General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScalia Cites Slavery-Era Laws in Immigration Dissent
Justice Antonin Scalia's angry dissent in the case over Arizona's harsh immigration law is filled to the brim with partisan bile and dismissive rhetoric directed at his colleagues on the court. Scalia directly criticizes Obama's immigration policy of deferring deportation for potential DREAM Act beneficiaries and describes Arizonans as being "under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy." Scalia also suggests that "we should cease referring to [Arizona] as a sovereign State."
But even among these eyebrow-raising passage is one section that stood out from the rest. Explaining why he would have upheld the Arizona law in its entirety, rather than invalidating most of its provisions as the court majority ultimately did, Scalia runs through some of the history of immigration law in the US and cites slavery-era statutes meant to restrict the movement of free blacks across state lines.
Notwithstanding "[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration" in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.
While this might seem like an odd way to support his argument, Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California-Los Angeles School of Law, warns against reading too much into it. "I think what he's getting at is that there was a time when states had authority over this issue," Winkler says, "but that was when Congress hadn't enacted significant regulation on immigration."
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/immigration-law-dissent-scalia-reference-slavery-era-laws
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)keep feeding him that carbonara and alfredo sauce. The sooner this originalist POS shuffles off the mortal coil the better this country will be.
TBMASE
(769 posts)is beyond sickening.
If he were a mass murdering dictator, maybe but a judge?
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)The pos is a mass murdering dictator. He's no judge, he's simply a Reagan appointed arm of the RNC. He should be afforded no respect by me or pretty much anyone that actually believes in the rule of law or even basic fucking human decency.
I'm not really wishing death on the Opus Dei asshole either. I'm just hoping that Mrs. Scalia continue to engorge her loved one with creamy bacon enriched sauces, if that helps death take him a little earlier I'll be quite happy.
Beyond sickening, c'mon dude you need a thicker skin.
I'm sorry if my little rant offended your delicate sensibilities. Perhaps a lap or two around the magic kingdom would be more your speed. http://disney.go.com/index
TBMASE
(769 posts)seriously
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)psychological help, if that's the case.
That post wasn't the first time it's crossed someone's mind that Scalia's physique might render him dead sooner rather than later.
I'm sure if someone wished an early death on Justice Ginsburg you would find that offensive
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)truly pathetic comeback man, kinda sad too.
What the hell can I say in reply except:
I'm rubber, you're glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Take that!
How about if I make nice and ask Mrs. S to toss in the occasional salad for that boil on the ass cheek of society?
TBMASE
(769 posts)who sit around, wishing death on people you disagree with
morningfog
(18,115 posts)But, we don't have to wish him well either. And when he finally does croak, I think the nation should celebrate.
TBMASE
(769 posts)yes, he will die and I'm sure he'll make some delicious worm food. But he is a human being and hardly in the class of Mao, Stalin, Hitler or mass murderers in general
Erose999
(5,624 posts)ranting I'd expect to read on Freep.
You're at 10, we need you to dial it back to about 6.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)following the statements "I'm all for not being PC" or "I'm not a prude"?
You either are or you ain't, there should be no but.
The rant included big words and as such would never be found on freep. It also didn't swerve from the beginning point off into some anti socialism screed.
A 10, really a 10? This was nowhere near a 10 rant, this was something you could find on a tween's twitter feed and not get hot and bothered over.
When it gets dialed up past a 5 it starts to include insults pointed at the target posters mother, this little missive never even insulted the target poster or insinuated that he/she has strange feelings for farm animals (a 6 btw). By 7 you can hear the spit hitting the screen and at 10.... you really don't want to see a 10.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)He said he hopes Scalia clogs his areties on too much creamy alfredo sauce. That's pretty mild.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)sits up at night looking for loopholes in the Emancipation Proclamation.
TBMASE
(769 posts)marmar
(77,081 posts)..... he might let Clarence Thomas live inside the big house, though.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)should never have happened. He makes me sick.