Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (21648)	6/27/2003 1:08:49 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 93284

TP, The idea of impeaching Scalia is intriguing. I think we could do so on the basis of nepotism. And I'd love to be able to open his financial records in the aftermath of the judicial coup d'etat that he was a ringleader in. Here' an earlier Supreme Court Justice impeachment being discussed by the then Representative Gerald R. Ford: ford.utexas.edu Try as he might, Ford just can't quite distract the reader from the fact that he's engaged in a political witch hunt. Which might be the best way to deal with these vile and devious right winger nutcases today....

To: TigerPaw who wrote (21648)	6/27/2003 2:36:14 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 93284

Scalia seems to have forgotten about the Bill of Rights for protection of the individual. For Scalia, Democracy is mob rule: [Scalia]...if the majority objects to homosexuality on moral grounds and wants to outlaw it, that is a manifestation of democracy, not discrimination. washingtonpost.com On the other hand, when it comes to gay marriage, adoption, etc....you can now quote Scalia as a supporter! I don't think he meant to do that, but he has. The decision did not spell out what this could mean for laws banning gay marriage, gay adoption and related controversies. But dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warned from the bench that the constitutional grounds for maintaining those prohibitions are now gone. washingtonpost.com If a prohibition against gay marriage comes to the Court, you can count on Scalia to vote it as unconstitutional. That of course, is if you assume Scalia believes what he says or at least votes that way. I'd like the issue to go to the Court just to see Scalia's vote. BTW. I saw another article where Scalia threw in....he didn't have any thing against gays. jttmab

To: TigerPaw who wrote (21648)	6/27/2003 2:48:40 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 93284

That does give me an idea....it is Scalia's position... The decision did not spell out what this could mean for laws banning gay marriage, gay adoption and related controversies. But dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warned from the bench that the constitutional grounds for maintaining those prohibitions are now gone. washingtonpost.com All we need to do is get the word spread around conservative circles that Scalia says there's no constitutional grounds for maintaining a prohibition against gay marriages and the conservatives will impeach him for us! It's a winner. Send an e-mail to your Republican member of the Senate [if you've got one].....make sure you mention the words "homosexual agenda". I have no idea what that means, but conservatives use it all the time. jttmab