Scalia Rejects Concept Of Religious Neutrality
One of our bedrock First Amendment principles is the government being neutral on religion, but that isn’t how Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sees it.
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.
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
62 responses to Scalia Rejects Concept Of Religious Neutrality
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Chris January 2nd, 2016 at 17:12
More evidence this guy had no business being appointed to the SCOTUS.
mistlesuede January 2nd, 2016 at 17:43
Another of Reagan’s mistakes that still haunt us today.
Will January 2nd, 2016 at 17:22
If you can impeach a POTUS, why not an unelected judge?
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou January 2nd, 2016 at 17:39
Of course you can impeach a SCOTUS judge, but not for differences of opinion and general stupidity. :(
Suzanne McFly January 2nd, 2016 at 17:45
He is supposed to defend the Constitution not ignore parts of it, I don’t see how that is not an impeachable offense. Too bad no one would have the backbone to start proceedings.
Larry Schmitt January 2nd, 2016 at 17:47
He had his fingers crossed when he took the oath.
katkelly57 January 2nd, 2016 at 18:15
Along w/his toes and eyes.
mistlesuede January 2nd, 2016 at 17:41
Could we amend the constitution on this? I think this is something both parties would agree on, but the brain-trusts who wrote it must have thought it would become a kangaroo court with impeachment campaigns happening all the time?
Glen January 3rd, 2016 at 01:30
There are two misconceptions, here.
First, members of the Supreme Court can be impeached – but it requires a crime of some sort to have been committed by the judge. Essentially, they have to be found guilty, by the Senate, of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, after having been indicted by the House.
Second, Supreme Court Justices *are* elected. Just not by popular vote. They’re elected by the people’s representatives (through the “confirmation” process). That’s the whole point of a representative democracy – individual voters can’t be expected to be sufficiently informed about how the supreme court works, the nuances of the constitution, and individual candidates for the role to make a proper judgement about who should serve on the supreme court, and letting it fall to popular vote would basically mean that you’d get it populated by the same kinds of people who are in congress. People like Scalia might have their issues, but at least they’re properly trained in topics like constitutional law, and aren’t subject to popular support requirements (otherwise you get a “tyranny of the majority” situation).
fahvel January 3rd, 2016 at 12:31
the people can’t vote?!? because they are not informed? what crap – but then again, lots of leaders have moved authority from the people to “representatives” – like hitler, stalin, mao ad infinitum. Democracy suggests that a vote by a citizen counts.
Glen January 3rd, 2016 at 13:30
Are you kidding me? You’re really going to try to argue against representative democracy, which is the exact same democratic system being used in the US, Australia, Britain, France, and just about everywhere else that can claim to be a democracy?
Are you REALLY invoking Hitler, Stalin, etc, to attack the bedrock of worldwide politics? When none of them used an equivalent approach?
I’m really hoping you’re trying to troll, because this level of ignorance is incredibly scary. Direct democracy, which is where everything is voted on by every citizen, is simply unworkable.
That’s why we have representative democracy – because not everybody has the time, the motivation, or (in some cases) the intelligence to understand every issue to the necessary depth to make a decision. So we choose someone who can do the work of understanding the issues and make decisions on our behalf. Roughly the equivalent of a union electing a leadership who work for them in dealings with employers, or investors electing a board of directors to run the company they (the investors) own. And if those people make bad decisions, we remove them.
We don’t directly elect judges, because the whole point of the judiciary is that they need to be independent of the will of the people – they need to be able to uphold the law even when a majority are against it, because many laws exist to protect minorities from majorities. And thus, this is one of the many examples where representative democracy is a better approach.
This is politics 101 (to use your American parlance). If you don’t have a basic understanding of this, then you really shouldn’t be commenting on anything to do with politics, government, law, etc.
Note that when I said that individual voters can’t be expected to be sufficiently informed, I wasn’t saying they were ignorant, I was saying that it is unreasonable to impose the need to be sufficiently informed (on this topic) on the voting public. I wasn’t suggesting lack of ability on the part of the voter, but the fact that society would grind to a halt if every single voter had to be fully informed about every single topic.
FatRat January 2nd, 2016 at 17:25
Besides not understanding the Separation of Church and State, he’s forgetting that there are plenty of Religions, Sects and Cults besides his favorite. His twisted little mind thinks that all the “good stuff” will happen to his particular set of worshippers. What about devout followers of Count Chocula, Roddenberry or Scientology?
The Last Supper
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Last_Supper_(copy)_-_WGA12732.jpg
The Last Breakfast
https://ronhardyman.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/the-last-breakfast.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/DEUq4QT.jpg
Larry Schmitt January 2nd, 2016 at 17:49
Quick Draw McGraw used to be the spokes-horse for Sugar Smacks. Why isn’t he in that picture?
FatRat January 2nd, 2016 at 17:52
It is very wrong that there is no El KaBong!
Larry Schmitt January 2nd, 2016 at 17:52
His alter ego. He wore a mask and everything.
alpacadaddy January 2nd, 2016 at 20:05
I watched that as a young urchin!
katkelly57 January 2nd, 2016 at 18:07
Just to let ya know, I worship at the alter of Tony the Tiger.
FatRat January 2nd, 2016 at 18:09
That’s Gr-r-eat!
Grover Norquist's Muslim Wife January 2nd, 2016 at 19:06
Did you see that classic SNL Weekend Update where the guy brings an authentic receipt from the last brunch?
FatRat January 2nd, 2016 at 19:19
Googled around wanted to see the video, couldn’t find it. That skit sounds very familiar.
Father Guido Sarducci’s Bill for The Last Brunch.
On The Last Supper: It was actually a brunch. The check reveals that one guy only had a soft-boiled egg and tea, while everyone else stuffed themselves. But when the bill was paid, it was divided equally. The moral: “In groups, always order the most expensive thing.”
LOL!
alpacadaddy January 2nd, 2016 at 20:05
I loved Guido Sarducci… funny stuff, ahead of it’s time! Can you imagine what he would have to say about the world today?
FatRat January 2nd, 2016 at 20:08
He’d have plenty of fodder. lol
Grover Norquist's Muslim Wife January 2nd, 2016 at 22:17
That’s the one! I think I saw it on an old VHS tape called The Best of Saturday Night Live
mistlesuede January 2nd, 2016 at 17:39
OH STFU!
Suzanne McFly January 2nd, 2016 at 17:53
Tell me how you really feel lol.
mistlesuede January 2nd, 2016 at 17:54
It just has to fly out sometimes. :)
Suzanne McFly January 2nd, 2016 at 17:55
I hear you, I do the same thing. I am just glad someone else has the same type feelings I do about these criminals.
mistlesuede January 2nd, 2016 at 17:58
I hate that they hold so much power over us. I’ve never looked at the court the same after they se-lected our POTUS in 2000. The conservative members disgust me most all of the time. I can’t decide which one I hate more, but I think it may be Scalia.
Suzanne McFly January 2nd, 2016 at 18:02
Scalia pisses me off but Thomas confuses the hell out of me. I swear his skin color is part of some type of perverted costume.
mistlesuede January 2nd, 2016 at 18:05
Well, we know he’s a pervert aside from his color. :) And that fugly teabagger wife of his. Ewwww.
I also hate that dumb face on Alito. I still picture him shaking his head at PO during the SOTU. I’d like to just slap it one time. Hehehe.
Suzanne McFly January 2nd, 2016 at 18:06
Go ahead, I got your bail money lol.
mistlesuede January 2nd, 2016 at 18:08
LMBO!
katkelly57 January 2nd, 2016 at 18:11
It flies out pretty often for me.
mistlesuede January 2nd, 2016 at 18:20
Hehehe. :)
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou January 2nd, 2016 at 17:45
Scalia is batcrap crazy. He thinks God has been good to the U.S. because Americans have honored him. He says that when W. asked God to bless the country after 9/11, many people approached him and expressed their desire for their country’s politicians to do the same. Which makes you want to ask: If God blesses the US because our politicians pray to him, why in the f*ck did W. wait until the day after 9/11 to ask for his blessing?!?!?!?!?!/1/11//?!?!?!?
Larry Schmitt January 2nd, 2016 at 17:52
And if god supposedly punishes the nation (hurricanes, etc.) because abortions and gay marriages, how come he can’t figure out how to spare the righteous ones? The OT god saved Lot.
TiredOldGuy January 2nd, 2016 at 17:56
Collateral damage.
Larry Schmitt January 2nd, 2016 at 17:58
That’s just a euphemism dreamt up by the Pentagon because it sounds less painful than “civilian deaths.”
TiredOldGuy January 2nd, 2016 at 18:00
Kind of like friendly fire.
Larry Schmitt January 2nd, 2016 at 18:00
That definitely sounds better than “we accidentally killed our own soldiers or our allies.” Friendly fire is like civil war. There’s no such thing.
TiredOldGuy January 2nd, 2016 at 18:06
Semantics make it sound so much nicer, but the end result is still “a bunch of people dead”.
Ed VanDyke January 2nd, 2016 at 19:02
Well, all of those marketing terms were dreamed up by ‘military intelligence’… ;)
Guy Lauten January 2nd, 2016 at 19:31
Wait… there is a disturbance in the Force.
Yes… that’s it… “Scalia thinks…”.
These are dark times.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker January 2nd, 2016 at 17:53
This lunatic and Clarence Thomas are perhaps the greatest reasons to get out and vote to keep republicans away from the levers of power.
mistlesuede January 2nd, 2016 at 18:01
You should put this up on Raw Story and Crooks and Liars. Maybe it might make some of the nuts who say this think again. But, probably not.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker January 2nd, 2016 at 18:14
I was kicked off C&L by the pricks who run that cesspit.
Those zealots work against our progressive cause.
Thanks for the up-vote.
mistlesuede January 2nd, 2016 at 18:18
Sorry to hear that. I’ve heard bad things and have stayed away because of it. You’ve given me more confirmation of it.
You are welcome. :)
fewcaxms January 3rd, 2016 at 08:03
A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
4rkx……
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsSee/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦
tracey marie January 2nd, 2016 at 19:45
They were going to ban me because of edwin…but a regular came forward and said I made the comment not Tracey. They apologized to me.
katkelly57 January 2nd, 2016 at 18:12
A couple of someones need to retire from the SC.
jybarz January 2nd, 2016 at 18:39
Does this POS wants to be the US Ayatollah?
Typical conservative pretending to be holier than thou but no better than the Talibans’ way of thinking.
Ed VanDyke January 2nd, 2016 at 18:56
” shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Pay attention Justice Scalia! Doesn’t that LITERALLY “favor non-religion over religion”? ;)
David Ish January 2nd, 2016 at 20:23
Can we in impeach Scalia because he doesn’t know 1st amendment.
Gina Bousquet January 2nd, 2016 at 20:52
Well, is Scalia above the Constitution?
CandideThirtythree January 3rd, 2016 at 07:51
He thinks he is
Gina Bousquet January 3rd, 2016 at 08:24
F*cking the Constitution he should respect above all.
rg9rts January 3rd, 2016 at 02:08
Time for recall
fahvel January 3rd, 2016 at 12:26
can that be done?
rg9rts January 3rd, 2016 at 12:35
I think impeachment is possible
Elaine Maitz January 3rd, 2016 at 19:49
Yes, It is.
Damien McLeod January 3rd, 2016 at 04:13
Justice Scalia, true to Ronnie Raygun and the Repub-Reich-lican Party’s legacy is as primitive and barbaric in his thoughts and attitude’s as any person from the Dark Age’s would be. It’s totally sad that this man’s a member of our nation’s highest court.
fahvel January 3rd, 2016 at 12:25
what would he say if he speaking to a group of monkeys?