PJ Media

@19. “skeeziks”: – … I don’t turn to Scalia …

No, but you clearly have no qualms about cherry picking something he supposedly said in order to suggest he holds an opinion that, in fact, he doesn’t hold. That’s such a common leftist deceit that it’s gotten boring.

- … thanks for confirming your rigidity.
No problem. And thanks for noticing. I consider it preferable to the flaccid, intellectually impotent nonsense you insist on spewing.

.

@20. Menehune: – Apparently “Goy” thinks readers of these comments are too uneducated…

Apparently you were too drunk or too stoned, or both, to read who I addressed the comment to. Or maybe you were just PMSing, were looking for an argument, and didn’t want to bother reading what I wrote? Or maybe you just thought you could contradict what I wrote by quoting the same passage I quoted and effectively parroting what I wrote? You pick.

- Here’s an article about the same speech:
Pay closer attention. It’s not about the same speech at all. This is the same lack of awareness you used when you wrote “which is just what ‘Goy’ seems to want”. I gave no such indication.

First, check the dates. The transcript here is from a talk given in March of 2005. “Robert Longley” at About.com is referring to a different speech allegedly given 4 years prior.

Next, look at the quotes attributed to Scalia (which “skeeziks” mindlessly copied and pasted from somewhere). None of those are found in the talk Scalia gave in 2005. Listen to the video if you don’t trust the transcript.

Finally, that “article” is a great example showing how About.com is just as reliable a reference as Wikipedia. Note well: Longley doesn’t cite, let alone link to, a source for what he’s quoting or what he’s basing his opinions on. The whole thing could be completely made up as far as you or “skeeziks” know. For instance, Longley writes “…Scalia conceded it often places him in a position of supporting laws that do not seem to make sense.” Did Scalia concede this? Is that what he actually said? We have no way of knowing without a link to a transcript or video of the speech in question. “Concede” may very well be Longley’s subjective interpretation, for instance. No way to know. In point of fact, there’s no reason to believe “Robert Longley” even exists.

All of this does, in fact, pertain directly to Steele and his “moderate”, center-left ilk. In coddling and endlessly compromising with the socialist left – in order to build a “bigger tent” and accrue political power for its own sake – the current GOP “leadership” (so-called) has effectively acquiesced to the “Living Constitution”.

There is no explicit authority granted to Congress to control funding for or content of public education, or to redistribute wealth from those who pay taxes to those who don’t, or to use Taxpayers’ funds to run a retirement fund, or to use Taxpayers’ funds to run a health insurance program for retirees (let alone extort their retirement benefits by confiscating them if the retiree refuses to participate in that program)… the list goes endlessly on. ALL of those things require effective deconstruction of the Constitution’s text so as to attribute new meaning. That new meaning is then used to expand the federal government’s authority beyond that which was originally intended in 1791. The current RNC/GOP has bought into this expansion completely. That has to change. It won’t change with people like Steele in leadership positions.