• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What's at stake... a supreme court made by...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Raven.

Banned
President Bush...

hupfinsgack said:
Both men [Scalia and Thomas] dissented from the Supreme Court's narrow ruling upholding the University of Michigan's affirmative-action program, and appear eager to dismantle a wide array of diversity programs. When the court struck down Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law last year, holding that the police violated John Lawrence's right to liberty when they raided his home and arrested him for having sex there, Justices Scalia and Thomas sided with the police.

...

That sort of cruelty is a theme running through many Scalia-Thomas opinions. A Louisiana inmate sued after he was shackled and then punched and kicked by two prison guards while a supervisor looked on. The court ruled that the beating, which left the inmate with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate, violated the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. But Justices Scalia and Thomas insisted that the Eighth Amendment was not violated by the "insignificant" harm the inmate suffered.

This year, the court heard the case of a man with a court appearance in rural Tennessee who was forced to either crawl out of his wheelchair and up to the second floor or be carried up by court officers he worried would drop him. The man crawled up once, but when he refused to do it again, he was arrested. The court ruled that Tennessee violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by not providing an accessible courtroom, but Justices Scalia and Thomas said it didn't have to.

A Scalia-Thomas court would dismantle the wall between church and state. Justice Thomas gave an indication of just how much in his opinion in a case upholding Ohio's school voucher program. He suggested, despite many Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, that the First Amendment prohibition on establishing a religion may not apply to the states. If it doesn't, the states could adopt particular religions, and use tax money to proselytize for them. Justices Scalia and Thomas have also argued against basic rights of criminal suspects, like the Miranda warning about the right to remain silent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/18/opinion/18mon3.html

Bush cited Scalia and Thomas as his vision of what a future supreme court judges should look like. Does anyone else find this disturbing or at least problematic?

Guden Oden said:
The example of the man in a wheelchair case is a perfect example of why christian conservatism is such an oxymoron. Didn't Scalia and Thomas read about the good samaritan in sunday school? These people are obviously devoid of compassion for the weak.

With a supreme court stacked full of people like these two, most of america will be in bantha podo up to their necks, and sometimes piled on even higher. Luckily I think Scalia in particular is an old fart and will soon shuffle off this mortal coil. Problem is, there's probably a line forming behind him already with identical clones prepared to replace him.

These kind of judges are the ones they need, for the constitution to be RESTORED... Can the constitution hold, against an attack from passionate and compasionate conservatives from all three branches, the executive, legislative, and judicial? We may have to test it and see, if it can withstand such...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom