Scalia Dismisses Concept of Religious Neutrality in Speech

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Scalia Dismisses Concept of Religious Neutrality in Speech

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
METAIRIE, La. — Jan 2, 2016, 3:29 PM ET

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country's constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.

Scalia was speaking Saturday at Archbishop Rummel High School in Metairie, Louisiana.

Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, has consistently been one of the court's more conservative members.

He told the audience at the Catholic school that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

He also said there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/scalia-dismisses-concept-religious-neutrality-speech-36057887

[shenmue]

1. Never mind those two wars with the British

which were fought in part to help remove the oppression of the official church.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. " God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him" - great, a raving loon is

sitting on the bench of the highest court of the land.

[NastyRiffraff]

3. Scalia is a very dangerous man

That is all.

[Zen Democrat]

4. Are there remedies for dealing with a seriously demented and dangerous Justice?

Surely we're not obligated to suffer a fool for the rest of his life.

[rug]

5. No one has been removed from SCOTUS yet. Samuel Chase came close.

He was impeached by the House bt acquitted by the Senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

No impeachments in over 200 years.

[demwing]

6. Would it attract the wrong kind of attention to pray for Scalia to have a massive stroke?

a quick death seems merciful, I just don't want to get disappeared for a thought crime...

[skepticscott]

7. For anyone even considering

not voting for the Democratic candidate in the GE because it isn't "their" candidate, Scalia should be the poster child for how totally fucking batshit insane that would be. Ask yourself how your fucking "conscience" would justify putting 2 or 3 more Scalias on the court for another THIRTY years.

[AlbertCat]

8. Ask yourself how your fucking "conscience" would justify .... blah blah blah

O fer Christ sake....

what a bunch of stupid malarkey.


Citizens' votes don't put justices on the Supreme Court, and everyone's conscience should be fine voting for whom they think is best.

This is like the GOP trying to scare people into voting for someone. or..... "SHARIA LAW!!!!!"

Take it to the kiddies' table. (oh that's right.... that's where we are!)

[edhopper]

9. No he is right

If Hilary is the nominee, and enough pissed off Bernie supporters stay home, we could end up with President Cruz.
Who the President is definitely DOES result in who is on the Court. Our votes do determine it.
The solid Right Wing SCOTUS that will result will be devastating to our Country.

[AlbertCat]

11. we could end up with President Cruz.

No we won't.

Enough with the "vote for (Boots on the Ground.... the Banks aren't to blame) Hillary or we're doomed" crap.

It pretty pitiful when you have to scare people into voting for you "or else". Very GOP.

[uriel1972]

12. I'm not overly fond of Hilary's record and would be delighted at a Bernie win...

But I realise that even if "I" am not overly affected by a repub win, those who are most vulnerable are.
Can you live with sufffering and death caused by allowing the greater of two evils to win.
My conscience couldn't

[Goblinmonger]

13. "No we won't"?

So if everyone who supports Bernie doesn't vote, you still think the Dems will win? Low voter turnout ALWAYS benefits the Republicans.

[skepticscott]

16. Yes, "vote for Gore

or you might get 8 years of George W. Bush for president" was hilarious, wasn't it?

[Goblinmonger]

10. Do you think that who the next president is will determine who they put on SCOTUS?

There will likely be at least one retirement from SCOTUS. Who would you rather have making the replacement decision: whoever the Dem is or whoever the Repub is?

For me, no question. Do I want Clinton to win the nomination? No. Not at all. Do I like her? Meh. She's way too conservative for my liking and too closely connected to too many corporations. If she gets the nomination will I vote for her? Of course. Why? Because Id don't want whatever assclown makes it out of the Republican clown car last to be appointing any SCOTUS positions. That would be HORRIBLE. So I'll plug my nose and vote for Clinton if I need to. It's bad enough that the jackasses are effectively stalling the Senate at this point. If the majority of SCOTUS are like Scalia, we are fucked for a LOT of years.

[skepticscott]

15. Talk about stupid malarkey

Citizen's votes put presidents in the White House, and presidents nominate Supreme Court Justices. Or haven't you been paying attention to that part of the process? Anyone who helps the Republicans by withholding their vote from the Democratic candidate is making it more likely that we will have MORE justices like Scalia and Thomas, and fewer like Ginsberg. Justices who have no term limits, who cannot be voted out of office, and whose decisions can override any law made by elected officials.

Those are all facts, and we've seen the effects of assholes like Scalia resonating for decades. "Sharia law" scare tactics are just juvenile bullshit. You're obviously in deep denial, but there are remedies for that.

[uriel1972]

14. I am starting to think we are channeling the wretched souls of GD:P... nt