Toto

See this thread in Misc Religious Discussions on Scalia's recent symposium speech on the death penalty. Inter alia, he supports the dead constitution, and the divine status of goverment based on Romans. He is happy to hear that the Catholic Chuch's pronouncements against the death penalty are not binding on Catholic politicians, since if it were, none of them would get elected. He thinks it a mistake to link anti-abortion activities and the death penalty, because there is no historic support for an anti-death penalty stance, and the link might lead the laity to think that all of the positions were just "made up."

If W. gets two conservatives onto the Supreme Court, this guy's legal philosophy becomes the law of the land.

:banghead:

4th Generation Atheist

& they will get a majority. There's less ansd less point in fighting it; this country is going down the tubes. F*cking conservatives get whatever they want....I'm so pissed....

Jamie_L

I wish people wouldn't use religion as a reason to argue against (or for, as Scalia appears to) the death penalty. To me, it entirely misses the point

The big issue (IMHO) is not whether or not its right or wrong to kill a guilty person. The issue is whether its right or wrong to kill an innocent person. As long as you have an imperfect justice system and a death penalty, that's what will happen periodically.

And for the record: Scalia is a scary, scary man.

Jamie

Grumpy

First, he handpicks a president. Now, Scalia wants to handpick his next Pope.

The man's got balls to match his eyebrows.

4th Generation Atheist

WHERE ARE ALL THESE THUGS COMING FROM?!!!!

These guys remind me of the type who spend all their time in school beating people up for their lunch-money. In other decades they festooned Southern trees with the bodies of innocent Blacks...they're the type the Nazis hired to "keep the streets clean". What are they doing in our government?! We're supposed to be the beacon of liberty and democracy for the rest of the world and now look at us! Scalia, Ashcroft (who lost an election to a dead guy, but memeories are short so NO MATTER...besides he's in the right party so no scandal will ever touch him) Cheney (who will never die, which would be the only way to get him out-of-power)....Bush is the minor threat, the figurehead. The Enron thing just proves it. We can discuss it all we like, but that debacle goes to prove that even the nastiest scandal will never, never touch the Radical Right Xtian Conservative. Only decent people are ever harmed or discredited.

Good bye USA. Hello fucking police state.

Toto

A belated, but interesting, comment on Scalia, provocatively referred to in Slate as questioning whether Scalia is pro-Inquisition (I'm afraid to ask.)

fromtheright

So, what do you guys object to:
(1) The death penalty? It is clearly not unconstitutional, at least if you guys are willing to keep the Fifth Amendment.
(2) Scalia's use of Scripture in his moral views? I know you guys are strict separationists when it comes to church and state, many loving to quote the Constitution and sources on this issue, but otherwise fond of telling us conservatives that original intent means nothing, but are you now saying that those in government have no place forming their political values based on their religion? I know most of you are contemptuous of religion and whether it has anything to contribute to one's sense of morality but would you dictate that the rest of us have no right to basing our morality, or at least our political values, on a system of religion? As far as I know, he hasn't based his decisions on Scripture as did Judge Moore here in Alabama (to which I objected in a separate thread).
3. His statement that government's authority is from God? OK, although there is debate among Christians re Paul's injuction to "be subject to the higher powers" which are "ordained of God", I'm not so sure about that either, much more comfortable with Locke's formulations regarding legitimate government, consent of the governed, and revolution.

Hey, 4th Generation Atheist ("F*cking conservatives get whatever they want....I'm so pissed...."), that's our republic, those with the most votes get some say. Deal with it. But someone who would equate conservatives such as Scalia with the Klan and Nazis shouldn't even get a respectable response.

Besides, I thought such attack labelling was prohibited in this Forum, at least it on abortion discusions. Or, does that only apply to one side, moderators/administrators?

Last edit: added last paragraph.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

Toto

What do us guys object to? Scalia's sanctimonious piety and cafeteria style religion are enough. But add to that his imperious decision in Bush v. Gore, his willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade, and his stance on most c-s issues, and we have ourselves a villain.

Seriously, should someone who thinks that all government derives its just authority from God (in accordance with Paul's pronouncement in Romans) hold office in a democratic republic? He did take an oath to support the Constitution, which makes it clear that authority derives from the democratic process. But I guess Bush v. Gore shows what he thinks about democracy.

Oregon Slim

He said that Catholic judges who agree with their church on capital punishment (opposed) should think about recusing themselves from capital cases since they weren't going to be impartial. On abortion cases, where religious beliefs also loom large, no such suggestion.

Strange that Bush, who executed more people than any other governor and who says that Jesus was number 1 influence on his life, belongs to a church that opposes capital punishment. Maybe he doesn't pay attention too good at church.

I'll predict that if Bush and Scalia get their majority on the Court and overturn Roe v Wade, some of that junk email spam that shows up in your inbox each day will advertise discount prices at abortion clinics in countries I never heard of.

Beelzebub

from fromtheright:that's our republic, those with the most votes get some say.

After Bush v Gore, this is laughable. Clearly, only the side with the most corrupt judges get some say, which is why Scalia's ridiculous pronouncements are so important.