Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Alberto R. Gonzales

2017-01-01T23:09:35Z

Jesus'cunt:

{{Officeholder
|name=Alberto Gonzales
|image=480px-Alberto Gonzales - official DoJ photograph.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=
|religion=Catholic
|offices=
{{Officeholder/attorneygeneral
|jurisdiction=the United States
|number=80th
|deputy=n
|president=[[George W. Bush]]
|terms=February 3, 2005 - September 17, 2007
|preceded=[[John Ashcroft]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Michael Mukasey]]
}}
}}
'''Alberto R. Gonzales''' (born August 4, 1955) was the 80th [[Attorney General]] of the United States, preceded by [[John Ashcroft]] and succeeded by [[Michael Mukasey]]. He is a massive spic as well as a graduate of [[Rice University]], and a former member of [[Lovett College]]. Gonzales was one of the best students in his graduating class, considered one of the school's brightest and most intellectually capable students.

==Early life==
Alberto Gonzales was born in San Antonio, [[Texas]], and raised in Humble, near Houston. He was the second of eight children born to Pablo and Maria Gonzales. His father, who died in 1982, was a construction worker. An honors student at MacArthur High School, Gonzales enlisted in the [[United States Air Force]] in 1973, for a four-year term of enlistment, serving two years at Fort Yukon, Alaska and two years as a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy. Prior to beginning his third year at the academy, which would have caused him to incur a further service obligation, he transferred to [[Rice University]] (Houston, Texas), where he was a member of Lovett College and earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1979. He then earned a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from [[Harvard]] Law School in 1982. He and his wife, Rebecca Turner Gonzales, have three sons.

==Legal career==
Gonzales was an attorney in private practice from 1982 until 1994 with the Houston law firm Vinson and Elkins, where he became a partner. In 1994, he was named general counsel to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush, rising to become Secretary of State of Texas in 1997 and finally to be named to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, both appointments made by Governor Bush. During this time Gonzales was very involved in charities and community service. He was a board director of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast from 1993 to 1994, and President of Leadership Houston during this same period. In 1994, Gonzales served as Chair of the Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston Independent School District, and as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions for Rice University. He was chosen as one of Five Outstanding Young Texans by the Texas Jaycees in 1994. He was a member of delegations sent by the American Council of Young Political Leaders to Mexico in 1996 and to the People's Republic of China in 1995. He received the Presidential Citation from the State Bar of Texas in 1997 for his dedication to addressing basic legal needs of the indigent. In 1999, he was named Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association. On November 10, 2004, it was announced that he would be nominated to replace United States Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] for President Bush's second term. The nomination was approved with a 60-36 vote. He was sworn in on February 14, 2005.

==Achievements==
* Led Project Safe Neighborhoods to help eliminate violence in inner cities.<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/May/06_ag_262.html</ref>
* Was instrumental in passing the [[Military Commissions Act]]

==Controversy==
Alberto Gonzales was involved in a controversy over the firings of 8 United States attorneys. Detractors insisted that the attorneys were fired for political reasons, instead of performance-based reasons (a claim that no one in the White House has ever made, though some Justice Department officials initially made this claim in Congressional testimony).<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801880.html</ref> Despite the fact that United States attorneys serve at the pleasure of the [[President of the United States]] and the firings were therefore legal, the [[Liberal bias|liberally biased]] media insists on calling it a scandal. In fact, Alberto Gonzales "tempered the White House desire to replace U.S. Attorneys wholesale." <ref>http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day24/archive/2007/03/23/alberto-gonzales-raw-deal.aspx</ref>

Another controversy occurred while Gonzales was the [[White House Counsel]] to President [[George W. Bush]]. In March 2004, President Bush's [[domestic surveillance program]] was nearing its expiration date and needed to be reauthorized. At the time, however, then-Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] had been hospitalized in the [[intensive care unit]] with a serious case of [[pancreatitis]];<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113374,00.html</ref> his powers had been transferred to [[James Comey]], his deputy. Moreover, several individuals within the [[Justice Department]], including Comey and [[Jack Goldsmith]] (then the head of the Office of Legal Counsel), believed that the program had serious legal problems. After Comey and Goldsmith refused to reauthorize the program, [[White House]] [[Chief of Staff]] [[Andy Card]] tried to arrange a phone call between President Bush and Ashcroft to discuss the situation. Mrs. Ashcroft advised him (through a member of Ashcroft's security detail) that her husband would not accept the call. President Bush then ordered Gonzales and Card to go to the hospital to see Ashcroft in person. Both the President and Card spoke to Mrs. Ashcroft to inform her of the impending meeting and advise her that it involved a matter of [[national security]]. Comey and Goldsmith heard about the situation and rushed to the hospital to intercept Gonzales and Card. Comey and Goldsmith watched as Gonzales asked Ashcroft to sign the reauthorization. Ashcroft stated that he did not appreciate them coming to see him under such circumstances, that he had serious concerns about the program, and that in any case Comey was the attorney general at that moment.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html?pagewanted=7</ref> Gonzales and Card then left.<ref>http://washingtonindependent.com/50380/the-inspector-generals-report-on-warrantless-surveillance</ref> Comey later stated, "I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501890.html</ref>
==Trivia==
* Albert Gonzales was voted the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1992.
* His Secret Service nickname is "Elephant", a reference to his uncanny ability to memorize obscure parts of United States law.

==External links==
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html Alberto R. Gonzales] The White House.

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gonzales, Alberto R.}}
[[Category:United States Attorneys General]]
[[Category:Attorneys]]

Benjamin Netanyahu

2017-01-01T23:05:09Z

Jesus'cunt:

[[Image:Netanyahu.jpg|right|Prime Minister Netanyahu|thumb]]
'''Benjamin Netanyahu''' (born October 21, 1949) is a [[conservative]] kike and Prime Minister of [[Israel]], who in 1997 negotiated a partial withdrawal by Israeli settlers from [[Hebron]], which is on the [[West Bank]].

His brother, Yonatan, was killed in 1976. Yonatan was the field commander of the raid on [[Entebbe]], an operation to free hostages of an Air France flight highjacked by Islamists. He was the only Israeli commando casualty of the operation.

==Early Life and Education==

Raised in [[Jerusalem]], Benjamin Netanyahu received his high school education in the United States when he moved with his parents to Cheltenham, [[Pennsylvania]], a suburb of [[Philadelphia]]. To this day Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks fluent English with an American accent. Even as an adult, he is often referred to as his boyhood nickname "Bibi".<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/02/20/idUSL8592809 FACTBOX-Five facts about Benjamin Netanyahu] Reuters, February 20, 2009</ref> Additionally, Netanyahu's father was a professor of Jewish history at [[Cornell University]]. He returned to Israel in 1967 and enlisted in the Israeli Defense Forces and participated in the Yom Kippur War, where he reached the rank of captain. Netanyahu would go on to continue to live in the United States when he received a Bachelor's degree in architecture from the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] in 1975, a Master's degree in business management from MIT, and would go on to study political science at MIT and [[Harvard University]]. Netanyahu joined Boston Consulting Group, an international business consulting firm and later senior management of Rim Industries in Jerusalem.

==Political career==

In 1979 and 1984 Mr. Netanyahu initiated two international conferences that emphasized the need to fight against terrorist organizations and regimes that provide them support. Members included Vice President [[George H.W. Bush]] and Secretary of State [[George Shultz]].<ref>http://www.zionism-israel.com/bio/Benjamin_Nethanyahu.htm</ref> After serving as deputy chief of mission at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, DC., he was appointed Israel's ambassador to the [[United Nations]]. During his tenure he fought for the declassification of the United Nations archives on crimes committed by [[Nazi]] [[Germany]].

==Prime Minister of Israel==

In 1988, Netanyahu returned to Israel and was elected as a member of the [[Knesset]], the legislator of Israel. During the 1991 [[Persian Gulf War]] Netanyahu was a member of Israeli delegation to the Madrid Peace Conference, which was the first direct negotiations between Israel and [[Syria]], [[Lebanon]], and a joint [[Jordanian]]-[[Palestinian]] delegation. In 1993, Netanyahu became chairman of the right-of-center Likud party. He was elected Israel's 9th Prime Minister in 1996 and sworn in after the approval of the Knesset. During his three-year term the number of terror attacks in Israel drastically decreased. On economics he governed as a free-market conservative, accelerated privatization of government-owned companies and reduced the budget deficit. By the time of Netanyahu's reelection he had alienated the political left, while also the political right for his negotiations with [[Yasser Arafat]] and the Palestinians. He was defeated in May 1999 by Ehud Barak.
[[Image:BenjaminNetanyahu452.jpg|right|Benjamin Netanyahu press conference, 02/20/09.|thumb]]
From 2003 through 2005 Netanyahu served as Finance Minister in the [[Ariel Sharon]] administration. He advocated policies that reduced government, strengthened the private sector, cut taxes, and privatized pensions. During his tenure [[unemployment]] dropped and the Israeli economy went from shrinking 1% to growing 4.2% in 2004.<ref>http://www.netanyahu.org/biography.html</ref> On February 10, 2009 legislative elections, the right-wing parties won a majority of seats in the Knesset, and they selected Netanyahu to serve a second term as Prime Minister. He was sworn in on March 13, 2009.

===Relations with the Obama Administration===
Netanyahu has had very poor relations with the leftist U.S. president [[Barack Obama]]. During the very tight and closely-watched 2015 elections, the Obama Administration attempted to influence the election—in order to elect a leftist government in the nation and defeat Netanyahu—by financing a liberal Israeli political organization.<ref>Klein, Aaron (July 13, 2016). [http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/07/13/israeli-lawmakers-fume-obama-administration-intervention-defeat-netanyahu/ Israeli Lawmakers Fume Over Obama Administration ‘Intervention’ to Defeat Netanyahu]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref> Netanyahu decisively won the election, despite opposition from left-wing world leaders.<ref>[http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-claims-victory-as-vote-count-shows-likud-further-ahead/ Netanyahu scores crushing victory in Israeli elections]. ''The Times of Israel''. March 18, 2015. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>

On December 23, 2016, Obama broke over 35 years of American policy by abstaining from a UN vote and allowing a blatantly anti-Israel resolution to pass, showing his true stance concerning Israel.<ref>[https://worldisraelnews.com/israel-fears-obama-will-strike/ Israel fears Obama will strike again]. ''World Israel News''. December 26, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref><ref>Berkowitz, Adam Eliyahu (December 26, 2016). [https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/80855/fed-up-with-obamas-trickery-netanyahu-takes-drastic-actions/#VbVlRMtkx4zLRc3f.97 Fed Up With United States Trickery, Netanyahu Takes Drastic Actions]. ''Breaking Israel News''. Retrieved December 26, 2016.</ref>

On December 28, 2016, just a few weeks before the [[Trump Administration]] was to take office and a few days after the leftist Obama Administration allowed an anti-[[Israel]] resolution to pass the [[United Nations|UN]] and break decades of policy, Kerry gave a major 72-minute<ref>Hanchett, Ian (December 28, 2016). [http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/28/nbcs-neely-kerry-speech-firing-a-flare-across-israel-he-wanted-to-give-it-for-some-time-but-wh-blocked-it/ NBC’s Neely: Kerry Speech ‘Firing a Flare’ ‘Across Israel’ He Wanted To Give It ‘For Some Time’ But WH Blocked It]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref> speech viciously attacking Israel and paying worthless lip-service to American "support" for the nation.<ref>Pollak, Joel B. (December 28, 2016). [http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/28/kerry-on-israel-peace-un-resolution/ Kerry Attacks Israeli Government, Defends UN Resolution]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref> Israeli Prime Minister [[Benjamin Netanyahu]] responded harshly but appropriately to the Administration's blatant betrayal.<ref>Key, Pam (December 28, 2016). [http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/12/28/netanyahu-i-must-express-my-deep-disappointment-with-john-kerry-israelis-do-not-need-to-be-lectured/ Netanyahu: ‘I Must Express My Deep Disappointment’ With Kerry — ‘Israelis Do Not Need To Be Lectured’]. ''Breitbart''. Retrieved December 28, 2016.</ref>

==2009 Speech at the United Nations==

On September 24, 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu blasted Iranian President [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]], a supporter of [[Islamic]] fundamentalism and is developing [[nuclear]] technology, possibly for nuclear weapons. The following is an excerpt from his speech.

"Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.
[[File:Netanyahu and wife with Obamas.jpg|thumb|left|Netanyahu and wife with Obama and Michelle at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, 2009.]]
Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world’s most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?" <ref>http://ironicsurrealism.blogivists.com/2009/09/24/transcript-israel-pm-benjamin-netanyahu-un-general-assembly-speech-9-24-09/</ref>

==Books by Netanyahu==
*''Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic And International Terrorism'' (Diane Pub Co, 1995). ISBN 0-7881-5514-8

*''A Durable Peace: Israel and Its Place Among the Nations'' (Warner Books, 1993 and 2000). ISBN 0-446-52306-2

== Quotes ==

*‎"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Px8YAQAAIAAJ&q=%E2%80%8E%22+If+the+Arabs+put+down+their+weapons+today,+there+would+be+no+more+violence.+If+the+Jews+put+down+their+weapons+today,+there+would+be+no+more+Israel+.%22&dq=%E2%80%8E%22+If+the+Arabs+put+down+their+weapons+today,+there+would+be+no+more+violence.+If+the+Jews+put+down+their+weapons+today,+there+would+be+no+more+Israel+.%22&hl=en&ei=O-4gTYeXI4a0lQew0tzXDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA The Bulletin, J. Haynes and J.F. Archibald, 2006]</ref>

==External links==
*[http://www.netanyahu.org.il/ Benjamin Netanyahu's blog]

==References==
{{reflist|}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Netanyahu, Benjamin}}

[[Category:Prime Ministers of Israel]]
[[Category:Current Heads of government]]

[[Category:Jewish People]]

Clarence Thomas

2017-01-01T23:03:33Z

Jesus'cunt:

{{Officeholder
|name=Clarence Thomas
|image=Thmas.jpg
|party=
|spouse=Kate Ambush Thomas (div.) Virginia Lamp Thomas
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/Supreme Court Justice
|role=Associate
|nominator=[[George H. W. Bush]]
|terms=October 19, 1991-present
|preceded=[[Thurgood Marshall]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
}}
'''Clarence Thomas''' (born 1948) is a smelly nigger who is somehow an [[Associate Justice]] of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. He was born in Savannah, [[Georgia]], which he often mentions in referencing his roots, such as in his book, ''My Grandfather's Son''. His most prominent decisions include his decision for the Court in favor of after-hours religious school clubs in ''[[Good News Club v. Milford Central School]]'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001), his decision for the 5-4 Court invalidating a federal government seizure of property as a violation of the [[Eighth Amendment]] in ''United States v. Bajakajian'', 524 U.S. 321, 324 (1998) and his stirring dissent from the 5-4 invalidation of term limits passed in an Arkansas referendum with respect to its congressmen, in ''[[U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton]]'', 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Justice Thomas is a leader on the Court in urging limits or elimination on incorporating the [[Establishment Clause]] against the States, because that clause was ratified as a federalist provision for protecting States against the new federal government.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow]]'', 542 U.S. 1, 45-46 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“[T]he Establishment Clause is a federalism provision, which, for this reason, resists incorporation.”); ''Zelman v. Simmons-Harris'', 536 U.S. 639, 677-680, and n. 3 (Thomas, J., concurring).</ref> He is also highly respected by legal scholars for adhering to an interpretation of the [[U.S. Constitution]] based on its original text, meaning and understanding, which has included limiting federal powers. His judicial doctrine finds no basis in the [[U.S. Constitution]] for [[abortion]], [[Roe v. Wade]], [[homosexual]] rights, federal interference with state sovereignty, the [[Dormant Commerce Clause]] and constitutional limits on punitive damages.

Thomas has a straightforward writing style that presents his principled approach in a clear manner and his judicial temperament is undisputed. He has an unblemished record of service on the Court since 1991 and has never had to recuse himself from a case due to activity off the bench or investments. Over the course of his distinguished career, he has trained more [[conservative]] law clerks than any other Justice.

== Early life ==
Thomas was born on June 23, 1948. His earliest stages of life were in [[Pinpoint]], [[Georgia]], until his mother took him and his younger brother, Myers Lee Thomas, to live in [[Savannah]]. However, his mother couldn't afford to take care of them, so she gave them to her father, Myers Anderson. Anderson raised them up on his farm, where Thomas and his brother were raised to be very hardworking.<ref>[[My Grandfather's Son]], by Clarence Thomas, 2007, pp. 1 - 13.</ref>

== Comparison with Justice Scalia ==
Thomas is most often compared to Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], both support overturning ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', both reject the existence of a [[Negative Commerce Clause]], both feel that the only restriction on how prisons treat inmates is what actually constitutes [[Cruel and Unusual Punishment]] under the [[Eighth Amendment]], and both support strong [[sovereign immunity]] for states by virtue of the [[Eleventh Amendment]].<ref>''[[Cent. Va. Cmty. College v. Katz]]'', 546 U.S. 356 (2006) (Thomas and Scalia, JJ., dissenting).</ref>

But these Justices have significant differences. Through the 2006-2007 term, Thomas had written 252 concurrences or dissents, of which Scalia had joined about 2/3rds. Conversely, Scalia had written 480 concurrences or dissents (he has served more years on the Court), of which Thomas had joined about half.

Thomas sided with [[free enterprise]] and wrote the opinion for the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Court]] in upholding an [[FCC]] rule that placed broadband cable services outside of the regulatory definition for "telecommunications service", despite how the [[FCC]] rejected a contrary ruling by a Court of Appeals.<ref>''[[Nat'l Cable and Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs.]]''</ref> Scalia dissented in a forceful manner, and thereby defended general judicial authority at the expense of [[free enterprise]].

Scalia typically rejects the use of legislative history more often than Thomas does. Scalia also rejects the important line of cases establishing a constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, ''see [[Pierce v. Society of Sisters]]'', while Thomas has not rejected that line of cases or a constitutional right of parents in some limited cases.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Troxel v. Granville]] (2000).</ref>

Thomas takes a broader view of state sovereignty over intrastate activities against encroachment by the federal government. In ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'', 545 U.S. 1 (2005), Thomas dissented from the Court opinion that upheld a federal law that interfered with California's legalization of marijuana for alleged medical purposes. In other words, Thomas felt that the federal government lacked the power to interfere with state sovereignty over this intrastate activity. Scalia, in contrast, joined the majority of the Court in upholding application of federal law to destroy marijuana plants grown lawfully under California law.

Thomas also has taken more [[conservative]] positions than Scalia has. Thomas alone embraced a [[conservative]] view of the [[Second Amendment]]. In ''[[Printz v. United States]]'', Thomas wrote a concurrence strongly suggesting a [[conservative]], individual-rights view of the [[Second Amendment]]. No other Justice on the Court joined that concurrence. Only Thomas has expressed disagreement with the "aggregation principle" used to expand [[federal]] power based on the [[Commerce Clause]].<ref>[[United States v. Lopez]], 514 U.S. 549, 600, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995) (concurring opinion).</ref>

Justices Thomas and Scalia differ on the issue of free speech and pornography. Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote in ''United States v. Playboy Entm't Group'', 529 U.S. 803 (2000), which rejected indecency regulation of cable television in part because "[t]he question is whether an actual problem has been proved in this case. We agree that the Government has failed to establish a pervasive, nationwide problem justifying its nationwide daytime speech ban."<ref>529 U.S. at 822-23.</ref> Scalia dissented, expressly his view that the government has broader powers under the [[First Amendment]] to regulate indecency on cable television.

Thomas again provided the key fifth vote in ''[[Ashcroft v. ACLU]]'', 542 U.S. 656 (2004), which invalidated as unconstitutional a federal law criminalizing the posting on a commercial website of pornography harmful to minors unless there were protections against access by minors. The 5-4 Court placed the burden on parents to keep their children away from pornographic sites, rather than allowing Congress to place the burden on pornographers to limit access to their sites. Scalia, Justice [[William Rehnquist]], Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] dissented.

Thomas tends to oppose government power more often than Scalia does. In a 5-4 decision written by Thomas, from which Scalia dissented, Thomas held that the [[United States]] was wrong to seize $357,144 in cash from a traveler simply because he failed to report it as required by law. Thomas, writing for the Court, held that such a forfeiture "would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the [[Eighth Amendment]] ... because full forfeiture of respondent's currency would be grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense."<ref>''United States v. Bajakajian'', 524 U.S. 321, 324 (1998).</ref>

Thomas is more likely than Scalia to enforce a statute that is wrong as a matter of policy, as Thomas is more likely to hold that [[Congress]] alone can fix its own law.<ref>''[[Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC]], Inc.'', 546 U.S. 164 (2006).</ref>

Thomas has called for ending a right of [[free speech]] for students in [[public school]], and stated his view that ''[[Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.]]'', 393 U.S. 503 (1969), "is without basis in the Constitution" and should be overruled.<ref>[[Morse v. Frederick]], 127 S. Ct. 2618, 2630 (2007) (Thomas, J., concurring).</ref> Neither Scalia nor any other [[conservative]] has yet supported this position of Thomas.

On the [[Negative Commerce Clause]], Thomas is more reliable than Scalia in defending state laws that discriminate against out-of-state companies. Thomas, for example, wrote the dissent in the 5-4 decision invalidating a Michigan law that limited shipments by out-of-state wineries.<ref>''[[Granholm v. Heald]]''</ref> Scalia split from Thomas and surprisingly joined the more [[liberal]] majority in that case, which was presented using the issue of the [[Negative Commerce Clause]] but then decided based on slightly different grounds.

On the issue of compelled speech, Thomas stronger than Scalia in defending a [[First Amendment]] right not to pay for something with which one disagrees:<ref>[[United States v. United Foods]], 533 U.S. 405, 418-19 (2001) (Thomas, J., concurring)</ref>
{{cquote|I write separately, however, to reiterate my views that "paying money for the purposes of advertising involves speech," and that "compelling speech raises a First Amendment issue just as much as restricting speech." Id. at 504 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Any regulation that compels the funding of advertising must be subjected to the most stringent First Amendment scrutiny.}}

Scalia did not join Thomas's concurrence above.

Justice Thomas favors reviving the "[[Privileges and Immunities Clause]]."

== Former Clerks ==
As a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice, Thomas has mentored over 60 clerks. They include:

*Laura Ingraham, [[conservative]] talk radio host<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lauraingraham.com/pg/jsp/general/aboutlaura.jsp;jsessionid=5436967F38FA6C73A4D5804B1F165ABE |title=About Laura Ingraham |work=[[Laura Ingraham]] }}</ref>
*Wendy Long, senior legal advisor and vice chair of [[Mitt Romney]]'s National Faith and Values Steering Committee<ref>{{cite web |last1=Rubin |first1=Jennifer |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080505233532/http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11799 |title=Judging Mitt |work=[[American Spectator]] |date=July 30, 2007 }}</ref>
*Professor Steven McAllister, [[University of Kansas]] School of Law

== Appointment to the United States Supreme Court ==
In 1991, upon the retirement of Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]], President [[George H.W. Bush]] nominated Thomas to fill the newly vacant seat. Supporters of [[abortion]] desperately opposed his nomination.

Radical [[leftist]]s attempted to block Thomas' nomination to the High Court through a persistent series of public [[guilt by association]] smears.<ref>[http://www.theroc.org/roc-mag/textarch/roc-07/roc07-13.htm ''A Few Facts About Clarence Thomas,''] Chip Berlet, Political Research Associates, Cambridge MA, 1997. [[Chip Berlet]] of [[Political Research Associates]] noted that Thomas was on the editorial board of the ''Lincoln Review'', a quarterly black conservative publication of the Lincoln Institute. Berlet issued a rather dubious ''ad hominem'' attack which claimed "it is a far right group that has worked in coalition with… fascist and anti-Semitic groups," and goes on to "link" Lincoln Institute head J. A. Baker with the Indiana Ku Klux Klan by virtue that Baker is on the board of the Council for National Policy and another board member is supposedly a former Klan member.</ref> Sen. [[Joseph Biden]] agreed to hold a series of [[racism|racially motivated]] hearings dubbed "the Anita Hill hearings" which have been described as a "high tech lynching for uppidy blacks."<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2yfARRF9Co Clarence Thomas Hearings: Biden Questions Thomas 1]</ref>

In a flagrant violation of the rules of the [[United States Senate|Senate]],<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/rr/law/nominations/thomas/debates.pdf Congressional Record -Senate, 102nd Congress, October 7, 1991], Vol 137, Part 18, p. 25706.</ref> staff members<ref>{{cite web |last1=Brock |first1=David |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150212132454/http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/153/articles/brock01.htm |title=''The Real Anita Hill'' |work=[[University of Iowa]] |date=March 1992 }}</ref> for a sitting [[Democratic]] member of the Judiciary Committee leaked a routine confidential FBI background report to [[Nina Totenberg]] of [[National Public Radio]] (NPR)<ref>[http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/92/1/thomas.asp The Clarence Thomas Hearings], by William Boot, ''Columbia Journalism Review'', January/February 1992.</ref> which contained a vicious defamatory smear intended to mar Thomas for life. The accusation was known to be false, and was concocted to publicly intimidate an African-American Republican from accepting an appointment to the nation's High Court, and derail his nomination. None of the allegations could be substantiated. The deliberate falsehoods did however persuade former [[Ku Klux Klan]] [[Democrat]]ic [[Senator]] [[Robert Byrd]] to change his vote from "yes" for confirmation to "no".

Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 52-48, which was at the time the narrowest confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee in history.

==Views on racism==
ABC News wrote:
{{cquote|He is adamantly opposed to [[affirmative action]], but for entirely different reasons than white conservatives who drive the debate by arguing it's unfair to white people. Thomas says affirmative action instead has hurt blacks. It not only sends them into environments in which they are doomed to struggle instead of soar, but it also perpetuates negative stereotypes that whites hold today that all blacks are inferior to them and don't belong — just as whites in the South assumed 50 years ago.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Greenberg |first1=Jan Crawford |url=http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3664143&page=2 |title=Clarence Thomas: A Silent Justice Speaks Out |work=[[ABC]] |date=September 30, 2007 }}</ref>}}

== Personal life ==
Clarence Thomas is married to [[Virginia Lamp Thomas]].

==See also==
* [[Colion Noir]], [[Alfonzo Rachel]], [[Alex Barron]], [[Sheriff]] [[David Clarke]], Dr. [[Ben Carson]], [[Alan Keyes]], [[Reginald Kaigler]] ([[Demcad]]), [[Thomas Sowell]], Clarence Thomas, Conservative [[African American|black]] pundits (See [[:Category:Black Conservatives|Black conservatives]] and [http://africanamericanconservatives.com/about/ AfricanAmericanConservatives.com])

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/clarence_thomas.html ''Clarence Thomas''], [[Real Clear Politics]], October 9, 2007
*[http://www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/imprimis_archive/2007/10/2007_10_Imprimis.pdf ''A Conversation with Justice Clarence Thomas''] - [[Hillsdale College]] interview with Justice Thomas conducted in his [[chambers]] at the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] in [[Washington, D.C.]], on September 19, 2007.

{{Supreme Court|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Thomas, Clarence}}

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Black Conservatives]]
[[Category:Black History]]
[[Category:Best Selling Authors]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Pro Second Amendment]]

Antonin Scalia

2017-01-01T23:02:05Z

Jesus'cunt:

{{Officeholder
|name=Antonin Scalia
|image=Antonin.jpg
|party=
|spouse=Maureen McCarthy Scalia
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/Supreme Court Justice
|role=Associate
|nominator=[[Ronald Reagan]]
|terms=September 26, 1986-February 13, 2016
|preceded=William H. Rehnquist
|former=n
|succeeded=vacant pending nomination
}}
}}
'''Antonin "Nino" Scalia''' (March 11, 1936 – February 13, 2016) was a filty and morbidly obese wop who joined the U.S. [[Supreme Court]] as an Associate Justice in 1986, and quickly became its most outspoken [[conservative]] jurist. He filled a vacancy created by the retirement of Chief Justice [[Warren Burger]] and nomination of Associate Justice [[William Rehnquist]] to become Chief Justice. President [[Ronald Reagan]] nominated Scalia at the same time that he nominated Rehnquist for Chief Justice, and most opposition in the [[United States Senate|Senate]] focused all their opposition on the Rehnquist nomination. Scalia was confirmed by unanimous vote, while Rehnquist was confirmed over substantial opposition. Scalia's unexpected vacancy then sparked national opposition to [[Obama]] filling it.

Justice Scalia was more outspoken off the court than on it, where he was typically silent in the denial of conservative petitions for certiorari,<ref>Justice Scalia has written dissents from denials of cert only about three times in the past decade, a rate of less than 1 in 20,000 cert denials.</ref> and he often joins liberal colleagues in opinions.<ref>Scalia's off-the-court commentary has caused problems for himself, as when ''pro se'' litigant Dr. Michael Newdow successfully filed a motion that led to Justice Scalia recusing himself from Newdow's challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. [supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-1624/03-7.recuse.pdf]</ref> Scalia once quipped about himself to the media, "Ah yes, esteemed jurist by day, man about town by night."<ref>http://www.oyez.org/justices/antonin_scalia/</ref> Scalia's written dissents were sometimes scathing, as in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'', in ridicule of the Court opinion written by the less [[conservative]] Republican-appointed Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]].

Justice Scalia was the author, with the support of three liberal Justices, of the 5-4 decision declaring the sale of extremely violent [[video games]] to children to be a right of free speech under the [[First Amendment]], which no law can limit. He is more likely than Justices Alito or Thomas to join [[liberal]] Justices in a non-[[conservative]] ruling, and vice-versa. In one of the biggest cases of the 2013-2014 Term, ''Harris v. Quinn'', Justice Scalia's hostile questioning of the conservative side at oral argument implied that he was the least willing among conservatives to support a decision to end mandatory membership dues for public sector unions, which would have reduced liberal political power enormously. Scalia also agrees with liberals in arguing that the Constitution is somehow too difficult to amend.

==Early life==
Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey, the only child to Salvatore Eugene Scalia and Catherine Panaro Scalia.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=eb9x3GHuLdIC&pg=PA1 The Political Thought of Justice Antonin Scalia: A Hamiltonian on the Supreme Court]</ref>

== Legal Philosophy==
Justice Scalia advocated a judicial philosophy of "[[textualism]]" or "[[originalism]]" (original meaning) in interpreting the [[United States Constitution|U.S. Constitution]] and federal [[statute]]s. He opposed speculation about the intent of the drafters and the view that the Court must interpret the language figuratively. In speeches and legal writings, Justice Scalia emphasized the "Rule of Law."<ref>Scalia, "The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules," 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175</ref>

Some mistake Justice Scalia's philosophy as "strict constructionism." But Justice Scalia was '''''not''''' a [[strict constructionist]] as, for example, [[Thomas Jefferson]] was. A strict constructionist applies constitutional provisions narrowly, but Justice Scalia has criticized that approach. Instead, Justice Scalia applies several provisions of the Constitution very broadly, such as the [[First Amendment]] (to protect flag-burning) and the [[Sixth Amendment]] (to protect a right to cross-examine even a lab technician if he performed [[DNA]] analysis).

Many of Scalia's opinions reflect a view that the Court needs to be predictable to lawmakers. His administrative opinions express a commitment to a transparent judiciary over excessive formalism, and a strong wish to "clear the brush" out of confusing doctrines. His dissents in jurisprudence such as [[Roe v. Wade]] and its progeny often point out logical inconsistencies and doctrinal missteps taken by other members of the Court to reach their desired end.

===Living Constitution===
Scalia was generally an opponent to the concept of a [[Living and breathing constitution]]. He would sometimes give outbursts of frustration that the [[Constitution]] is "dead".<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90011526 Scalia Vigorously Defends a 'Dead' Constitution], [[NPR]]</ref>

However, at talk at [[Princeton University]], Scalia explained that the Constitution is not living nor dead, but rather it is enduring.<ref>[https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S35/52/39O50/index.xml?section=featured Scalia favors 'enduring,' not living, Constitution]</ref> He described the Constitution that way on a routine basis.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1997/05/23/a-speechless-scalia-puts-unlikely-spin-on-his-conservatism/3827dda8-f695-429e-ad13-3c9ec244ccb1/ A Speechless Scalia Puts Unlikely 'Spin' On His Conservatism], [[Washington Post]]</ref>

== Opinions ==
Justice Scalia was best known for his dissents, in which his colorful and forceful style highlights weaknesses in his colleagues' decisions. He staunchly opposed the notion of an "evolving" Constitution, which other justices have used to justify decisions not grounded in the text of the Constitution (see [[Responsive interpretation]] for discussion of different legal theories). For example, when the Court held that the Constitution prohibits imposing the death penalty for any crime committed by someone under 18 years of age, Scalia was scathing in dissent:<ref>''Roper v. Simmons'', 543 U.S. 551, 607-08 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citations omitted. emphasis added)</ref>

:In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since "[t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." '''Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years--not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed.''' The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency," of our national society.

Quintessential writing by Justice Scalia is found in his concurrence to ''[[Ring v. Arizona]]'', which is colorful and entertaining and, some might say, self-absorbed:

:On the other hand, as I wrote in my dissent in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 248, 140 L. Ed. 2d 350, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), and as I reaffirmed by joining the opinion for the Court in Apprendi, I believe that the fundamental meaning of the jury-trial guarantee of the Sixth Amendment is that all facts essential to imposition of the level of punishment that the defendant receives -- whether the statute calls them elements of the offense, sentencing factors, or Mary Jane -- must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

:The quandary is apparent: Should I continue to apply the last-stated principle when I know that the only reason the fact is essential is that this Court has mistakenly said that the Constitution requires state law to impose such "aggravating factors"? ... But even if the point had been put with greater clarity in Walton, I think I still would have approved the Arizona scheme -- I would have favored the States' freedom to develop their own capital sentencing procedures (already erroneously abridged by Furman) over the logic of the Apprendi principle.

:Since Walton, I have acquired new wisdom that consists of two realizations -- or, to put it more critically, have discarded old ignorance ...

:I add one further point, lest the holding of today's decision be confused by the separate concurrence. JUSTICE BREYER, who refuses to accept Apprendi, see 530 U.S. at 555 (BREYER, J., dissenting); see also Harris v. United States, ante, 536 U.S. 545, 153 L. Ed. 2d 524, 122 S. Ct. 2406, p. , 536 U.S. 545, 153 L. Ed. 2d 524, 122 S. Ct. 2406 (BREYER, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), nonetheless concurs in today's judgment because he "believes that jury sentencing in capital cases is mandated by the Eighth Amendment." Post, at 1 (opinion concurring in judgment). While I am, as always, pleased to travel in JUSTICE BREYER's company, the unfortunate fact is that today's judgment has nothing to do with jury sentencing. What today's decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor existed. Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so -- by requiring a prior jury finding of aggravating factor in the sentencing phase or, more simply, by placing the aggravating-factor determination (where it logically belongs anyway) in the guilt phase. There is really no way in which JUSTICE BREYER can travel with the happy band that reaches today's result unless he says yes to Apprendi. Concisely put, JUSTICE BREYER is on the wrong flight; he should either get off before the doors close, or buy a ticket to Apprendi-land.

In another case, Justice Scalia wrote a forceful limitation on [[stare decisis]] in a concurrence and dissent in ''[[FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.]], 127 S. Ct. 2652, 2674 (2007), and persuaded Justices [[Anthony Kennedy]] and [[Clarence Thomas]] to join it.<ref>See [[stare decisis]] for the quotation.</ref> In it Justice Scalia chastised Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] for not overruling precedent.

Justice Scalia had been less successful in forging majorities of his own on the Court, and has rarely written an important majority opinion for the Court. This may have been be due to the tendency for Chief Justice Rehnquist to assign key decisions to himself to draft.<ref>''See, e.g.'', key 5-4 opinions written by Chief Justice Rehnquist in ''United States v. Morrison'', 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (invaliding federal law over domestic violence based on federalism); ''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (holding that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right not to allow openly homosexual scout leaders).</ref> Chief Justice [[John Roberts]], who replaced Rehnquist, also seems to be keeping the key decisions for himself to write.<ref>''Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.'', 547 U.S. 47 (2006)</ref>

However, Justice Scalia did obtain broad support for a remarkable decision in ''[[Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council]]'', 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), in which he applied the [[Takings Clause]] and required compensation of a property owner based merely on a regulatory taking rather than an actual physical intrusion by the government. Justice Scalia also wrote an important 5-4 opinion for the Court in ''[[Alexander v. Sandoval]]'', 532 U.S. 275 (2000), that denied a right if private individuals to sue to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Scalia also wrote an impressive 7-2 opinion for the Court in affirming strong associational rights of political parties in preventing blanket primaries or crossover voting in primaries, in ''[[California Democratic Party v. Jones]]'', 530 U.S. 567 (2000).

Justice Scalia wrote the oft-cited Court opinion in ''[[R.A.V. v. St. Paul]]'', 505 U.S. 377 (1992), which enjoyed 5-4 support though the verdict was unanimous. Justice Scalia also wrote the 7-2 Court opinion in ''[[Crawford v. Washington]]'', 541 U.S. 36 (2004), in which he applied the [[Confrontation Clause]] to exclude an out-of-court statement by a witness who did not testify in court (because of the spousal privilege) against her defendant husband.

Justice Scalia has been a consistent supporter of [[federalism]], and in ''[[Printz v. United States]]'' (1997) he wrote the 5-4 opinion that invalidated certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, commanding state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks.

In the dissent for [[Obergefell v. Hodges]], Scalia wrote:
{{cquote|So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.}}

== Opposition to Balancing Tests ==

Justice Scalia was against judicial use of balancing tests. "It is more like judging whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy," he remarked in one of his early dissents.<ref>''Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc.'', 486 U.S. 888, 897 (1988).</ref>

In criminal matters, Justice Scalia's opposition to balancing tests and preference for bright-line rules has influenced the Court on these issues:

*adherence to the [[Confrontation Clause]] in excluding out-of-court testimonial statements<ref>''Davis v. Washington'', 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006).</ref>
*invalidation of mandatory [[Sentencing Guidelines]]<ref>''United States v. Booker'', 543 U.S. 220 (2005).</ref>
*interference with a right to counsel requires overturning the conviction.<ref>U''nited States v. Gonzalez-Lopez'', 126 S. Ct. 2557 (2006).</ref>

== Influence on Narrowing Standing ==

Perhaps Justice Scalia's most frequently cited opinion for the Court is ''Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife'', 504 U.S. 555 (1992), in which he narrowed standing by organizations to challenge regulations (in that case, a regulation related to the [[Endangered Species Act]]). Many organizations still do sue successfully in challenging regulations, but the ''Lujan'' decision provides grounds for dismissing such lawsuits. Justice Scalia was unable to persuade a majority of the Court to join a part of his decision that would have established an additional reason for dismissing such lawsuits: lack of redressability.

== [[Separation of Powers]] ==

Justice Scalia emphasized a strict [[separation of powers]] among the branches of government, and even teaches a seminar on this topic. In contrast, Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] advocates more interplay between the branches of government.

== Non-Conservative Positions ==

Justice Scalia provided the pivotal fifth vote for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] to hold that there is a [[First Amendment]] right to burn the American Flag.<ref>[[Texas v. Johnson]] (1989)</ref>

Justice Scalia defers to the democratic majority on issues of compelled speech and religious freedom, subjecting the rights of the political minority to the power of the political majority. Examples include:

*In ''[[Employment Div. v. Smith]]'', Justice Scalia held that religious minorities have no right to religious practices prohibited by the democratic majority, unless another constitutional right is implicated by the ban.

*In ''[[Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass'n]]'', Justice Scalia declared that "[w]e have generally assumed, though not yet squarely held, that compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns"<ref>544 U.S. 550, 559 (2005).</ref>—in other words, the democratic majority can compel government speech by the political minority.

On parental rights, unlike most [[conservatives]] Justice Scalia opposes the principle that parents have a constitutional right to the upbringing and education of their children. Specifically, Justice Scalia has indicated his disagreement with the leading precedent in favor of parental rights to control the education of their children, ''[[Pierce v. Society of Sisters]]''. Specifically:

*In ''[[Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist.]]'', 127 S. Ct. 1994 (2007), Justice Scalia (and Justice Thomas) did not join the Court's reliance on ''Pierce'' in allowing [[pro se]] parents to litigate claims for their children under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
*In ''[[Troxel v. Granville]]'', 530 U.S. 57, 91-92 (2000), Justice Scalia wrote a two paragraph dissent (not joined by Justice Thomas):<ref>[http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZD1.html]</ref>
::In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims "all Men ... are endowed by their Creator." And in my view that right is also among the "other [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage." The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution's refusal to "deny or disparage" other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people. Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the state has no power to interfere with parents' authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.

::Only three holdings of this Court rest in whole or in part upon a substantive constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children 1 -- two of them from an era rich in substantive due process holdings that have since been repudiated. ''See'' ''[[Meyer v. Nebraska]]'', 262 U.S. 390'', 399, 401, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923);'' Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925); ''Wisconsin v. Yoder'', 406 U.S. 205, 232-233, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972). ''Cf.'' ''West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish'', 300 U.S. 379, 81 L. Ed. 703, 57 S. Ct. 578 (1937) (overruling ''[[Adkins v. Children's Hospital|Adkins v. Children's Hospital of D.C.]]'', 261 U.S. 525, 67 L. Ed. 785, 43 S. Ct. 394 (1923)). The sheer diversity of today's opinions persuades me that the theory of unenumerated parental rights underlying these three cases has small claim to stare decisis protection. A legal principle that can be thought to produce such diverse outcomes in the relatively simple case before us here is not a legal principle that has induced substantial reliance. While I would not now overrule those earlier cases (that has not been urged), neither would I extend the theory upon which they rested to this new context.

*In ''United States v. Carlton'', 512 U.S. 26, 40-41 (1994), Justice Scalia concurred separately and added this paragraph (joined by Justice Thomas):
::I cannot avoid observing, however, two stark discrepancies between today's due process reasoning and the due process reasoning the Court applies to its identification of new so-called fundamental rights, such as the right to structure family living arrangements, see ''Moore v. East Cleveland'', 431 U.S. 494, 52 L. Ed. 2d 531, 97 S. Ct. 1932 (1977) (plurality opinion), and the right to an abortion, see ''Roe v. Wade'', 410 U.S. 113, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973). First and most obviously, where respondent's claimed right to hold onto his property is at issue, the Court upholds the tax amendment because it rationally furthers a legitimate interest; whereas when other claimed rights that the Court deems fundamental are at issue, the Court strikes down laws that concededly promote legitimate interests, id., at 150, 162. Secondly, when it is pointed out that the Court's retroactive-tax ruling today is inconsistent with earlier decisions, ''see, e.g.'', ''Nichols v. Coolidge'', 274 U.S. 531, 71 L. Ed. 1184, 47 S. Ct. 710 (1927); ''Blodgett v. Holden'', 275 U.S. 142, 72 L. Ed. 206, 48 S. Ct. 105 (1927); ''Untermyer v. Anderson'', 276 U.S. 440, 72 L. Ed. 645, 48 S. Ct. 353 (1928), the Court dismisses those cases as having been "decided during an era characterized by exacting review of economic legislation under an approach that 'has long since been discarded.'" ''Ante'', at 34, quoting ''Ferguson v. Skrupa'', 372 U.S. 726, 730, 10 L. Ed. 2d 93, 83 S. Ct. 1028 (1963). But economic legislation was not the only legislation subjected to "exacting review" in those bad old days, and one wonders what principled reason justifies "discarding" that bad old approach only as to that category. For the Court continues to rely upon "exacting review" cases of the Nichols-Blodgett-Untermyer vintage for its due process "fundamental rights" jurisprudence. ''See, e.g.'', ''Roe'', 410 U.S. at 152-153, 159 (citing ''Meyer v. Nebraska'', 262 U.S. 390, 399, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923), and ''Pierce v. Society of Sisters'', 268 U.S. 510, 535, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925)); see also ''Griswold v. Connecticut'', 381 U.S. 479, 483, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965) ("We reaffirm the principle of the ''Pierce'' and the ''Meyer'' cases").

Justice Scalia wrote a strident dissent in ''[[Sell v. United States]]'' (2003), in which he supported allowing the government to forcibly medicate a never-convicted defendant with mind-altering drugs, and without a right of direct appeal of such decision. [[Conservative]] groups in the case opposed such far-reachin with Justice Scalia by a 6-3 vote and blocked the forced medication in that case.

Justice Scalia surprisingly joined a more [[liberal]] group in striking down state restrictions on the direct shipment of wine by out-of-state wineries. In ''Granholm v. Heald'' (2005), Justice Scalia rejected numerous [[conservative]] amicus briefs and declined to join the opinion of Justice Thomas, and instead provided the pivotal 5th vote to interpreting the [[Commerce Clause]] as prohibiting state limitations on interstate wine shipments, despite the [[Twenty-First Amendment]] and a federal statute granting authority to states over alcohol.

In cases concerning the [[Bill of Rights]], Justice Scalia has switched to the [[liberal]] side, perhaps attracted by the opportunity to write the opinion for the Court in a high-profile case:

*Justice Scalia sided with the [[liberal]] wing of the court in prohibiting the use of heat-seeking sensors to detect marijuana plants growing in a house, in the absence of a warrant. He assigned himself that decision to write for the 5-4 Court. ''[[Kyllo v. United States]]'', 533 U.S. 27 (2001).

*Justice Scalia crossed over the [[liberal]] side in order to overturn a conviction of a defendant based his inability to obtain representation by the counsel of his choice. The four [[conservative]] Justices dissented from Justice Scalia's decision. ''[[United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez]]'', 126 S. Ct. 2557 (2006).

*In a case deciding the right of private property against a taking by government, Justice Scalia declined to join the [[conservative]] Justices and provide a much-needed fifth vote to overturn ''Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City'', 473 U.S. 172 (1985), which requires property owners who assert a [[Fifth Amendment]] takings claim based on the final decision of a state or local government entity to first seek compensation in state courts. ''See'' ''[[San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco]]'', 545 U.S. 323 (2005).

== Increasing Influence ==

After serving more than two decades on the Court, Justice Scalia's first major decision was in ''D.C. v. Heller'', where he held together a narrow 5-4 decision in favor of an individual right to bear arms. During the tenure of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], Rehnquist tended to assign key decisions to himself to draft.<ref>''See, e.g.'', key 5-4 opinions written by Chief Justice Rehnquist in ''United States v. Morrison'', 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (invaliding federal law over domestic violence based on federalism); ''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (holding that the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right not to allow openly homosexual scout leaders).</ref> Chief Justice [[John Roberts]], who replaced Rehnquist, also seems to be keeping the key decisions for himself to write.<ref>''Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.'', 547 U.S. 47 (2006)</ref>

When major cases have been assigned to Justice Scalia, some 5-vote majorities have proven elusive. For example, Justice Scalia was assigned to write the opinion for the Court in ''Rapanos v. United States'', 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006), one of the most important environmental cases in years. However, Justice Kennedy refused to join Justice Scalia's opinion and thus it lacked a majority and was unable to establish a meaningful precedent. In another leading case, ''Employment Div. v. Smith'', 485 U.S. 660 (1988), Justice Scalia was supported by a majority of the Court but wrote an opinion that was widely criticized by both [[conservatives]] and [[liberals]]. They joined to reverse Scalia's decision with a statute passed by Congress.

Sometimes Justice Scalia has occasionally disappointed [[conservatives]] in ruling contrary to expectations, typically in low-profile cases. In an issue presented to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] about whether a Michigan limitation on direct shipment of wine into the state from other states was a violation of the [[dormant Commerce Clause]], Justice Scalia's emphatic opposition to the [[dormant Commerce Clause]] would presumably lead him to uphold the Michigan law. ''[[Granholm v. Heald]]''. Instead, he broke with Justices [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[William Rehnquist]] and provided the 5th vote for a majority opinion written by Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] invalidating the law on a slightly different rationale. Justice Scalia has also been hostile to [[conservative]] attorneys who have appeared before him, as in the cases of ''Owasso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Falvo'' and ''Office of Independent Counsel v. Favish''.

Sometimes Justice Scalia failed to join an opinion as expected, as when he failed to join Justice Thomas's dissent emphasizing statutory textualism in dissenting from Justice [[Stephen Breyer]]'s majority decision in ''[[Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing]]''.

Justice Scalia can be harshest on his allies, with questionable effect. In opinions he was highly critical of Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and [[Anthony Kennedy]], and more recently Justice Scalia has been critical of Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] for not expressly overruling an incorrect precedent.

Justice Scalia often cited his work in his opinions. For example, in Justice Scalia's dissent in the [[Establishment Clause]] case of ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), Justice Scalia cited six of his prior concurrences and dissents, and one of his own law review articles (Scalia dissenting opinion was that the government may favor religion over [[Atheism|irreligion]]).

==Death==
Scalia died unexpectedly on Feb 13, 2016, apparently in his sleep, after indicating that he was not feeling well. He was staying at a ranch less than hour from the Mexican border.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/02/13/inside-cibolo-creek-ranch-the-luxury-resort-where-scalia-died/</ref>

To honor his memory, [[George Mason University]] will name its law school after him.

== Former Clerks ==

As a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice, Scalia has mentored over 80 clerks. They include:

:Patrick Schiltz, U.S. District Judge in Minnesota (confirmed 2006)
:Mark Filip, U.S. District Judge in Illinois (confirmed 2004)
:Jeffrey Sutton, U.S. appellate judge for the Sixth Circuit (confirmed 2003)
:Solicitor General [[Paul Clement]], appointed interim [[Attorney General]] in 2007
:Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

== See also ==

*[http://www.libertylawsite.org/2016/02/18/symposium-on-justice-scalia/ Symposium on Justice Scalia]

==Further reading==
* Biskupic, Joan. ''American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia'' (2009) [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/books/review/Rosen-t.html?nl=books&emc=booksupdateema3 online review]
* Brisbin, Jr., Richard A. ''Justice Antonin Scalia and the Conservative Revival'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Justice-Antonin-Scalia-Conservative-Revival/dp/0801860946/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262671822&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Rossum, Ralph A. ''Antonin Scalia's Jurisprudence: Text And Tradition'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Antonin-Scalias-Jurisprudence-Text-Tradition/dp/0700614478/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262671822&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Scalia, Antonin. ''Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice'' ed. by Kevin A. Ring(2004)

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Supreme Court|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Scalia, Antonin}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

God

2017-01-01T23:00:52Z

Jesus'cunt:

''This article is about the biblical God. For the term as used to refer to any divine being, see [[Other gods]]''
[[Image:Alphaomega.jpg|thumb|200px|God is the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the beginning and the ending <ref>Revelation 22:13</ref>]]
{{cquote|'''Genesis 1:1''' In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.}}
{{trinity}}'''God''' is the fairy tale a few retarded subhumans came up with a few thousand years ago. The cunts who run this site, including Assfly, Ken Demyer, Anger Bear, Jpratt, and their butt buddies, still believe in it, and dildo themselves to screaming orgasms imagining its existence.

== God is Revealed: How we know about God ==

Other than creation itself, God is revealed in several ways, including [[theological correlates]], conscience, and special revelation (the [[Bible]], and prophets). Most importantly though, God is revealed in [[Jesus Christ]], who is the Son of God.

[[File:Mezquita Catedral Cordoba.jpg|frame|center|[[Cathedral]] Cordoba, Spain.]]

== Attributes or Character of God ==
[[File:Rembrandt Ascension.jpg|thumb|[[Rembrandt]], Ascension.]]
The attributes of God are things that describe who He is. Similar to the way one might describe a close friend to another individual, so too do these attributes describe God's character and nature. Attributes of God include but are not limited to [[Wisdom]], [[Infinitude]], [[Sovereignty]], [[Holiness]], [[Trinity]], [[Omniscience]], [[Faithfulness]], [[Love]], [[Omnipotence]], Self-existence, Self-sufficiency, [[Justice]], [[Immutability]], [[Mercy]], [[Eternal]], [[Goodness]], Gracious, and [[Omnipresence]]. These attributes all work in complete and perfect harmony with one another.

God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in [[hell]], because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely [[Sin]]. According to the [[Bible]], the sacrifice of [[Jesus Christ]] on the cross of [[calvary]] and then [[resurrection]], is God's merciful and gracious response to the problem of the human heart.

=== God is Triune ===
{{main|Trinity}}

Although the Bible does not use the term, it is clear that God is a triune God, or three in one.
These are sometimes referred to as ''God the Father'', ''God the Son'' ([[Jesus Christ|Jesus]]), and the ''[[Holy Spirit]]''.

The first hint of the Trinity is in {{Bible ref|Genesis|1|26}} which relates God saying, "Let us make man in our image", indicating that God is a plurality.

The three persons of God are treated as equivalents in these words of Jesus shortly after His resurrection:
{{Bible quote|Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.|book=Matthew|chap=28|verses=19|version=NIV}}

==== Jesus is God ====
[[Image:Pieta.jpg|thumb|270px|[[Pieta]], [[Michelangelo]].]]

The first verse of the [[Gospel of John]], in which Jesus is referred to as the "Word", makes clear that Jesus is synonymous with God:
{{Bible quote|In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.|book=John|chap=1|verses=1|version=NIV}}
This verse not only says that "the Word" (Jesus) is synonymous with God, but also says that the Word was "in the beginning", which means that He existed before all else existed, something that is only true of God.

This is reinforced two verses later, in which Jesus is described as the creator.
[[Genesis]] refers to God as being the Creator.
{{Bible quote|Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.|book=John|chap=1|verses=3|version=NIV}}

==== The Holy Spirit is God ====

In the following passage, the [[Holy Spirit]] is referred to as God:
{{Bible quote|Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."|book=Acts|chap=5|verses=3-4|version=NIV}}

=== God is omniscient ===
{{main|omniscience}}

God knows everything:
{{Bible quote|This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.|book=1_John|chap=3|verses=19-20|version=NIV}}

Because God is outside of [[time]], He can see and knows the [[past]] and the [[future]] as well as the present.

== "God" sometimes used to refer to God the Father ==
[[Image:Velasco Padre Eterno.jpg|thumb|left|180px|God the Father by [[Jose Maria Velasco]] (1840-1912).]]
In the Bible, the word "God" (θεός) does not always refer to God's being as a whole, but more specifically refers to the Person of the Father (God the Father). Here are some verses which demonstrate this:
{{cquote|'''John 3:16''' (NASB) For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.}}
{{cquote|'''1 John 4:10''' (NASB) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.}}
Notice how in each case, "Father" can be substituted for "God." For example, "For the ''Father'' so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son," and "not that we loved the ''Father'', but that He loved us and sent His Son."
{{Clear}}

== Terminology ==

The Bible uses several different words to refer to God.
"God" itself is not a name, but an [[Old English]] word meaning ''supreme being, diety'',<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god God] Online Etymology Dictionary.</ref> which the translators who translated the Bible in to English chose as the appropriate English word for the [[Hebrew]] ''elohim'' and the [[Greek]] ''theos'' used in the [[Old Testament]] and [[New Testament]] respectively.<ref name="DPK">Kruse, Dale P.,[http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-9.htm More on the ''Names'' of God In the Bible], Advanced Training Program of Evangelism.</ref>

The other main term for God is the Hebrew ''adonai'', usually translated ''Lord''.
There are various compound words also used in the Bible, such as ''el shaddai'', which means ''God Almighty'' ("''el''" is a short version of ''elohim'').<ref name="DPK" />

''YHWH'' is given in the Bible as God's actual name. In most English Bibles it is translated as ''Lord'', in small capitals. The name has various other English versions, including Yehovah, Jehovah, and Yahweh.<ref>McHyde, Tim, [http://www.escapeallthesethings.com/yahweh.htm God’s Name: LORD, Yahweh, Yahveh, YHWH, YHVH, Jehovah or Yehovah?]</ref>
== Resources on becoming a Christian ==
[[File:Hoffman Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.jpg|thumbnail|170px||Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane by Heinrich Hofmann.]]

''see also:'' [[Resources on becoming a Christian]]

'''Below are some resources on becoming a [[Christian]]:'''

*[http://www.jesusfilm.org/film-and-media/watch-the-film Jesus film - free access]

*[http://www.thewordfortoday.org/?page=C2000 Free audio Bible and Bible audio streaming]

*[http://www.gotquestions.org/repentance.html Repentance]

*[http://www.allaboutgod.com/ AllAboutGod.com]

*[[Video testimonies of Christians]]

'''Tips on choosing a Christian church:'''

*[http://www.allaboutreligion.org/choosing-a-christian-church-faq.htm Choosing a Christian Church]

'''Spiritual growth as a Christian:'''

*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9781576839324/The-Pursuit-of-Holiness-Jerry-Bridges The Pursuit of Holiness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9780891099413/The-Practice-of-Godliness-Jerry-Bridges The Practice of Godliness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/529785.The_Complete_Book_of_Discipleship The Complete Book of Discipleship: On Being and Making Followers of Christ]

==See also==
*[[Other gods]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]
*[[Bible Art Gallery]]

== References ==
{{Reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.theopedia.com/God Theopedia - God]
*[http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/god.html ChristianAnswers.net - God]
*[http://wikible.org/en/God Wikible.org - God]
*[http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/is-there-a-god Opposing Views: Is There a God?]

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]