Justice Scalia to address Tea Party Caucus today
- Jennifer of Cubachi
Justice Scalia is set to give a seminar this afternoon on the Constitution for the Tea Party Caucus.
Rep. Bachmann set the meeting up since a year ago.
Democrats already have voiced their indignation over the meeting.
Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar
or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.
“Democrats already have voiced their indignation over the meeting.”
You mean, “…over the Constitution”.
They hate it.
Screw them.
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
Patrick Henry,1788
Speaking of Special Ed…
What does one talk about at a Tea Party meeting? Replacement hips? Coupon-swapping?
sewage, you are invited to come to any TEA Party gathering.
Liberty and tyranny are big topics, as are the future of our nation and our children.
Its funny how liberty, tyranny and the beloved children only became an issue when the black guy took over. Hmmm…
sewage, you’re an idiot.
I know…old news.
Some of us have been on this for several decades. But there is this thing called a “tipping-point”.
Or did that whole “insupportable” deal whooosh over your empty little head like everything else…???
Ohh, so having the black guy in charge was the last straw for the teabaggers? Makes perfect sense!
sewage, your racists smear against homosexuals is typical of your hatred.
Stop it…
LOOK AT ME, PAY ATTENTION TO ME… YOU MUST ARGUE WITH ME, WITH ME, WITH MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and you all are teh stoooooopid too.
Ohh, so having the black guy in charge was the last straw for the teabaggers? Makes perfect sense!
Posted by: GuessWho
Why is it moonbats see race in everything? Why is it that when they look at the president they always focus on his race?
Sorry, nutbags. We don’t care about his race. We just care that he, like all other Dems that have held that office, are disasters to the country.
So, the future teabaggers didn’t mind when the Decider invaded the wrong country and ran the economy into the ground? Funny how it all changed when the black guy showed up!
Memory loss is very common among the psychotic…
I’d crawl over broken glass with two busted legs to vote for Thomas Sowell.
How ’bout you…???
“so having the black guy in charge was the last straw for the teabaggers?”
Blacker than the first black president? How so?
Ragsierre -
Curious (a sincere question) -
When/how did you become familiar with Thomas Sowell?
Um dum-dum? I’m not sure who you think is me but that ain’t me.
You have a hard time getting stuff right, you should just stop trying, I don’t think it’s ever going to happen.
Or has my paucity of posts of late created a sort of salvage-vacuum that you feel the need to fill with delusional versions of me? Sadly I have a new client that needs me on-site for the next few months and I won’t pollute their network with wingnuttings.
Anyway I was going to post that if a SCJ attended a “liberal” version of such an event his every decision from then on would be suspect and the ones teabaggers didn’t like would be shrieked at as “judicial activism”.
sewage, Ginsberg was a BIG draw at “Progressive” bullspit events.
You think Montemayor sits home lifting weights and reading Playboy?
Gawd, what a moron…!!!!
mikey, I am not sure of the year, but early in the 70s was when I became aware of Sowell.
>You think Montemayor sits home lifting weights and reading Playboy?
Ho! Ho! She’s a dyke! I get it! Wingnut wit strikes again.
What events have they done?
Google, sewage…
Google.
‘but early in the 70s was when I became aware of Sowell’
Sorry to question that, but that would mean that you became aware of him long before most anyone else did. He was certainly active, though primarily in academic circles etc.
But perhaps you were active in some of these same circles.
Google news archives shows that following Obama’s election, references to his writings, interviews with him, etc. has up-ticked significantly (Fox News segments figure prominently here).
But I’m all for anything that gets folks to read more thoughtful analysis – even if it comes from the ‘elite’ types.
Early 70′s? I think that he is referring to the median age of the teabaggers. No need for a response, I think Matlock is on.
mikey…
Call me a tread-setter.
Sowell was also featured on the Friedman “Free To Choose” series.
Sowell is an “elite type”…??? Funny.
“Early 70′s? I think that he is referring to the median age of the teabaggers.”
So now you add hatred for the aged with your homophobia.
Ugly, and stupid.
Hater.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/01/nino-wows-them.html
Apparently, the bipartisan reviews were raves.
“Sowell is an “elite type”…???”
Oh, does that phrase only apply to the liberal/progressive academics and intellectuals?
I see.
I think Sowell himself might take issue…
Speaking of elites, I think the review at legal insurrection forgot to find out what kind of mustard Scalia likes.
This is what makes Jacobson such a worthy source for insight.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html
“Oh, does that phrase only apply to the liberal/progressive academics and intellectuals?”
Sowell writes…very intentionally…in a “NOT-elitist” manner. The term applies to those to whom it applies. Sowell is not one.
Or do you deny that?
Do you have trouble divining VDH from what I hope we could agree is an “elitist”?
Your citation to a Jacobson blog post leaves me highly unimpressed. Is that really how you choose to denigrate the substance of the report on Justice Scalia’s presentation?
I’m certainly not gonna argue (futilely)as to what an ‘elitist’ is.
It ain’t my word.
My dig at Jacobsen was a fair one.
This is silly:
“Scalia is an intellectual giant compared the the Board of Editors of The NY Times, and stands so far above the Times Editors that they barely can see his shoelaces.”
You might agree, but you can’t call it substance.
“You might agree, but you can’t call it substance.”
Well, I DO call it a substantial opinion, coming from Jacobson.
But my point concerned the general acceptance of Justice Scalia’s remarks, as reported by Jacobson.
Why would a discussion of the term “elitist” be futile?
>Google, sewage…
>Google.
So that would be no, you can’t think of any equivalent events those two SCJ attended? Yeah, I thought so.
I know as a wingnut you think cuz you say something that means it happens but sadly reality isn’t quite that flexible. I did Google and all I could find was a few dull legal speaking engagements, nothing particularly partisan so that’s why I asked you. I only half figured you were just making stuff up as usual but thanks for the confirmation! I should know by now to never give you the benefit of the doubt.
“So that would be no, you can’t think of any equivalent events those two SCJ attended? Yeah, I thought so.”
Liar.
And a really LAZY liar, to boot…
http://www.google.com/search?q=Justice+Ginsberg+speak&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=SaD&pwst=1&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&&sa=X&ei=iVk_TeuCKovpgQfEis2tAw&ved=0CBMQvwUoAQ&q=Justice+Ginsburg+speak&spell=1&fp=241062ed1d424d73
and
http://www.google.com/search?q=Justice+Ginsberg+speak&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=Justice+Sotomayor+speak&cp=23&qe=SnVzdGljZSBTb3RvbWF5b3Igc3BlYWs&qesig=q2AKVgtvQjujYKV0mw6BvA&pkc=AFgZ2tmwJLwJbWsNhRdmqTw_XTA5NZoMhCJMPBVPkc8m6LoCnA_kPPpU7yNPYK0M0weiZGDaa6N6QDyefKWcdnll61gBYMbTPw&pf=p&sclient=psy&client=firefox-a&hs=ifD&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Justice+Sotomayor+speak&pbx=1&fp=241062ed1d424d73
and
http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=5950
“…nothing particularly partisan so that’s why I asked you.”
No. That is another lie, wrapped in a few more lies.
Scalia gave a presentation before a BIPARTISAN group, and it was very well received by all accounts.
“Scalia gave a presentation before a BIPARTISAN group, and it was very well received by all accounts.”
Well, it ain’t the Dems that tend to shout out ‘You Lie!’ in these types of settings…
Well, it ain’t the Dems that tend to shout out ‘You Lie!’ in these types of settings…
Well, that is itself a lie, mikeNOsense.
But you can read Justice Scalia’s remarks. Point out a lie.
I could spend a month on the SOTUS…and never dent it really.
Well….not it’s no (a lie).
But we digress.
(typo)
Well….no it’s not (a lie).
But we digress.
So none of those links show them speaking to any liberal groups, they’re all legal stuff, nothing partisan.
It’s amazing how wrong you keep being, you’re Bart grabbing the electrified pellet.
>Scalia gave a presentation before a BIPARTISAN group, and it was very well received by all accounts.
Once again I know it’s hard as a wingnut to wrap the used condom you call a brain around the concept but just because you say something is so that doesn’t make it so. The Teabbaggers are most certainly a GOP Wingnut affair and as such is nothing but partisan. Let’s face it wingnut, you twits make EVERYTHING partisan, tribalism is so deeply ingrained in your psyche the mere idea of bi-partisan support would probably send you into a fugue state.
Of course it would be hard to tell the difference but I’m sure medical science could find a way.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will discuss life before and after becoming a member of the nation’s highest judicial body at Lisner Auditorium this February.
Ginsburg – who has been serving as an associate justice since she was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1993 – will speak with National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg on Feb. 3 at 7 p.m. during an event sponsored by the Smithsonian Resident Associates Program. Totenberg works as a legal correspondent and Inside Washington panelist for NPR.
_______________________________________________________________________
As always, sewage I can prove you a phucing liar with remarkable ease.
_______________________________________________________________________
Members of both parties, though, described Monday’s lecture as a fairly bland affair, devoid of discussion on hot-button issues. “I didn’t get the sense that this was skewed at all,” said Schakowsky, an outspoken liberal.
Bachmann called Scalia’s appearance a success and said she was particularly pleased it was a bipartisan event. She said she counted at least three Democratic members in the audience.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/114523244.html?elr=KArks:DCiUec7PaP3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiacyKUzyaP37D_ncyD_2yckUr
I love that you keep backing up into me with your sweet, sweet punk asp.
….
Smithsonian Resident Associates Program is like the liberal version of Teabaggers? They have big rallies and scream about the President being a secret Muslim? What does its website say?
About Us
The Smithsonian Resident Associate Program (RAP)—a division of the Smithsonian Institution—offers great opportunities for education, fun, and community to people of all ages in the Washington, D.C., area.
RAP presents about 750 programs each year that are amazing in their variety, cultural currency, and fun potential.
Sigh.
Remember the whole “different things are different” speech? Maybe you could get the people who look after you to read and explain it? Perhaps they have flash cards and sock puppets to aide?
At least THREE democrats?!?! THREE! Impressive! That’s like three times as many Black Teabaggers!
Once again if a SCJ attended say a Code Pink event, I’d say they’re the leftwing version of the Teabbagers that is loud impotent morons, your head would explode… which wouldn’t make much of a difference granted.
You are just dancing with rage, aren’t you…!!!
What a punk asped b1tch…!!!!
Honey, honey, honeeeeee