Justice Scalia makes historic speech

[kroz]

Supreme Court Justice Scalia challenges the concept of religious neutrality.....


METAIRIE, La. (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country's constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.

Scalia was speaking at a Catholic high school in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana. Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is the court's longest serving justice. He has consistently been one of the court's more conservative members.

He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

"To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"

He also said there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.

http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-dismisses-concept-religious-neutrality-speech-202953789.html

[carlb]

We've strayed far and we're paying a heavy price.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and libtards and muslims will gladly fill that vacuum.

[red_dirt]

He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence."To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"
He also said there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.
http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-dismisses-concept-religious-neutrality-speech-202953789.html

Took him long enough to get to the point; but, he did make it, and made it well.

[supsalemgr]

Supreme Court Justice Scalia challenges the concept of religious neutrality.....


METAIRIE, La. (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday the idea of religious neutrality is not grounded in the country's constitutional traditions and that God has been good to the U.S. exactly because Americans honor him.

Scalia was speaking at a Catholic high school in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie, Louisiana. Scalia, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 is the court's longest serving justice. He has consistently been one of the court's more conservative members.

He told the audience at Archbishop Rummel High School that there is "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state must be neutral between religion and its absence.

"To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from?" he said. "To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another but can't favor religion over non-religion?"

He also said there is "nothing wrong" with the idea of presidents and others invoking God in speeches. He said God has been good to America because Americans have honored him.

http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-dismisses-concept-religious-neutrality-speech-202953789.html

He has been consistently conservative. We need about three more justices like him.

[Justaguy]

Non-religion IS a religion.  Faith in the absence of a deity is still faith.

I just wish there was one protestant in the country that was smart enough to sit on the supreme court.

[keyboarder]

He has been consistently conservative. We need about three more justices like him.

Exactly!

[kroz]

Non-religion IS a religion.  Faith in the absence of a deity is still faith.

I just wish there was one protestant in the country that was smart enough to sit on the supreme court.

That would definitely be Ted Cruz!!!   Brilliant evangelical.

[Voldemort]

Non-religion IS a religion.  Faith in the absence of a deity is still faith.

This is a specious argument. That is like not believing in Santa Claus is still a "belief". I have nothing against religion (unless said religion insists I either convert or die), but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. It is incumbent upon the person who believes in the supernatural, to prove its existence. It is not the duty of the person who does not believe in it to disprove its existence, as it is nearly impossible to prove a negative.

I just wish there was one protestant in the country that was smart enough to sit on the supreme court.

Are you sure that is what you want? There are plenty of smart Liberal protestants out there. I would prefer a person , who regardless of their faith, believes in and swears to defend the Constitution of the United States and not "legislate from the Bench".

[red_dirt]

Non-religion IS a religion.  Faith in the absence of a deity is still faith.
I just wish there was one protestant in the country that was smart enough to sit on the supreme court.

Sixty per cent Protestant country being ruled by One World Order Catholics through national socialism. What could go wrong?

[carlb]

Non-religion IS a religion.  Faith in the absence of a deity is still faith.

I just wish there was one protestant in the country that was smart enough to sit on the supreme court.

Mike Lee has come up in a Cruz Administration.  There are many.

BTW, you think too much of those on the Court today.  Those appointed lately are embarrassing.

[keyboarder]

Mike Lee has come up in a Cruz Administration.  There are many.

BTW, you think too much of those on the Court today.  Those appointed lately are embarrassing.

I'll go a bit further on the last ones appointed.  They're evil.   

[supsalemgr]

I'll go a bit further on the last ones appointed.  They're evil.   

Maybe Ginsburg and Breyer recognize how Obama's appointments are so bad they are waiting until he is gone. I am still puzzled why they have not retired with a democrat in the WH.

[kroz]

Maybe Ginsburg and Breyer recognize how Obama's appointments are so bad they are waiting until he is gone. I am still puzzled why they have not retired with a democrat in the WH.

They still have time!  I predict that Obama will get one more nominee.

And RINO Lindsay Graham will continue to argue that every President has a right to get their nominees approved by the Senate.   

Will someone please ask him WHY the Founders bothered to require the Senate confirmation????

[je_freedom]

Maybe Ginsburg and Breyer recognize how Obama's appointments are so bad they are waiting until he is gone. I am still puzzled why they have not retired with a democrat in the WH.

Before Stephen Breyer was on the Supreme Court,
he was a judge in Boston.
A case came before him where
Vanessa Redgrave had been scheduled to perform with the Boston Pops Orchestra.
She made some remarks advocating Palestinians over Israel.
Boston Pops didn't like what she said, so they cancelled her appearance.
She sued for breach of contract.
Stephen Breyer wrote in his official ruling (in favor of Boston Pops),
"Freedom of speech does not mean you can say what you want."

[carlb]

Maybe Ginsburg and Breyer recognize how Obama's appointments are so bad they are waiting until he is gone. I am still puzzled why they have not retired with a democrat in the WH.

They're both HORRIBLE! They don't have the sense to "wait" for a better president. I believe GOD is involved in keeping them there.  Obama will get no more nominees. Solar, THIS is your number one reason to stump for Cruz. NONE of the other front runners can be trusted with this.