boutons_deux
01-25-2011, 02:45 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/scalia-gesture.jpg
The question of earmarks came up, whether or not the constitutionality of earmarks would be considered constitutional [sic],” Bachmann told reporters
( for a lawyer, Michelle has the Gift of Silver Tongue!
"constitutionality .. would be considered constitutional" :lol )
“It’s up to Congress how you want to appropriate, basically,” Scalia told the members, according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). “He pointed out historically, like when Jefferson was president, [Congress] said here’s a big pot of money, you decide where it goes, and Jefferson ended up paying up a big hunk of it to the Barbary Pirates.”
“He said, ‘States rights? Fuhgeddaboudit!’” said freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R., Ill.), a self-described “tea-party guy” who came to Washington “to storm the gates.”
Mr. Walsh mentioned a couple of other surprises, including Justice Scalia’s view that the line-item veto, desired by some conservatives, is unconstitutional.
Moreover, “stare decisis—he’s okay with that,” Mr. Walsh said, using the Latin term for following legal precedent. . . .
Freshman Rep. Steve Southerland (R., Fla.) asked about the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s so-called czars. Justice Scalia said the president is entitled to hire advisers, and if that’s what czars were, there was little problem
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/25/scalia-tentherism/
=======
I guess that crazy bitch Bachmann and tea bagging assholes weren't expecting such "lessons" from Scalia. :lol
Of course, Scalia overturned 100 years of stare decisis by voting Corporate-Americans the right to free speech to corrupt elections and disenfranchise Human-Americans.
The question of earmarks came up, whether or not the constitutionality of earmarks would be considered constitutional [sic],” Bachmann told reporters
( for a lawyer, Michelle has the Gift of Silver Tongue!
"constitutionality .. would be considered constitutional" :lol )
“It’s up to Congress how you want to appropriate, basically,” Scalia told the members, according to Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX). “He pointed out historically, like when Jefferson was president, [Congress] said here’s a big pot of money, you decide where it goes, and Jefferson ended up paying up a big hunk of it to the Barbary Pirates.”
“He said, ‘States rights? Fuhgeddaboudit!’” said freshman Rep. Joe Walsh (R., Ill.), a self-described “tea-party guy” who came to Washington “to storm the gates.”
Mr. Walsh mentioned a couple of other surprises, including Justice Scalia’s view that the line-item veto, desired by some conservatives, is unconstitutional.
Moreover, “stare decisis—he’s okay with that,” Mr. Walsh said, using the Latin term for following legal precedent. . . .
Freshman Rep. Steve Southerland (R., Fla.) asked about the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s so-called czars. Justice Scalia said the president is entitled to hire advisers, and if that’s what czars were, there was little problem
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/25/scalia-tentherism/
=======
I guess that crazy bitch Bachmann and tea bagging assholes weren't expecting such "lessons" from Scalia. :lol
Of course, Scalia overturned 100 years of stare decisis by voting Corporate-Americans the right to free speech to corrupt elections and disenfranchise Human-Americans.