Comments on: Justice Scalia Tortures Logic Yet Again http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2008/02/12/justice-scalia-tortures-logic-yet-again/ Human Rights First builds respect for human rights and the rule of law to help ensure the dignity to which everyone is entitled and to stem intolerance, tyranny, and violence. Wed, 15 May 2013 16:48:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: MisterOpus1 http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2008/02/12/justice-scalia-tortures-logic-yet-again/#comment-34 MisterOpus1 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:25:00 +0000 http://69.164.209.119/?p=825#comment-34 >Correct me if I'm wrong, but whenever we sign on to international treaties, by our own Constitution don't those treaties automatically become the law of OUR land? Because if this is true, parsing words with the 8th Amendment becomes horribly irrelevant. We still have yet a bigger Constitutional issue (besides the 5th that you brought up) that Scalia cannot ignore. >Correct me if I'm wrong, but whenever we sign on to international treaties, by our own Constitution don't those treaties automatically become the law of OUR land? Because if this is true, parsing words with the 8th Amendment becomes horribly irrelevant. We still have yet a bigger Constitutional issue (besides the 5th that you brought up) that Scalia cannot ignore.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2008/02/12/justice-scalia-tortures-logic-yet-again/#comment-33 Anonymous Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:12:00 +0000 http://69.164.209.119/?p=825#comment-33 >You are missing the bigger point.<br />Scumlia is saying that HIS interpretation of the Constitution, even on something so evident as its coverage of NON-Citizens (The framers clearly use "citizens" when they want to, and do not use "citizens" when they want to.) He is framing this point in the context that HE is interpreting the Constitution to ONLY be covering citizens. <br />Which is false on its face.<br /><br />As for the scenario of the bomber etc, it is not only stupid to think that we have to conceptualize the resructuring of our fundamental constructs of right and wrong to now include one scenario. If the act that is to happen was sooo eggregious, then the interviewer, should have no compunction to do what is needed and then THROW themselves on the mercy of the court, when they are brought before the bar of justice. This Bullshit scenario is but one more example of how Scumlia is a TRAITOR and needs to be arrested, tried and hung along with the others in the cabalastration.<br /><br />HANG BUSH!<br /><br />Maybe someone should ask him where in te Constitution do CORPORATIONS get rights?????? >You are missing the bigger point.
Scumlia is saying that HIS interpretation of the Constitution, even on something so evident as its coverage of NON-Citizens (The framers clearly use "citizens" when they want to, and do not use "citizens" when they want to.) He is framing this point in the context that HE is interpreting the Constitution to ONLY be covering citizens.
Which is false on its face.

As for the scenario of the bomber etc, it is not only stupid to think that we have to conceptualize the resructuring of our fundamental constructs of right and wrong to now include one scenario. If the act that is to happen was sooo eggregious, then the interviewer, should have no compunction to do what is needed and then THROW themselves on the mercy of the court, when they are brought before the bar of justice. This Bullshit scenario is but one more example of how Scumlia is a TRAITOR and needs to be arrested, tried and hung along with the others in the cabalastration.

HANG BUSH!

Maybe someone should ask him where in te Constitution do CORPORATIONS get rights??????

]]>