7 Responses to “Supreme Court Justice To Student: If Taxes Go Too High ‘Perhaps You Should Revolt’”

1. Sandy Beach
   April 19th, 2014 @ 5:22 pm

   More from Justice Scalia
   JUSTICE SCALIA: ‘FOOLISH’ TO HAVE THE SUPREME COURT DECIDE IF NSA WIRETAPPING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
   Thursday in an interview conducted at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about their views of the First Amendment. Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution:

   Justice Antonin Scalia said, “No because it’s not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute. I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that’s a terrible intrusion, but given the danger that it’s guarding against it’s not an unreasonable intrusion. And it can be the same thing with acquiring this data that is regarded as effects. That’s why I say its foolish to have us make the decision because I don’t know how serious the danger is in this NSA stuff, I really don’t.”
   https://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/04/19/Justice-Scalia-It-Is-Foolish-To-Have-The-Supreme-Court-Decide-if-NSA-Wiretapping-Is-Unconstitutional

2. biker
   April 20th, 2014 @ 3:33 am

   “Those who would give up basic liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and will eventually loose both.” Benjamin Franklin

   And, never forget. It was for freedom that Christ poured his blood out on that tree. He has risen!

3. Thomas
   April 20th, 2014 @ 6:12 am

   Well MR. JUSTICE… Taxes have been TO HIGH for over 40 YEARS!!! The Damn Government Just Takes LITTLE PIECES Here and There Until We Have What We Have NOW!!!

4. Kevin J Lankford
   April 20th, 2014 @ 11:03 am

   The claim that “no right is absolute” is merely the rationalizing of its nascent infringement. Any act that causes harm to person or property, even though in the exercising of ones right, can be criminally prosecuted without the presumed need to restrict others from the free exercise of any right.

   The second Amendment is the perfect example. The amendment is quite clearly worded to imply the right of the people to possess firearms is absolute. Those who do use a firearm in criminal acts cannot diminish that right for others. At least that is the properly understood intent of our Second Amendment.

5. Extirpates
   April 21st, 2014 @ 10:59 am

   The criteria are set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

   Deciede for yourself whether they have been met or not.

6. Davey Crockett
   April 21st, 2014 @ 4:57 pm

   It’s too bad the SCOTUS didn’t do their job when they had the chance in several cases; one such as the o-care travesty!

7. Davey Crockett
   April 21st, 2014 @ 5:01 pm

   tech problems…the jerks are still working over time!

   The SCOTUS should’ve done their jobs on several occasions; like with the O-Care!

Leave a Reply