Was he our guy?

Was he our guy?

Yes.

...

I want his book on reading legal texts. It's kinds costly. If anyone has it...

Isn't the supreme court half jew or something?

yes. he was the only one who could have stopped Obama from indefinably extending his second term....and he just happened to die with a pillow on his head.

Pretty much. The rule of thumb is that most justices are either Jewish or Catholic these days. The Jews are always liberal judicial activists, while the Catholics are all over the place, but usually end up being the better ones. Scalia was Catholic with a traditionalist streak, and he was a top-tier justice.

Yes. He was 100% constitutionalist and 100,000% Patriot

dont bother

law is a fucking joke

>we should blindly follow a 300 year old document

American really are human garbage.

He wasn't saying "blindly follow the constitution." He was saying "the law says what it says, and if you don't like that, get a law passed to change it."

He's talking to the leftists who twist and contort the constitution into things that cannot logically be derived from it without political aim.

Scalia believed that the only change the Constitution needed was new amendments, not new interpretations.
>He was right

>Abide by the foundational document until sufficiently democratically decided otherwise

in other words, a constitutional republic

...

There are ways to change it if there is something the people want changed. Judicial activism is nothing but tyranny and lawlessness.

>unelected judges should make shit up according to their ideologies

>Follow document that laid out the best form of Representative Government ever made.
>Took progressives 200 years to finally unchain themselves from the limitations placed on them by the Constitution.
>Now they run wild and the sky is the limit.
>Canada thinks that is A-OK.

I genuinely believe that Republicans are worse than Muslims, because at least Islam has a spiritual aspect to it which can be logically separated from the real world, whereas constitutionalists honestly believe that they are acting rationally.

>at least Islam has a spiritual aspect to it which can be logically separated from the real world, whereas constitutionalists honestly believe that they are acting rationally

Constitutionalism is not an ideology, it is a logical rule-set that a government should be following so as to remain legitimate and impartial.

I understand that you take issue with the Ted Cruz types who worship the constitution like a holy book, but that's now what Scalia is doing here. He is simply stating that "rules are rules, and if you don't like that, don't bend them, change them."

He's not being ideological. He's being logical, especially within the bounds of Constitutional law, his area of expertise.

What would you prefer he say?

>that's now what Scalia is doing here
*not

Stricken down by cold-blooded killers for protecting the constitutional rights of his fellow citizens.

>it is a logical rule-set that a government should be following so as to remain legitimate and impartial.

Based on no scientific evidence, written in a different era, and made impossible to alter in any way.

Literally the most dangerous document ever written.

I think he was our goy, if you understand the vernacular.

Old crusty bastard is roasting in Hell.

And if Dems win in November, abortion will be legal forever. How does that make you feel?

This

Excuse me, what's that on your flag?

You do know that the constitution has been alter multiple times in the past right?

>and made impossible to alter in any way
Do you not know what a constitutional amendment is?

>I think he was our goy, if you understand the vernacular.
The man was 100% Italian. His people were shitting on kikes 2 millennia ago.

He's a leaf, he knows shit shitposting and nothing else.

Abortion will be legal forever anyway, it's the only weapon we have against nigger population growth. Abortion has killed more coons than FEMA and fried chicken combined. It's the reason nigger Fertility is now at 1.0--lower than that of Conservative Whites. Thanks to the Democrats, our only real problem is the Mexicans, and they're dying by inches because somehow Mexico is actually unfucking itself. Slowly, but it's happening.

Scalia is in neither heaven nor hell, though, because Christ has not returned and none have yet been resurrected. Read the book.

Not as much as he could've been but his death helped force some neocucks behind Trump

No its not at all you poorfag its under $50 new.
>dat salary though
Maybe its a joke, but my paychecks are real

In very insignificant ways, but the main point of it, which has created an international culture that bases every aspect of society around the use of firearms is impossible to change.

>barely 65 CAD

What's that? 50 USD? Don't be a Jew, user.

>In very insignificant ways
What is the Bill of Rights?

>but the main point of it, which has created an international culture that bases every aspect of society around the use of firearms is impossible to change
What exactly are you implying? That we shouldn't have the right to bear arms?

Your dusty old book wriiten by Iron Age goatherders is passing into oblivion.

How does that make you feel?

>I have never read a constitutional amendment
Major changes off the top of my head:
No more slaves
Voting age is 18
direct election of senators
Presidential term limits

>What exactly are you implying?

I'm implying that it's a totalitarian and unscientific document that is fanatically kept alive by lethal weapons.

...

Five Catholics and three Jews. Garland, Obama's nominee for the seat vacated by Scalia is Jewish.

what did you expect?

>it's a totalitarian and unscientific document
As opposed to? A monarchy? A dictatorship? An anarchic society ruled by warlords and drug kingpins? Those aren't at all democratic or scientific.

>that is fanatically kept alive by lethal weapons
God forbid people want to enforce the rule of law, one of the hallmarks of western civilization that separate us from the savage hordes.

Are you arguing against the US Constitution or Constitutionalism itself? Be specific in what you're alluding to.

He's a fucking shitposter like all Canadians. The US constitutions is one the greatest marvels of modern legal and political history. The only shame is that your founding father didn't also say that the only role of government is the police, the courts and the army. If so, then the expansion of government might have been slowed, or even prevented.

>Laws are totalitarian
>Laws that limit the government from doing whatever they want, and guarantee the people the possession of firearms for self-defense and give the people permission to shoot government who overstep those bounds, are totalitarian.

Go live in an actual totalitarian country, you fucking leaf, and then notice how their laws do not express that the people should have those rights.

>inb4 The government tramples your guaranteed rights
No shit, but we still have the means to correct that, means that rely on no bloodshed and means that rely on bloodshed, but we still have them for the time being. Totalitarian nations seldom even have them in the first place.

The US constitution did set such limits on the federal government, but the power grabs after the civil war, judicial activism, (bullshit, unfounded interpretations), and withholding state funds if the states didn't fall in line have been their ways of expanding their power. There's a reason the federal government takes an interest in the elections in influential states.

>Are you arguing against the US Constitution or Constitutionalism itself? Be specific in what you're alluding to.

The combination of unregulated capitalism and self-sustaining constitution which means that the entire point of your country is to make money by selling weapons and to encourage people to kill each other because it's both profitable and part of the fundamental laws that determine everything you're allowed to do. Not because it's moral or logical, but because the system is impossible to change and it's the only thing you're allowed to do.

>a
>fucking
>leaf

You're not even human garbage.
You subhuman fucking leaf.

KYS.

Really? I ought to read it fully one day. What part is it? Also yeah, I heard of federal funding being used to keep states toeing the party line. Ans the civil war was a shame, but it wasn't a true civil war, it was a war of independence, and the traitor Lincoln preferred to force political union rather than respect the spirit in which the US constitution was written in, I don't remember it granting the right for states to separate but still, the whole point of the revolutionary war was for government to be made by the consent of the governed, not might is right, he should have gone back to England the tyrant.

He's not saying you SHOULD blindly follow a 300 year old document.

He's saying you shouldn't reinterprit a 300 year old document to mean what you want it to mean because you're not happy with what it says. You should you know, change the constitution in that case.

Really, that's a much smarter way to go about things. Scalia did nothing wrong, the retards that keep reinterpriting the constitution continually delaying any actual changes being made to it are the problem.

>He's a fucking shitposter like all Canadians.
His vagueness is leading me to believe so.

>The US constitutions is one the greatest marvels of modern legal and political history.
Well I wouldn't go that far, but it's better than nothing.

>The only shame is that your founding father didn't also say that the only role of government is the police, the courts and the army. If so, then the expansion of government might have been slowed, or even prevented.
Well we had the Articles of Confederation, but the Constitutional Convention and the Civil War happened, and now we're here.

>The combination of unregulated capitalism and self-sustaining constitution which means that the entire point of your country is to make money by selling weapons and to encourage people to kill each other because it's both profitable and part of the fundamental laws that determine everything you're allowed to do.
You sound like a leftist.

"Guns r bad"
"Capitalism is bad"
"Guns+Capitalism=people just kill each other for money"

>Not because it's moral or logical, but because the system is impossible to change and it's the only thing you're allowed to do.
The US Constitution is not supposed to be the moral foundation of the nation. It is supposed to be a legislative framework through which a people, however moral or immoral they may be, control the power dynamic of the country. Laws are to be put in place because the people either agree with them or disagree with them, not because they're "morally superior" to something else. That's how democracy and Republicanism work.

The American founding fathers believed that a moral people should self govern. The US Constitution is not the end all be all of US law. The individual states have Constitutions, usually far more in depth than the US Constitution. The people themselves have moral Constitutions that they follow, in America's case, usually a Constitution based on biblical/Western morality.

Ben Franklin said something relating to this.

>"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Taking this into account, we understand the logic behind at least some of the founding fathers. Only a moral people are fit for freedom. If America is immoral, take it up with the people, not the document that is being twisted and mangled by their words.

All the details of the Bill of Rights granted the federal government their powers and set their limits, then stated that all rights not mentioned as federal powers, are automatically granted to the states, (which the states can then grant to local governments if they wish. Like how the state of Texas has no law against women going topless in public, but a Texas city or county's local law may prohibit it).

> I don't remember it granting the right for states to separate but still

The fact that it didn't prohibit states from separating, was the power granted for the states to separate. Insurrection is illegal in the Constitution, but leaving a union != overthrowing the federal government. The issue of the US being a union of sovereign states vs a nation was something the founders even fought each other over. Regardless, the Constitution made it clear.

>The issue of the US being a union of sovereign states vs a nation was something the founders even fought each other over. Regardless, the Constitution made it clear.

And this is where we get the change from "The United states are..." to the modern version "The United States is..."

The Republican party's Rabid unionism was the 19th century version of Merkel invading France because the Front Nationale came to power and decided to hightail it out of the EU.

Almost no one truly understands this shockingly similar case of deja vu I get when I see Belgium trying to shit all over right wing EU separatist movements in Europe.