Girl, I got my life froom this hot tea. My pussy is so flooded rn, I can single handedly end the drought in California.
YAASSSS
THE
BITCH
IS
DEAD
>>5719928
>celebrating death
so progressive and tolerant
>>5719928
>LMAO WEED SOCIAL ISSUES GUYS FUK REPUBLISHITS LMAO 420XDDD
For shame, we will miss a stalwart defender of the Constitution and our way of life.
>>5720056
>stalwart defender of the Constitution
He voted in favor of Citizens United
FUCK YOU FAGGOTS. GET AIDS AND DIE
>>5720069
Scalia pls
>>5720066
No one is perfect.
>>5720043
better than actually carrying out the death you fucking hypocrite
>>5720082
tolerant
and
progressive
>>5719928
I hope you faggots die of aids or toxic shock.
I hate you all. From my cold dead hands ect.
>>5720084
>oh glad he's dead he was an asshole in retrospect
>we need to go exterminate minorities like the jews fags and niggers
yeah lefties are much more tolerant are you daft
>body isn't even cold yet
>getting shit all over by liberals
christ y'all were more respectful when Osama bin Laden died
greatest day
>>5720095
stay assmad you shill traitor lmao
>>5720106
so much asshurt it can't be contained to one board hahahaahah get dunked on bitch
>>5720105
How am I a traitor?
I am pro freedom despite being bi and trans. Fuck you sjws for trying to take away freedoms.
Lucky we can hold the senate and can hold any nomination until 2017. However, we need to win in the fall to preserve freedoms.
>>5720115
butthurt cunt hahaha
>>5720106
its funny that time is a convservasheeps worst enemy while it is our best friend. They are naturally going to get more and more miserable as the years pass and its hilarious karma.
>>5720115
>need to win in the fall
lmao politics isn't a football game the outcomes aren't unpredictable republicans are going to get destroyed once again. Get your shit together and shut up about minorities and come back in 8 years after Hillary is done
>>5720118
Good thing the right wing is the ones with the guns. If we lose there is always the constitutional reset button the second amendment provides. It will give us an excuse to lynch all the sjws as well.
>>5720127
Hillary will never win and you fucking know it. I am honestly more concerned about Bernie. If all the primary counts are an indicator Republican turn out is the highest it has ever been while democratic is lower than it was in 08.
Also I am a quadruple minority and I am voting for the Republicans. My freedoms are worth more than anything. I just hate what the modern left has become though. Like Seriously if you want my guns from my cold dead hands.
>>5720066
Because his job is to uphold the constitution, not be an activist.
If Citizens United is so awful, the legislative branch has the power to fix it.
>>5720151
>I can't prove that I'm right, so I'll just not so subtly make threats of violence
Being anti-big government is NOT being pro-freedom. That relies on the assumption that the government is the only entity with power and the ability to oppress. Reducing the power of government makes it easier for private individuals and organizations to oppress you. And unlike the government, you have basically no power over those individuals and organizations. At least with the government you can vote.
>>5720115
i appreciate you melly
even if you are a crazy tranny
t. cis gay man
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-last-defender-of-constitution.html
Press F to pay respects
>>5720179
Prove what? That Democratic turn out was lower in New Hampshire and Iowa in 2016 than in 2008?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/10/gop-shatters-its-turnout-record-democrats-lag-behi/
Oh wait you must be going by those polls that say Shillary or Bernie are beating Trump. Yeah if you go back to 2012 the generic Republican was beating Obama around this time. The reason why I fear Bernie more than Shillary though is because he can bring out a bigger turn out than she can. What is going to happen if Shillary wins is that all the bern fags are going to be pissed off he lost and not turn out because they, rightfully so, think that the dems fixed the nomination.
>>5720195
Thanks :3c
>>5720179
saying you'll defend yourself is not a threat of violence though
>>5719928
RIP Scalia.
Hopefully, they find a decent replacement for him. Someone bipartisan that actually cares about the constitution and not about party loyalty. If the Democrats somehow manage to install some puppet to do their party's bidding it's going to be a sad day for democracy in the US.
>>5720220
>talking about lynching "sjws" is not a threat of violence
>>5720270
if a government becomes tyrannical then war can be justly made
so said Locke
so said Jefferson
>>5720151
>Hillary will never win
>Trump isn't a friend of the clinton's
>Trump wont run as an independent to split the republican vote
and if Bernie wins he gets cockblocked by congress I really wouldn't gaf if he won
>>5720066
Fuck you. Citizens United is a free speech issue, and I'm tired of you assholes perpetuating your idiotic meme of it being some significant watershed moment of... I don't even fucking know what. Your rationale is completely incoherent and anti-liberal.
The Republic is dead.
>>5720098
Tolerant of illiberalism and mob rule, sure.
I fucking hate you people.
>>5720256
yeah this is actually a really good point
if you look at Scalia's record he's broke party lines a few times when the constitution was clearly on the "left's" side
>In the 2001 case of Kyllo v. United States, Scalia wrote the Court's opinion in a 5–4 decision that cut across ideological lines.[102] That decision found thermal imaging of a home to be an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court struck down a conviction for marijuana manufacture based on a search warrant issued after such scans were conducted, which showed that the garage was considerably hotter than the rest of the house because of indoor growing lights
> In a 1990 First Amendment case, R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Scalia wrote the Court's opinion striking down a St. Paul, Minnesota, hate speech ordinance in a prosecution for burning a cross.[105] Scalia noted, "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire."[106]
the guy simply believed in the constitution, nothing more nothing less
even as someone who, as lysander spooner said, believes the constitution is "the merest waste paper", i can respect someone that principled.
>>5720151
>Good thing the right wing is the ones with the guns. If we lose there is always the constitutional reset button the second amendment provides.
Good luck with that, have fun with your gift shop occupation.
>>5720285
Scalia and Sotomayor were friends. You can be friends with people you disagree with politically, but nope, you are just an sjw who wants to be in your own echo chamber.
>>5720305
He was truly looking out for the people.
>>5720312
Oh, that was just the opening act. We can no longer take what is happening to our country.
>>5720304
like I care about your victim complex. Keep cowering in the corner with your guns and bible waiting for the scary j00s to come for you its comical af familia
>>5720284
Not all "sjws" are in government. Mass killings of people for holding views you disagree with is basically the opposite of American values.
>>5720323
>You can be friends with people you disagree with politically
but da personal iz politikal!
>>5720324
>cowering in the corner with your guns
That's hilarious, since it's moronic, unprincipled leftists who shit and piss themselves over the very thought of guns.
>victim complex
Again, progressive projection. Sooo typical.
>>5720333
don't think he said all of them though
>>5720324
I am an atheist, I see climate change as scientific fact, I am extremely socially liberal until the point someone tries to take away freedoms, and I am part j00. Stop trying to type cast use on the right.
>>5720333
Those who stand in the way of freedom should be dealt with. It is fine when you disagree with me, but it isn't cool when you go after my rights.
>>5720295
Isn't Citizens United that made corporate donations to political campaigns unlimited? It's not a free speech issue. Corporation owners can still vote just like anyone else. But Citizens United gives them undue political influence over poorer citizens, which is ANTI-democratic.
>>5720357
i think this election shows donations don't really mean jack
also citizens united, at its core was about hillary clinton trying to shut down a committee that bought an ad that painted her in an unfavorable light
In the case the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[4] Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions.
>>5720350
They talked about lynching sjws, without specifiying which ones. That language implies that they're being killed BECAUSE they're sjws, rather than for having any particular influence in government.
>>5720354
>Those who stand in the way of freedom should be dealt with. It is fine when you disagree with me, but it isn't cool when you go after my rights.
Many, even most of those who are labeled "sjws" don't actually try to deprive anyone of their rights. Anyone who criticizes others for being racist or misogynistic is labeled a sjw.
>>5720337
go ahead and tell me which board is laughing their asses off atm and which one is having a mental breakdown about the doom of western civilization because of the death of a fat useless fuck.
>>5720354
that wasn't even responding to you unless you are taking your trip off randomly familia. And also mocking your opinion isn't the violent suppression of it calm your victim complex down
>>5720357
Citizens United was about whether the independently, corporate-funded anti-Hillary documentary was "allowed." It's a free speech issue.
>>5720354
melly do you read breitbart?
>>5720354
Uh, didn't Trump talk about banning Muslims from entering the country?
>>5720371
>don't actually try to deprive anyone of their rights
almighty kek laughs at thee
>>5720376
>go ahead and tell me which board is laughing their asses off atm and which one is having a mental breakdown about the doom of western civilization because of the death of a fat useless fuck.
What the fuck are you talking about?
>>5720377
The decision itself is anti-free speech, since it makes corporate donations to political campaigns unlimited.
>>5720390
why should donations be limited?
>>5720383
So if I criticize someone for saying "a woman is the worthless piece of flesh around a vagina", I'm depriving them of their rights?
>>5720390
That's not anti-speech. What the hell are you talking about? Are people not within their rights to pool their money to make political ads? Fuck off.
>>5720384
you are saying
>n-no, the leftists are afraid!!! n-not us!
to which I responded
>pol is shitting itself while legbutt is laughing
is it really that complex lel
>>5720398
Because it means those who are very wealthy can have undue political influence.
>>5720402
You're right, I'm afraid of how the bodes for our freedoms.
I don't post on /pol/, and please continue your projection.
>>5720401
>Are people not within their rights to pool their money to make political ads?
No, they're not. Where in the Constitution does it say they're allowed to?
>>5720407
why are the wealthy giving lots of money to a candidate bad but lots of people giving lots of money to a candidate good
>>5720411
projection implies I am taking a negative characteristic of myself and applying it to you. I am not from /pol/. I do not support /pol/. You are looking for the term mischaracterization at best though you embody the ideas of /pol/ so its a futile effort.
>>5720407
Political influence is ALWAYS going to be slanted, regardless of how desperately you impose cash restrictions.
But this isn't even about campaign donations. It's about political speech.
>>5720418
The constitution doesn't give permissions to the people. It imposes restrictions and order on government.
Fuck off, tyrant.
>>5720423
Because for a democracy to function as such requires each citizen to have roughly the same amount of political influence.
>>5720433
/pol/ is not a hivemind and it's certainly not original in its ideology.
See, I've arrived at my ideas based on principles I hold. If you think you can conflate two people based on the verisimilitude of just a couple things they've said, then you can fuck off.
>>5720434
>Political influence is ALWAYS going to be slanted, regardless of how desperately you impose cash restrictions.
Yes, but that doesn't mean we should make no attempt to minimize the imbalance.
>>5720435
where in the constitution does it say that we're supposed to be a democracy
beyond that, why exactly is a democracy is the best form of goverment
>>5720434
>The constitution doesn't give permissions to the people. It imposes restrictions and order on government.
So then under Constitutional law, there's nothing to stop me from preventing other citizens from voting? Say, if I own a company and tell my workers that I will fire them if they don't vote for my preferred candidate?
>>5720435
Equality is not the goal. Liberty is the goal. Equality is impossible. No one will ever have roughly the same political influence as everyone else, even if you dampen everyone's freedom to nothing.
Your ideology restricts liberty.
>>5720447
So you're saying America isn't or isn't supposed to be a democracy? Why vote at all, then?
>>5720459
why indeed
america was originally a timocracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timocracy
and was one at the writing of the constitution and for decades after
>>5720456
But it's reasonable to make an effort to minimize inequality. Letting some individuals have truly excessive political influence is depriving others of liberty by denying them meaningful political power.
>>5720446
It does, if in doing so, constitutional rights would be curtailed.
>>5720463
political power is by its very nature inimical to liberty because it says people have power over unrelated others
>>5720455
Let me rephrase. The constitution is not an exhaustive list of liberties for individuals. It imposes restrictions on the various governments, but it doesn't give an exhaustive list of what we as individuals can and cannot do.
>So then under Constitutional law, there's nothing to stop me from preventing other citizens from voting?
That's a common law question
>>5720459
>Why vote at all, then?
Good question
>>5720463
Maybe, as long as minimizing inequality doesn't involve damping people's fundamental freedoms (like speech).
>>5720445
>I may be a poltard but how DARE you call me a poltard
literally what you just said I dont give a fuck how you fedora flipped your way to political enlightenment. If you spout pol shit expect to get called a poltard. Very simple.
>>5720468
But limiting donations does NOT violate any constitutional rights unless one considers donations to be protected speech. And there's nothing in the Constitution to imply that it should be considered such.
>>5720475
>literally what you just said
Literally not what I just said. Jesus fuck, learn to reading comprehension, dumbass
>>5720463
>depriving others of liberty
If some have excessive influence, damping political speech is only going to serve those with the already excessive influence.
Maintaining rights for all is the surest way to protect everyone equally.
>>5720471
So then no one should have political power? Should we just choose our presidents by rolling dice then?
>>5720486
why have a president?
>>5720478
>I have nothing else to say, ah, he used the world literally "incorrectly" thank god. I was almost going to have to admit I was full of shit.
you know exactly what I meant lmao you're so desperate
>>5720477
>But limiting donations does NOT violate any constitutional rights unless one considers donations to be protected speech.
Donations to what? Citizens United isn't about donations to a political candidate.
>>5720482
It's the vagueness that is at issue. What's the proper limit on money donations to politically-motivated ads? Who's to define the extent of "politically-motivated"?
Focusing on Citizens United per se, should people not have been able to pool money to create an anti-Hillary documentary?
>>5720482
>damping political speech is only going to serve those with the already excessive influence.
We're not talking about banning political speech or anything like that. The wealthy derive their excessive political power from their ability to make donations - how would banning donations INCREASE their political influence?
>>5720477
>And there's nothing in the Constitution to imply that it should be considered such
"and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Money is speech, fuccboi. Are G=grassroot socialists bribing Bernie to represent their interests?
Lobbying IS democracy. The only thing you should be butthurt about is that multi national corporations are better at it than the rest of us.
>>5720490
We'd still need a means of selecting government officials.
>>5720517
why?
>>5720503
You're just trolling. literally lmao lel
bye
>>5720508
A corporation is a collection of individuals pooling their money. So people can't do that to make political ads (speech)? How exactly is that an equalizer? The powers-that-be will be un-criticizable and us little people will have no ability to speak out.
>>5720516
Lobbying is one thing. Donating to political campaigns is equivalent to bribery.
>The only thing you should be butthurt about is that multi national corporations are better at it than the rest of us.
And that's why donations should be limited, to prevent them from exerting undue influence.
>>5720524
>You're just trolling. literally lmao lel
now THAT is projection hey maybe you are learning something here
>>5720521
Because otherwise we'd have no way of determining who is responsible for passing laws and so on.
>>5720526
its the same thing with a different time frame
Excellent. Obama will hook it up with a pro-lgbt judge and we'll have SCOTUS locked down for years.
>>5720532
why do we need people in charge of us?
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” -Frederic Bastiat
>>5720508
>The wealthy derive their excessive political power from their ability to make donations - how would banning donations INCREASE their political influence?
So only the wealthy are banned from making donations? How could Bernie afford to run if he wasn't be bankrolled by tipping redditors for 5 bucks each?
>>5720543
>why do we need people in charge of us?
Don't you know? OTHER people can't be trusted. Obviously I don't want other people telling me what to do, but I'd like to keep others in check.
See? It's misanthropy at its core.
>>5720552
how is it misanthropy if ultimately you're leaving it up to others to protect you?
you seem to have an extreme faith in SOME of the human race contrary to its track record of being liars, thieves and mass murderers
>>5720543
>why do we need people in charge of us?
Because without laws, there wouldn't really be anything to stop people from killing and robbing each other? Politicians aren't infallible, but making them abide by a set of nearly unchangeable rules (the constitution) and the will of the people (via elections) allows them to govern more or less effectively without being able to easily do anything too crazy.
>>5720526
>Donating to political campaigns is equivalent to democracy
FTFY
>undue influence
"Undue" being any influence you (or more likely the rich and powerful) don't like
Delusional jackals like you are why Originalists like Curtiss and Scalia were so important.
>>5720295
Money isn't speech you horrible malignant cancer.
>>5720542
>learn to reading comprehension
>grab a dictionary xD
I did and I found your posts next to the term contradiction. Nice grammar bud. You couldn't even hold the one moot point (nitpicking the english language) you thought you had over me this is just too good. You didn't even realize it too lol.
>>5720549
If the donations were limited, it would prevent the extremely rich from having undue influence, while allowing most others to still donate as much as they would otherwise.
>>5720536
Until Emperor Trump gets elected and Ginsberg croaks.
>>5720568
>"Undue" being any influence you (or more likely the rich and powerful) don't like
Undue being any influence significantly more than the average citizen.
Can we not be such fags about this? Please? This is why society doesn't actually like us
>>5720581
I thought you guys said Trump was pro-LGBT?
>>5720578
>If the donations were limited, it would prevent the extremely rich from having undue influence
Do you think repeating something over and over makes it true?
>>5720595
You bitches already won. What more do you want? Mandatory cock sucking training?
what the fuck is going on here?
t.not a murican
>>5720598
You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of. Do you think saying "YOURE WRONG YOUR WRONG" rather than explaining WHY limiting donations won't reduce the excessive political power of the rich is actually going to convince me of anything?
>>5720605
>Mandatory cock sucking training?
Wouldn't hurt
>>5720588
>Rich media mogul with powerful friends "See how my corrupt counterpart bribes his rich senator buddies? Arrest him"
You're delusional. Thankfully such tyrannical laws will never pass, if only because the already powerful won't give it up.
>>5720617
it might
>>5720606
Here's the situation:
Antonin Scalia was an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, widely known for being extremely conservative. He died today at the age of 79.
Now, since there are only eight justices on the USSC, another one needs to be appointed. If Obama can't get the Senate to confirm one before his term ends in January of next year (which is a very real possibility since Obama is a democrat and the senate is mostly republican), the responsibility will fall on the shoulders of whoever wins the presidential election in November of this year.
>>5720620
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Political donations should be monitored by a neutral organization. Saying "the already powerful won't give it up" is just admitting how excessive the political power of the rich already is.
>>5720617
imaging this got me hard more than it should
I'm not a slut, honest!
>>5720595
It's impossible to tell what trump stands for. He's like Hillary in that he'll say anything to get elected; he approaches politics as a salesman.
Right now he's courting the evangelical vote, split between himself and Cruz. Evangelicals are really the only voting block in the US that has any vested opposition to lgbt advancement. But trump himself doesn't seem to care sour lgbt. He may throw then some anti-gay bones just to secure a share of that voter base.
He's certainly not as anti-lgbt as /pol/ hallucinates he is. He's more neutral than anything.
>>5720610
I've already explained myself. Read the post chain again.
>The wealthy derive their excessive political power from their ability to make donations
This isn't true, it derives from much more than that. If you think making unjust and easily abused laws is a solution to natural inequality, you're one naive bastard who would gladly lead us into actual chains.
>>5720588
NO. He I hope he suffers for all eternity.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court
>"Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings," Scalia wrote, in the classic prebuttal phrasing of someone about to say something ludicrous. "But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible—murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals—and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of 'animus' at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct[.]"
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia-dissent
>"When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases."
>"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."
There's more quotes there than there is space in the post to copy-pasta them all.
>>5720630
>which is a very real possibility since Obama is a democrat and the senate is mostly republican
Unlikely. The GOP would get raped in the media if they drew this out for a year. They also know that assigning a liberal judge would be an impetus for all democrats to rally around the nominee.
What's more likely is that Obama will try to appoint a far-left judge. The Senate will block it. Then they'll make a deal to appoint a center-left judge in exchange for Obama not vetoing a GOP sponsored bill.
And once they cut a deal, republican voters will view the GOP establishment as having betrayed their interests once again and elect the Lion of New York.
>>5720662
>This isn't true, it derives from much more than that
What does it derive from then?
>>5720399
You don't understand. Clearly critisizing someone for what they say is censorship and should be banned in the name of free speech.
>>5720683
He's right in both of those.
Making up a constitutional right out of nowhere and nothing is borderline treason.
And I don't even know what you find bad about the first. Did you think opponents of lgbt rights didn't disapprove of it?
Scalia was, out of every member of the court, the most principled.
>>5720717
How ironic that SJWs want exactly that. And constantly enforce it through college speech codes and hate speech legislation.
but by all means keep circlejerking
>>5720765
>SJWs want exactly that
Did you hear that on reddit and iranian image boards? Maybe you should try to figure out what the people you hate so much actually want.
FUCK YEAH! HE'S DEAD!
>>5720797
How delusional can one person be? I mean really now
Why would you celebrate his dead, he seems pretty cool to me.
>>5720765
College speech codes have nothing to do with the Constitutional right to free speech.
>>5720733
>Making up a constitutional right out of nowhere and nothing is borderline treason.
It isn't woven from whole cloth. They do come from broad vague language from the Constitution because the Framers didn't write it in boilerplate the length of 500 copies of War & Peace itemizing every conceivable right and freedom and protection of the Citizens from every possible set of circumstances.
>And I don't even know what you find bad about the first. Did you think opponents of lgbt rights didn't disapprove of it?
It is equating the deprivation of another life via homicide with mere in-group hate of others as co-justifications for the basis of law.
>>5720854
I could say the same thing about you. This is clearly a very productive conversation.
>>5720868
Can you list for me, excluding all public universities and colleges, which private universities do not receive federal money?
>>5720878
>as co-justifications
That's a standard scalia quip, you cuck. Not legal reasoning.
You'd know that if you'd ever read one of his dissents before today.
>>5720879
except I'd be right.
Can you honestly say that you don't think modern progressives are using censorship as a political tool?
I mean just look at the recent agreements between Facebook and Merkel in Germany.
>>5720868
>what is a state college
>>5720896
So any university which receives federal money is automatically a federal agency and therefore cannot restrict freedom of speech? They're a business like any other. You're free to say whatever you want outside of college - and as far as I know, even if you're on college grounds you're allowed to privately say whatever you want as long as it's not clearly a threat or harassment.
>>5720920
If a business is subsidized by the government, are they forbidden from having regulations that limit employees' freedom of speech while on the job?
>>5720944
why not
>>5720127
>its funny that time is a convservasheeps worst enemy while it is our best friend. They are naturally going to get more and more miserable as the years pass and its hilarious karma.
Actually that's not really true.
Throughout history we've seen long running civilizations being incredibly liberal, like the Greeks, suddenly turn quite conservative like during the Christian Roman era.
There is no correlation to time and the degree of liberty in society. It's flip flopped more than once and it can happen again.
A lot of young people seem to have the mindset that we will never reverse freedoms we have granted, but that is not true, it is a real possibility.
>>5720933
>harassment
Harassment being whatever the establishment wants it to be.
Or do you honestly think a white kid being expelled for 2 years because he said he didn't find blacks girls attractive of yik yak is just?
>https://www.thefire.org/colorado-college-suspends-student-for-two-years-for-six-word-joke-on-yik-yak/
>>5720357
>which is ANTI-democratic.
So was Obergefell v. Hodges but I don't see you complain about that.
>>5720954
Again, I really don't see any violations of Constitutional rights there. A university isn't a government.
>>5721004
It's not anti-democratic in the SENSE THAT WAS BEING TALKED ABOUT, namely giving certain groups greater political power. If it meant letting gay couples vote twice or something, then your comparison would be apt.
>>5721075
>refusing to bake a cake for gays because of your beliefs = deeply unconstitutional discrimination
>expelling a student for his beliefs = justice
And you people wonder why trump is so popular
>>5721104
>>refusing to bake a cake for gays because of your beliefs = deeply unconstitutional discrimination
Never said that it was unconstitutional. Having to bring up irrelevant strawman arguments to make your point just means you've lost.
>>5721104
That's not even a valid comparison. Discriminating on the basis of race, gender, orientation etc is disallowed because those things aren't a choice and aren't harming anyone. Businesses are still perfectly free to throw people out for bad behavior, it's not even "discrimination" if it's due to individual behavior rather than demographics. Wikipedia defines discrimination as "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit." So expelling someone for making a dumb joke may seem excessive, but it's not in violation of any anti-discrimination laws and so is protected by freedom of contract.
>>5720536
>unironically being a leftist
>>>/tumblr/ >>>/anywherebuthere/
>>5721175
>and aren't harming anyone
Neither do opinions.
>Businesses are still perfectly free to throw people out for bad behavior
Not if they were doing it whilst being gay. Then it's a civil rights violation.
>So expelling someone for making a dumb joke may seem excessive
White kid expelled for 2 years for yik yak joke
Black kid threatens to kill 17 white people, allowed to continue school.
>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-of-chicago-threat-20151201-story.html
Blatant discrimination.
>>5721075
>then your comparison would be apt.
I wasn't contrasting the two but rather stating how a decision being "anti-democratic" is irrelevant to you so long as it's to your liking.
Btw, /pol/ack and Law student here. I was curious to see if you fags were happy Based Scalia was dead. It seems only the most ignorant are, nice.
>>5719928
Dude, I wasn't a huge fan of his opinions but chill the fuck out. It's not like he was a corporate shill, or a corrupt politician. He was honest and consistent, even if our morals didn't align.
>>5721217
>Neither do opinions.
Your point is? Opinions don't get people expelled.
>Not if they were doing it whilst being gay. Then it's a civil rights violation.
It's only a civil rights violation if they're thrown out for no reason other than being gay.
>White kid expelled for 2 years for yik yak joke
>Black kid threatens to kill 17 white people, allowed to continue school.
>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-of-chicago-threat-20151201-story.html
>blatant discrimination
For one, the article's behind a paywall, so for all I know the "threatens to kill 17 white people" could be made up. Yes, it seems inconsistent, but we're talking about two different universities with different policies. It would only be discrimination if the different treatment was solely on the basis of race, but the evidence doesn't point to that being even a reasonable assumption.
>Defends 1A
>Defends 2A
>Defends 4A
>Defends 5A
>Defends 6A
>Defends 10A
No one says a word
>Can't find any constitutional support for abortion
>Can't find any constitutional support or barring state governments from not issuing licenses
>Thinks the text of the ACA should be interpreted as as the text of the ACA is read
MOOOOOONNNSTER! RIGHT WING HATE MACHINE! KKKKNAZI HAHAHA!
You fags make us look like the morons most of us are.
>>5720066
I disagree with the -EFFECT- of citizens united, but a jurist has to primarily look at the -CONGRUENCE- of a decision with existing law, and the giving of funds by private entities to political campaigns- by most accounts: constitutional interpretation, federal law, and judiciary precedent seems to be congruent with existing law.
If congress wants to change it, it should go ahead and do so.
>What is Law 101
>What is Poli Sci 101
>I'm not even majored in either but know this
>>5720098
>we need to go exterminate minorities like the jews fags and niggers
Strawmen galore!
>>5720183
>That relies on the assumption that the government is the only entity with power and the ability to oppress
It is the only one with the monopoly on coercive ability to do so over an entire landmass.
>Reducing the power of government makes it easier for private individuals and organizations to oppress you
Except when they lobby the government through regulatory capture to use the government as an enforcement mechanism.
Except when the government itself has proven itself to be a huge oppressor more so than any private institution.
Except that the first 10 amendments to the USC affirmed that the government can -NOT- do X, Y, or Z, and even on those very points it tried to increase its own power and failed.
>Seriously, if you want to look at how the government wants to expand power, look at the docket of SCOTUS cases and see what the solicitor general is arguing
>Oh the irony! The point man for shooting down the solicitor general for years has been Justice Scalia
>>5721283
>Lawrence
>v.
>Texas
the world is a better place
>>5721319
>It is the only one with the monopoly on coercive ability to do so over an entire landmass.
Sure, but that's little comfort to those who are being oppressed by non-government entities.
>Except when they lobby the government through regulatory capture to use the government as an enforcement mechanism.
Oppressed individuals have SOME ability to influence the government and get it to protect them. Without the govenment, they would be truly powerless.
>Except when the government itself has proven itself to be a huge oppressor more so than any private institution.
Largely because the government takes action to prevent private entities from taking oppressive actions. Without the government, they'd be free to oppress whoever they want.
>>5721320
He warned us about the ensuing degenaracy that would unfold.
>>5719928
>leftist woman being a retarded, rabid cunt
I am shocked.
>>5720312
You're always invited in case you change your mind
>>>/k/
The Pink Pistols also have incredible instructors.
>>5720324
Not that guy, but
>cowering
No.
>Guns
Yes.
>Bible
Own several annotated translations for theological understanding, but am a hardline atheist.
>scary j00s
Want to see footage of my Bar Mitzvah?
>>5720390
>The decision itself is anti-free speech,
We have differing definitions of of free speech.
Free speech, in the legal sense- and SCOTUS deals in the purely legal sphere- is that government MAY NOT restrict expression.
In the practical sense, it may mean that some speech may be drowned out by others in the marketplace of ideas- for better or worse- but no one person is barred from any expression.
You want SCOTUS to make moral/ethical stances on the black and white of the law, which is bunk.
(You can argue that private funding is not inclusive within expression, which is a legal argument one could take, but supposed practical effects of a decision is a dead end.)
>>5720407
>Undue
Undue how?
How are you the legal arbiter of that?
>I actually agree with the general sentiment, but please form your arguments in the context of the law and the law alone
>>5720455
>So then under Constitutional law, there's nothing to stop me from preventing other citizens from voting?
Nope. That might be taken up in Civil Court, as a tort, and the company would lose horribly, or it would be taken up by state governments, which would smack them down.
Do you not understand how the law works?
>>5720526
> Donating to political campaigns
Cit United was only broadly about the equation of funding with expression, but not about private donations.
It was specifically about
> broadcasting electioneering communications
Which is why it was called Citizens United vs the FEC, not the United States.
> is equivalent to bribery.
So are you saying that no one whatsoever may donate to a candidate?
>>5721269
>Opinions don't get people expelled.
Opinion is speech.
>so for all I know the "threatens to kill 17 white people" could be made up
What rock do you live under? The Chicago tribune is probably the 2nd most famous paper in the world you retard.
>It's only a civil rights violation if they're thrown out for no reason other than being gay.
Except that since massive legislation and media criticism would be leveled against anyone refusing service to a protected class, there is de facto discrimination taking place. The simple fact is that contract law needs to be updated to include free speech requirements as an unimpeachable right in line with civil rights legislation.
>>5721365
as I said glad he's dead and let me just ask how does it feel to finally see everything you know and love die? Must be strange now that the tables have turned eh?
>>5721395
>Opinion is speech.
An opinion presented in an offensive way, particularly if it's clearly intended to be offensive, is more than just an opinion.
>What rock do you live under? The Chicago tribune is probably the 2nd most famous paper in the world you retard.
If you could actually read, you'd know I was unable to verify that the paper did actually say what you claimed it did because it's behind a paywall.
>Except that since massive legislation and media criticism would be leveled against anyone refusing service to a protected class, there is de facto discrimination taking place. The simple fact is that contract law needs to be updated to include free speech requirements as an unimpeachable right in line with civil rights legislation.
Find me one case of a gay person being kicked out for disruptive behavior and the media claiming it's discrimination.
>>5720536
>Thinking federalism applies to the issuance of marriage licenses
>ANTI-LGBT
>Not thinking federalism applies to the issuance of marriage licences
>PRO LGBT
You're creating a false dichotomy.
While I love my boyfriend and plan to marry him one day, I love living in a federated democratic republic even more, where the federal government doesn't find every minor excuse to pry into the states' business as the states' electorates hired their politicians to do.
That's not even to mention numerous the legal problems with that ruling.
>>5720683
>I hope he suffers for all eternity.
How tolerant!
>"Does that make flagpole sitting a fundamental right?
That was a good legal analogy to sodomy laws.
>Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as [various private roles]
> "They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive
1. This was a description of held beliefs, not a prescription of policy. This should take a 3rd grade rhetorical understanding.
2. This was used to indicate that the government may not- or should not- force people to join up in various relationships.
I dislike the allusions to pedophilia/bestiality when speaking about LGBT, but in the sphere of law, a precedent for one category may be applied to a similar category.
>B-but muh slippery slope!
Indeed. Law, especially in the courtroom, literally is a slippery slope.
Where am I going with this?
We replace one word and assume the same logic.
>Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in BEASTIPHILIC [sic?] conduct as [various private roles]
>They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive
To reject this means you open yourself up for the state to force your participation or forming relationships with, or preventing you to elect not to form relationships with those you do not want to form them w
>>5721283
ugh, don't you know if he doesn't use the supreme court as a vehicle to push his socjus views he is literally Hitler?? seriously smh'ing on you my fam
>>5721426
>everything you know and love die?
Wew lad, calm your tits. I only admired the guy, I don't give a fuck about a country that's already fucked. Even before he died the SCOTUS was already left-leaning because of Kennedy's cuckoldry.
>>5721427
>is more than just an opinion
Yeah, it's protected speech.
>it's behind a paywall
Not for me, and I don't pay them anything. So you've already read a bunch of their articles. The name is Jabari R. Dean. It was national news. Not as big as the white kid who made similar but less explicit threats in MI, of course.
>Find me one case of a gay person being kicked out for disruptive behavior and the media claiming it's discrimination.
That black guy at the trump rally. Got violent, media cried racism. This shit happens all the fucking time, with every type of protected class.
>>5721320
I didn't agree with the Lawrence v. Texas dissents either but it had good points.
>>5721337
>hat's little comfort to those who are being oppressed by non-government entities.
List the oppressions.
I can think of some, but I want to hear it from your mouth.
>Without the govenment
Implying that Scalia et al want to get rid of all government.
The courts, the ballot box, and the milk box (speech) are still open to the public, and are massively powerful.
>he government takes action to prevent private entities from taking oppressive actions.
Cart before the horse. Entities lobby the government to institute X to thwart startups, Y to thwart existing competition, and Z to thwart market pressures.
>>5720066
Citizens United is about about shitty collection of interviews that was to be shown on pay per view tv. It was people talking about why they think voting for Hillary Clinton is a bad idea.
>>5720683
Part 2.
...form them with, be the relationship contractual, scholarly, in child care or any other aspects.
> but there's more going on in laws banning murder than mere disfavor
I agree with this sentiment on the part of motherjones. I never thought I would say that.
>the rights of the person being murdered, for example.
This is where they shit the bed.
They are conflating criminal law with civil law! This article writer should have failed law 101.
A murderer is tried for murder for breaking a law against homicide. His punishment is necessarily not taken 'against' the proportional damages the murderer did to the victim, as a civil law suit uses the "made whole" doctrine, wherein a victim seeks to collect payment equal and reciprocal to the damages done.
So once again, Scalia had a valid point- that within a given community, laws may be instituted based on the reprehensibility of an action.
>Though I disagree with the validity, effectiveness, or ethics or sodomy laws
>[sodomy laws are congruent with the upholding of laws against] fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity."
But that's literally true. Once again Scalia was DESCRIBING a legal context for a set of laws, not PRESCRIBING one way or the other.
>"[I]t would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the 'life partner' of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee."
Wow! It's a legal analogy! How horrific.
Yes, in his legal opinion, under Colorado law, they had no obligation to extend or roll over benefits in such a way.
>MJ: his remark goes far beyond the law in expressing Scalia's basic animus
Bullshit. This was a basic legal analogy.
>>5721488
>Yeah, it's protected speech.
Which only means the GOVERNMENT can't ban in. A university can still make its own rules as to what behavior is acceptable.
>>5720683
Part 3
>A job] interviewer may refuse to offer a job because the applicant is a Republican; because he is an adulterer; because he went to the wrong prep school or belongs to the wrong country club; because he eats snails; because he is a womanizer; because she wears real animal fur; or even because he hates the Chicago Cubs."
This is true though. MJ didn't really provide a rebuttal to this, or why firms are unable to discriminate on one more criteria upon the infinity of criteria they may already discriminate upon, this creating a specially protected class afforded rights others are not privy to- which was exactly his point.
I keep repeating this, but this is really Law 101 stuff.
"Shifting burdens in furnishing legal decisions" I think the chapter was called.
>"It doesn't say you can't have—you can't have any sexual intimacy. It says you cannot have sexual intimacy with a person of the same sex."
Here is where Scalia shit the bed though. Once again I agree with MJ. Ironically, when the Right used the same logic against digital records
>Da constitution mentioned papers and effects, not floppy disks, checkmate 4th amendment!
or the left on gun rights
>Da constitution never specifically mentioned ammo! Checkmate 2A!
Scalia affirmed these arguments fundamentally detoothed the rights implied by these amendments but not specifically in their text.
That he couldn't extrapolate it to this issue was a low point for him.
>You can be intimate! Just not with your own sex.. wait.
>>5721610
Sure, PRIVATE universities can make up their own rules. But public universities are state institutions, and are ultimately controlled by legislatures.
>>5720683
Now for the next article
>WILD LINES from Scalia's gay marriage dissent
1.
>stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis."
That's the most generic dissent introduction I've ever read. I'm surprised it's not copypasted like a template.
2.
>When the 14A was ratified...every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so.
That's a good argument though. Not perfect, but its a decent shot.
3.
>[in the majority opinion] is candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified,the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its 'reasoned judgment,' thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect
He's making the claim that the Court through activism, instead of reading the text and intent, diminished the very will of the People that ratified that text.
This is a sound argument.
The court should not expand nor restrict the rights protected as implied by the text, but interpret the text itself.
4.
>This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power;
But this is a solid claim
>fundamentally at odds with our system of government."
And this, regardless of if it applied to the decision or not- as a statement by itself- is true.
5.
>five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.
This is an excellent point though. For all this time it was assumed that it's a 10A matter. Civics courses since the dawn of civics courses taught that marriage was a state issue. This interpretaton is a novel one.
6.
>he opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.
Eh, fluff.
>>5721651
Are government agencies forbidden from imposing free speech restrictions on their employees? I don't know the answer to that, but I wouldn't think they are. They're not actually denying anyone that right, since people willingly give up that right as part of the employment contract. And even if you do exercise your right to free speech, you won't get jailed or fined for it or anything, you'll just lose your job.
I would think that public universities restricting speech is a violation of the right to free speech in the same way banning people from bringing guns into a courtroom is a violation of the right to bear arms.
>>5720683
7.
>It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so
This is more of an administrative peeve of his than a legal one, though I agree that decisions should be as dry and free from personal beliefs as much as possible.
8.
>Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage.
Non sequitur argument by Scalia. I agree with MJ again on this one.
>'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity
[scotus]
>has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."
But that's also a sound argument. The constitution says nothing about sexual relationships.
(I only half agree with it though, as rights not reserved by the States or deferred to the Feds are ultimately left to the People)
>>5721666
Pretty sure government agencies are only able to regulate speech of employees if the content is relevant to their job, or contributes to a hostile work environment, constitutes harassment, is classified material, etc. But it would warrant strict scrutiny or whatever, because speech is protected under the 1st Amendment.
As to your second point, no, it's not the same thing. Banning guns in a courthouse is a safety issue. Policing speech at a university is not. In addition, literally the entire point of a university is to expose students to new ways of thinking. You can't do that if you police offensive, unpleasant, or controversial speech or ideas.
>>5721752
>In addition, literally the entire point of a university is to expose students to new ways of thinking. You can't do that if you police offensive, unpleasant, or controversial speech or ideas.
Right, but calling someone a nigger/faggot/cunt or whatever isn't really speech of any real value. It's not original, doesn't convey any actual different worldview (other than "I don't like [x]") and is just disruptive and could potentially constitute harassment. A university ISN'T supposed to send people the message that it's perfctly acceptable to refer to people using slurs.
>>5721781
The thing about harassment is that it has to be repetitive, threatening, and/or disturbing. Simply calling someone a fag once is not harassment. Now, if a professor called a student a faggot in class, that would probably warrant an investigation, but that's because a professors actions in the classroom represent the school.
A student calling another student a faggot, nigger, or cunt might be problematic, but so what? People are assholes. Welcome to the real world. If it happens in a classroom, it might be an issue. But outside? On campus? Online? Courts have consistently ruled that as long as it's not legitimate harassment or something like that, the school has no business policing your speech.
>>5721891
>Courts have consistently ruled that as long as it's not legitimate harassment or something like that, the school has no business policing your speech.
Have they consistently ruled that it's ILLEGAL? I'm pretty sure every school I've been to has had an acceptable language/behavior policy of some sort.
>>5721908
https://www.thefire.org/in-court/state-of-the-law-speech-codes/
>Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri
"The Court held that 'the mere dissemination of ideas-no matter how offensive to good taste-on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency.'"
>>5721937
I'm not talking about "mere dissemination of ideas". There are no IDEAS we were forbidden from expressing - only the means in which we express them.
>>5719928
Now if Henry Kissinger would just die already my happiness would be complete!
>>5720381
No. He wanted to ban people coming from the Middle East from coming into the country. Muslims from everywhere else in the world would still manage to immigrate here. He didn't really think it through
>>5722006
Doesn't matter.
Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989):
“[t]he Supreme Court has consistently held that statutes punishing speech or conduct solely on the grounds that they are unseemly or offensive are unconstitutionally overbroad.”
Roberts v. Haragan, 346 F. Supp. 2d 853 (N.D. Tex. 2004)
a federal district court considered a speech code banning the use of “physical, verbal, written or electronically transmitted threats, insults, epithets, ridicule or personal attacks” that are “personally directed at one or more specific individuals based on the individual’s appearance, personal characteristics or group membership, including, but not limited to, race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, disability, citizenship, veteran status, sexual orientation, ideology, political view or political affiliation.” The court held the speech code to be facially overbroad in covering “much speech that, no matter how offensive, is not proscribed by the First Amendment.”
UWM Post v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin, 774 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D. Wis. 1991):
A federal district court ruled unconstitutional a policy prohibiting speech that: “Demean[s] the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual or individuals; [and]… [c]reate[s] an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education, university related work, or other university-authorized activity.” In striking down the code, the court ruled that “the suppression of speech, even where the speech’s content appears to have little value and great costs, amounts to governmental thought control.”
>>5722058
Okay, so if all these cases establish that public colleges cannot restrict free speech, then free speech on public colleges is a NON ISSUE. Because according to you, it's already illegal - what more do you expect to be done about it?
Fucking disgusting faggots I can't wait until Emperor Trump gets into office and appoints another right-wing justice in Scalia's place who overturns Obergefell and all the degenerate laws and you faggots have to go back into hiding.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. BULLY A FAGGOT TODAY.
>>5720098
the point is that liberals say they are tolerant when in truth they are not.
>>5720095
WORDS THAT KILL
EAT SHIT SCALIA YOU JABBA THE HUT MUTHAFUCKA!!!
>>5724258
>implying Trump hates gays
He's completely for gay couple having the same rights as straight couples. He's just one of those wackos that think gay marriage should be called something else. It does feel a little bad to call it a civil partnership instead of a "real" marriage but as long as we get the same benefits it's not that big of deal. He's also for amending the anti-discrimination act to cover us. A homophobe he is not
>implying replacing one justice will overturn the SCOTUS decision
A lot more justices will have to die in order for that plan to work
>>5720095
>brown
>homophobic
Why am I not suprised?
>>5725020
/pol/tards have this thing where they project their every desire on to their daddy Trump. In their mind he's not only racist and homophobic, but anti-Semitic too.
Their waves of delusions collectively carry them further and further away from reality.
>>5725049
>In their mind he's not only racist and homophobic, but anti-Semitic too.
Oh, agreed. But don't most leftists in the US do this too? Most people I've heard claim he's those things are usually Democrat voters. I realize that Dems aren't a left wing party but their voters tend to be leftists
conservatards are just going to replace him with another conservatard
>>5725062
can't obama just replace him with a non-conservative?
>>5725070
McConnell and the rest of the Republicans have already stated that they'd be willing to turn their back on their oath of office to block any Obama-nominated appointee.
>>5724258
I'm a Trump supporter but Trump doesn't hate gays, he's not the god-emperor you want, he's just going to give us nationalist-leaning conservatives some breathing room, I'm still skeptical that he's just playing a character and is actually establishment, but idk.
>>5724872
Being intolerant of intolerance doesn't make one "intolerant", unless you agree that words should have no real meaning. I'm not celebrating his death, and I think few really are, however they are celebrating the political victory that occurs as a result. It's unfortunately part of how the system works, it's impossible for the death NOT to be political, because of how the position is retained until death. It means that even though we recognize that every death is a tragedy, and that Scalia isn't totally evil or anything, his death is nonetheless a political victory for many.
>>5725146
I'm not the person you're responding to but this makes no sense
>Being intolerant of intolerance doesn't make one "intolerant"
Being intolerant of anything is being intolerant. However being intolerant of homophobia a good thing. I'm adult enough to admit that I'm bigoted against homophobia and I don't hide behind sugar coating. Being intolerant is wrong but hatred of hate is a grey area that creates a necessary evil. Some necessary evils are needed and there's no reason we can't be blunt and honest about what they are. Cops are ordinary people who no better or worse than us but are granted the power to kidnap, extort, and kill people who cause problems for society. They're an example of a necessary evil. *Sometimes* doing bad things for the right reason is right.
>>5725146
>Being intolerant of intolerance doesn't make one "intolerant"
Except a more accurate phrase would be
>Being intolerant of opposing opinions or beliefs
which is basically what liberals do.
>>5725218
>which is basically what modern leftists do.
FTFY. There are still a lot of true liberals out there
>>5725218
Sure, but one is not obligated to be tolerant of any and all opposing beliefs simply because they are opposing. If someone says trans people should be put to death, I don't have to be tolerant of that opinion, and being intolerant of that opinion doesn't make me a bigot or anything like that.
>>5725493
>>5725638
So then you admit that words have no meaning? I'm a bad person for thinking I shouldn't be killed?
>>5725638
>In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.[1][2]
From Wikipedia, citing the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries. If I'm intolerant of views that say I'm not deserving of equal rights, I'm not being irrational or unfair, thus it's not bigotry.
>>5725739
>So then you admit that words have no meaning?
Not only do I not admit that, that post was showing that you are a bigot through the meaning of that word
>I'm a bad person for thinking I shouldn't be killed?
Nobody is claiming that. You can be a bigot and be a good person. See >>5725203. Very few things are black and white.
>>5725753
>I'm not being irrational or unfair, thus it's not bigotry.
>obstinate, irrational, or unfair
>or
You are being obstinate. Even though you and I do not agree with people who say we don't deserve equal rights and although their "proof" of how harmful we are to society is utter bullshit, we're staying true to our position and not tolerating their bullshit. How often do you even truly try to look at it from their point of view? Do you actually consider the possibility they could be right? If you answered never and no then how are you not being obstinate?
>>5725817
>Not only do I not admit that, that post was showing that you are a bigot through the meaning of that word
The word "bigot" becomes essentially meaningless because by that definition, nearly everyone is a bigot. Is there ANYONE who is completely tolerant towards all different opinions?
>>5725834
There are many people who aren't indoctrinated in a black and white view of the world and are open to the beliefs of others or are tolerant of others opinions. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things.
Is Noam Chomsky a Holocaust revisionist just because he defended the right of some wackjob who was claiming the gas chambers weren't real?
>>5725833
It's only obstinacy if you immediately reject anything that disagrees with you without even considering what the argument is. If you reject an argument for being illogical, that's not obstinacy.
>>5725861
>Is Noam Chomsky a Holocaust revisionist just because he defended the right of some wackjob who was claiming the gas chambers weren't real?
Being tolerant of one expressing their opinion is NOT the same thing as being tolerant of that opinion itself. I can agree that someone has the right to say trans people deserve to be put to death, but that doesn't mean I would willingly associate with anyone who has that opinion.
>>5725876
So when someone says "here's proof that blacks are inferior" you actually read it to see if it's logical?
>>5725894
Yes, or at least enough of it to see whether it's valid or not. To reject something simply because you disagree with it is illogical.
>>5725906
You actually believe that it's possible for one race to be inferior to the others?
>>5725918
Yes, it would be theoretically possible, as long as "inferiority" is defined in a coherent way. There ARE certain genetic traits which are almost wholly negative, and if such traits were concentrated in a specific race I think it could be argued that they are inferior. That's not to say they shouldn't be given equal rights as citizens and so on.
>>5725146
>Being intolerant of intolerance doesn't make one "intolerant"
Before we get into a semantics boondoggle, define
>tolerance
and
>intolerance
in your own words,
>and I think few really are [celebrating his death], however they are celebrating the political victory that occurs as a result.
Check out the youtube comment section and reddit. They are doing both.
>political victory
Implying it's a victory
>his death is nonetheless a political victory for many.
One can say that about RBG as well. It doesn't make it any less tasteless.
That being said, what 'political victory' do you have with scalia's death?
I am also >>5721283 >>5721319
btw.
>>5725931
I think fat and ugly people are inferior.
Sometimes I catch myself wondering if they're even entirely human.
I certainly can't respect someone who's too stupid to lose weight or fix their appearance.
Yet I say this to people and I'm a monster.
>>5725931
Inferior as in not a capable of being productive members of society or as in cannot be anything more than a nakes, spear chucking, savage. You know, the kind of stuff the other bigots claim. Do you believe it's a possible for blacks to not be on the same level as whites in regards to not killing people and taking their things like an animal?
>>5725938
>Implying it's a victory
For some it is.
>One can say that about RBG as well. It doesn't make it any less tasteless.
Sure, but I agree that it would be within the rights of people to classify that as a political victory as well.
>>5725946
>Sometimes I catch myself wondering if they're even entirely human.
Doesn't seem reasonable to assume they're a different species without substantial evidence.
>I certainly can't respect someone who's too stupid to lose weight or fix their appearance.
Being overweight or ugly isn't always something that can be fixed by "not being stupid". But yes, I too would have a hard time respecting someone who COULD fix those problems but is too lazy to do so.
>>5725952
I think if the inferiority was as severe as you make it sound, it would be obvious by now. I imagine racial inferiority, if it exists, is more along the lines of things like somewhat lower intelligence or physical strength, greater susceptibility to disease, etc. If these deficiencies are prevalent in a race and not balanced out by advantages in other areas, I think it's reasonable to say they are genetically inferior.
>>5725952
>Do you believe it's a possible for blacks to not be on the same level as whites in regards to not killing people and taking their things like an animal?
It's POSSIBLE, but as I said before, such a drastic difference in mentality would be very easily noticed. The fact that there are numerous black people who live successfully without killing or robbing people would seem to indicate that is not the case. And don't even many animals have some kind of social structure where it's not all everyone for themselves, kill or be killed? Altruism isn't something unique to humans, even in nature it's sometimes beneficial to live in harmony with others rather than exhaust yourself fighting them.
>>5725983
>I think if the inferiority was as severe as you make it sound, it would be obvious by now.
You seem to misunderstand the question or you aren't answering it. It was whether or not if someone, with that definition of inferior, claimed that black people were inferior to whites would you consider it a possibility? Keep in mind in this is a question about you and not the average anon
>>5725993
>You seem to misunderstand the question or you aren't answering it. It was whether or not if someone, with that definition of inferior, claimed that black people were inferior to whites would you consider it a possibility? Keep in mind in this is a question about you and not the average anon
Yes, I would consider it a possibility, though I would be skeptical until they showed me evidence.
>>5726002
How could possibly believe that blacks might be inferior? It makes no sense
>>5726005
It depends on how exactly you define inferiority. If you mean in the sense of being incapable of being a contributing member of society, then yes I agree it seems impossible, since some black people ARE contributing members of society. If you just mean in the sense of having somewhat lower intelligence or being more susceptible to certain diseases, then I think it's perfectly possible for one race to be "inferior" to others.
>>5726017
>If you mean in the sense of being incapable of being a contributing member of society
Which is what was specified.
>If you just mean in the sense of having somewhat lower intelligence
You don't find this to be racist?
>>5719928
>"gurrrrl"
>"my pussy"
>"YAAAAS"
>"Death to people with opinions that aren't mine"
Why is gay culture like this? This is why we are such a hated demographic.
>>5726044
>Which is what was specified.
Okay, by THAT definition, then I'd be very unlikely to believe it. Though not necessarily because I'm unwilling to accept alternative views, but rather because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>You don't find this to be racist?
Not really, I mean is it sexist to acknowledge that women generally have lower physical strength then men? It would however be racist to claim that black people are less intelligent if that isn't true, or to use a factual difference in intelligence to treat them as less than human.
>>5720100
Oh boy
>>5726097
>Not really, I mean is it sexist to acknowledge that women generally have lower physical strength then men?
No, but that a proven fact based on biology and accepted by the general population. Blacks not being as smart or capable of being civilized as whites is not. How could you compare the two?
>>5726107
>No, but that a proven fact based on biology and accepted by the general population. Blacks not being as smart or capable of being civilized as whites is not. How could you compare the two?
The difference is one is backed up by evidence, the other is not. If there was substantial, credible, unbiased scientific evidence that black people are less intelligent, it would be reasonable to believe. Since there isn't, it's not reasonable to believe it, but it's also not reasonable to argue that it's an outright impossibility. The most reasonable attitude to the whole thing is "skeptical or unconvinced until proven", which is really the attitude people should have towards all unproven things.
>>5725891
>Being tolerant of one expressing their opinion is NOT the same thing as being tolerant of that opinion itself.
How so? How can you tolerate people being able to express an opinion you can't tolerate? To tolerate is to allow something to exist so how can you allow that opinion to openly exist and still not tolerate it?
>>5726199
It's possible to believe someone has a right to express an opinion while believing that opinion has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
>>5726229
True and something I've said at least once this thread but not accepting or liking their opinion is not the same as not tolerating it
>>5719928
I can almost smell the liberal tolerance.
>>5726354
There's nothing intolerant about being glad to have someone who believed the state had a valid interest in legislating private sexual practices removed from the highest court in the United States.
>>5725104
> they'd be willing to turn their back on their oath of office to block any Obama-nominated appointee.
>Advice and consent of the Senate
>How does law work?
IIRC Dems rejected Reagan's appointees twice until they both settled on Kennedy .
>>5725056
>I realize that Dems aren't a left wing party
You are probably from outside the US and that's understandable.
Just because from your perspective there may be a mainstream center left and a far left party, and the right wing party is more centrist than anything, doesn't mean the Democrats aren't left wing.
>Expansion of the welfare state
>Pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants
>Pro-refugee
>Pro expansion of mass immigration by legal means
>Expansion of regulation into all sectors of the economy
>Anti-federalism
>For the raising of taxes
>For the creation of 'protected classes' who get different treatment in terms of hate speech, 'hate' crimes, and AA
>Pro-AA- different criteria for voluntary contractual relationships such as housing, education, and employment
>Pro abortion
Whether or not you agree with any or all of these is irrelevant to your point. All of these are part of a left-wing platform, and all of these are part of the Democratic modus operandi.
>>5721395
Cry harder, bitch.
>>5721426
>>high-fives!
I missed out on the parties when Reagan died, but by god, not this time!
I hope dogs piss on his grave and soak his rotting bones in cold urine.
Sometimes, dead is fucking better.
>>5721478
Enjoy Fuhrer Putin, dumb fuck.
>>5722020
Hopefully it'll be slow and agonizing. And soon.
>>5724872
Not tolerant of your stupid bullshit, no.
Fuck yourself on a rake.
>>5725203
>>5725146
Sanity!
>>5725218
>>5725429
Idiocy!
Goddamn, Melly, you are either an impressively stupid bitch, or a masterful troll.
There is no shame in celebrating the death of foul people who used their great power to make the world a worse place.
Let them rot.
>>5726441
your doublethink astounds me
the difference between libs and republicans is that the republicans at least know that they are evil or intolerant. group dynamics play the same in both parties.
>>5726966
i can't wait until trump wins and your ass hurts for 8 years
>>5725106
>>5725020
Wishful thinking, faggots. You better your "equality" while you still have it, because once the right-wing revolution in this country is complete, it's going to be acceptable to treat your kind like the subhumans you are. I can't wait to bully some faggots.
>Trump Said He Would “Strongly Consider” Appointing Judges To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Decision. Asked on Fox News Sunday “WALLACE: But -- but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?” TRUMP: “I would strongly consider that, yes.”
>“Asked whether he supports allowing same-sex couples to marry, Trump said no. Iowa conservatives have overwhelmingly opposed the 2009 Iowa Supreme Court decision overturning the state’s ban on gay marriage. ‘They should not be able to marry,’ he said. But asked whether gay couples should be able access the same benefits as married couples, he said his ‘attitude on it has not been fully formed.’ Given a second to think, Trump said on marriage and civil benefits, ‘As of this moment, I would say no and no.’”
>Asked for his view on same-sex marriage by Sean Hannity, Trump said, “I am traditional. I am for traditional, and it’s a changing format, but I am very much for traditional marriage.”
>>5726441
>There's nothing intolerant about being glad to have someone who believed the state had a valid interest in legislating private sexual practices removed from the highest court in the United States.
>interest
>authority
What are two separate things.
Also I explained in my previous post how his analogy was actually a valid legal tool- the state still bars other types of sexual practices happening on private property, yet is not allowed to bar just this one.
One can argue that those other practices have different components not found in homosexuality/heterosexual sodomy- i.e. bestiality is a matter of consent, pedophilia is a matter of consent, but on the level of enforcement would criminalizing private sexual contact now violate the due process clause and the 14th amendment, as criminalizing sodomy now does?
I disagreed with his dissent btw, but his arguments opened up vital legal questions about the integrity of our republic.
>>5726966
I can't wait to tattoo a pink star on your ass and send you to the camps. Fuck off. People are tired of "political correctness" and pretending we're okay with faggots. That's why we're rallying behind Trump.
>>5727457
>>5727499
Everyone who celebrates the death of a man because he's a constitutional originalist is a disgusting person. Scalia's decisions weren't guided by homophobia. They were guided by his principles regarding the role of the Supreme Court. He made decisions regardless of political affiliation.
I completely disagree with constitutional originality, myself, but this is ridiculous. This literally comes down to the LGBT activists morphing this man into some evil figurehead. There's a reason his liberal colleagues admired him almost as much as the conservative ones.
>>5727565
Bringing up the source only matters if the quotes are fabricated. If he really said that shit, then this is just a lazy and stupid way to avoid mounting a real response.
>>5726492
>>Advice and consent of the Senate
Because they aren't blocking any candidate on the grounds of the hypothetical appointee's ability; McConnel outright stated nobody suggested by Obama.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/mitch-mcconnell-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-nomination-219248
>>5727457
Make up your mind, /pol/. Either Trump is some kind of neo-nazi social conservative who thinks people should be jailed for expressing themselves in ways he doesn't like, or he's a moderate libertarian who wants to protect faggots from being raped by muslims. He can't be both.
>>5727895
>Everyone who celebrates the death of a man because he's a constitutional originalist is a disgusting person. Scalia's decisions weren't guided by homophobia. They were guided by his principles regarding the role of the Supreme Court. He made decisions regardless of political affiliation.
His talk about morality implies homophobia. Even supreme court justices are still human, if there was any person who could interpret the constitution without being biased, we wouldn't need more than one justice.
>>5727397
>>2016
>>thinking Trump can win the general
lololololol
>>5727499
>>implying I don't already have a pink star on my ass
>>5727895
Fuck Scalia, fuck whatever dumbfuck philosophy he came to the court with; he caused immense amounts of harm with his power.
That is ALL that matters.
He's better dead.
>>5719928
ROT IN HELL YOU PIECE OF SHIT
>>5729169
>Make up your mind, /pol/.
/pol/, like every pother board, is not a hivemind. Some think he's the reincarnation of Hitler, as do a lot of people on the left, and others see him for what he really is. Although the majority think he'll be the god emperor bringing the golden flood that will wash away the brown people, there are still some /pol/tards who actually do their research
>January 3, 2017 - US Senate turns Democratic
>January 15, 2017 - Obama's appointment to the US Supreme Court is confirmed
>January 20, 2017 - Sanders becomes president
>>5720095
>any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary
>Some republican probably
>>5731054
266 days
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/to?iso=20161108T07&p0=611&msg=Countdown+until+Obama+is+OUT+OF+OFFICE
>>5731105
Congrats on making sure he would only have 2 terms. What a great achievement.
>>5730370
>>>thinking Trump can win the general
lololololol
>Thinking Reagan could win the general
Same dynamic.
>Fuck Scalia
Expound why without resorting to logical fallacies.
>fuck whatever dumbfuck philosophy he came to the court with
You mean originalism, to ensure the duties and rights recognized by the constitution are not changed, contracted, or expanded in too drastic a way without going through the amendment process to do so as intended?
Or the same philosophy that made Scalia as great a 4th Amendment defender from the right as well as a 2nd Amendment defender from the left?
Or the philosophy of judicial restraint, to ensure that the court never oversteps its bounds?
Or his religiosity, which even in his opinions on cases as they dealt with religious views of his, never obstructed his well reasoned arguments?
>Except for perhaps Lawrence V Texas, and even then it was more so an inconsistent argument compared to his others, rather than a faulty argument per se
> he caused immense amounts of harm with his power.
Expound on this "immense harm" or shut your trap. I can say the same about RBG.
>That is ALL that matters.
Perceived benefit or harm by a decision is NOT AT ALL what matters in the judiciary. What matters is the validity of the interpretation of the law, to maintain the integrity of the body of law.
>He's better dead.
Don't worry. We're counting on Cruz to cut his teeth on a federal judgeship for several years until Kennedy, Ginsberg, and Breyer die during the term of 2024-2028. We'll play the long game, and you focus on the short game.
Just wait for 3 conservatives to be appointed in 2026.
>>5731656
Scalia was not a pure originalist. He admitted that the constitution's interpretation could evolve based on the evolving morality of society in areas like cruel and unusual punishment or school segregation. Some of the things he claimed to be part of the 'original' view of the constitution, particularly in regards to things like homosexuality and abortion, had an uncanny habit of matching up with whatever Scalia's personal views on the matter were, although he would still claim them as 'original.'
Originalism was one of his guiding philosophies but it was hardly his only one. He was a conservative first, an originalist second, and while he was a professional, his skill as a judge was occasionally hampered by his desire to validate his large ego.
He wasn't Satan but he wasn't the saint of the constitution a lot of conservatives like to make him out to be, either.
Cit. United was bullshit though.
>>5730370
>he caused immense amounts of harm with his power.
Could somebody please tell me what harm this was? Why does everyone keep saying this but never anything specifically?
Moreover, you realize it takes 5 people to make a decision, right? Why none of the hate for the other justices? Scalia wasn't even the most conservative Justice, that's Thomas.
