R.I.P Justice Scalia

[Dan Fienen]

Amendments do indeed revise the Constiturion, but the process for amending the Constitution is very involved and takes a great many people agreeing to accomplish it.  It is not something for one person or even nine to do on their own hook.  It is not something that even a Supreme Court justice or several to decide one day that they'd rather have the Constitution read differently.

[Norman Teigen]

Here is what one wing-nut  on the Right Wing had to say:    Glenn Beck was on the road today and unable to host his radio program, but he did find time to call in and offer his theory about why God allowed Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia to die so close to the next presidential election.

After Beck's co-host Pat Gray wondered why God simply didn't allow Scalia to live until after the election, Beck called in to assert that God had allowed Scalia to die at this time in an effort to wake up America up to the fact that his nation is on the verge of totally losing its liberty unless it elects Ted Cruz as president.

Recalling how he had been scheduled to campaign for Mitt Romney just before the 2012 election only to be thwarted by Hurricane Sandy, which he took as a sign from God, Beck said that Scalia's death was likewise all part of God's plan.

"I just woke the American people up," Beck said, explaining the wonders of God's plan. "I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, look at how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy and you now have 5-4 decisions in the other direction. Just with this one guy, you've lost your liberty so you'd better elect somebody that is going to be somebody on [the court] because for the next 30 years, if you don't, the Constitution as you know it [is gone]."

"The Constitution is hanging by a thread," he declared. "That thread has just been cut and the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist."
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-god-allowed-scalia-die-order-highlight-importance-electing-ted-cruz#sthash.NsKHsyHp.dpuf

It's scary, really scary.

[Team Hesse]

Here is what one wing-nut  on the Right Wing had to say:    Glenn Beck was on the road today and unable to host his radio program, but he did find time to call in and offer his theory about why God allowed Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia to die so close to the next presidential election.

After Beck's co-host Pat Gray wondered why God simply didn't allow Scalia to live until after the election, Beck called in to assert that God had allowed Scalia to die at this time in an effort to wake up America up to the fact that his nation is on the verge of totally losing its liberty unless it elects Ted Cruz as president.

Recalling how he had been scheduled to campaign for Mitt Romney just before the 2012 election only to be thwarted by Hurricane Sandy, which he took as a sign from God, Beck said that Scalia's death was likewise all part of God's plan.

"I just woke the American people up," Beck said, explaining the wonders of God's plan. "I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, look at how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy and you now have 5-4 decisions in the other direction. Just with this one guy, you've lost your liberty so you'd better elect somebody that is going to be somebody on [the court] because for the next 30 years, if you don't, the Constitution as you know it [is gone]."

"The Constitution is hanging by a thread," he declared. "That thread has just been cut and the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist."
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-god-allowed-scalia-die-order-highlight-importance-electing-ted-cruz#sthash.NsKHsyHp.dpuf

It's scary, really scary.

Yep, that is how it is with fear mongers.....right or LEFT


Lou

[David Garner]

Here is a link to a fascinating review of Scalia's concept of originalism.   http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism?intcid=mod-yml

Fascinating primarily for the author's ignorance of history and his fawning claim that the Stevens dissent in Heller promoted any sort of "originalism." 

The majority opinion in Heller is replete with citations to scholarly work.  The dissent, to the contrary, reads like a high school term paper.  My favorite part is where Stevens uses the fact that several states included the right to "defense of self and state" in their state Constitutions as evidence that the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.......well.......doesn't include "self and state."  It reminds me of the conspiracy theorist who, confronted with evidence that refutes their claims, says "well, YEAH man, that's what you'd EXPECT man!"

[John_Hannah]

Quote:

Who? How? How will we know it is sufficiently amended? The simple fact is that if it is not the responsibility of the church to determine if a particular doctrine or practice is in accord with the confessions, then they aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Paul Bretscher is in very poor health, but for years after he published Christianity's Unknown Gospel he maintained that nothing in his teaching contradicted the Confessions. Nothing can be done about that by your understanding. It would always be unlawful to remove him because according to him he didn't violate the confessions.

You might say the case is different because Bretscher actually did violate the Confessions while Becker did not. But that is your opinion, not the opinion of the LCMS.

Quote:

Don't the bylaws, in effect, do that?  Well, not amend it but explain how it is to be applied.  And weren't the bylaws followed?

Quote:

Here is a link to a fascinating review of Scalia's concept of originalism.   http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism?intcid=mod-yml
_______________________________

I can understand how "originalism" has the weakness of seeming to have been "overcome by (later) events. Some will believe that the original intent cannot help us cope with present day problems. Much has happened politically since 1787. Much has happened ecclesiastically since 1580.

I grant that they have a point but I will still hold to my preference for originalism in holding both the U.S. Constititution and the Lutheran Confessions. I hope that abortions will cease and that there will be no more Matthew Beckers.   

Peace, JOHN

[FrPeters]

I can understand how "originalism" has the weakness of seeming to have been "overcome by (later) events. Some will believe that the original intent cannot help us cope with present day problems. Much has happened politically since 1787.

Scalia's own reply is that of course things have happened that were not foreseen or imagined by the original framers within the context of the original meaning of their words.  But you cannot impose the understanding or the events of the moment onto the fabric of this document.  That is why the framers provided a legislative branch and if there is a new circumstance, pass a law.  And that is why the balance between states and federal powers exist.  The court was not created to legislate and this is exactly what it has done.  It was created to decide cases.  BTW Scalia also opined against an elitism that was and still is manifest in that all current justices are grads of Harvard or Yale and come from the Northeast.

[peter_speckhard]

Here is what one wing-nut  on the Right Wing had to say:    Glenn Beck was on the road today and unable to host his radio program, but he did find time to call in and offer his theory about why God allowed Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia to die so close to the next presidential election.

After Beck's co-host Pat Gray wondered why God simply didn't allow Scalia to live until after the election, Beck called in to assert that God had allowed Scalia to die at this time in an effort to wake up America up to the fact that his nation is on the verge of totally losing its liberty unless it elects Ted Cruz as president.

Recalling how he had been scheduled to campaign for Mitt Romney just before the 2012 election only to be thwarted by Hurricane Sandy, which he took as a sign from God, Beck said that Scalia's death was likewise all part of God's plan.

"I just woke the American people up," Beck said, explaining the wonders of God's plan. "I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, look at how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy and you now have 5-4 decisions in the other direction. Just with this one guy, you've lost your liberty so you'd better elect somebody that is going to be somebody on [the court] because for the next 30 years, if you don't, the Constitution as you know it [is gone]."

"The Constitution is hanging by a thread," he declared. "That thread has just been cut and the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist."
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-god-allowed-scalia-die-order-highlight-importance-electing-ted-cruz#sthash.NsKHsyHp.dpuf

It's scary, really scary.

How is that scary? Some Mormon guy calling in to a radion show thinks God is giving America a wake-up call and wants to elect Ted Cruz. So what? Why does that frighten you?

For someone who often wonders aloud what the Prophet Amos would say to America you seem awfully down on the idea of God giving a rip about laws. Is the idea that America needs a wakeup call you find scary? Ted Cruz as president? That many Christians and people of other odd religions often interpret events in their personal lives as well as national news as signs from God? I'll bet a fair number of people in your own congregation do that. I get that you disagree with Ted Cruz's political platform, but to be scared by the fact that some talk shows host suports Cruz is bit paranoid.

And at any rate, the quote you just posted falls far short of the Messianic promises associated with Barack Obama in 2008.

[Terry W Culler]

Wing nuts? Really!!!! How about lefties who suffer from delusions of intellectual adequacy?  This board seems to be verging on hatred rather than love.  Let's stop it folks.

[James_Gale]

Here is what one wing-nut  on the Right Wing had to say:    Glenn Beck was on the road today and unable to host his radio program, but he did find time to call in and offer his theory about why God allowed Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia to die so close to the next presidential election.

After Beck's co-host Pat Gray wondered why God simply didn't allow Scalia to live until after the election, Beck called in to assert that God had allowed Scalia to die at this time in an effort to wake up America up to the fact that his nation is on the verge of totally losing its liberty unless it elects Ted Cruz as president.

Recalling how he had been scheduled to campaign for Mitt Romney just before the 2012 election only to be thwarted by Hurricane Sandy, which he took as a sign from God, Beck said that Scalia's death was likewise all part of God's plan.

"I just woke the American people up," Beck said, explaining the wonders of God's plan. "I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, look at how close your liberty is to being lost. You now have lost your liberty. You replace one guy and you now have 5-4 decisions in the other direction. Just with this one guy, you've lost your liberty so you'd better elect somebody that is going to be somebody on [the court] because for the next 30 years, if you don't, the Constitution as you know it [is gone]."

"The Constitution is hanging by a thread," he declared. "That thread has just been cut and the only way that we survive now is if we have a true constitutionalist."
- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/glenn-beck-god-allowed-scalia-die-order-highlight-importance-electing-ted-cruz#sthash.NsKHsyHp.dpuf

It's scary, really scary.

You pulled that from a far-left web site dedicated to the use of fear-mongering to discredit Republicans. Here's how the site defines its purpose:

"We hope that by shedding light on the activities of right-wing organizations, we can expose the risks that their extreme and intolerant agendas present to our country. We do not endorse the views of groups that we report on."

What's scary is that you don't seek different perspectives but persistently post from the left-wing equivalent of freerepublic.com or brietbart.com.  Doing that will not enhance your credibility.

[George Erdner]

What's scary is that you don't seek different perspectives but persistently post from the left-wing equivalent of freerepublic.com or brietbart.com.  Doing that will not enhance your credibility.

The sad thing is that the so-called "objective" news sources are anything but. If anyone depends only on the established news media for information, then that person will be woefully ignorant. The mainstream media has returned to being what the Hearst and Pulitzer newspapers were back at the prior turn of the century. Using a motto of "all the news that fits, we print", they all pander to the lowest common denominator in going for non-offensive stories that will yield them the highest ratings so that they can maximize the sale of product commercials. Watching (or reading) any of the mainstream news sources reveals that their decisions on what stories to cover is based on which stories will attract the biggest mass audience, nothing else. The debates are packaged as a new form of reality TV show. I'm surprised that the debates are on CNN or Fox. They would be more appropriate on E! or MTV.

[LutherMan]

New York Times, 1987: Party That Won the Senate Has 'Every Right to Resist'

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431474/new-york-times-1987-party-won-senate-has-every-right-resist

[SomeoneWrites]

New York Times, 1987: Party That Won the Senate Has 'Every Right to Resist'

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431474/new-york-times-1987-party-won-senate-has-every-right-resist

Definitely read more.  The actual editorial seems to imply something different then what I'm hearing the National Review imply
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/05/opinion/against-robert-bork-his-bill-of-rights-is-different.html

[LutherMan]

Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384

[James_Gale]

Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384

This frankly does not bother me in the least.  President Obama will pay his respects at the Court on Friday.  At the funeral mass, the president would have been a distraction.  Because of security concerns (even higher than with other public officials), president are always distractions at events they attend.  But in this case, there's more to it.  Justice Scalia and President Obama had no personal relationship.  Their professional interactions -- almost all indirect -- were less than warm.  I think that it makes sense for the president to permit Justice Scalia's family, his colleagues, and his friends to mourn (and as Christians, to celebrate) in peace. 

[Donald_Kirchner]

Obama to skip Scalia's funeral

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384

This frankly does not bother me in the least.  President Obama will pay his respects at the Court on Friday.  At the funeral mass, the president would have been a distraction.  Because of security concerns (even higher than with other public officials), president are always distractions at events they attend.  But in this case, there's more to it.  Justice Scalia and President Obama had no personal relationship.  Their professional interactions -- almost all indirect -- were less than warm.  I think that it makes sense for the president to permit Justice Scalia's family, his colleagues, and his friends to mourn (and as Christians, to celebrate) in peace.

I agree...except for the "celebrate" part. What's that about?