|
he's dead https://twitter.com/chrisjohnson82/status/698640227645026305 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHQLQ1Rc_Js https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiM5zEEI_Jo&t=38s Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 23:07 on Feb 14, 2016 |
# ? Feb 13, 2016 22:55 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 07:12 |
|
what what WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 22:56 |
|
Source please?
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 22:58 |
|
Clarence Thomas commits suicide as a force of habit.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 22:59 |
|
If the San Antonio Express-News reports it, it must be true. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 22:59 |
|
code:
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 22:59 |
|
http://www.sfgate.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said. Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa. According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body. The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation. Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment. A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:00 |
|
photoshop to say antonin scalia
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:01 |
|
Please don't be bad sources
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:02 |
|
good news
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:02 |
|
Holy gently caress!
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:03 |
|
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:04 |
|
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:04 |
|
I hope he saw a gay dude and it was so icky he died.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:06 |
|
if you need a pick-me-up throughout the day today, remember the scalia is currently in agonizing pain as he is slowly tortured by satan for all eternity
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:06 |
|
So is Obama going to be able to actually get someone on the bench, or will the GOP be able to run out the clock?
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:07 |
|
Oh poo poo. The repub debate is gonna be one 3 hour post-mortum blow job.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:07 |
|
Quick news search tells me this is true. Karma, you rotten old bastard, karma. maybe the end of 5-4 decisions
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:07 |
|
Cigar Aficionado posted:So is Obama going to be able to actually get someone on the bench, or will the GOP be able to run out the clock? either way 4-4 is nearly as good
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:08 |
|
Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653. One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U.S.C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:11 |
|
Concerned Citizen posted:either way 4-4 is nearly as good But it's a big cherry on the top for whoever wins.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:11 |
|
...yeah I'm okay with this.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:11 |
|
Well, game changed I guess.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:12 |
|
How long can an Obama-appointed justice be blocked until something has to give?
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:15 |
|
Epic High Five posted:How long can an Obama-appointed justice be blocked until something has to give? forever
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:15 |
|
the senate minority party could block the business of the senate in protest and grind the entire institution to a halt but there isn't anything the senate majority actually wants to get passed this year so that's pretty much an empty threat.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:17 |
|
https://twitter.com/TheTweetOfGod/status/698630398427811840
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:17 |
|
Antonin Scalia is the most handsome man on the Supreme Court
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:17 |
|
Likeliest thing I guess is that the Dems win the presidential election and the Senate confirms Barry's appointee during the lame duck session?
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:17 |
|
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:18 |
|
Obama will never get someone appointed in time but god I hope he does
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:18 |
|
I literally cheered irl when I read this.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:18 |
|
Can Obama appoint himself? He is a major constitutional scholar with significant government experience
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:19 |
|
he passed peacefully in his sleep on a vacation trip at the age of 79- if that's divine vengeance we should all be so lucky
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:19 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1LUXQWzCno
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:20 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt05jZWJVPA
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:20 |
|
So basically we're looking at an 8 person Supreme Court until 2020 if the GOP doesn't get the White House?
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:21 |
|
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:21 |
|
Seeing it on major news outlets now. Karma may take its time but in the end you always get paid back.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:22 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 07:12 |
|
this but for scalia:
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:23 |