Celtic Radio Community [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Quotes Of The Supreme Court Justices

Posted by: Antwn 17-Jun-2011, 02:46 PM

On Thurgood Marshall --

He was a self-described "hell-raiser" in school, and his teacher used to send miscreants to the basement to study the Constitution. "I made my way through every paragraph," he said. His was the dissenting voice at the 1987 bicentennial celebration of the Constitution; while other speakers praised the document and the founding fathers' foresight, he said: "The government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite 'The Constitution,' they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago. ... The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 could not have envisioned these changes. They could not have imagined, nor would they have accepted, that the document they were drafting would one day be construed by a Supreme Court to which had been appointed a woman and the descendent of an African slave. 'We the People' no longer enslave, but the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of 'liberty,' 'justice,' and 'equality,' and who strived to better them."

Posted by: englishmix 17-Jun-2011, 05:53 PM

Interesting. Just what I would expect an elite, immature, arrogant putz like Marshall to say.

Posted by: Dogshirt 17-Jun-2011, 06:37 PM

QUOTE (englishmix @ 17-Jun-2011, 04:53 PM)

Interesting. Just what I would expect an elite, immature, arrogant putz like Marshall to say.

QUOTE

Interesting. Just what I would expect an elite, immature, arrogant putz like Marshall to say.

I guess you could see it that way. Myself, I'd call him a progressive DUMB ASS!
But that's just me. You can educate an idiot, but you can't make him see reason!
There are FAR too many idiots with educations today that THINK they have sense enough to pour p1$$ out of a boot, but they ALL squish when they walk!

Posted by: Patch 18-Jun-2011, 08:10 PM

I would call him a shining star of the radical left! It is interesting that one of the present left leaning justices appears to have moved right in Constitutional matters. That is why there are nine of them.

Slainte

Patch

Posted by: Antwn 19-Jun-2011, 01:43 PM

The interesting and remarkably consistent thing about all three of your responses is that you have nothing whatsoever to say about Marshall's comments but merely attack the man personally. You don't even elaborate on the reasons for your insults (except Patch, although "radical left" is probably an insult from him) but take it as self evident that because you can apply a derrogatory label on someone that it becomes appropriate and accurate simply because you've done it. I confess my experiment yielded pretty much the results I'd expected, as disappointing as they are, only more so. Thanks for being guinea pigs.

Posted by: Patch 19-Jun-2011, 04:37 PM

I have been the brunt of derogatory comments myself, for the most part without complaint.

I am glad to have been of assistance and suspect the others feel the same though I can not speak for them.

Actually the founders did envision that changes might be necessary or desired and provided a means for amendment. It was designed to be intentionally hard to amend the Constitution so it would not be changed on frivolous whims. The founders were is a brilliant and unfortunately for the left, conservative.

The radical left is a political faction, though larger, than is the radical right.

Slainte

Patch

Posted by: Dogshirt 19-Jun-2011, 05:27 PM

The moronic quote says it all. The constitution was designed flexible.
It is only the shortsidedness of certain individuals that see it as a fixed
document. Point in case, the ERA of the 70's. The rights were already
there! We just had people that could not or would not see that.
We don't need lefty morons trying to change the thing, just people
with enough wisdom to see that it's flexible to accomidate change'.
The man is a total moron if he can not see it for what it is.
Nuff said! A moron is STILL amoron no matter HOW many letters you
put after his name!