Shared publicly  - 
Highlights of Justice Scalia's rant against Obama today:
Mike DeSimone's profile photoTony Cebzanov's profile photoTommy McGuire's profile photoEnrique Blaze's profile photo
Now hopefully they shut down his healthcare too.
I was going to crack a joke about an activist judge, but decided to behave because of Mike.  *adjusts halo*
A judge who knows that a President should serve the people he has sworn to serve first. This is now a law serving election campaigns and the whims of an incumbent President to generate the Hispanic vote.
Reading the footnotes of  the last two weeks opinions,(when WILL they decide on healthcare?) I've noticed that the FAB four( Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito) take a strong interest in states prerogatives when it comes to states versus individuals, but  when it's states  vs. corporations, the balance shifts  see the Montana case  decided today. Are corporations better than people?
+Sabeena LoBello Thank you. ^_^

+John Hargis Sr Then you might be happy to learn that the President's order did not significantly change the polling results. It even reminds me of how the speech Obama gave regarding his pastor, Rev. Wright, didn't change the percent of people that think he is a Muslim.

+Charles Bird You might be interested in a recent study that found that the Roberts court, if it strikes down the PPACA, sided with the US Chamber of Commerce more often than it did with the US Government, unlike all prior courts. Regarding Citizens United, it could be argued that corporations are better than people, but it is clear that they have more money speech than people.

+Alex Ryking Thank you for a lot of mental images I didn't want. Please put the oxygen mask back on and take five.
Then there's this gem in Thomas' dissent on Miler v Alabama
"When the Bill of Rights was ratified, 14-year-olds
were subject to trial and punishment as adult offenders.  See Roper v. 
Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 609, n. 1 (2005) (SCALIA,  J.,  dissenting).
Further, mandatory death sentences were common at that time.  See 
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957, 994–995 (1991).  It is therefore 
implausible that a 14-year-old’s  mandatory prison sentence—of any 
length, with or without parole—would have been viewed as cruel and
unusual. "
Hmm, there were a lot of things that were done to folks in the 1800's that we might consider cruel and usual.
Delaware had public floggings into the 20th Century. 
you miss the whole point...the federal government should not be mandating that states violate federal law! Arizona is enforcing federal immigration law and the "law abiding" Eric Holder as a puppet to POTUS has pushed this to the highest levels as some sort of political tool to yet further divide people, republican/democrat, white/black, rich/poor, legal/illegal, stay at home moms/working moms, urban/suburban, gay/straight, public/private sector... this administration will go down as the most politically divisive in history...hope and change has run its course...I hope we can change into something better than this! Bi-racial minority, Follower of Jesus, husband of one wife and father of 5...
Hope and change died on the Senate floor.
+Alex Ryking do some research before jumping the gun...Arizona is seeking to uphold a federally mandated response to ILLEGAL immigrants...the federal government is in fact trying to make a state violate federal law! This is why it was sent to the Supreme before rolling your eyes!

What exactly is a right wing extremist by the way...because I consider them the ones who bomb abortion clinics and carry ridiculously mean signs...they in no way have any influence on the is those who would say: take from someone and give to someone else, hate one group because they have more or less than you, revolt because you do not agree with a policy, invite one group of people into your presence and leave another out (see Presidents decisions from last week with the gay lobbyist who disrespected the office of President with their unnecessary gestures), it is getting involved in the Trayvon issue before the facts are in, it is things like that the POTUS has done that create is not about hijacking the country it is about dividing the country, creating more problems to keep oneself in power (right or left)...what "problems" has the government actually solved? I believe they do enough to give the appearance of solutions but leave enough mess so they are still needed at deep roll your eyes if you want, but I would suggest rolling down to the library and doing some research! 
They all are interested in self preservation just like us.
The joke was lost in the broken grammar. Better luck next time.
+Alex Ryking You have just revealed your maturity...and my facts are facts...not talking points...I am not a Republican wonk...I just happen to be a person who reads bills and seeks to understand them without bias...Where have these been right wing talking points anyway? If you knew what you were talking about you would understand that the main provision of the argued law was upheld...which indicates that the Judiciary agreed with my understanding not yours...they threw out the garbage (most of the racial profiling stuff) but withheld the main point...which affirms that Arizona has the right to enforce federal immigration law...which is what I said in my initial before you name call (which is typical for liberals I have learned) you should seek to understand, not seek to be understood...
I discussed this post with 9 people in a hangout.
I discussed this hanging from a post with 9 people.
Add a comment...