There can be no doubt that the Fascist Five Injustices of SCROTUS (Republican Constitutional VD) are intent on undermining the Constitution, democracy, and human rights. However, it’s rare for Republicans to be so obvious as to broadcast their intent. Antonin “Schutzstaffel” Scalia went even further than that. He rubbed our nose in it.
Yesterday, Antonin Scalia gave away the game [Moonie Republicans delinked].
Speaking at Colorado Christian University, he said:
I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion.
I mean, we all knew he believes this. (And so does Thomas.) But the fact that he admits it so baldly — that he doesn’t care that his minority opinion is out there for everyone to laugh at — is still stunning. Not only does he believe that government should favor religion over non-religion, but his interpretation of the First Amendment gives no quarter to the irreligious at all.
And we’re stuck with him until he gives up the ghost.
“What can they do to me? I have life tenure,” Justice Scalia said. “It’s even better than academic tenure.”
… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Daily Kos>
To be clear, as I Christian (authentic, not Republican Supply-side Pseudo), I don’t have a dog in this hunt, as he is not discriminating against me. However, authentic Christians honor and coexist with those with other religious beliefs including Atheists. If anything, Atheism requires more faith to believe than any other religion, so they certainly deserve the same religious rights as the rest of us. Scalia’s blatant rejection of their religious rights is clearly unconstitutional.
13 Responses to “Scalia Blatant!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Scalia is indescribably awful.
He's a terrible stain on our judiciary. He doesn't even TRY to hide his blatant partisanship.
Scalia is eminently impeach-worthy!
I fully agree Nameless, but just try to get Articles of Impeachment from the Republicanus/Teabagger dominated Congress! Won't ever happen! Hell will freeze over first!
And let's throw in Thomas at the same time. He also is eminently impeach-worthy!
I read this to a Republican atheist yesterday. Shock and awe! He's rethinking his allegiance to the Greedy Old Pharts now.
"Shock and awe!" . . . OUTSTANDING!
I wonder what would have happened if you hadn't brought this matter to his attention . . . SSDD? . . . go on blindly accepting the Republicanus/Teabagger lies etc? I hope this prompts him to look more carefully at the party platform etc and what they say and do with a very jaundiced eye! If he doesn't change his allegiance, I'd say he is willfully blind.
PS Patty, thanks for using my GOP definition . . . Greedy Old Pharts.
TC, you say you have no dog in this hunt, but I disagree. I do, and you do too. History has proved that there is no such thing as favoring religion over non-religion that doesn't morph into favoring some faiths over others, which then morphs to favoring one faith over all others, and that faith will be Republican Supply-side Pseudo Christian. And then you and I will not be able to worship in our own faith. Nor will we be allowed to campaign for any laws to be passed which represent authentic Christianity, and certainly not for any money to fund them. We can say we are Christian until we are blue in the face, but our faith will not be acceptable to those in power. I call that having a dog in the hunt.
I agree JD. Yesterday's Daily Kos comes to mind, the thrust of which was, as Jim put it, “NO ONE DESERVES TO BE OPPRESSED, PERIOD.” Whether it be race, religion, or another aspect, all should be equal and acceptable.
I'm an atheist, Joanne, so I have more dogs in this hunt than you do, but you are right, you and TC definitely do. Along with his other subjective interpretations of the Constitution, which he seems to make up as he goes along, Scalia also conveniently (for him) passes over the last paragraph of Article VI, which ends with "…but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." If that doesn't mandate not favoring any religion over no religion, I don't know what does. I believe you are absolutely correct that Scalia's position implicitly favors the particular religion he approves of over all others, which puts Christians who actually practice the teachings of their religion instead of just paying lip service to it at great risk.
I would, as gently as I can, disagree with the supposition that atheism is a religion – it isn't. Atheism is a lack of religion. It is a world view that does not include a belief in a supreme being of any kind. If your world view does include belief in a supreme being, I'm fine with that. My position is that I won't attempt to impose my world view on you as long as you do the same. Fair enough?
Very fair. I do think some people who claim atheism is a "religion" are well intended and tryuing to say it is a valid world-view. Of course this presupposes they do no know what the word "religion" means, but of course many don't.
Well, I think that Scalia has tripped yet again on his judicial robes! Even I am capable of reading and interpreting the 1st amendment, and quite frankly, Scalia has flipped his judicial wig!
And tenure . . . one can only hope that he slips on a bar of soap or a banana peel and is forced to retire because his brain is more scrambled than it already was. There really should be term limits. In Canada, "A Supreme Court Justice, as with all federal judges, may sit on the bench until the age of 75 years, at which age retirement is mandatory." By Canadian standards, Scalia, who is 78 would be retired, but Thomas, who is 66, would have another 9 years to go. Just think, Obama could have appointed a more liberal justice 3 years ago!
Here are the results of the Daily Kos poll at writing. I voted for number 4 but I doubt God has much patience for Scalia . . . and mercy? First Scalia has to show he has a soul! I'd love to meet the toads that voted "Maybe kinda right" and set them straight.
How wrong is Antonin Scalia on the SoCaS principle?
Wrong
3%
128 votes
Really wrong
4%
182 votes
Just mind-bogglingly wrong
36%
1517 votes
Mr. Scalia, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard…. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul…
54%
2278 votes
Maybe kinda right?
1%
71 votes
4176 votes
The free-lancing, blatant talks of Scalia, and as a member of SCOTUS, are so repugnant. He should be peed, BM’d upon with the fertilizer from the outhouse in the asylum. Maybe the other 4 members can have the same fertilizer treatments as well. lol.
And there is nothing we can do to stop him. Term limits are desperately needed for SCROTUS.
Pit stop! Fell asleep on keyboard.
I do by the notion that I do have a dog in this hunt. My statement was limited to what he said, not what he meant.
I do not but the notion that Atheism deserves special status separate from other religions. Beliefs about God, incdluding the absence thereof cannot be proven. All are individual choices. I simply thing that belief in nothing requires slightly more gaith than belief in something, but all are beliefs.