See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.
He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.
An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Ok, so it's not worth the paper it's written on. Who cares. I could give a flying fuck what the framers wanted. I live now. They don't.
somewhere in a distant masoleum, a smear of dust whirls and spirals into the shape of a fist and shakes briefly before settling back to the cold stone floor
See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.
He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.
An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Weren't there, like, 20 states when the Constitution was written? 20 states and 200k people? I think keeping the intentions of the framers in mind (or at least whatever we think they may be) is a good idea, but times change.
13. The Articles of Confederation I don't think had a method to admit new states. That was passed in the first Congress under the modern Constitution. The... Northwest Ordinance? Yep.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The argument has merit. If there's a right that isn't in the original Constitution but that everyone agrees really ought to be protected, the Constitution can be amended to add that right.
What we're doing now is using the courts to protect rights that they were never actually given the legal authority to protect, but we're pretending that they do have that authority because those rights desperately need to be protected and the legislatures are failing to adequately do so. Ideally, Congress and the Senate would do their damn jobs, and the higher courts would spend most of their time napping until issues that are actually legally complex come up.
It's one of those cases (illegal immigration is another) where the current process is completely insane, but amending it would either be impossible or make the situation far worse.
There quite literally aren't any rights in the original Constitution. All of them were added later on as amendments to its text. Including the right to 'equal protection under the law' which is kind of self explanatory. Especially when grouped with other amendments.
See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.
He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.
An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Ok, so it's not worth the paper it's written on. Who cares. I could give a flying fuck what the framers wanted. I live now. They don't.
somewhere in a distant masoleum, a smear of dust whirls and spirals into the shape of a fist and shakes briefly before settling back to the cold stone floor
Scalia said those who do not share his "originalist'' philosophy are now deciding what the 14th Amendment of the Constitution means, the one that guarantees "equal protection of the laws'' to all citizens.
"Does it include same-sex marriage? A requirement for equal pay for equal work?'' he mused. Scalia said those who believe in an "evolutionary'' approach "close your eyes and decide what you think is a good idea.''
I really want to know what exactly Scalia's interpretation of the 14th Amendment includes (especially since in his mind it does not disallow segregation).
I fear, however, the eldritch horror of such a revelation would only drive me to madness.
"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
Our Constitution. Yeah, right.
Scalia is fairly consistent to a point. He's articulated and re-articulated his theory of interpretation many times over the year to form a pretty impressive gradient that basically boils down to Burkeian conservatism and a deference to authority. But I've never, ever read anything that boils it down so succinctly as that last sentence. Every classically liberal cell in my body shudders at the idea that there are people who see the Constitution as a restrictive document, and doubly so when those people are jurists.
I am especially appalled given the fact that Plessy was one of the most egregious acts of judicial overreaching and lawmaking ever performed by the Court. A lot of people call Brown the most activist opinion ever written, and probably so. If that is true, Plessy is a close second. I am amazed that he did not hedge his comment by saying he'd at least concur in part that Plessy was bad law without signing onto integration mandate.
"He specifically warned that those who approach the Constitution as Breyer suggests will not always find courts expanding the definition of individual liberties. He said a court that decides one day that something is cruel and unusual punishment could just as easily decide down the road to allow something that now is considered barbaric.
"It goes both ways,'' he said.
Indeed. I can't imagine the Framers would have envisioned civil forfeiture (such as in drug cases) of property of accused persons to be constitutional.
But the specific example is entirely false. In over 200 years the pendulum has never swung back towards permitting crueler punishment unless you count the overturning of the decision that ruled capital punishment as unconstitutional.
I also liked,
Scalia said even his 2001 decision outlawing the use of "thermal imaging'' equipment to let police peer through walls to see activity inside a house did not require him to use an evolutionary approach to the Constitution, even though such equipment did not exist in the 18th century.
These seem like solid legal opinions based on a solid legal philosophy.
No, it actually isn't. And while I appreciate the result and the law he created when he wrote that opinion, it is not a hard and fast rule. Basically, when civilians can buy FLIR cameras it will no longer unreasonable to expect that the police can conduct a "search" using them. That's a ridiculous standard.
See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.
He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.
An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
You seem to have completely missed the point of the Constitution being a wonderful document because of, and this is one of many reasons, it's worded in a way that can be interpreted to fit situations it does not explicitly mention, but are very much quite applicable to it when you sit down and think about it.
That is, it allows for common sense and ration to protect the people
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
The intention of the men who wrote the Constitution was to lay down a framework that future generations could use, because they knew that society changes, as does technology.
There's a reason why we're able to amend the Constitution.
The argument has merit. If there's a right that isn't in the original Constitution but that everyone agrees really ought to be protected, the Constitution can be amended to add that right.
What we're doing now is using the courts to protect rights that they were never actually given the legal authority to protect, but we're pretending that they do have that authority because those rights desperately need to be protected and the legislatures are failing to adequately do so. Ideally, Congress and the Senate would do their damn jobs, and the higher courts would spend most of their time napping until issues that are actually legally complex come up.
It's one of those cases (illegal immigration is another) where the current process is completely insane, but amending it would either be impossible or make the situation far worse.
There quite literally aren't any rights in the original Constitution. All of them were added later on as amendments to its text. Including the right to 'equal protection under the law' which is kind of self explanatory. Especially when grouped with other amendments.
I would argue that he's also wrong in his assessment that they're "protecting rights that they were never actually given the legal authority to protect," since it seems to me it's arguing more of the "oh, those are special rights, for them" angle.
When, as far as I can tell, the rights in question are protected because the discrimination against or violation there of were violations of existing rights. The courts just finally got around to recognizing that they were
Once the 13th amendment was passed and former slaves were given citizenship the Equal Protection clause clearly would encompass them. In practice it was obvious "seperate but equal" was a joke Thus segregation laws were unconstitutional.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
The intention of the men who wrote the Constitution was to lay down a framework that future generations could use, because they knew that society changes, as does technology.
There's a reason why we're able to amend the Constitution.
you mean it's not just a centuries long practical joke all to fuck with booze lovers that got out of hand?
Lanz on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
I wonder if Scalia is just jealous about how much he could've dropped the n-bomb back then and gotten away with it.
The argument has merit. If there's a right that isn't in the original Constitution but that everyone agrees really ought to be protected, the Constitution can be amended to add that right.
What we're doing now is using the courts to protect rights that they were never actually given the legal authority to protect, but we're pretending that they do have that authority because those rights desperately need to be protected and the legislatures are failing to adequately do so. Ideally, Congress and the Senate would do their damn jobs, and the higher courts would spend most of their time napping until issues that are actually legally complex come up.
It's one of those cases (illegal immigration is another) where the current process is completely insane, but amending it would either be impossible or make the situation far worse.
There quite literally aren't any rights in the original Constitution. All of them were added later on as amendments to its text. Including the right to 'equal protection under the law' which is kind of self explanatory. Especially when grouped with other amendments.
I would argue that he's also wrong in his assessment that they're "protecting rights that they were never actually given the legal authority to protect," since it seems to me it's arguing more of the "oh, those are special rights, for them" angle.
When, as far as I can tell, the rights in question are protected because the discrimination against or violation there of were violations of existing rights. The courts just finally got around to recognizing that they were
Well yeah, for Brown v. Board of Education and the like. Scalia is still pretty nuts.
"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
Our Constitution. Yeah, right.
Scalia is fairly consistent to a point. He's articulated and re-articulated his theory of interpretation many times over the year to form a pretty impressive gradient that basically boils down to Burkeian conservatism and a deference to authority. But I've never, ever read anything that boils it down so succinctly as that last sentence. Every classically liberal cell in my body shudders at the idea that there are people who see the Constitution as a restrictive document, and doubly so when those people are jurists.
If I take his meaning right, it's not really an objectionable comment. It seems to be referring to the legislative desires of society. As in, just because the people decide they want to ban certain books, they can't, because the Constitution restricts that desire.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
When, as far as I can tell, the rights in question are protected because the discrimination against or violation there of were violations of existing rights. The courts just finally got around to recognizing that they were
See: sodomy or the "crime against nature".
The constitution restricts the actions of what society can do within certain limits, but those limits are obviously extremely stretchy and may be expanded or restricted within reason as needed.
Once the 13th amendment was passed and former slaves were given citizenship the Equal Protection clause clearly would encompass them. In practice it was obvious "seperate but equal" was a joke Thus segregation laws were unconstitutional.
If I take his meaning right, it's not really an objectionable comment. It seems to be referring to the legislative desires of society. As in, just because the people decide they want to ban certain books, they can't, because the Constitution restricts that desire.
And I would agree with you, except that's not how he rules. He's ruled against laws that actually use government to protect rights (the thermal camera case was a HUGE exception) while at the same time basically deferring to the government every time there is a question of whether the government can infringe on the rights of people.
This has me wondering, if you're a domestic terrorist why would you assasinate a president over a sitting supreme justice you consider radical? They wield more actual power on most social rights issues and since they've been apointed for life their terms massively excede that of the presidency, especially for recent apointees. Yet I'm not sure I can ever remember a Supreme Court Justice getting offed. Do wingnuts who would resort to that kind of violence just not understand the importance of the judiciary or what?
This has me wondering, if you're a domestic terrorist why would you assasinate a president over a sitting supreme justice you consider radical? They wield more actual power on most social rights issues and since they've been apointed for life their terms massively excede that of the presidency, especially for recent apointees. Yet I'm not sure I can ever remember a Supreme Court Justice getting offed. Do wingnuts who would resort to that kind of violence just not understand the importance of the judiciary or what?
The ruling of Brown initiated a lot of death threats to Justices, and 'Impeach Earl Warren' billboards may still exist in some areas.
moniker on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
This has me wondering, if you're a domestic terrorist why would you assasinate a president over a sitting supreme justice you consider radical? They wield more actual power on most social rights issues and since they've been apointed for life their terms massively excede that of the presidency, especially for recent apointees. Yet I'm not sure I can ever remember a Supreme Court Justice getting offed. Do wingnuts who would resort to that kind of violence just not understand the importance of the judiciary or what?
They probably don't know it's one of the three branches of government.
This has me wondering, if you're a domestic terrorist why would you assasinate a president over a sitting supreme justice you consider radical? They wield more actual power on most social rights issues and since they've been apointed for life their terms massively excede that of the presidency, especially for recent apointees. Yet I'm not sure I can ever remember a Supreme Court Justice getting offed. Do wingnuts who would resort to that kind of violence just not understand the importance of the judiciary or what?
Probably. Also Presidents are much more visible as public figures, while SC Justices are barely recognizable to a good chunk of the population.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
The intention of the men who wrote the Constitution was to lay down a framework that future generations could use, because they knew that society changes, as does technology.
There's a reason why we're able to amend the Constitution.
you mean it's not just a centuries long practical joke all to fuck with booze lovers that got out of hand?
This would imply that the founders had some means of knowing about the future.
This has me wondering, if you're a domestic terrorist why would you assasinate a president over a sitting supreme justice you consider radical? They wield more actual power on most social rights issues and since they've been apointed for life their terms massively excede that of the presidency, especially for recent apointees. Yet I'm not sure I can ever remember a Supreme Court Justice getting offed. Do wingnuts who would resort to that kind of violence just not understand the importance of the judiciary or what?
Just the idea that our system of laws should require our judges to try to climb into the heads of men who died 200 years ago to try and figure out what their opinion of thermal imaging would be is ridiculous.
The principle in the 4th amendment to me pretty clearly applies to police using it, but not because I think I know how Washington et al would have felt about it.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Just the idea that our system of laws should require our judges to try to climb into the heads of men who died 200 years ago to try and figure out what their common and unified opinion of thermal imaging would be is ridiculous.
The principle in the 4th amendment to me pretty clearly applies to police using it, but not because I think I know how Washington et al would have felt about it.
There's also that bolded bit I added above for clarity. Because clearly Our Omnipotent Founders didn't tolerate any dissension from their groupthink.
Just the idea that our system of laws should require our judges to try to climb into the heads of men who died 200 years ago to try and figure out what their common and unified opinion of thermal imaging would be is ridiculous.
The principle in the 4th amendment to me pretty clearly applies to police using it, but not because I think I know how Washington et al would have felt about it.
There's also that bolded bit I added above for clarity. Because clearly Our Omnipotent Founders didn't tolerate any dissension from their groupthink.
obviously impossible, because ben franklin's love for french trollops was unsurpassed through all the kingdoms (or deliberately anti-monarchial governmental systems)
Remind me who appointed Scalia to the supreme court.
Reagan.
To be fair, it is the logical consequence of Scalia's stated philosophy. At least he's consistent.
Except that he isn't.
I should've said that he's being consistent in this case. In others, well, he's consistently terrible (not that this isn't terrible as well).
Bing consistent only when you want to be or when it is convenient defies the common definition of consistency.
It is consistent with what he says is his judicial philosophy.
Except for when it isn't. See Gonzalez v Raich. The only thing consistent about Scalia's "philosophy" is that it is opportunistically applied and completely ignored when his own dogma gets threatened.
Except for when it isn't. See Gonzalez v Raich. The only thing consistent about Scalia's "philosophy" is that it is opportunistically applied and completely ignored when his own dogma gets threatened.
The guy claims to be a hardcore originalist. His outlook on this particular case is consistent with that, though it may not be with others.
Don't get me wrong, he's an intellectually dishonest asshole regardless.
Except for when it isn't. See Gonzalez v Raich. The only thing consistent about Scalia's "philosophy" is that it is opportunistically applied and completely ignored when his own dogma gets threatened.
The guy claims to be a hardcore originalist. His outlook on this particular case is consistent with that, though it may not be with others.
Don't get me wrong, he's an intellectually dishonest asshole regardless.
And being consistent only when it's convenient is not being consistent.
Except for when it isn't. See Gonzalez v Raich. The only thing consistent about Scalia's "philosophy" is that it is opportunistically applied and completely ignored when his own dogma gets threatened.
The guy claims to be a hardcore originalist. His outlook on this particular case is consistent with that, though it may not be with others.
Don't get me wrong, he's an intellectually dishonest asshole regardless.
And being consistent only when it's convenient is not being consistent.
This has me wondering, if you're a domestic terrorist why would you assasinate a president over a sitting supreme justice you consider radical? They wield more actual power on most social rights issues and since they've been apointed for life their terms massively excede that of the presidency, especially for recent apointees. Yet I'm not sure I can ever remember a Supreme Court Justice getting offed. Do wingnuts who would resort to that kind of violence just not understand the importance of the judiciary or what?
I mentioned this once in a past thread, but about 2001-2002, when the GOP was ascendant, there was a bit of fucked up fantasy that was going around the right wing that basically told the story of a group of right wing terrorists who "martyred" themselves by killing liberal SC justices and Democratic senators/representatives from states where Republicans controlled the governorship and the legislature. The terrorists' goal was simple - by sacrificing themselves, they would create openings where heathen liberals could then be replaced with proper God-fearing conservatives.
It was the sociopathic fanfic love child of The Turner Diaries and The Pelican Brief.
4. Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants the FCC to force good white people in positions of power in the broadcast industry to step down to make room for more African-Americans and gays to fill those positions. Do you agree or disagree that this presents a threat to free speech?
I... what? "Good white people," really? I got this via Mediamatters, and they got it via FAIR. Now, Fox News is mentioned, but I can't tell if the articles are saying "this looks like something that would be tailor-made for FN" or if it's "this is FN's poll and this is their question."
4. Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants the FCC to force good white people in positions of power in the broadcast industry to step down to make room for more African-Americans and gays to fill those positions. Do you agree or disagree that this presents a threat to free speech?
I... what? "Good white people," really? I got this via Mediamatters, and they got it via FAIR. Now, Fox News is mentioned, but I can't tell if the articles are saying "this looks like something that would be tailor-made for FN" or if it's "this is FN's poll and this is their question."
4. Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants the FCC to force good white people in positions of power in the broadcast industry to step down to make room for more African-Americans and gays to fill those positions. Do you agree or disagree that this presents a threat to free speech?
I... what? "Good white people," really? I got this via Mediamatters, and they got it via FAIR. Now, Fox News is mentioned, but I can't tell if the articles are saying "this looks like something that would be tailor-made for FN" or if it's "this is FN's poll and this is their question."
got to be a fox news proxy
zogby's not that terrible
There's no way that's real, right?
If so, I don't think I want to know.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
somewhere in a distant masoleum, a smear of dust whirls and spirals into the shape of a fist and shakes briefly before settling back to the cold stone floor
13. The Articles of Confederation I don't think had a method to admit new states. That was passed in the first Congress under the modern Constitution. The... Northwest Ordinance? Yep.
There quite literally aren't any rights in the original Constitution. All of them were added later on as amendments to its text. Including the right to 'equal protection under the law' which is kind of self explanatory. Especially when grouped with other amendments.
I really want to know what exactly Scalia's interpretation of the 14th Amendment includes (especially since in his mind it does not disallow segregation).
I fear, however, the eldritch horror of such a revelation would only drive me to madness.
Our Constitution. Yeah, right.
Scalia is fairly consistent to a point. He's articulated and re-articulated his theory of interpretation many times over the year to form a pretty impressive gradient that basically boils down to Burkeian conservatism and a deference to authority. But I've never, ever read anything that boils it down so succinctly as that last sentence. Every classically liberal cell in my body shudders at the idea that there are people who see the Constitution as a restrictive document, and doubly so when those people are jurists.
I am especially appalled given the fact that Plessy was one of the most egregious acts of judicial overreaching and lawmaking ever performed by the Court. A lot of people call Brown the most activist opinion ever written, and probably so. If that is true, Plessy is a close second. I am amazed that he did not hedge his comment by saying he'd at least concur in part that Plessy was bad law without signing onto integration mandate.
Indeed. I can't imagine the Framers would have envisioned civil forfeiture (such as in drug cases) of property of accused persons to be constitutional.
But the specific example is entirely false. In over 200 years the pendulum has never swung back towards permitting crueler punishment unless you count the overturning of the decision that ruled capital punishment as unconstitutional.
No, it actually isn't. And while I appreciate the result and the law he created when he wrote that opinion, it is not a hard and fast rule. Basically, when civilians can buy FLIR cameras it will no longer unreasonable to expect that the police can conduct a "search" using them. That's a ridiculous standard.
You seem to have completely missed the point of the Constitution being a wonderful document because of, and this is one of many reasons, it's worded in a way that can be interpreted to fit situations it does not explicitly mention, but are very much quite applicable to it when you sit down and think about it.
That is, it allows for common sense and ration to protect the people
There's a reason why we're able to amend the Constitution.
I would argue that he's also wrong in his assessment that they're "protecting rights that they were never actually given the legal authority to protect," since it seems to me it's arguing more of the "oh, those are special rights, for them" angle.
When, as far as I can tell, the rights in question are protected because the discrimination against or violation there of were violations of existing rights. The courts just finally got around to recognizing that they were
Once the 13th amendment was passed and former slaves were given citizenship the Equal Protection clause clearly would encompass them. In practice it was obvious "seperate but equal" was a joke Thus segregation laws were unconstitutional.
you mean it's not just a centuries long practical joke all to fuck with booze lovers that got out of hand?
Well yeah, for Brown v. Board of Education and the like. Scalia is still pretty nuts.
If I take his meaning right, it's not really an objectionable comment. It seems to be referring to the legislative desires of society. As in, just because the people decide they want to ban certain books, they can't, because the Constitution restricts that desire.
The constitution restricts the actions of what society can do within certain limits, but those limits are obviously extremely stretchy and may be expanded or restricted within reason as needed.
You're kidding, right?
And I would agree with you, except that's not how he rules. He's ruled against laws that actually use government to protect rights (the thermal camera case was a HUGE exception) while at the same time basically deferring to the government every time there is a question of whether the government can infringe on the rights of people.
The ruling of Brown initiated a lot of death threats to Justices, and 'Impeach Earl Warren' billboards may still exist in some areas.
They probably don't know it's one of the three branches of government.
Probably. Also Presidents are much more visible as public figures, while SC Justices are barely recognizable to a good chunk of the population.
This would imply that the founders had some means of knowing about the future.
Like, a machine.
That could travel through time.
OH MY GOD SOMEBODY CALL DAN BROWN
How many smart wingnuts are there.
The principle in the 4th amendment to me pretty clearly applies to police using it, but not because I think I know how Washington et al would have felt about it.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
There's also that bolded bit I added above for clarity. Because clearly Our Omnipotent Founders didn't tolerate any dissension from their groupthink.
obviously impossible, because ben franklin's love for french trollops was unsurpassed through all the kingdoms (or deliberately anti-monarchial governmental systems)
Bing consistent only when you want to be or when it is convenient defies the common definition of consistency.
Except for when it isn't. See Gonzalez v Raich. The only thing consistent about Scalia's "philosophy" is that it is opportunistically applied and completely ignored when his own dogma gets threatened.
Don't get me wrong, he's an intellectually dishonest asshole regardless.
And being consistent only when it's convenient is not being consistent.
I mentioned this once in a past thread, but about 2001-2002, when the GOP was ascendant, there was a bit of fucked up fantasy that was going around the right wing that basically told the story of a group of right wing terrorists who "martyred" themselves by killing liberal SC justices and Democratic senators/representatives from states where Republicans controlled the governorship and the legislature. The terrorists' goal was simple - by sacrificing themselves, they would create openings where heathen liberals could then be replaced with proper God-fearing conservatives.
It was the sociopathic fanfic love child of The Turner Diaries and The Pelican Brief.
I... what? "Good white people," really? I got this via Mediamatters, and they got it via FAIR. Now, Fox News is mentioned, but I can't tell if the articles are saying "this looks like something that would be tailor-made for FN" or if it's "this is FN's poll and this is their question."
got to be a fox news proxy
zogby's not that terrible
There's no way that's real, right?
If so, I don't think I want to know.