what do u expect from the oligarch's court? this douchebag is a prime example of consistency being the hobobln of small minds masquerading as learning. Hes a total jackass.
if you have to every talk to a coc#-sucker like Scalia, copy and paste the whole damn constituion and rights. (Related Amendments, 13th:1865 14th:1868 15th:1870 19th:1920 26th:1971). are we all in? the show is about to start. Scalia is a disgrace to pathetic assholes the world over.
Its funny reading the transcripts of the floor debates over the 14th Amendment back in the post-Civil War era. An opponent of the equal protection clause said that he can't support the language since it sounds like it wouldn't apply just to the freed slaves, but to women as well. Then the sponsor and drafter of the Amendment reassures him that it most certainly wouldn't apply to women. I don't support it at all, but no one can argue that the EP clause was never meant to protect women
i agree with some of what you said, but i can tell you dont really understand his judicial philosophy. you also discredited yourself with the name calling. you should debate scalia on constitutional law.
@MrUnicorn4711, I say it all the time. I am pro-choice, but as a constitutional lawyer, I cannot find any merit to the legal claim that the Constitution provides a right to abortion. It is simply silent on such issues, which means the voters of each state can decide for themselves what they think is right and enact laws accordingly.
He never said that women are not given equal rights. He said the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on gender. That means both men and women can be discriminated against in law because of gender. And since the 19th Amendment prohibits the denial of voting rights based on gender, and since there are more women then men in this country, it is actually men, not women, that are in postion to be denied equal treatment.
If the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the government from discriminating against women, does that mean we can repeal the Nineteenth Amendment since women should have been afforded the right to vote with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment?
What a sad analysis. You're obviously just winging it and you don't know how to make analogies.
1) "Due process" protects us against arbitrary government actions. It does not apply to hiring and firing decision in the private sector.
2) If you think state laws can contradict federal law because of "states' rights", making something that is illegal in the entire United States legal in your state, you are delusional.
This is exactly why every woman should be hopping the next boat to Cuba. AT LEAST THEY HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. No wonder ex could get away with trying to kill me so many times. The courts in James City County Virgina side with Scalia. "The only good woman is a dead woman." My ex parroted that all too often. Check his record and see how many times he broke into my house. And, I was told by a cop that one or 2 judges in JCC was protecting him.
I'd like to hear "original intent" people apply this idea to gun rights once. There can be no argument that when the second amendment was written, by "arms" they meant muskets and canons, modern firearms were unimaginable. Now, I'm not advocating throwing out the second amendment, I'm advocating the dismissal of any argument based on "original intent" alone. And by "all men are created equal", they meant white, and they meant MEN. And they didn't mean for corporations to be people.
@avatarmn Actually Scalia himself says he's neither, adhering to his own definition of constitutional interpretation as being "textualism." Thomas who is even further to the ultra-right is an originalist, but it's all all legal hair-splitting. It is clearly evident that no matter the silly label, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts and often Kennedy are political neo-conservatives and with their 5-4 decisions blatantly protect big business and the wealthy, just like all Republicans.
@BalladoftheWindfish That's only because there are laws that specifically prohibit some types of discrimination. If such prohibitions were already in the constitution, those laws would never have been considered necessary.
I would like to know what Cenk got in statutory interpretation. U may disagree with it but that doesn't change it. What is it about that he fails to understand?
This is why we amend statutes... No amount of 'principle' permits one to read IN something that IS NOT THERE. What a moron.
I disagree with the assessment of Scalia's legal opinions. Justice Scalia's legal opinions are not opinions based on his personal catholic or conservative view points. Only on principles of legality, what he was saying about torture was not weather or not torture "ought to be allowed" but weather it is illegal or not. There is nothing in the constitution that says torture is illegal. Not everything that is good or bad is covered by a provision of the constitution, that's all he was saying.
@anikinippon I would think torture would come be considered cruel and unusual punishment if used on a convict and punishment without due process and/or forced self-incrimination if used on a suspect. It's less clear, though, if torture of a non US citizen on foreign soil would be prohibited.
@lrd9999 "Torture" isn't "punishment" according to the supreme court and is not covered under that Amendment. Not everything that's morally correct is covered by some provision of the Constitution. That's the only point I was making.
workplace discrimination does not violate constitutional rights. the due process clause in relevant part reads "no STATE shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Employers are not states; they are private entities. Congress is free to (and has) enacted legislation to prevent workplace discrimination. It is not a Constitutional issue.
@nicky2coats I agree; the equal protection clause only applies to treatment of citizens by the states, not private businesses or organizations. But I don't buy Scalia's claim that interpretations of vague clauses should be based on the assumed intentions of their originators. It's unlikely that authors of clauses like "any person ... equal protection of the laws" or "cruel and unusual punishment" agreed with each other on how to interpret them, they were willing to leave that to the courts.
@nicky2coats It seems that, over the years, the EPC has been interpreted as prohibiting laws that arbitrarily discriminate against one group or another, without any clear state interest. So, it's OK to discriminate against women in military service (where, among other things, they make more valuable hostages) or against men in child custody (they don't have breasts), but not either in contract law. Of course, the assessments of these "interests" can and will change with time for all groups.
What this Turk neglects to say is that the 14th Amendment itself allowed the disenfranchisement of felons and women. See U.S. Const. Amend XIV, Sec. 2.
It took the 19th Amendment to establish universal suffrage, which would not have been necessary had it actually protected women. So Scalia's view is neither implausible nor absurd.
What is absurd is this petulant youtube ataturk telling us "they [Supreme Court justices] aren't brilliant." LOL. They're smarter than you, that's for sure.
slavery is a source of income. in ancient times people were sold into slavery most often (apart from the war captives thing) because they owed debts. it's the same reason women often go into prostitution, because they're desperately poor. so people would sell themselves or their children (or get sold by landowners) into slavery. many africans were kidnapped, but others were sold by their countrymen. doesn't make it right, just that we couldn't have prevented slavery by all being the same race
I mean, if there's a stigma against poor people (that they deserve their lot, it's not our job to help, etc) then there will always be a justification for slavery, because at the base of it, it's about economics. slave labor and sexual slavery are the top problems today, not race based slavery, and it preys upon poor people who are most often desperate and uneducated (hence easily exploited by more powerful people). class more than race
but yes, the justification amongst white slavers was "oh these people are inferior" and that soothed their conscience about owning another person and treating them like cattle. but slavery already existed for millennia before that. "inferiority" need not be assigned because the person's skin color is different. it could be because they're the wrong religion, wrong political party, wrong language, etc. anything. "difference" can't be erased. as long as people are poor or powerless...
Scalia is a Fascist nut-job that is an Ultra-Christian Opus Dei member. There are 3 others of that ilk on the bench. It's not "sad",it is a planned movement of the ultra-right NWO scumbags.
@jezmundberserker They actually encourage it. All politicians do. In fact, this applies to all Americans. Why do you think they constantly elect dumbasses who appoint other dumbasses.
America is the country where people don't believe in evolution. Where they trust in the "skygod". Where faith conquers science, logic, and deductive reasoning.
The place where Bush won twice. Hell, the fact that he got even 40%, 30% of the vote is sad.
Where Palin, O'Donell, and Angle are potential winners in their categories.
Who's #1 name in news is Faux.
Where the "other guys" (Dems) are sellouts douches.
@z0mgz0rs: 100% agreed. To tie it all up, I'd like to add the following: America is the only country which allowed a douchebag to steal an election and four years later actually voted him in!
By the way, read section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment--with its references to the right of MALES to vote--if you're so sure that the amendment can honestly be read to give equal rights to women. If it does, why does it talk only about the right of MALES to vote?
@antipyrene I'm very much aware of that. Women got the right to vote from the Nineteenth Amendment. Meaning, the Fourteenth Amendment didn't give women the right to vote, as section 2 makes too plain for argument. Meaning, the Fourteenth Amendment didn't give women equal rights. Meaning, SCALIA IS RIGHT.
Cenk says repeatedly that Scalia characterizes himself as "a strict interpretationist." That's a complete lie. Scalia never characterized himself in this way.
And where did Scalia say--as Cenk accuses him of saying in his judicial opinions--that states have the right to discriminate against blacks? Nowhere. Cenk is once again lying about Scalia, because he doesn't like Scalia.
Yet Cenk has the audacity to accuse Scalia of being unprincipled.
The "skygod" thing is pretty hilarious. I mean, yeah, it's fun and cool for non-believers to mock theists, but really, why use this caricature?
Jews, Muslims, and Christians don't believe in a "sky god." Their God is the deity of EVERYTHING not just the sky. That'd be like saying atheists are people who don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You know what the Founding Fathers believed, thought, wanted, meant? No, you just invoke the Founders' names but spin your own political and atheist worldview. Atheists love to invoke Jefferson in particular even though he called himself a Christian, chastised those who branded him otherwise and even proposed castration for homosexuals.
@ChristianMission Thomas Jefferson had a 16 page bible which contained no superntural parts of the bible. Thomas Paine was a deist. Benjamin franklin rejected many beliefs of Christianity such as hell salvation and the divinity of jesus. George Washington never declared himself a christian, never uttered anything of religious nature on his death bed. John Adams was quoted as saying "this would be the best world of all if there was no religion in it".
@madax132 , Jefferson just provided a condensed version of Jesus' teachings to the Indians; libs have tried exploiting it as proof of his atheism. Houston University found that about 94% of all quotes from the founders were directly or indirectly from the Bible
@ChristianMission In a letter to Joseph priestly Thomas Jefferson stated that he was making the Thomas Jefferson bible to give his view of Christianity. He also stated that the revelation of saint john were the ravings of a mad man. Furthermore even though you provide no link to the study and you pulled a number out of your ass anyway it wouldn't matter if the founding fathers had quotes indirectly from the bible, the bible says a lot of things including don't steal and don't kill
@ChristianMission If a founding father said don't kill and don't steal he would be indirectly quoting the bible but that hardly matters considering most of the bible morals are derived from the culture of the time and weren't exactly new ideas. You Christians disgust me, lying snakes, every last one of you.
@madax132 , Christianity didn't derive its morality from the culture of the time but rather went against it. Christ, for example, taught women in a time when women were not allowed to be taught.
@ChristianMission 94% sounded ridiculous, so I looked into it. 34% of their quotes were from the bible. The other 60% are from authors who base their conclusions on the bible, and that figure is questionable. As for Jefferson, he wasn't an atheist, but he did have a problem with the church (see next comment). The book wasn't for the Indians (where did you get that idea?), he didn't allow it to be published during his lifetime and only shared it with close friends.
@strakha0 , yes, that's 94% of quotes which came directly or indirectly from the Bible; that Jefferson's Bible was meant for the Indians in noted in many of its accompanying introductions. The Introductions by William Wilder Foote and Cyrus Adler, for example.
@ChristianMission "In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves" - Letter to John Adams 1813
@ChristianMission James Madison Said that religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind. Ethan Allen also considered himself a Diest. Hatred for homosexuality is the same as racism, it was incorporated into the religion by man because we don't like what is different, this is the same reason why Slavery existed.
@madax132 ah, but how did the founding fathers feel about homosexuality? also, I somehow don't think slavery existed because we didn't like what was different, it was because elite people wanted cheap labor (which hasn't changed, despite overt slavery being outlawed).
whites saying that blacks were naturally inferior is an after the fact justification. slavery existed for thousands of years before the transatlantic african slave trade.
@XSC3 Like I said, people don't like what is different but have progressed to where we are today, my point was that religion was made by man and had the opinions of men in it. My point was that slavery was acceptable because when we saw it as acceptable because they were different.
@madax132 we have "progressed" in some ways, but not in many others, and in some ways we're worse. The argument that religion was made by man points to the problem not being IN RELIGION but in man, which seems quite obvious to me, but not to everyone making that argument (ie: religion is the cause of all or most of our problems).
If slavery was acceptable because they were different, doesn't answer the question of where the idea came from that it was okay to enslave those who were different (and prior to that, that they were "different" in the first place). Slavery was considered acceptable for thousands of years of people who were "the same." Africans enslaved each other long before any whites enslaved blacks. so the racism was an after the fact justification for it, it seems to me.
The way some people talk, white people saw blacks and thought "they're different! we must therefore enslave them!" I see it more that the slave trade was appealing as it always has been (cheap labor force for elites) and even the enslavement itself was for mostly economic reasons (sometimes punitive). justifying the continuing enslavement of people, even fellow Christians was conveniently excused by using the difference as a justification with more inventions (inferiority, etc)
I mean, if you kept your slaves dirty, uneducated and wearing rags, a person might start to imagine that that was all they were capable of, and then start to convince themselves that it was okay to enslave such people because they couldn't have better lives anyway, or that they were "inferior" and so it wasn't an offense to God or human dignity, etc. Lots of justifications came up. well people in the bible had slaves, etc (even if they were treated differently than antebellum slaves).
If you truly believe "difference" was the cause of slavery, then how would you have proposed we avoided it? Make everybody the same color? Again, I point to the fact that people who "looked the same" enslaved each other for thousands of years prior. The way to end slavery would be to end the desire, means and opportunity for one person to exploit another (or one class to exploit another). otherwise it's a constant battle.
@madax132 not always true anyway. many people love things that are different. I understand what you're saying. if you're a man and your slave is a woman you can make up an excuse that women are less than men, or if the person is a different color, try to say the color indicates they are inferior. you can easily reverse that as well. but it's not the cause of the slavery, I would say, even if over time people may have come to believe those excuses and defend the institution on that basis.
@XSC3 I know we like things that are different but we have a primal instinct against things that are different. I'm fully aware that slavery existed because we needed cheap labor but it was allowed to be done to humans because they were viewed as inferior and different.
@madax132 it was allowed because it was allowed, not because of racism. The transatlantic african slave trade was just one of many such trades in the history of mankind. if the core cause of slavery was "we hate difference" then surely other race based slaveries would the norm throughout history.
the main "difference" between the enslaved and the slavers is that the people being enslaved are 1) poor 2) captives taken in war 3) dredges of society ("undesirables") that's not counting of course the underground slavery where people are randomly kidnapped, but usually again that's from populations that the slavers figure "won't be missed"
@ChristianMission Thomas Jefferson had a 16 page bible that had no supernatural content and called the revelation of saint john the ravings of a mad man. George Washington never declared himself a christian, didn't have a clergy at his death bed and did not utter anything of religious nature on it. Thomas Paine was a deist. John Adams thought the word would be better with no religion and called clergymen dunces. Benjamin Franklin rejected the ideas of Christs divinity, hell and salvation.
Government should have the power to ban masterbation? They'll have to pry my cold, dead hands from around it--or kill me. A judge's job is to give relief to people where the law calls for it. That's not doing someone a favor; it's the job they get paid to do. Scalia and his ilk think people should crawl before them and that being granted relief is some sort of huge personal favor.
@newdarnaccount And you want to read something interesting: *District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District* v. *Osborne* (2009). In a lot of cases, I also think it's not a matter of judicial restraint, but judicial laziness. Since I became a judge, people keep coming and asking me to decide things, what nerve.
Scalia is correct. Why do people think the Constitution was meant to enumerate and protect all rights? The states were left with most of the decisions in the arena of civil rights and the Feds were to be concerned mostly with foreign affairs and inter state relations. Why do Libs want federal judges dictating to the people how we should live our lives/? Too many modern judges have no respect for the law.
At the time of the founding 12/13 of the states were slave states. Before the 13 Amend. passed about half were. Can you see the direction slavery was going? Please explain how conscription is compatible with liberty. How it is not a form of slavery.
@66605 Slavery died in the north because it was economically unfeasible, in the south it was central to their economy, and continued, even past the 13th amendment, in the form of Jim Crow Serfdom, until finally the Federal government ended it in the 1960s with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts...as for the conscription=slavery, when federal government sells off your kids, then you can make the comparison, otherwise to compare the 2 is ignorant and offensive
When the feds can force people to leave their families and sacrifice their lives for the state I would call that slavery. Why do you approve of some kinds of slavery but not others? Is it just private slavery you are opposed to rather than public slavery?
@66605 Conscription, in a society with a democratically elected government, is not slavery, its part of public responsibility...if you can't see the difference, then I say again, you are an idiot
So, if a democratic society votes to enslave some of its citizens then slavery is okay? Isn't democracy great? Democratically imposed slavery is still slavery you idiot.
@66605 You really need this explained to you? If you are conscripted, you still have rights, the service is temporary, and you can avoid it by conscientious objection, as well as vote against those who conscripted you, THATS NOT SLAVERY
The state does whatever it wants. You only have those rights the state allows you to have. Ask the Japanese Americans about their rights when they were placed in internment camps during WW2. How about the Patriot Act which enables the President to put anyone he pleases into a legal black hole where they effectively disappear. We are all slaves if we continue to put up with the unlimited government we have today.
So I have rights if the right people are sitting on a bench somewhere in D.C.? How consoling! I will go with Scalia over liberal judges who have no respect for the Constitution and seek to impose their own political views on the nation.
@66605 If states rights should trumpet all else, then why did the feds have to intervene against slavery. Stem cell research should be up to the states then. Let me guess, you are against stem cell research...admit it, you are inconsistent.
The Feds did not have to interfere in the slavery issue. The feds made things worse with the coercion and violence used to subjugate the South. Slavery would have died a natural death without interference. It could have ended peacefully like it did in the rest of the West. If federal funds are used to do fetal stem cell research then that is a federal issue.
Not federal judges dictating how we should live our lives, federal judges allow ME to dictate how should live my life, rather than some perverse, invasive state law. Not dictate, protect.
They don't make laws, they judge laws, that's their job. The 14th amendment allows them to judge state laws against the concept of liberty. Ruling that a law against sodomy is unconstitutional logically protects peoples rights, whether I believe that the judges are on my side or not. That is a clear violation of liberty, no democratically elected legislature should be allowed to decide that people will get sent to Fing JAIL for having the "wrong kind of sex" in their own privacy.
Scalia has always been a strict constructionist, so much so that his mind cannot generate the flexibility needed to understand that things tend to change and evolve over a period of 220-plus years. Our founding documents talk about "all men created equal", and Scalia is interpreting that statement literally. That is the main problem with strict constructionism, and Scalia would have been more comfortable living in the early 19th Century, when women were viewed as nothing more than mere objects.
TYT should make a brief video on each current Supreme Court judge and their relevant rulings; that way, I could learn all of this important stuff without drowning in legal jargon. As a sidenote, please don't let Cenk ask the SkyGod about masturbation ever again. I'm afraid that some abstinence-only sex ed program will Fox-News-edit the clip and show it in schools.
@theRekcabofD There is no reason in religion because it tells you that the impossible is truth. It offers no evidence, no proof, but asks that you ignore all your rational understandings of the world and take everything on faith. It gives man permission to act irrationally and demands him to accept something immune and superior to reason.
@theRekcabofD I'm not contending that religion is bad, or that it doesn't inspire people to do good things. It does however inspire people to do bad things as well.
Nowadays in America religion is not "enforced" but go to the Middle East and it is. For centuries in Europe it was enforced at sword point. Separation of church and state is a relatively new concept. Christianity enforces itself by convincing the faithful that if they don't follow certain rules they're going to hell.
@theRekcabofD It depends on how you define"governing". Religion is primitive philosophy. It instills a code of behavior and a moral structure that is enforced by a power greater than anything. It tells you to defy your reason and rational understanding of the world and accept outrageous fables as guides to life. It "governs" in the sense that it defines morality, acceptable behavior, what's okay to eat, justice, and how to live one's life. Displacing governing bodies is a testament to its power.
@theRekcabofD Mythology is not different from religion, faithful people just perceive it as such to justify their own absurd beliefs. They've convinced themselves the stories are not "myths" but actually "real".
The ancient Greeks really thought Mt. Olympus existed and Zeus ran it. It was their religion. Today the people who believe that aren't around anymore so we call it mythology.
I both agree & disagree w/ you about this. Substantially, you're right. Scalia is a total fraud. And you're right that it's his lack of consistency that proves he's a fraud.
But here's the tough part - he really is brilliant. I've known many people who I respect who've had conversations w/ the man and they all talk about his wit and intelligence. Of course, a man can be a brilliant and witty whore, and that's just what Scalia is.
Sorry to split hairs, especially ones no one cares about.
@CommonSenseJoe He's actually pretty solid at his legal analysis. After all, he IS a damn well trained attorney. As am I, and I pay close attention to these sort of things when dealing with the blogosphere. But tell us, what did Scalia really say?
@BlackSoultan Cenk is a biased liberal commentator who consistently misrepresents what people say. I don't have a copy of Scalia's speech in front of me, but I know that, taken in context, he was not say what Cenk is claiming. Attorneys are good at twisting the truth their own advantage. Scalia is a very principled and brilliant jurist. He is head and shoulders above the idiots President Obama has nominated.
@CommonSenseJoe So go get what this brilliant jurist actually said and come back to us and say where Cenk is wrong.Otherwise, you're just attacking Cenk and not his argument.
@BlackSoultan He is not making an argument. He is insulting the man. He is not quoting the man nor does he have video or audio of what he said or the context. This is classic Cenk. Misrepresenting the opposition is his stock and trade. Insulting the man's religion and morality is not an argument. His whole argument FOR abortion is nothing but BS. The Supreme Court applies the Constitution to the times. It should not invent new rights and powers for people or the federal government.
@CommonSenseJoe The problem is I just went and Googled what Scalia said, and being quite familiar with Scalia's work, it's not shocking, nor has Cenk misstated Scalia's position. I've found nothing yet that contradicts Cenk's reporting on the UC-Hastings statements. Scalia uses originalist arguments to say the Constitution wasn't intended to afford equal protection to Women or Gays. He also said he won't ignore his religion when deciding cases. So Cenk's accurate on those. Show me otherwise.
@BlackSoultan The Constitution did not originally grant equal protection otherwise we would not amended it to include blacks and women. Why should a justice ignore any part of their lives when deciding cases? Do liberals ignore their biases when deciding cases? Do atheists ignore their "religion" even though our nation is founded on a belief in God? Cenk is misrepresenting what Scalia said to infer that Sacila does not belief in equal rights for women and minorities.
@theRekcabofD yeah, no. Cenk is known for veiling his so-called "Atheism" with a very real "Anti-Christianity". He's beginning to lean towards a more Bill Maher sort of perspective on Christ. I agree with dude on 99.9999999 percent of what he says until he becomes very disrespectful of Christianity, which is odd. It seems he'd be anti-all religions. But no. Just the "sky-god" of Christians.
@BlackSoultan Actually if you look at TYT videos of 2007 on Israel Palestinian conflict, Cenk goes out of his way to defend Muslim opinions, way of life and Quran.
I wonder what that tells us about Cenk's religious position.
I would love to hear criticism of Scalia without all the bashing of religious people all the time. Are you all stupid enough to think all Christians are conservatives?
@NewYorkFlavour Yep, he seems to. Y'all should write to them about your concerns. I have. If more of us in the TYT army would stand up for this issue, he'd have to pay attention. Cenk is extremely reasonable.
@Thebeautiful11 You may as well talk to a brick wall. People sin, and some would rather make excuses as to why the Bible is wrong (often by misrepresenting its teachings) instead of tailoring themselves to fit its teachings. So a gay person, for example, will say "God hates gays! I don't want to follow such hatred!" or "The bible also says *insert ridiculous lie here*, so clearly the Bible isn't serious." We all do it at some level.
@cbgkorn No you are sadly mistaken. So easy to blame everything on the idea of God. You seriously think that in a world without religion Scalia won't find other ways to go about his business. PLEASE!
@theRekcabofD You can accept someone saying God is ridiculous based on the mob mentality of tea-bagging conservatives? That's a circuitous head-scratcher if I ever saw one.
@theRekcabofD You sound like not much of a believer after all. You "hope"? "But I could be wrong"? That's what we call the fence...
Simply put, there's no evidence of anything in existence from Zeus or Poseidon or anything else mythical; they're MYTHS. However, there is evidence of that which is told in the Bible, things of actual widely known Historical Record. Only people who haven't read it wouldn't know that. It would seem well...Greek to them...
Cenk, I agree with you, but be careful, you've got religious folk like myself who agree with most of what you have to say. But I get a little turned off when you border on bad-talking God. Anyway all your points were great and solid, but please be considerate of your religious audience who have some political good sense and also take God seriously. All you God-hating/religion-hating atheists who will be tempted to respond with negativity to this post, I beg you not to waste your words.
@Quranite Exactly, like: I think that HE thinks Christians are for the most part Tea Bagging uneducated idiots. He fails to realize MY demographic is huge and goes against this logic. I'm black. Safe to assume I'm very likely to be (a) quite liberal, and (b) at least believe in God if not Christian. Both would be correct, for me and about 30 million other black americans. Not a good idea to insult that demographic. I don't have to insult atheists to be Christian, and the reverse is also true.
Where's the hate? He's just pointing out that Scalia using his religion to justify his stance is silly. That's not hate. You calling Cenk a moron is probably more hate, but even then I wouldn't call it that.
This has been flagged as spam show
Scalia is a pudgy butt-sex doll for the Koch brothers.
DaRyteJuan 2 weeks ago
what do u expect from the oligarch's court? this douchebag is a prime example of consistency being the hobobln of small minds masquerading as learning. Hes a total jackass.
contacter 2 months ago
The problem with "womens rights" is its usually the Sluts and Whores with their hands out first demanding some kind of undeserving privelege.
mrtundra45 3 months ago
Cenk was a Conservative?
Tobriep81 3 months ago
The 'Founding Fathers' feared big business?!? And made pamphlets against them... wtf? This entire piece was a total hack job....
jpsartrean 6 months ago
Scalia is a sucker of satan's cock.
Meex1989 7 months ago
if you have to every talk to a coc#-sucker like Scalia, copy and paste the whole damn constituion and rights. (Related Amendments, 13th:1865 14th:1868 15th:1870 19th:1920 26th:1971). are we all in? the show is about to start. Scalia is a disgrace to pathetic assholes the world over.
waterspindle 7 months ago
The rights of blacks not mentioned in the constitution either.
DesiFreethinkers 10 months ago
Its funny reading the transcripts of the floor debates over the 14th Amendment back in the post-Civil War era. An opponent of the equal protection clause said that he can't support the language since it sounds like it wouldn't apply just to the freed slaves, but to women as well. Then the sponsor and drafter of the Amendment reassures him that it most certainly wouldn't apply to women. I don't support it at all, but no one can argue that the EP clause was never meant to protect women
dak879 10 months ago
i agree with some of what you said, but i can tell you dont really understand his judicial philosophy. you also discredited yourself with the name calling. you should debate scalia on constitutional law.
BOOLsheet 10 months ago
Mine eyes can see that Lucifer is their Lord
A gorged neocon with 33 degrees in tow
He hath given the Zionist his sword
His swastika marches on.
HAARP HAARP Hallelujah
HAARP HAARP Hallelujah
HAARP HAARP Hallelujah
His swastika marches on.
thechangeling613 10 months ago
Scalia and Bin Laden have the same objectives, just different methods.
videoguy604 11 months ago
@MrUnicorn4711, I say it all the time. I am pro-choice, but as a constitutional lawyer, I cannot find any merit to the legal claim that the Constitution provides a right to abortion. It is simply silent on such issues, which means the voters of each state can decide for themselves what they think is right and enact laws accordingly.
etsneroj 1 year ago
He never said that women are not given equal rights. He said the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on gender. That means both men and women can be discriminated against in law because of gender. And since the 19th Amendment prohibits the denial of voting rights based on gender, and since there are more women then men in this country, it is actually men, not women, that are in postion to be denied equal treatment.
TG1212able 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Be honest naughty women here benaughtyman.info
polklake 1 year ago
If the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the government from discriminating against women, does that mean we can repeal the Nineteenth Amendment since women should have been afforded the right to vote with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment?
DollreeMappEsq 1 year ago
What a sad analysis. You're obviously just winging it and you don't know how to make analogies.
1) "Due process" protects us against arbitrary government actions. It does not apply to hiring and firing decision in the private sector.
2) If you think state laws can contradict federal law because of "states' rights", making something that is illegal in the entire United States legal in your state, you are delusional.
3) Free speech: Are "the press" not corporations?
machalot 1 year ago
You poor people... stuck with that awful creep Scalia.
2pipes1 1 year ago
scalia needs to be impeached, even though this action is imprececented, now is the time.
chellparis 1 year ago
Scumbaglia!
JMasque 1 year ago
This is exactly why every woman should be hopping the next boat to Cuba. AT LEAST THEY HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. No wonder ex could get away with trying to kill me so many times. The courts in James City County Virgina side with Scalia. "The only good woman is a dead woman." My ex parroted that all too often. Check his record and see how many times he broke into my house. And, I was told by a cop that one or 2 judges in JCC was protecting him.
gaillakritz 1 year ago
SKYGOD, what should I do? Awesome
yourmomsname 1 year ago 2
Scalia should have been impeached long ago!
ralphyde 1 year ago 5
I'd like to hear "original intent" people apply this idea to gun rights once. There can be no argument that when the second amendment was written, by "arms" they meant muskets and canons, modern firearms were unimaginable. Now, I'm not advocating throwing out the second amendment, I'm advocating the dismissal of any argument based on "original intent" alone. And by "all men are created equal", they meant white, and they meant MEN. And they didn't mean for corporations to be people.
avatarmn 1 year ago 3
Scalia is a strict "originalist". Not "interpretationist". They're opposite things, Cenk misspoke.
avatarmn 1 year ago
@avatarmn Actually Scalia himself says he's neither, adhering to his own definition of constitutional interpretation as being "textualism." Thomas who is even further to the ultra-right is an originalist, but it's all all legal hair-splitting. It is clearly evident that no matter the silly label, Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts and often Kennedy are political neo-conservatives and with their 5-4 decisions blatantly protect big business and the wealthy, just like all Republicans.
jereuter01 1 year ago 2
"nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
He is simply saying a woman is not a person ;)
Nicholai420 1 year ago
@Nicholai420 Yea LOL and that a corporation IS a PERSON. See Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
jereuter01 1 year ago
Wait a sec... Let's say I am an employer. I can't hire whoever I want, and discriminate on whatever basis I want?
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
@BalladoftheWindfish That's only because there are laws that specifically prohibit some types of discrimination. If such prohibitions were already in the constitution, those laws would never have been considered necessary.
lrd9999 1 year ago
Great video! Thanks a lot for speaking up for us!
holyheretics 1 year ago 14
I would like to know what Cenk got in statutory interpretation. U may disagree with it but that doesn't change it. What is it about that he fails to understand?
This is why we amend statutes... No amount of 'principle' permits one to read IN something that IS NOT THERE. What a moron.
VeritasTruthEmet 1 year ago
Awesome rant!
Harjawaldar 1 year ago 2
I disagree with the assessment of Scalia's legal opinions. Justice Scalia's legal opinions are not opinions based on his personal catholic or conservative view points. Only on principles of legality, what he was saying about torture was not weather or not torture "ought to be allowed" but weather it is illegal or not. There is nothing in the constitution that says torture is illegal. Not everything that is good or bad is covered by a provision of the constitution, that's all he was saying.
anikinippon 1 year ago
@anikinippon I would think torture would come be considered cruel and unusual punishment if used on a convict and punishment without due process and/or forced self-incrimination if used on a suspect. It's less clear, though, if torture of a non US citizen on foreign soil would be prohibited.
lrd9999 1 year ago
@lrd9999 "Torture" isn't "punishment" according to the supreme court and is not covered under that Amendment. Not everything that's morally correct is covered by some provision of the Constitution. That's the only point I was making.
anikinippon 1 year ago
Hot Asian ladies online now lushfmlk.info
ransinanesha 1 year ago
workplace discrimination does not violate constitutional rights. the due process clause in relevant part reads "no STATE shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Employers are not states; they are private entities. Congress is free to (and has) enacted legislation to prevent workplace discrimination. It is not a Constitutional issue.
nicky2coats 1 year ago
@nicky2coats I agree; the equal protection clause only applies to treatment of citizens by the states, not private businesses or organizations. But I don't buy Scalia's claim that interpretations of vague clauses should be based on the assumed intentions of their originators. It's unlikely that authors of clauses like "any person ... equal protection of the laws" or "cruel and unusual punishment" agreed with each other on how to interpret them, they were willing to leave that to the courts.
lrd9999 1 year ago
@nicky2coats It seems that, over the years, the EPC has been interpreted as prohibiting laws that arbitrarily discriminate against one group or another, without any clear state interest. So, it's OK to discriminate against women in military service (where, among other things, they make more valuable hostages) or against men in child custody (they don't have breasts), but not either in contract law. Of course, the assessments of these "interests" can and will change with time for all groups.
lrd9999 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Better idea about Russian women gettop5.info
MrKaitlynBenn 1 year ago
Travel around the world with your Asian wife lushfmlk.info
shehananadini 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Russian ladies for dating gettop5.info
fidelarei 1 year ago
What this Turk neglects to say is that the 14th Amendment itself allowed the disenfranchisement of felons and women. See U.S. Const. Amend XIV, Sec. 2.
It took the 19th Amendment to establish universal suffrage, which would not have been necessary had it actually protected women. So Scalia's view is neither implausible nor absurd.
What is absurd is this petulant youtube ataturk telling us "they [Supreme Court justices] aren't brilliant." LOL. They're smarter than you, that's for sure.
sklanger 1 year ago
i wish palin would get off my fukin screen with her adverts shes a fukin moron.
PanayotiProductions 1 year ago
Comment removed
quaxk 1 year ago
@quaxk
lol ur retarded. U think people cannot become better people.
Dave26000 1 year ago
Comment removed
quaxk 1 year ago
slavery is a source of income. in ancient times people were sold into slavery most often (apart from the war captives thing) because they owed debts. it's the same reason women often go into prostitution, because they're desperately poor. so people would sell themselves or their children (or get sold by landowners) into slavery. many africans were kidnapped, but others were sold by their countrymen. doesn't make it right, just that we couldn't have prevented slavery by all being the same race
XSC3 1 year ago
I mean, if there's a stigma against poor people (that they deserve their lot, it's not our job to help, etc) then there will always be a justification for slavery, because at the base of it, it's about economics. slave labor and sexual slavery are the top problems today, not race based slavery, and it preys upon poor people who are most often desperate and uneducated (hence easily exploited by more powerful people). class more than race
XSC3 1 year ago
but yes, the justification amongst white slavers was "oh these people are inferior" and that soothed their conscience about owning another person and treating them like cattle. but slavery already existed for millennia before that. "inferiority" need not be assigned because the person's skin color is different. it could be because they're the wrong religion, wrong political party, wrong language, etc. anything. "difference" can't be erased. as long as people are poor or powerless...
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3
this sounds like the GOP Plan for America
siliedy1975 1 year ago
@siliedy1975 *rimshot*
divide and conquer is a classic strategy of the two major parties
XSC3 1 year ago
Scalia is a Fascist nut-job that is an Ultra-Christian Opus Dei member. There are 3 others of that ilk on the bench. It's not "sad",it is a planned movement of the ultra-right NWO scumbags.
tjrxk7 1 year ago
Would it be ok to call a Justice of the Supreme Court a douchebag?
jezmundberserker 1 year ago
@jezmundberserker They actually encourage it. All politicians do. In fact, this applies to all Americans. Why do you think they constantly elect dumbasses who appoint other dumbasses.
z0mgz0rs 1 year ago
@z0mgz0rs: True
jezmundberserker 1 year ago
America is the country where people don't believe in evolution. Where they trust in the "skygod". Where faith conquers science, logic, and deductive reasoning.
The place where Bush won twice. Hell, the fact that he got even 40%, 30% of the vote is sad.
Where Palin, O'Donell, and Angle are potential winners in their categories.
Who's #1 name in news is Faux.
Where the "other guys" (Dems) are sellouts douches.
Where 3rd parties are ignored.
This is obviously some cruel joke we're playing.
z0mgz0rs 1 year ago 53
@z0mgz0rs: 100% agreed. To tie it all up, I'd like to add the following: America is the only country which allowed a douchebag to steal an election and four years later actually voted him in!
jezmundberserker 1 year ago
Scalia is a genius. Cenk is a 2nd rate liberal blogger. Which one do I listen to? Hmmm
calimar28 1 year ago
@calimar28
Scalia is a moron, there is your answer.
westernbaconburger 1 year ago
@calimar28 So why bother commenting?
djwaglmuffin 1 year ago
Scalia, Americas enemy
Somai82 1 year ago
By the way, read section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment--with its references to the right of MALES to vote--if you're so sure that the amendment can honestly be read to give equal rights to women. If it does, why does it talk only about the right of MALES to vote?
wilverbal 1 year ago
@wilverbal Because when the 14th amendment was added women didn't have the right to vote, they didn't get to vote until 55 years later
antipyrene 1 year ago
@antipyrene I'm very much aware of that. Women got the right to vote from the Nineteenth Amendment. Meaning, the Fourteenth Amendment didn't give women the right to vote, as section 2 makes too plain for argument. Meaning, the Fourteenth Amendment didn't give women equal rights. Meaning, SCALIA IS RIGHT.
wilverbal 1 year ago
Cenk says repeatedly that Scalia characterizes himself as "a strict interpretationist." That's a complete lie. Scalia never characterized himself in this way.
And where did Scalia say--as Cenk accuses him of saying in his judicial opinions--that states have the right to discriminate against blacks? Nowhere. Cenk is once again lying about Scalia, because he doesn't like Scalia.
Yet Cenk has the audacity to accuse Scalia of being unprincipled.
wilverbal 1 year ago
The "skygod" thing is pretty hilarious. I mean, yeah, it's fun and cool for non-believers to mock theists, but really, why use this caricature?
Jews, Muslims, and Christians don't believe in a "sky god." Their God is the deity of EVERYTHING not just the sky. That'd be like saying atheists are people who don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
XSC3 1 year ago
"Conservative" and "brilliant" are mutually exclusive.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
The America Constitution needs to be a living document. Not the picture of a document.
To my American friends I say check out the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
:P
Joxman2k 1 year ago
i hope antonin scalia dies while obama is in office. ok, i'm praying for it. die you ignorant neanderthal. (no disrespect to neanderthals)
amen.
tomitstube 1 year ago
You know what the Founding Fathers believed, thought, wanted, meant? No, you just invoke the Founders' names but spin your own political and atheist worldview. Atheists love to invoke Jefferson in particular even though he called himself a Christian, chastised those who branded him otherwise and even proposed castration for homosexuals.
ChristianMission 1 year ago
@ChristianMission Thomas Jefferson had a 16 page bible which contained no superntural parts of the bible. Thomas Paine was a deist. Benjamin franklin rejected many beliefs of Christianity such as hell salvation and the divinity of jesus. George Washington never declared himself a christian, never uttered anything of religious nature on his death bed. John Adams was quoted as saying "this would be the best world of all if there was no religion in it".
madax132 1 year ago
@madax132 , Jefferson just provided a condensed version of Jesus' teachings to the Indians; libs have tried exploiting it as proof of his atheism. Houston University found that about 94% of all quotes from the founders were directly or indirectly from the Bible
ChristianMission 1 year ago
@ChristianMission In a letter to Joseph priestly Thomas Jefferson stated that he was making the Thomas Jefferson bible to give his view of Christianity. He also stated that the revelation of saint john were the ravings of a mad man. Furthermore even though you provide no link to the study and you pulled a number out of your ass anyway it wouldn't matter if the founding fathers had quotes indirectly from the bible, the bible says a lot of things including don't steal and don't kill
madax132 1 year ago
@ChristianMission If a founding father said don't kill and don't steal he would be indirectly quoting the bible but that hardly matters considering most of the bible morals are derived from the culture of the time and weren't exactly new ideas. You Christians disgust me, lying snakes, every last one of you.
madax132 1 year ago
@madax132 , Christianity didn't derive its morality from the culture of the time but rather went against it. Christ, for example, taught women in a time when women were not allowed to be taught.
ChristianMission 1 year ago
@ChristianMission Here's a condensed list of the morals that the bible took from it's time based on how ignorant people were then
Anti sexuality
anti homosexual
inhumane punishment
incorrect science
on top of that it has loads of contradictions which is understandable because it was written by several people and so obviously not divinely inspired
to top it off there are plenty of anti women things in the bible and I bet these are several more than you can point out
madax132 1 year ago
@ChristianMission @madax132 nobeliefs . com / DarkBible / darkbible 7 . htm
just take out the spaces
madax132 1 year ago
@ChristianMission 94% sounded ridiculous, so I looked into it. 34% of their quotes were from the bible. The other 60% are from authors who base their conclusions on the bible, and that figure is questionable. As for Jefferson, he wasn't an atheist, but he did have a problem with the church (see next comment). The book wasn't for the Indians (where did you get that idea?), he didn't allow it to be published during his lifetime and only shared it with close friends.
strakha0 1 year ago
@strakha0 , yes, that's 94% of quotes which came directly or indirectly from the Bible; that Jefferson's Bible was meant for the Indians in noted in many of its accompanying introductions. The Introductions by William Wilder Foote and Cyrus Adler, for example.
ChristianMission 1 year ago
@ChristianMission "In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves" - Letter to John Adams 1813
strakha0 1 year ago
@ChristianMission LOL AT YOU CHRISTIANFAGGYBOY
IndigoVagrant 1 year ago
@ChristianMission James Madison Said that religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind. Ethan Allen also considered himself a Diest. Hatred for homosexuality is the same as racism, it was incorporated into the religion by man because we don't like what is different, this is the same reason why Slavery existed.
madax132 1 year ago
@madax132 ah, but how did the founding fathers feel about homosexuality? also, I somehow don't think slavery existed because we didn't like what was different, it was because elite people wanted cheap labor (which hasn't changed, despite overt slavery being outlawed).
XSC3 1 year ago
whites saying that blacks were naturally inferior is an after the fact justification. slavery existed for thousands of years before the transatlantic african slave trade.
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 Like I said, people don't like what is different but have progressed to where we are today, my point was that religion was made by man and had the opinions of men in it. My point was that slavery was acceptable because when we saw it as acceptable because they were different.
madax132 1 year ago
@madax132 we have "progressed" in some ways, but not in many others, and in some ways we're worse. The argument that religion was made by man points to the problem not being IN RELIGION but in man, which seems quite obvious to me, but not to everyone making that argument (ie: religion is the cause of all or most of our problems).
XSC3 1 year ago
@madax132
If slavery was acceptable because they were different, doesn't answer the question of where the idea came from that it was okay to enslave those who were different (and prior to that, that they were "different" in the first place). Slavery was considered acceptable for thousands of years of people who were "the same." Africans enslaved each other long before any whites enslaved blacks. so the racism was an after the fact justification for it, it seems to me.
XSC3 1 year ago
The way some people talk, white people saw blacks and thought "they're different! we must therefore enslave them!" I see it more that the slave trade was appealing as it always has been (cheap labor force for elites) and even the enslavement itself was for mostly economic reasons (sometimes punitive). justifying the continuing enslavement of people, even fellow Christians was conveniently excused by using the difference as a justification with more inventions (inferiority, etc)
XSC3 1 year ago
I mean, if you kept your slaves dirty, uneducated and wearing rags, a person might start to imagine that that was all they were capable of, and then start to convince themselves that it was okay to enslave such people because they couldn't have better lives anyway, or that they were "inferior" and so it wasn't an offense to God or human dignity, etc. Lots of justifications came up. well people in the bible had slaves, etc (even if they were treated differently than antebellum slaves).
XSC3 1 year ago
If you truly believe "difference" was the cause of slavery, then how would you have proposed we avoided it? Make everybody the same color? Again, I point to the fact that people who "looked the same" enslaved each other for thousands of years prior. The way to end slavery would be to end the desire, means and opportunity for one person to exploit another (or one class to exploit another). otherwise it's a constant battle.
XSC3 1 year ago
@madax132 not always true anyway. many people love things that are different. I understand what you're saying. if you're a man and your slave is a woman you can make up an excuse that women are less than men, or if the person is a different color, try to say the color indicates they are inferior. you can easily reverse that as well. but it's not the cause of the slavery, I would say, even if over time people may have come to believe those excuses and defend the institution on that basis.
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 I know we like things that are different but we have a primal instinct against things that are different. I'm fully aware that slavery existed because we needed cheap labor but it was allowed to be done to humans because they were viewed as inferior and different.
madax132 1 year ago
@madax132 it was allowed because it was allowed, not because of racism. The transatlantic african slave trade was just one of many such trades in the history of mankind. if the core cause of slavery was "we hate difference" then surely other race based slaveries would the norm throughout history.
XSC3 1 year ago
the main "difference" between the enslaved and the slavers is that the people being enslaved are 1) poor 2) captives taken in war 3) dredges of society ("undesirables") that's not counting of course the underground slavery where people are randomly kidnapped, but usually again that's from populations that the slavers figure "won't be missed"
XSC3 1 year ago
@ChristianMission Thomas Jefferson had a 16 page bible that had no supernatural content and called the revelation of saint john the ravings of a mad man. George Washington never declared himself a christian, didn't have a clergy at his death bed and did not utter anything of religious nature on it. Thomas Paine was a deist. John Adams thought the word would be better with no religion and called clergymen dunces. Benjamin Franklin rejected the ideas of Christs divinity, hell and salvation.
madax132 1 year ago
@madax132 Don't forget Franklin's quote. "Lighthouses are more useful than churches".
MCwelfare 1 year ago
Government should have the power to ban masterbation? They'll have to pry my cold, dead hands from around it--or kill me. A judge's job is to give relief to people where the law calls for it. That's not doing someone a favor; it's the job they get paid to do. Scalia and his ilk think people should crawl before them and that being granted relief is some sort of huge personal favor.
newdarnaccount 1 year ago
@newdarnaccount And you want to read something interesting: *District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District* v. *Osborne* (2009). In a lot of cases, I also think it's not a matter of judicial restraint, but judicial laziness. Since I became a judge, people keep coming and asking me to decide things, what nerve.
newdarnaccount 1 year ago
Scalia is correct. Why do people think the Constitution was meant to enumerate and protect all rights? The states were left with most of the decisions in the arena of civil rights and the Feds were to be concerned mostly with foreign affairs and inter state relations. Why do Libs want federal judges dictating to the people how we should live our lives/? Too many modern judges have no respect for the law.
66605 1 year ago
@66605 If civil rights were left to states, we'd still have slavery
antipyrene 1 year ago
@antipyrene
How do you know that slavery would still exist today if it weren't for the federal government? Have you ever heard of conscription?
66605 1 year ago
@66605 If you think conscription is equivalent to slavery, you are an idiot
antipyrene 1 year ago
@antipyrene
At the time of the founding 12/13 of the states were slave states. Before the 13 Amend. passed about half were. Can you see the direction slavery was going? Please explain how conscription is compatible with liberty. How it is not a form of slavery.
66605 1 year ago
@66605 Slavery died in the north because it was economically unfeasible, in the south it was central to their economy, and continued, even past the 13th amendment, in the form of Jim Crow Serfdom, until finally the Federal government ended it in the 1960s with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts...as for the conscription=slavery, when federal government sells off your kids, then you can make the comparison, otherwise to compare the 2 is ignorant and offensive
antipyrene 1 year ago
@antipyrene
When the feds can force people to leave their families and sacrifice their lives for the state I would call that slavery. Why do you approve of some kinds of slavery but not others? Is it just private slavery you are opposed to rather than public slavery?
66605 1 year ago
@66605 Conscription, in a society with a democratically elected government, is not slavery, its part of public responsibility...if you can't see the difference, then I say again, you are an idiot
antipyrene 1 year ago
@antipyrene
So, if a democratic society votes to enslave some of its citizens then slavery is okay? Isn't democracy great? Democratically imposed slavery is still slavery you idiot.
66605 1 year ago
@66605 You really need this explained to you? If you are conscripted, you still have rights, the service is temporary, and you can avoid it by conscientious objection, as well as vote against those who conscripted you, THATS NOT SLAVERY
antipyrene 1 year ago
@antipyrene
The state does whatever it wants. You only have those rights the state allows you to have. Ask the Japanese Americans about their rights when they were placed in internment camps during WW2. How about the Patriot Act which enables the President to put anyone he pleases into a legal black hole where they effectively disappear. We are all slaves if we continue to put up with the unlimited government we have today.
66605 1 year ago
@66605 If the Supreme Court is doing its job, then you have rights...if the Supreme Court is filled with reactionaries like Scalia, you don't
antipyrene 1 year ago
@antipyrene
So I have rights if the right people are sitting on a bench somewhere in D.C.? How consoling! I will go with Scalia over liberal judges who have no respect for the Constitution and seek to impose their own political views on the nation.
66605 1 year ago
@66605 If states rights should trumpet all else, then why did the feds have to intervene against slavery. Stem cell research should be up to the states then. Let me guess, you are against stem cell research...admit it, you are inconsistent.
MrCoolCoder562 1 year ago
@MrCoolCoder562
The Feds did not have to interfere in the slavery issue. The feds made things worse with the coercion and violence used to subjugate the South. Slavery would have died a natural death without interference. It could have ended peacefully like it did in the rest of the West. If federal funds are used to do fetal stem cell research then that is a federal issue.
66605 1 year ago
@66605
Not federal judges dictating how we should live our lives, federal judges allow ME to dictate how should live my life, rather than some perverse, invasive state law. Not dictate, protect.
Dave26000 1 year ago
@Dave26000
So you would have judges making law rather than a democratically elected legislature? Why do you think judges are on your side?
66605 1 year ago
@66605
They don't make laws, they judge laws, that's their job. The 14th amendment allows them to judge state laws against the concept of liberty. Ruling that a law against sodomy is unconstitutional logically protects peoples rights, whether I believe that the judges are on my side or not. That is a clear violation of liberty, no democratically elected legislature should be allowed to decide that people will get sent to Fing JAIL for having the "wrong kind of sex" in their own privacy.
Dave26000 1 year ago
@Dave26000 Well said.
xJoeEDangerouslyx 1 year ago
Scalia has always been a strict constructionist, so much so that his mind cannot generate the flexibility needed to understand that things tend to change and evolve over a period of 220-plus years. Our founding documents talk about "all men created equal", and Scalia is interpreting that statement literally. That is the main problem with strict constructionism, and Scalia would have been more comfortable living in the early 19th Century, when women were viewed as nothing more than mere objects.
armyveteran101st 1 year ago
TYT should make a brief video on each current Supreme Court judge and their relevant rulings; that way, I could learn all of this important stuff without drowning in legal jargon. As a sidenote, please don't let Cenk ask the SkyGod about masturbation ever again. I'm afraid that some abstinence-only sex ed program will Fox-News-edit the clip and show it in schools.
jaIchTanze 1 year ago
@theRekcabofD There is no reason in religion because it tells you that the impossible is truth. It offers no evidence, no proof, but asks that you ignore all your rational understandings of the world and take everything on faith. It gives man permission to act irrationally and demands him to accept something immune and superior to reason.
Religion is based on faith, not reason and fact.
volcombillx3 1 year ago
@theRekcabofD I'm not contending that religion is bad, or that it doesn't inspire people to do good things. It does however inspire people to do bad things as well.
Nowadays in America religion is not "enforced" but go to the Middle East and it is. For centuries in Europe it was enforced at sword point. Separation of church and state is a relatively new concept. Christianity enforces itself by convincing the faithful that if they don't follow certain rules they're going to hell.
volcombillx3 1 year ago
This was one enlightening video.
zknix20 1 year ago 9
@theRekcabofD It depends on how you define"governing". Religion is primitive philosophy. It instills a code of behavior and a moral structure that is enforced by a power greater than anything. It tells you to defy your reason and rational understanding of the world and accept outrageous fables as guides to life. It "governs" in the sense that it defines morality, acceptable behavior, what's okay to eat, justice, and how to live one's life. Displacing governing bodies is a testament to its power.
volcombillx3 1 year ago
@theRekcabofD Mythology is not different from religion, faithful people just perceive it as such to justify their own absurd beliefs. They've convinced themselves the stories are not "myths" but actually "real".
The ancient Greeks really thought Mt. Olympus existed and Zeus ran it. It was their religion. Today the people who believe that aren't around anymore so we call it mythology.
volcombillx3 1 year ago
I both agree & disagree w/ you about this. Substantially, you're right. Scalia is a total fraud. And you're right that it's his lack of consistency that proves he's a fraud.
But here's the tough part - he really is brilliant. I've known many people who I respect who've had conversations w/ the man and they all talk about his wit and intelligence. Of course, a man can be a brilliant and witty whore, and that's just what Scalia is.
Sorry to split hairs, especially ones no one cares about.
FeelFreeToArgue 1 year ago
I wish Cenk would stick to misrepresenting conservatives and stay away from interpreting the law. He is misrepresenting what Scalia said.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe He's actually pretty solid at his legal analysis. After all, he IS a damn well trained attorney. As am I, and I pay close attention to these sort of things when dealing with the blogosphere. But tell us, what did Scalia really say?
BlackSoultan 1 year ago
@BlackSoultan Cenk is a biased liberal commentator who consistently misrepresents what people say. I don't have a copy of Scalia's speech in front of me, but I know that, taken in context, he was not say what Cenk is claiming. Attorneys are good at twisting the truth their own advantage. Scalia is a very principled and brilliant jurist. He is head and shoulders above the idiots President Obama has nominated.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe So go get what this brilliant jurist actually said and come back to us and say where Cenk is wrong.Otherwise, you're just attacking Cenk and not his argument.
BlackSoultan 1 year ago
@BlackSoultan He is not making an argument. He is insulting the man. He is not quoting the man nor does he have video or audio of what he said or the context. This is classic Cenk. Misrepresenting the opposition is his stock and trade. Insulting the man's religion and morality is not an argument. His whole argument FOR abortion is nothing but BS. The Supreme Court applies the Constitution to the times. It should not invent new rights and powers for people or the federal government.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@CommonSenseJoe The problem is I just went and Googled what Scalia said, and being quite familiar with Scalia's work, it's not shocking, nor has Cenk misstated Scalia's position. I've found nothing yet that contradicts Cenk's reporting on the UC-Hastings statements. Scalia uses originalist arguments to say the Constitution wasn't intended to afford equal protection to Women or Gays. He also said he won't ignore his religion when deciding cases. So Cenk's accurate on those. Show me otherwise.
BlackSoultan 1 year ago
@BlackSoultan The Constitution did not originally grant equal protection otherwise we would not amended it to include blacks and women. Why should a justice ignore any part of their lives when deciding cases? Do liberals ignore their biases when deciding cases? Do atheists ignore their "religion" even though our nation is founded on a belief in God? Cenk is misrepresenting what Scalia said to infer that Sacila does not belief in equal rights for women and minorities.
CommonSenseJoe 1 year ago
@theRekcabofD yeah, no. Cenk is known for veiling his so-called "Atheism" with a very real "Anti-Christianity". He's beginning to lean towards a more Bill Maher sort of perspective on Christ. I agree with dude on 99.9999999 percent of what he says until he becomes very disrespectful of Christianity, which is odd. It seems he'd be anti-all religions. But no. Just the "sky-god" of Christians.
BlackSoultan 1 year ago
@BlackSoultan Actually if you look at TYT videos of 2007 on Israel Palestinian conflict, Cenk goes out of his way to defend Muslim opinions, way of life and Quran.
I wonder what that tells us about Cenk's religious position.
TimeGod12 1 year ago
As bad as Scalia is...Roberts is just as bad.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
Scalia is a practitioner of apologetics and rationalization. In other words, an excuse maker.
odysseus9672 1 year ago
Wow, Scalia is a dirtbag.
tauceti1234 1 year ago
You're almost a laugh, but you're really a cry.
JiffyNo0b 1 year ago
Sounds like he'd support the Equal Rights Amendment we tried to get passed back in the day.... Whatever. He's a pig.
meowomon 1 year ago
I would love to hear criticism of Scalia without all the bashing of religious people all the time. Are you all stupid enough to think all Christians are conservatives?
NewYorkFlavour 1 year ago
@NewYorkFlavour Yep, he seems to. Y'all should write to them about your concerns. I have. If more of us in the TYT army would stand up for this issue, he'd have to pay attention. Cenk is extremely reasonable.
BlackSoultan 1 year ago
DON'T MAKE FUN OF SKYGOD! HE IS ANGRY!
Remembermylai 1 year ago
The "sky God" never said to hate gay people.
Thebeautiful11 1 year ago
@Thebeautiful11
Yeah, instead he said to kill them.
Smaug84 1 year ago
@Smaug84 Yeah, no. WAY off.
BlackSoultan 1 year ago
@Thebeautiful11 You may as well talk to a brick wall. People sin, and some would rather make excuses as to why the Bible is wrong (often by misrepresenting its teachings) instead of tailoring themselves to fit its teachings. So a gay person, for example, will say "God hates gays! I don't want to follow such hatred!" or "The bible also says *insert ridiculous lie here*, so clearly the Bible isn't serious." We all do it at some level.
BlackSoultan 1 year ago
Republicans wanna get between you and your hand.
TTEchidna 1 year ago
@TTEchidna No, Conservatives want you to masterbate that means less Liberals and Progressive Socialists. Beat away.
chaumont20 1 year ago
Does not Scalia's own argument prove that there needs to be an equal rights amendment for women, like they tried to pass in the 70''s?
adamsfall 1 year ago
He's a dirty, dirty, puppet.
SkreetGil 1 year ago
@jamaican1232 Read the AP story. He is not taking it out of context.
adamsfall 1 year ago
it's obvious 'sky god' is the problem and not scalia.
cbgkorn 1 year ago 2
@cbgkorn No you are sadly mistaken. So easy to blame everything on the idea of God. You seriously think that in a world without religion Scalia won't find other ways to go about his business. PLEASE!
5233484 1 year ago
@theRekcabofD You can accept someone saying God is ridiculous based on the mob mentality of tea-bagging conservatives? That's a circuitous head-scratcher if I ever saw one.
BlackSoultan 1 year ago
@theRekcabofD You sound like not much of a believer after all. You "hope"? "But I could be wrong"? That's what we call the fence...
Simply put, there's no evidence of anything in existence from Zeus or Poseidon or anything else mythical; they're MYTHS. However, there is evidence of that which is told in the Bible, things of actual widely known Historical Record. Only people who haven't read it wouldn't know that. It would seem well...Greek to them...
BlackSoultan 1 year ago
Saying that a politician is against pot is enough for em to lose these days lol.
vjacq88 1 year ago
Cenk, I agree with you, but be careful, you've got religious folk like myself who agree with most of what you have to say. But I get a little turned off when you border on bad-talking God. Anyway all your points were great and solid, but please be considerate of your religious audience who have some political good sense and also take God seriously. All you God-hating/religion-hating atheists who will be tempted to respond with negativity to this post, I beg you not to waste your words.
Quranite 1 year ago
@Quranite Exactly, like: I think that HE thinks Christians are for the most part Tea Bagging uneducated idiots. He fails to realize MY demographic is huge and goes against this logic. I'm black. Safe to assume I'm very likely to be (a) quite liberal, and (b) at least believe in God if not Christian. Both would be correct, for me and about 30 million other black americans. Not a good idea to insult that demographic. I don't have to insult atheists to be Christian, and the reverse is also true.
BlackSoultan 1 year ago
@theRekcabofD FINALLY! SOMEONE WITH SENSE.
BlackSoultan 1 year ago
Hey Cenk, newsflash: YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE SUCH A HATER AGAINST CHRISTIANS IN ORDER TO BE LIBERAL! *moron*
BlackSoultan 1 year ago
@BlackSoultan Seems to me he was simply pointing out the absurdity of determining laws based upon religion over reason...
SIXITHS 1 year ago
@BlackSoultan
Where's the hate? He's just pointing out that Scalia using his religion to justify his stance is silly. That's not hate. You calling Cenk a moron is probably more hate, but even then I wouldn't call it that.
AdHocRationalizing 1 year ago
The sky god is such an ass!!
hamsterman8 1 year ago