Flag burning amendment headed to Senate floor.

[Gregory Pratt]

What I should have said is seeing people posting around here thinking Liberals can do nothing wrong and while all Republicans are a bunch of fools that is what pisses me off. Bill Frist is a fine American if you agree with him on this issue or not he is still a great American.

 

Now you're flipflopping like a certain god damned Liberal I know who lost the 2004 Election.

 

NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADER!

[minors]

Now you're flipflopping like a certain god damned Liberal I know who lost the 2004 Election.

 

NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADER!

 

All I did was clarified my position I have not flipped at all. I still dislike liberals nothing changed at all

[Gregory Pratt]

All I did was clarified my position I have not flipped at all. I still dislike liberals nothing changed at all

 

Oh, now you're going from "hate" to "dislike"?

 

Nuance nuance nuance!

[FlaSoxxJim]

What I should have said is seeing people posting around here thinking Liberals can do nothing wrong and while all Republicans are a bunch of fools that is what pisses me off. Bill Frist is a fine American if you agree with him on this issue or not he is still a great American.

Is a flag and a napkin, boxers the same damn thing? Are you kidding me that has to be the worst analogy I have seen yet. The Flag was first created by Ross in Philly during the rev war and it was meant to be a calling something to be proud of. Some people just don't understand what kind of role history has.

OK then, let's get back to defacing an actual, bona-fide, made-in-China official American flag.

 

Only smelly liberal hippie scum would think of publicly defacing such a symbol of our freedom.

 

So what would you say to this Birkenstock-wearing flower child, who may have defaced more American flags in the public eye than any other American?

 

 

Most recently (last week) the coward had to go all the way in Austria to do it because I'm sure he knew fine citizens such as yourself would string him up for desecrating the symbol of our freedom.

 

Why Oh Why does the President hate America so much?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

What I should have said is seeing people posting around here thinking Liberals can do nothing wrong and while all Republicans are a bunch of fools that is what pisses me off. Bill Frist is a fine American if you agree with him on this issue or not he is still a great American.

Is a flag and a napkin, boxers the same damn thing? Are you kidding me that has to be the worst analogy I have seen yet. The Flag was first created by Ross in Philly during the rev war and it was meant to be a calling something to be proud of. Some people just don't understand what kind of role history has.

The argument is that the flag is a symbol. So taking the next logical step -- the symbol should permeate to any manifestation that it takes (t-shirt, napkins, boxers, shirts et al.)

 

And trust me, there's a lot of people in government that I think are morons. It's just difficult for the liberals to get a lot of face time in a GOP controlled Senate, GOP controlled House and a GOP Presidency. But they're there and we do rip on them.

[minors]

OK then, let's get back to defacing an actual, bona-fide, made-in-China official American flag.

 

Only smelly liberal hippie scum would think of publicly defacing such a symbol of our freedom.

 

So what would you say to this Birkenstock-wearing flower child, who may have defaced more American flags in the public eye than any other American?

 

 

Most recently (last week) the coward had to go all the way in Austria to do it because I'm sure he knew fine citizens such as yourself would string him up for desecrating the symbol of our freedom.

 

Why Oh Why does the President hate America so much?

 

 

Speaking about cowards here in John Kerry

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2006 by minors

[minors]

The argument is that the flag is a symbol. So taking the next logical step -- the symbol should permeate to any manifestation that it takes (t-shirt, napkins, boxers, shirts et al.)

 

And trust me, there's a lot of people in government that I think are morons. It's just difficult for the liberals to get a lot of face time in a GOP controlled Senate, GOP controlled House and a GOP Presidency. But they're there and we do rip on them.

 

 

 

While I like the amendment and think Flag Burning is a terrible thing I will leave this as a agree to disagree.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Speaking about cowards here in John Kerry

 

1) Nice job staying on topic.

 

2) Nice job posting something that is both current and relevant.

 

3) Nothing chaps my ass more than those cowards like Kerry who weaseled their way out of service and never served a day in. . . . er, oops. . . never-mind.

 

4) If you need LCR to explain to you what sarcasm (sär-ka-zem) is too, I'll wait.

[NorthSideSox72]

What I should have said is seeing people posting around here thinking Liberals can do nothing wrong and while all Republicans are a bunch of fools that is what pisses me off.

I'm not sure if you've picked up on this yet... but the EXACT same thing happens in here the other way around, and just as often. Its partisan politics. Not pleasant, but a reality on both sides of the aisle.

[kapkomet]

Frist is a pandering, posturing tool. :headshake

I agree with you, Flaxx.

[Soxbadger]

Illinilaw,

 

You havent gotten to this case but read, Michael H v. Gerald D about Parents right's in which Scalia gives the opinion.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...w/michaelh.html

 

Or the case where Scalia says that criminals do not have a legitimate expecatation of privacy. ( I dont remember this case name off the top of my head.)

 

Although the term "activist judge" generally is only used by conservatives describing Liberal judges. But I think in reality both sides stray from the constitution when it fits their own agenda.

 

Minors,

 

A t-shirt with the symbol of a flag, is the same as a piece of nylon that makes the image of a flag. Both of them have nothing more connecting them to the Betsy Ross flag than the symbol they show.

 

If I print a picture of the American flag, it is still a symbol of America, and so if I burn it, it would be basically burning a flag. Why should ti get more protection when it is in nylon or cloth form, versus when it is in any other form?

Edited June 29, 2006 by Soxbadger

[minors]

Illinilaw,

 

You havent gotten to this case but read, Michael H v. Gerald D about Parents right's in which Scalia gives the opinion.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...w/michaelh.html

 

Or the case where Scalia says that criminals do not have a legitimate expecatation of privacy. ( I dont remember this case name off the top of my head.)

 

Although the term "activist judge" generally is only used by conservatives describing Liberal judges. But I think in reality both sides stray from the constitution when it fits their own agenda.

 

Minors,

 

A t-shirt with the symbol of a flag, is the same as a piece of nylon that makes the image of a flag. Both of them have nothing more connecting them to the Betsy Ross flag than the symbol they show.

 

If I print a picture of the American flag, it is still a symbol of America, and so if I burn it, it would be basically burning a flag. Why should ti get more protection when it is in nylon or cloth form, versus when it is in any other form?

 

 

Well I think the flag is a symbol of your country. Agree to disagree is what I say on this. It doesn't happen often that a flag is burned because most people agree that it is disgusting. All I know on this is if I see a person burn a flag in front of me it would take every ounce for me not to hurt them.

[mr_genius]

oh yes, banning flag burning should be a high priority for our elected officials

 

i think if you burn the american flag you're an idiot, but being an idiot is totally legal.

[AbeFroman]

Since there actually is a moderately productive line of discussion here on whether Scalia is "activist" or not, I'd just like to add the following.

 

Very broadly, the phrase "Judicial activist" refers to those who assert that the constitution supports substantive due process. Basically, all the substantive due process cases are the one ones "Strict constructionalists" whine about (though they are wrong IMO). Essentially thats Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Conn, Roe v. Wade, etc. Again there other anecdotal issues differences between "activists and constructionalists", but for the most part these are the cases that, if overturned, would most highly outrage or thrill either camps.

 

In that sense, Scalia is no activist at all. I do think he does inject his personal preferences into his constitutional approach... but only occassionally. The one example that jumps to mind is last year's Gonzalez v. Raich. Even Scalia "Fans" would say he sold out his strict approach to Federalisim and states rights in order to make the political point that medical marijuana is, and should be, illegal. Even his best buddy, Clarence Thomas who almost never breaks from Scalia dissented.

 

BTW, A reminder, that opinion was written by Lefty Stevens... and joined by Righty Scalia. Truly a fascinating case for geeky ConLaw attorneys and law students.

Edited June 29, 2006 by AbeFroman

[illinilaw08]

Since there actually is a moderately productive line of discussion here on whether Scalia is "activist" or not, I'd just like to add the following.

 

Very broadly, the phrase "Judicial activist" refers to those who assert that the constitution supports substantive due process. Basically, all the substantive due process cases are the one ones "Strict constructionalists" whine about (though they are wrong IMO). Essentially thats Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Conn, Roe v. Wade, etc. Again there other anecdotal issues differences between "activists and constructionalists", but for the most part these are the cases that, if overturned, would most highly outrage or thrill either camps.

 

In that sense, Scalia is no activist at all. I do think he does inject his personal preferences into his constitutional approach... but only occassionally. The one example that jumps to mind is last year's Gonzalez v. Raich. Even Scalia "Fans" would say he sold out his strict approach to Federalisim and states rights in order to make the political point that medical marijuana is, and should be, illegal. Even his best buddy, Clarence Thomas who almost never breaks from Scalia dissented.

 

BTW, A reminder, that opinion was written by Lefty Stevens... and joined by Righty Scalia. Truly a fascinating case for geeky ConLaw attorneys and law students.

 

Agreed, Gonzalez v. Raich is fascinating in that Stevens and Scalia joined in the opinion though Scalia wrote a concurring opinion. It was an odd decision because it really went against the way the court had decided commerce clause cases in recent years (Lopez and Morrison). As a sidebar, I thought Thomas' dissent was entertaining (paraphrased) "If it's not interstate and it's not commerce, it isn't interstate commerce." Say what you will about Thomas, but he is concise.

 

I also agree with your interpretation of judicial activism, and that Scalia is not an activist. The thing about Scalia is that as brilliant as he is, his arrogance really has a tendency to come through in his writing, and yes, he really did sell out on state's rights (my favorite Scalia tenet).

 

I think the real issue with judges is that they all have an agenda, they all have their own personal politics that they adhere to. The thing is that it is easy for a judge to find support for their stance by twisting the text or finding something in the legislative history that supports what they want it to say.

[Soxbadger]

Abe,

 

I agree that using judicial activism in the strictest sense of the term, that Scalia would not fit that. But I do think that Scalia is active in terms of using the constitution to fit his own views.

 

IE from Michael H

 

Thus, the legal issue in the present case reduces to whether the relationship between persons in the situation of Michael and Victoria has been treated as a protected family unit under the historic practices of our society, or whether on any other basis it has been accorded special protection. We think it impossible to find that it has. In fact, quite to the contrary, our traditions have protected the marital family (Gerald, Carole, and the child they acknowledge to be theirs) against the sort of claim Michael asserts.

 

He goes to great lengths to prove that an alduterous father, although the real father has no parental rights toward a child because traditionally the marital father has had the presumptive right.

 

But then in the end he goes:

 

Our disposition does not choose between these two "freedoms," but leaves that to the people of California.

 

Both O'Connor and Kennedy dissented on his historical analysis. I mean its just a bad argument, slavery was historically acceptable. It is clear that this opinion had many of Scalia's own ideas cloaked in historical context.

 

And IMO Scalia is more anti-criminal than he is pro-state rights. He gives away power to the govt on a regular basis.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

[YASNY]

I think I've hit on the perfect way to express my opinion on this matter:

 

 

I pledge allegience to the constitution of the United States of America

and to the republic over which it presides

one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think I've hit on the perfect way to express my opinion on this matter:

I pledge allegience to the constitution of the United States of America

and to the republic over which it presides

one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

If you remove the 2 words therein that Congress added in a fit of red paranoia in the 50's, then I am right there with you.

[FlaSoxxJim]

If you remove the 2 words therein that Congress added in a fit of red paranoia in the 50's, then I am right there with you.

 

I'm glad you sad it and not me. I'm already labelled as godless and anti-religion 'round here, mostly for wincing at these instances where church/state separation lapses.

 

But I agree with YAS's sentiment that people spend too much time protecting the surrogate symbol of American feedom and not the real thing.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm glad you sad it and not me. I'm already labelled as godless and anti-religion 'round here, mostly for wincing at these instances where church/state separation lapses.

 

But I agree with YAS's sentiment that people spend too much time protecting the surrogate symbol of American feedom and not the real thing.

Well, I'm not the slightest bit anti-religion. The opposite, in fact - I expect the protection of all people to practice the religion of their choice. And for that to happen, we cannot force one set of religious faith (i.e. God) on the citizens of this country. I don't even have a problem with people saying it that way, if they'd like, on their own. But if I ever have kids, they better the heck not be forced to say it in school if they don't want to.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Well, I'm not the slightest bit anti-religion. The opposite, in fact - I expect the protection of all people to practice the religion of their choice. And for that to happen, we cannot force one set of religious faith (i.e. God) on the citizens of this country. I don't even have a problem with people saying it that way, if they'd like, on their own. But if I ever have kids, they better the heck not be forced to say it in school if they don't want to.

 

I'm in complete agreement. I'm in all honesty not anti-religion either. I'm against when it butts up against the rights of others to worship (or not) in the way in which they choose.

[kapkomet]

Well, I'm not the slightest bit anti-religion. The opposite, in fact - I expect the protection of all people to practice the religion of their choice. And for that to happen, we cannot force one set of religious faith (i.e. God) on the citizens of this country. I don't even have a problem with people saying it that way, if they'd like, on their own. But if I ever have kids, they better the heck not be forced to say it in school if they don't want to.

And who is going to teach them NOT to? A five year old is going to do what mommy and daddy do. That's how kids learn this stuff. They don't just 'decide' to not utter the words "under God".

[NorthSideSox72]

And who is going to teach them NOT to? A five year old is going to do what mommy and daddy do. That's how kids learn this stuff. They don't just 'decide' to not utter the words "under God".

Which is exactly why those 2 words should never have been crammed in there by Congress.