Skip to comments.
Which current Supreme Court justices are DUMB by historical standards?
Daily Caller ^
| 09/26/2013
| JAMIE WEINSTEIN
Posted on 09/26/2013 9:04:48 PM PDT by richardb72
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-27 last
To: richardb72; Grampa Dave; Carry_Okie; tubebender; budwiesest
None of 'em will ever hold a candle to former CA Repub Governor Earl Warren!!! POTUS Dwight D. Eisenhower's biggest mistake ever!!!
The runner up to Chief Justice Warren, is Chief Justice Roberts!!!
21
posted on
09/26/2013 11:24:15 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(I pledge to the USSA & 2 the democrazy for witch it stands, a nation with liberalism & misery 4 all!)
To: richardb72
I think too many people on this thread are confusing evil with stupid.
Kagan is clearly not very bright. There's no doubt the rest of them are pretty smart. Four of them simply don't care what the Constitution actually says. Roberts' 0bamacare ruling is a typical liberal opinion: facile, contradictory, and ultimately rather silly. That doesn't mean he's stupid.
22
posted on
09/27/2013 12:12:07 AM PDT
by
FredZarguna
(With bell, book, and candle, please.)
To: richardb72
Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, and the unwise Latina Sotomajor...
23
posted on
09/27/2013 12:44:58 AM PDT
by
Rummyfan
(Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
To: richardb72
24
posted on
09/27/2013 2:06:02 AM PDT
by
AdaGray
(Primary Them All)
To: richardb72
25
posted on
09/27/2013 5:36:00 AM PDT
by
al baby
(Hi Mom ;Sarcasm is my bidness)
To: richardb72
Hm, good question.
I'd have to say that anyone affirming Raich v. Gonzales would have to be:
Stevens |
Kennedy |
Souter |
Ginsburg |
Breyer |
Scalia |
The reason for this is that this ruling basically said
the federal government's ability to regulate intrastate commerce, stemming from the ability to regulate interstate commerce, is still valid even when that regulation prohibits interstate commerce, even if this would "pull the rug out from under them" because, well, we say so.
That decision was an insult to logical thinking. (False implies true!)
Kelo was terribly unjust, though not without some legal-reasoning, and could be alleviated if eminent-domain were used to seize all of the justices's properties (via projections
, of course). I think you'd be amazed at how quick the Supreme Court could act once its members were directly influenced/impacted/inconvenienced by one of their rulings.
I'm sure I could think of more.
26
posted on
09/27/2013 8:14:25 PM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: svcw
I have to disagree on Scalia: concurrence on Raich was inexcusable.
27
posted on
09/27/2013 8:19:14 PM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-27 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson