|
|
May 23, 2013
|
|
Even Scalia Opposes Flag-Burning AmendmentPosted on Jun 23, 2006
The arch-conservative Supreme Court justice is quoted in this Jonathan Alter column as saying that banning flag-burning would “[dilute] the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered.?
Advertisement Previous item: Paper Publishes New Details of Insurgency Amnesty Deal Next item: House Votes to Cut Estate Taxes New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Sarah, June 28, 2006 at 3:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Wow, this vote was WAY too close!
Read this:
Report thishttp://www.subversiveminds.com/rant/2006/03/31/burn-baby-burn/
FUNNY!
By chitom2001@yahoo.com, June 24, 2006 at 5:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The Supremes often confound our expectations. The decision last week that makes it easier for sex-discrimination plaintiffs to prevail is another curious example. Maybe they just enjoy throwing their weight around.
Report thisBy Richard, June 23, 2006 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The way I understand it, the Founding Fathers wanted Supreme Court justices appointed for life so they would be free of the influences of party politics, and become statesmenlike and uphold the Constitution. Could it be that Scalia ?
Report thisIm reserving judgment.
By cognitorex, June 23, 2006 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
GUT AND RUN
Report thisRendition, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, declaring war on trumped up premises and warrantless spying embody the recent legacy of the Republican Party.
Not content to simply ignore the United States Constitution, the GOP blithely throws red-meat amendments at our enscribed heritage, pandering for fringe votes of hate and bigotry.
What shall we call this legacy of dismembering that which America stands for?
“Gut and run” has a nice ring to it..