• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, hurry up and indict this prick.

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

“That’s what the insurrection act is for!”

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

They think we are photo bombing their nice little lives.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

Bark louder, little dog.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Come on, man.

This fight is for everything.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

Don’t expect peaches from an apple tree.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

Let there be snark.

This really is a full service blog.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Still Not Getting It

Still Not Getting It

by John Cole|  March 15, 200511:01 am| 39 Comments

This post is in: Democratic Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Scalia nailed this:

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court’s 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on “evolving notions of decency” was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said.

“If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again,” Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. “You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That’s flexibility.”

“Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?” he said.

Of course, some people will never understand this and will instead resort to cheap taunts and accusations of bigotry. And before you call me a bigot, Oliver- I am in favor of homosexual marriage.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Spring Break
Next Post: Kick ‘Em While They Are Down »

Reader Interactions

39Comments

  1. 1.

    Oliver

    March 15, 2005 at 1:04 pm

    John, would you tell blacks protesting in the 60s to simply wait for the laws to catch up to common sense? I don’t think you would. Scalia is the last person in the world who should be lecturing people on right and wrong.

  2. 2.

    Fargus

    March 15, 2005 at 1:34 pm

    In Scalia’s construct, why would we even have a Supreme Court at all? If the Constitution is so cut and dry, so clear, then why do we need 9 dried up old folks to tell us whether something’s constitutional or not?

    The whole point of the thing is for checks and balances, no? A separate but equal branch of the government with powers all its own? Seems that Scalia’d inexplicably like to cripple that.

  3. 3.

    Defense Guy

    March 15, 2005 at 1:49 pm

    I dont’ know about that Oliver, it seems to me the last person to be lecturing on right and wrong might be Byrd. One of yours (Dem) I believe.

  4. 4.

    Zen_less

    March 15, 2005 at 1:52 pm

    Scalia has a lot of nerve – what was the decision in Bush vs Gore anything other than his personal preference? It had nothing to do with law or precedent, and even he claimed it should not be used as a precedent. What is was that Scalia wanted Bush as President, pure and simple. So much for the living Constitution

  5. 5.

    Oliver

    March 15, 2005 at 1:54 pm

    Except, unlike Trent Lott, Robert Byrd has admitted his stupidity. But then again, Robert Byrd hasn’t said anything on this gay marriage ruling. How much red herring are you selling today?

  6. 6.

    Sandi

    March 15, 2005 at 2:18 pm

    @ Oliver

    “would you tell blacks protesting in the 60s to simply wait for the laws to catch up”

    That is exaclty what happened. It was called the “Civil Rights Act of 1964,” and it was passed by the legislators, not 9 judges.

  7. 7.

    Mikey

    March 15, 2005 at 2:21 pm

    Unfortunately, the civil rights movement has become a solution looking for a problem to fit it. It was the right answer in the 1950’s-1960’s. The political system wasn’t functioning, the rights were explicitly laid out in the US Constitution and were being just as explicitly ignored.

    However, that is a rare occurrence in US politics, that political dynamite, in the form of the courts, has to be used in that fashion. Most other questions are open to debate and persuasion. It’s sort of like comparing every war to the template of World War II. Simply the wrong answer and the wrong approach.

    The courts should be approached to handle these sort of issues after the political system has proven that it cannot. Certainly not before. To do otherwise is harmful to the nation. It is an admission that the people cannot rule themselves and cannot hold their representatives accountable, and that we must have the wise guidance of philosopher-kings. Not something I am overly comfortable with, nor should anyone else be.

  8. 8.

    Oliver

    March 15, 2005 at 2:43 pm

    And before 1964, the blacks should have just been silent? Methinks not.

    The political system wasn’t functioning, the rights were explicitly laid out in the US Constitution and were being just as explicitly ignored.
    I would say the same now.

  9. 9.

    ProudLiberal

    March 15, 2005 at 3:13 pm

    Is Scalia saying that the four dissenting justices were not voting their bias as well?
    Including Scalia.

  10. 10.

    Mikey

    March 15, 2005 at 4:01 pm

    Oliver, I think you’re being a little over-dramatic.

  11. 11.

    John Gillnitz

    March 15, 2005 at 4:10 pm

    Yeah! Judges have no place in the justice system. We should just let Dubbya decide everything with a thumbs up or down.

  12. 12.

    Kimmitt

    March 15, 2005 at 4:15 pm

    Isn’t this fundamentally an argument against Judicial Review?

    I mean, I expect that sort of thing from a guy who thinks that the power of the State devolves from God rather than the people, but I’m surprised to see anyone endorsing Scalia’s implicit repudiation of Marbury v. Madison.

  13. 13.

    Oliver

    March 15, 2005 at 4:42 pm

    Ok, if you think I’m being overdramatic, please explain to gay Americans why they aren’t real Americans. If you don’t like race analogies, then how about women? Should women simply have waited and bided their time to be counted? No.

  14. 14.

    Slartibartfast

    March 15, 2005 at 5:35 pm

    Oliver, is it actually your contention that SCOTUS had anything at all to do with the introduction and ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment? If not, what exactly is your point?

  15. 15.

    Walter L. Maroney

    March 15, 2005 at 5:54 pm

    Zen-less has it right: the Bush v. Gore decision falls precisely into the mode of judicial decision that Scalia claims to abhor. To paraphrase the Justice, “Would you want five Supreme Court Justices abrogating the constitutional election process to, in essence, dicate the outcome of a popular election? I think not!” And yet, that is precisely what happened in Bush v Gore. It doesn’t surprise me that Scalia wouldn’t want that case used as precedent. One wouldn’t want a successful coup to be so easily undone.

  16. 16.

    Slartibartfast

    March 15, 2005 at 6:30 pm

    And yet, that is precisely what happened in Bush v Gore.

    “precisely”. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  17. 17.

    Kimmitt

    March 15, 2005 at 6:52 pm

    You know, I’m not going to ask this as a question any more — this is an argument against judicial review. Scalia’s looking to roll back Marbury v. Madison (for decisions he doesn’t like).

  18. 18.

    Aaron

    March 15, 2005 at 7:17 pm

    Maybe he’s just suggesting:

    STOP TRYING TO PASS LAWS VIA THE COURTS AND GET CONGRESS TO DO IT.

    Or should all questions go to the courts and never to Congress/States, etc.?

    Of course, there is a balance here.

    But again, I think he’s simply remininding some people that laws can be passed by persuading voters rather than judges.

  19. 19.

    Terry

    March 15, 2005 at 8:02 pm

    I have no idea what in Hell Kimmitt is referring to when he suggests that Scalia wants to overturn Marbury vs. Madison. Actually, I suspect that Kimmitt has no idea whatsoever what either Justice Scalia really said OR what Marbury vs. Madison is about. This latter decision marked the first time the United States Supreme Court declared a federal law unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion for the court. He held that it was the duty of the judicial branch to determine what the law is. His opinion established the power of judicial review

  20. 20.

    Kimmitt

    March 15, 2005 at 11:49 pm

    Scalia:

    “Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?”

    Nah, he’s pretty clear.

  21. 21.

    Geoff Matthews

    March 15, 2005 at 11:58 pm

    Bush v Gore? You mean that part where the FLORIDA SUPREME COURT decided to override the laws of the state of Florida? Where they decided that election laws of Florida didn’t matter?

    Methinks that Scalia acted AGAINST judicial activism in that very case. Given what followed, and as a 2000 Nader voter, I am greatful that SCOTUS put an end to that judicial activism.

  22. 22.

    Bob

    March 16, 2005 at 12:34 am

    This week’s Tom The Dancing Bug cartoon nails Scalia. The guy’s a hypocrite, and with all his intellect he still can’t see himself. Nothing worse than a fool with power.

    By the way, the judge in San Francisco who ruled that California’s ban against gay marriage was unconstitutional is a Republican, a Roman Catholic, and was appointed by Pete Wilson, the Republican governor a few election cycles back.

    An activist judge is someone who rules against what you want, apparently.

  23. 23.

    willyb

    March 16, 2005 at 2:36 am

    “By the way, the judge in San Francisco who ruled that California’s ban against gay marriage was unconstitutional is a Republican, a Roman Catholic, and was appointed by Pete Wilson, the Republican governor a few election cycles back.”

    You may want to go read the article at the end of John

  24. 24.

    ape

    March 16, 2005 at 7:25 am

    Scalia nails it.. and I think he’s right about the fundamentals

    (even though i dont believe, eg, that teen offenders should be executed (or in the death penalty at all, on balance, rather than on principle))

    that holds until you look at precedent. What is clear is that there has always been the kind of (evolving) interpretation he lambasts. if you respect precedent, as he claims to, then you have to go with the reasoning that led to this.

    that’s when the hypocrisy comes in: it seems he doesn’t complain about ‘interpretation’ that suits him.

    historically, the freedoms and rights in the constitution were utterly unavailable to large swathes of people – eg, trade unionists/ contraception advocates simply did not have first amendment rights at all until approx. the last 50 years.

    were the judges ‘activists’? was the ‘evolving interpretation’ of the supreme court subsequently wrong. well, obviously not if they took the ‘interpretation’ closer to the plain meaning (intent?) of the law. but it set a precedent of ‘evolving’ interpretation, and that is the law.

    scalia appears right when he says, “it shouldn’t be like this”; but as his judgement showed, when he was trying different ways of counting states, he can’t say “it isn’t like this”.

    Holy Crap! what made me think I knew enough about this to start typing? Apologies to anyone who has read this comment.

  25. 25.

    Mikey

    March 16, 2005 at 7:33 am

    I’m back.
    Oliver, Gays and women have the same rights as every other American. The same civil rights laws apply to the them as apply to you or I.

    Kimmit, judicial review is crucial to the system, but it should be used sparingly, when Congress or the states overreach. Most issues are best resolved within the political system. A consensus decision through a legislature is better than one from on high.

  26. 26.

    Bob

    March 16, 2005 at 9:34 am

    willyb:

    Read the blog to its end. I’m waiting to see Cole at a demonstration for the rights of all adults to marry.

    And see him out there fighting for the rights of thirteen-year-olds to drink and ten-year-olds to work in factories and eight-year-olds to drink. And toddlers having the right to vote. And high chairs in the electric chair. And what’s this wussy crap about kids being forced to fight in armies, and what’s wrong about Michael Jackson (allegedly) fiddling with a little boy? Hey, kids are just little people.

    Once you cross the line and admit that there is an age of reason, then it’s just a question of where you put the bar. If there is no bar, then we have a society that does not protect children.

  27. 27.

    Bob

    March 16, 2005 at 9:43 am

    Scalia reminds me of those Christians who claim to strictly adhere to the Bible’s literal meaning, which considering the thousands of different translations and versions is pretty silly. Those who embrace the rules against homosexuality manage to overlook dietary rules, which occupy a lot more space, or what to do when you have mold growing on your tent, or who you can sell into slavery or how all debts are cancelled after seven years.

    Leviticus even prohibits 50-50 polyester/cotton fabrics.

  28. 28.

    schroeder

    March 16, 2005 at 10:22 am

    > Bush v Gore? You mean that part where the FLORIDA SUPREME COURT decided to override the laws of the state of Florida?

    Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! Florida law states that in the case of a close or contested election, the Florida SC can recommend any remedy it deems appropriate. If the FSC wants a recount, do a recount. If the FSC wants the candidates to arm wrestle, roll up your sleeves. It was SCOTUS whose decision flew in the face of law and every legal principle. The bedrock of American law is that a plaintiff must show harm. Bush could show no harm coming from a recount – if he legitimately won, a recount would confirm that, benefitting him. And if Gore had legitimately won, a recount can’t be construed as harming Bush, because he’d have no legal claim to the office. As it is, we’ll never know who legitimately won (unless you factor in widespread fraud preventing blacks from voting, in which case Gore indisputably won.) There’s nothing in the canon of American law to justify not fairly and accurately counting votes. Scalia knew it, and telegraphed as much by putting the “don’t use this as precedent” clause right into his decision. He should have been impeached on the spot.

  29. 29.

    John Cole

    March 16, 2005 at 10:33 am

    Kimmitt- What is at question is not whether juudicial review is permissible or not, but how judges are approaching judicial review. Claiming Scalia wants to overturn Marbury is anothing but a strawman.

    What Scalia is claiming is that judicial review should be used to determine something is constitutional or not- not to legislate and set policy on whatever someone thinks is correct. That means instead of deciding whether a policy is right or wrong, you simply decide whether something is constitutional or not.

    Currently, the liberal members of the SCOTUS are setting social policy based on the former, rather than the latter.

    Although you may just want to ignore that and join Bob and the rest of the bully boys on the left and call everyone who disagrees with you a bigot.

  30. 30.

    CadillaqJaq

    March 16, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    It’s obvious as hell from reading the previous posts which side of the political spectrum loves the judiciary (unless the magistrate happens to be conservative). Three equal divisions of government? My ass.

    It should be interesting theater IF the Senate Republicans can exhibit cohones grande enough to pass the nuclear provision eliminating filabusters from prohibiting an up-down vote on judicial nominees. Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth!

  31. 31.

    RW

    March 16, 2005 at 1:08 pm

    Bob,
    Do a google search on “Old Testament” and then “New Testament”. They really are two separate entities.

    [groan]

  32. 32.

    wild bird

    March 16, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    We have judges who should be removed they are truly abusing the power and have to be checked its time to put a end the judicial tyrany from this bunch of crooks

  33. 33.

    Slartibartfast

    March 16, 2005 at 3:16 pm

    Florida law states that in the case of a close or contested election, the Florida SC can recommend any remedy it deems appropriate.

    Cite, please? Actually, there is something in the 2000 statute that says something similar, but quite different in effect:

    The circuit judge to whom the contest is presented may fashion such orders as he or she deems necessary to ensure that each allegation in the complaint is investigated, examined, or checked, to prevent or correct any alleged wrong, and to provide any relief appropriate under such circumstances.

    Nothing about SCOFL, and nothing about arm-wrestling. There are, though, detailed procedures to resolve recount requests, which is what applies here.

  34. 34.

    Al Maviva

    March 16, 2005 at 8:55 pm

    Scalia eeeeee-villl bogey man blah blah blah still have slavery today if Scalia blah blah blah duck hunting blah blah blah meanspirited blah blah blah woman’s right to choose blah bla h blah blah blah.

    Why even bother arguing.

  35. 35.

    Kimmitt

    March 17, 2005 at 3:55 pm

    A consensus decision through a legislature is better than one from on high.

    I guess my response to this comes down to, “Do you think that Brown v. the Board of Education was a good decision or not?”

  36. 36.

    Al Maviva

    March 18, 2005 at 12:46 am

    Good decision, shitty reasoning. Even the most liberal scholars now admit that the Court’s efforts at using social science (now discredited studies) in an attempt to buttress their opinion was silly. Scalia’s own take on it – I have heard him say this on a couple occasions – is that he couldn’t say what he’d think, not having been there, but based on the facts as he knows them, he would probably have ruled based on the face of the 14th Amendment, and the facts on the record – that equal means equal, and the facts on the record demonstrated that the treatment given under “separate but equal” was anything but equal, thus segregation would have to go – which is concordant with Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson. Scalia appears happy to point out that he is no slave to past precedent if he feels it is wrongly decided, and he considers the segregation cases wrongly decided. I realize this probably bursts a lot of bubbles of people who have fond mental images of Justice Scalia ambling about the house on weekends in White sheets, I have no reason to believe he was lying…

  37. 37.

    Aaron

    March 18, 2005 at 4:05 am

    “If you think that it is meant to reflect, as some of the Supreme Court cases say, particularly those involving the Eighth Amendment, if you think it is simply meant to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society, if that is what you think it is, then why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers? What do I know about the evolving standards of decency of American society? I

  38. 38.

    Mikey

    March 18, 2005 at 9:36 am

    Kimmit: I’m not even going to respond to you. Just go back and carefully read what I wrote.

    Carefully this time.

  39. 39.

    Kimmitt

    March 19, 2005 at 8:57 pm

    And what I’m saying is that Brown v. the Board of Education was a really huge decision which was not a result of an immediate overreach. Sometimes, the court has to step in. That’s what “majority rules, minority rights” means.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • lowtechcyclist on Open Thread: Exciting News — Andy Kim Is Contesting Menedez’s Seat (Sep 24, 2023 @ 6:24am)
  • satby on Sunday Morning Garden Chat: Exotic Orchids (Sep 24, 2023 @ 6:16am)
  • Betty Cracker on Open Thread: Exciting News — Andy Kim Is Contesting Menedez’s Seat (Sep 24, 2023 @ 6:11am)
  • satby on Sunday Morning Garden Chat: Exotic Orchids (Sep 24, 2023 @ 6:09am)
  • OzarkHillbilly on Sunday Morning Garden Chat: Exotic Orchids (Sep 24, 2023 @ 5:54am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
What Has Biden Done for You Lately?

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Cole & Friends Learn Español

Introductory Post
Cole & Friends Learn Español

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!