Thursday, July 26, 2012
Ignorance as usual
Always nice to see an admission of bone-solid ignorance by an idiot "journalist".
In this case, Excellent Horse-like Lady Totenberg was interviewing Scalia.
I doubt that "neither of us" was sure. Scalia obviously knows the document and knows just where to look.
This isn't exactly a surprising discovery. Most of us who actually read the document have noticed that "jury of your peers" isn't in there. And it shouldn't be there, since the 1776 revolution eliminated official ranks of nobility.
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't in there either, nor is "stare decisis", nor "minority rights", nor "independent judiciary", nor "one man, one vote", nor "co-equal branches", nor "judicial review", nor the requirement that guns are only for militias, nor any of the other toxic ratshit that our elites and media claim to be "in the Constitution."
The rule is simple and universal. When an Expert tells you that X is "unconstitutional", you can be dead certain that X is implicitly encouraged or explicitly required by the Constitution. When an Expert tells you that X is "required" by the Constitution, you can be dead certain that X is implicitly discouraged or explicitly prohibited.
Okay, okay. I'm sorry. ¶ 7:25 AM
In this case, Excellent Horse-like Lady Totenberg was interviewing Scalia.
Excellent Horse-like Lady Totenberg: Covering women under the 14th Amendment?
Scalia: Well, come on. Covering women under the 14th Amendment [laughs]. Women were always covered under the 14th Amendment. What are you talking about? Were they entitled to due process of law? Could you send them to jail without a trial? Without a jury? Come on, women were always covered by the 14th. ...
Excellent Horse-like Lady Totenberg: If they are tried by jury, [it] certainly [was] not a jury by their peers, not when women were not on the jury.
Scalia: Well, where does the Constitution talk about a jury of your peers?
Excellent Horse-like Lady Totenberg: It doesn't talk about it in the Sixth Amendment?
Scalia: It talks about a jury, right to trial by jury. Doesn't talk about peers.
Excellent Horse-like Lady Totenberg: No peers?
Scalia reached for his pocket copy of the Constitution at this point, finding it was not there. Neither of us was 100 percent sure. But I checked when I got back to the office, and he was right.
I doubt that "neither of us" was sure. Scalia obviously knows the document and knows just where to look.
This isn't exactly a surprising discovery. Most of us who actually read the document have noticed that "jury of your peers" isn't in there. And it shouldn't be there, since the 1776 revolution eliminated official ranks of nobility.
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't in there either, nor is "stare decisis", nor "minority rights", nor "independent judiciary", nor "one man, one vote", nor "co-equal branches", nor "judicial review", nor the requirement that guns are only for militias, nor any of the other toxic ratshit that our elites and media claim to be "in the Constitution."
The rule is simple and universal. When an Expert tells you that X is "unconstitutional", you can be dead certain that X is implicitly encouraged or explicitly required by the Constitution. When an Expert tells you that X is "required" by the Constitution, you can be dead certain that X is implicitly discouraged or explicitly prohibited.
Okay, okay. I'm sorry. ¶ 7:25 AM
