

barnes v. glen theatre inc

 

Displays containing some words -- odious racial epithets, for example -- would be prohibited to proponents of all views. But "fighting words" that do not themselves invoke race, color, creed, religion, or gender -- aspersions upon a person's mother, for example -- would seemingly be usable ad libitum in the placards of those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc. tolerance and equality, but could not be used by that speaker's opponents. One could hold up a sign saying, for example, that all "anti-Catholic [p392] bigots" are misbegotten; but not that all "papists" are, for that would insult and provoke violence "on the basis of religion." St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensbury Rules.

 

r.a.v. v. city of st. paul

 

Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: Our decision in Lee v. Weisman conspicuously avoided using the supposed "test" but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so.

...

 

The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we invoke it; when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it entirely. Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its three prongs 'no more than helpful signposts.' Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him.

 

lamb's chapel v. center moriches union free school district

 

is not necessarily the most influential cases, but search for scalia quotes from the above and you will gets some o' the best Justice zingers o' all-time.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps is no coincidence we chose all First Amendment.  Scalia has other great stuff, but... *shrug*

 

 

Thanks for the musings. I was curious since the media has made such a hoopla about his comments in various cases (like throwing pot-shots to congress being too incompetent to even create any new laws) so i wondered about his competence as a justice of the supreme court from non-lay man's point of view.

[Guard Dog]

Scalia is gone. The balance in the SCOTUS is in jeopardy. The next president will be either Clinton or Trump. We're doomed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowVkIzBixc