It looks like Scalia had another meltdown in his dissent today on SB 1070:
The most remarkable opinion in the case, however, is Justice Scalia’s solo dissent. Like Thomas, he believes that the Arizona law should be upheld in its entirety. Unlike Thomas, he took not taken a narrow view of what is required for state law to be preempted. In keeping with his clownish performance at oral argument, Scalia makes no attempt to conceal the political values that motivated this contradiction with his past jurisprudence. As he did at oral argument, he begins by asserting that “[a]s a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory.” This conflation of a nation-state and a constituent part of a nation state is utterly inappropriate, and the qualification that Scalia goes on to add—”subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress”—completely swallows the first statement.
Given such constitutional requirements as the federal right to travel, American states are simply not “sovereign,” and any reasoning based on this principle has no chance of withstanding scrutiny. Scalia’s dissent continues in this vein, defending Arizona’s law by making policy arguments against Congress and the Obama administration. “Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding?” asks Scalia. Actually, yes—our constitutional framework does not allow Arizona to premept federal law if it doesn’t like the way it’s being exercised, and Arizona does not in fact have the inherent right to exclude people that the federal government does. And things get even worse as he tries to expand on his theory that the Supremacy Clause is inapplicable if Congress exercises its authority in a way Antonin Scalia doesn’t like:
As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so.
Amusingly, Scalia has just released a co-authored book criticizing many of his colleagues for not adhering to what he considers the only acceptable consideration that can go into legal reasoning—the text of the relevant document as it was construed at the time of its ratification. I had no idea that the original meaning of the Constitution and federal statutes could be best discerned by listening to The Michael Savage Show.
After he brought up the broccoli mandate during the ACA debate, I guess he’s just decided to go full metal wingnut. I mean, what are we gonna do? Fire him?
Triassic Sands
Any day now, I expect Scalia to move to Texas and start lobbying for secession.
El Cid
If states are still sovereign, why’d all those Founders waste their time with this whole “Constitution” thing, which led to the existence of the Supreme Court in the first place?
HeartlandLiberal
If Congress were filled with honest men and women who gave a hoot about the Constitution, there are four or five current SCOTUS members who should be impeached and removed for their regular meetings with the Koch Brothers, the corporate oligarchy, at which meetings they get their marching orders. Such activities are a blatant abandonment of any pretense of judicial impartiality.
Of course Thomas should be impeached for his financial misdeeds, including hiding hundreds of thousands of income.
But then, the rule of law is essentially dead in this nation. The Constitution is in fact, it seems, just another (*)(*)(* piece of paper.
I sometimes wonder if I go back to Washington D.C. and visit Jefferson’s Memorial again, whether or not the statue will have its hand elevated, covering Tom’s eyes as he weeps.
Linda Featheringill
When members of SCOTUS deteriorate to the point where they can’t maintain their dignity, shouldn’t we have a way to remove them? It’s embarrassing.
Hunter Gathers
The Furious Five turned the crazy up to eleven when they decided Citizens United.
David Koch
No difference btwn Bush and Gore!
Omnes Omnibus
Scalia has always been a full-metal wing it. It is just that, in the past, he would occasionally stop by reality for a cup of cocoa and a rational opinion.
Baud
@Triassic Sands:
I’d happily nominate Scalia for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of an Independent Texas, if that’s what it takes to get him off of ours.
BGinCHI
Scalia’s book, retitled:
Folly Posing as Wisdom, or the Clown Stylings of Grosso Antonin.
The Other Chuck
Contained in this rant is the repeat of the argument that the federal govermnent just isn’t doing enough.
Gosh, I thought that was by fucking design thanks to you wingnuts. Since AZ is now completely sovereign, maybe the federal government needs to pull the fuck out of there entirely. Not one dime.
beltane
@Triassic Sands: That would be about the only useful thing this asshole has done in entire life.
Steve
Scalia used to be revered in a mostly non-partisan fashion for his razor-sharp dissents. Not so much any more, I think. Sheesh, even Thurgood Marshall at his most cantankerous didn’t just go on for 20 pages about how much Nixon sucks.
Caz
That’s hilarious, you criticizing one of the best legal minds in the country and a SC justice, lol. He’s a strict constructionist, so you might disagree and think that the constitution should not be strictly adhered to and that it should be interpreted to suit political agendas, but to mock him is absurd. He’s a well respected, brilliant SC justice; you are a small-minded, naive, brainwashed blogger that can’t even attract a relevant number of conservatives to your blog to discuss issues.
Everything to you is wingnut this, wingnut that, galtian this, etc. Well, I guess I don’t really expect your pea-sized brain to comprehend Scalia’s writings and reasonings.
I bet your echo chamber BJtard cohorts really love your posts though! So clever and kitchy! You go, Johnny! Bash that wingnut Scalia, what a tool he is thinking the law should be upheld, what an idiot, he probably can’t even tie his shoes, lol. We need you on the SC, not Scalia. I mean, you’re a heavy thinker and he’s just a sorry shallow thinker who’s probably only on the court because they felt they needed to have Italian American represented somewhere. I mean, what else but charity would get a retard like Scalia on the court??
Um, wise up, Johnny.
Mnemosyne
I have to admit, this does give me some hope that the court will uphold PPACA. I can’t think of any other reason why Scalia would be having multiple public meltdowns about how things should have been decided if only they’d listened to him.
gogol's wife
@Mnemosyne:
God, I hope you’re right. This whole thing is making me so nervous I can’t get any work done.
Ash Can
Let him bloviate. It’ll give the talking heads on the teevee machine something to babble about, and in the process maybe, just maybe, make more of the great unwashed realize that there are people on the Supreme Court who don’t give a fuck about the law, any law, but instead believe that they are there to be auxiliary GOP legislators.
Baud
The Supreme Court never took up the birther issue, but if they did, I now think the final decision would not be 9-0.
Culture of Truth
I may start a petition to ban Scalia from New York
dewzke
Uh…scalia…fuck you. what a jerk. as always not content just derision of bad peeps.
Svensker
And yet Scalia didn’t think Montana was sovereign when it came to Citizens United. Wonder why?
beltane
@Linda Featheringill: It’s a real shame the framers of the Constitution didn’t anticipate that a fat, hated-crazed fascist would defile the Court by jumping up and down shrieking “Teh Constitution is Unconstitutional! Broccoli! Teh Messicans are Coming!”
Phoenix_rising
@Culture of Truth: You do that. I’m starting up the ChipIn account for his retirement party, stat.
scav
Scalia’s Judicial Restraint will soon be a strait-jacket.
Baud
@scav:
Win!
Valdivia
@Steve:
Yes today’s dissent could have been summarized:
Obama is the suxxor. I haz an angry.
Mark S.
but can Arizona make you eat broccoli?
Omnes Omnibus
@Caz: Actually, you sad little man, Cole just cited and linked to a criticism of Scalia by an expert in the field.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Caz: I love the whole struct constructionist argument, when the founding fathers weren’t:
BGinCHI
@Valdivia: Let’s hope it spikes his blood pressure.
Anyone else notice how lame the trolls have been today?
No arguments as usual, but also just a lame defense of the lame.
Ash Can
@Svensker: IIRC, there’s no distinction made in Citizens United between foreign and domestic corporations. I’d love to see some big foreign company — say, a Saudi oil company or a Chinese manufacturer — blatantly try to buy an election in some state. It would be very telling to see whose heads did or did not explode under those circumstances.
beltane
The new Jon McNaughton painting summarizes the world as Antonin Scalia sees it wonkette.com/476374/new-john-mcnaughton-painting-features-bro-chillin-with-the-constitution
Looks like the dude holding up the Constitution was paid some cash to put a match to it.
dr. bloor
@Triassic Sands: Not gonna happen. Scalia basically lives for the attention he gets by smearing his poo on the walls. He’d be just another insane old white guy in the ROT (Republic of Texas).
shortstop
Fowles in the frith,
Wingnuts on the bench,
And I mon waxe wood.
Much sorwe I walke with
For beste of boon and blood.
Bobby Thomson
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Neither is Scalia.
Phoenix_rising
@Mark S.: Arizona can no longer make undocumented 14 year olds eat broccoli. Unless they fail to opt in to No Vegetables on their enrollment forms.
…in all seriousness, ‘sovereign’ applies to AZ’s additions to immigration law but not MT’s additions to campaign finance laws. Why?
Jebediah
@Caz:
Unhinged troll is unhinged.
Randy P
@Caz:
Is the quoted material wrong in its critique of this opinion? In what way? Would you like to defend this opinion? Go for it.
Otherwise, you just contributed zero to the discussion of this opinion
Tokyokie
@Caz: And what makes you think Tony the Chin is one of our country’s great legal minds? Have you bothered to read his opinions? Or are you merely relying on the assurances from some “thought” piece by some Federalist Society hack? I used to have to read his stuff, and believe me, it’s not pretty. Great legal minds distinguish precedent. Second-rate ones ignore it. And Tony the Chin ignores it. “Originalism” as a legal concept is the biggest crock of shit ever promulgated by jurists, because what it means, at its heart, is only those who espouse it know the one true meaning of the Constitution and the founders’ intent. Not unlike televangelists and biblical interpretation. They’re all con men.
shortstop
@scav: I do wonder if there is some cognitive dysfunction going on in addition to the deluxe assholery. You know how they tell us to watch our parents, grannies, etc. for major mood swings and inappropriate anger as they get older? They should’ve warned us to keep an eye on lifetime judicial appointees for the same thing.
joes527
@Triassic Sands: He’d have my vote, but I’m of the opinion that all states interested in secession should be told not to let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.
Napoleon
@Bobby Thomson:
And there are some great quotes out there of him disclaiming it.
handsmile
Could we please revisit that adage that the Court’s “legacy” is the foremost concern of its justices. It would seem that Tony Scalia’s contribution to that legacy is the erosion of the legitimacy of the institution on which he’s served for more than 25 years.
I’m sure we’ll soon be hearing the name William Douglas, but Scalia’s professional behavior is becoming unhinged. Such loss of inhibition and decorum may be tolerable in a crazy old uncle/aunt, but surely not for a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
BGinCHI
@beltane: Is that F. Murray Abraham as George Washington?
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
He already is full metal wingnut, John. It’s a shanda.
Face
@Baud: Im willing to bet real $ that, should Obummer win a 2nd term, Scalia votes 100% of the time in any direction deemed to hurt the Admin the most. Past votes, precedent, logic be damned. Hes thrown neutrality out the window, and he seems proud of this. At least Thomas doesnt megaphone his phony-ness.
Seth Owen
You know, I don’t know how anyone can think you can have ‘rule of law’ in a country that tortures. It’s just not possible. Because we have failed to deal with that elephant in the room we’re not going to have nice things. Everything will come down to power. You can draw a direct line between the abandonment of time-hallowed principles that prohibited waterboardIng to the rot infecting out politics today in Citizens United and ACA. If rules are just for suckers then this is what you get.
WB
State sovereignty? Seriously? Did we all fall through some time warp back to the year 1860?
It’s unbelievable that a Supreme Court justice, even a nutjob like Scalia who takes whatever legal position justifies the outcome he wants, is openly and formally disputing federalism 150 years after the Civil War supposedly put that issue to bed. Next week, it’ll be “secession is totally A-OK!”
John Weiss
@Linda Featheringill: Of course there’s a way to remove a Supreme. But not with this House. What’s more important: the Presidential election or getting rid of the bounders in the House?
BGinCHI
@handsmile: Scalia is to to judicial brilliance as England is to PKs.
God they played awful yesterday.
Turgidson
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Jefferson forgot to add a “, too.” to that “also”.
So clearly he was unserious.
Lev
Many states have a mandatory retirement age of 70 for their Supreme Courts. That would be an obvious, simple reform to start with.
Omnes Omnibus
@Tokyokie: Which “Founder’s” intent? On which day? Really? Those tend to be some of the questions I always try to ask alleged originalists.
Joel
Troll him with enough legislation that he works himself up into a heart attack.
RareSanity
For those more acquainted with matters of the law, can anybody explain what would be so bad about supreme court justices serving terms?
Even if the terms were 10 years and staggered, why would that bring about the fall of the republic?
beltane
@BGinCHI: The resemblance is striking.
Citizen Alan
Based on his conduct on the bench over the last few months, I’m really starting to wonder about Scalia’s mental health. He’s always been a fascist black-shirt, but lately, he has just be raving. Is senility grounds for impeaching someone with a lifetime appointment?
Culture of Truth
Scalia is just recognizing that increasingly Arizona is like another country.
handsmile
@shortstop: (#39)
Just now saw your comment; seems we were channeling roughly the same thought at roughly the same time. And FYWP wouldn’t let me edit my comment to acknowledge your faster fingers.
MikeJ
@Citizen Alan:
Impeachment is a political act. Not liking the tie he’s wearing is grounds for it. An impeachment of a Supreme is as likely as single payer healthcare and appropriating funds to carve Obama onto Mt Rushmore.
Tokyokie
@Omnes Omnibus: You’ll be unsurprised to learns that all the founders’ original intent by happy coincidence happens to support whatever enhances the social, economic or political standing of those who espouse originalism.
Culture of Truth
Ginsberg knows him best, let her stage an intervention.
Dave
I would give up a kidney if Scalia’s meltdown is a precursor to how the Supremes decided for the ACA.
Baud
@Culture of Truth:
She said something about the value of dissents the other day that caused a minor freakout about the ACA. Maybe she was providing cover for her good friend Scalia.
One can only hope.
Omnes Omnibus
@Tokyokie: Cue my Captain Renault impression.
Bulworth
So a state can block its borders to people from another state?
handsmile
@BGinCHI: (#49)
It will surprise you not at all that I posted a long comment to that effect at the end of the England v. Italy thread yesterday. It must have been Fat Tony rather than the usual lady singing to the Three Lions. (And Pirlo aside (and what a PK!!), I thought both sides were pretty ghastly.)
Even more O/T, Valdivia and I have been exchanging emails about that secret project we and Steeplejack discussed last week. If you happen to be around for an “Open Thread” tonight or tomorrow, perhaps we could kick that can a little further down the road.
shortstop
@Bulworth:
Slow down there before you start criticizing…we may be able to do something with this…
salacious crumb
if there is any doubt as to whether the 4 sitting justices were ever impartial, Scalia dispensed with those doubts. This is nothing but Republican hackery.
mk3872
Can we finally put to bed any notion that there is an actual theory called “ORIGINALISM” ????
Doesn’t exist. Never did.
It’s just a method used by Scalia, Thomas, Alito, et. al. to pretend that their own personal wishes are the same as the “Founding Fathers”.
They just simply vote against things that they don’t like and then try to justify it wrapped up in “original Constitutional theory”.
B.S.
tybee
@Dave:
i’d at least tap one.
shortstop
You make reading books sound so, so dir-tay.
Scott S.
@Joel: Perhaps we should start sending him fatty food? If we tell him Obama doesn’t want him to eat too much cheese, he’ll eat every block of Velveeta in the country…
shortstop
@mk3872: Sure. While we’re choking the life out of that one, let’s also put down the “My [denomination, congregation, group, family] reads the bible literally and without interpretation” business.
burnspbesq
@Caz:
Have you actually read Scalia’s dissent in Arizona? It reads as though the Articles of Confederation were still in effect.
Give us a break. And remind us again what law school you graduated from.
Omnes Omnibus
@shortstop: Depends on the book, don’t it?
Ken J.
My humble suggestion is that printed references should now read:
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (R)
Because he is clearly positioning himself as a partisan politician and not a justice.
BGinCHI
@handsmile: I can do that, yes. Let me know. Is it Wolf Hall or something else?
And yes on Eng/Italy both looking like lambs for the kraut slaughter. Pirlo’s pk was a thing of fucking genius.
This will maybe make you laugh, but I thought Andy Carrol was the only bright spot. Low bar though. Scott Parker should never play for the side again.
Roger Moore
@RareSanity:
I wouldn’t have a huge problem with giving them limited terms, but only if they’re barred from reappointment. If they can be appointed again, they’re going to be explicitly political and slant their opinions in a way that they think will help their chances of getting another term. That said, it’s mostly a moot point; the chances of amending the Constitution to limit their terms are essentially nil.
handsmile
@shortstop: (#71)
Okay, who’s the rat done squealed? So I guess you know then that Fifty Shades of Grey got chosed.
Mike E
@Linda Featheringill:
They should be given every opportunity to do so under a Pres Obama 2nd term. Then, get replaced when no longer able to function as a justice.
Why We Fight
Shalimar
@RareSanity: Or make it a 9-year term with an appointment every year, 2 terms maximum per justice.
Xenos
@Caz: When I was in law school more than a decade ago I took a great class on bankruptcy with noted leftie activist Todd Zywicki, who was a visiting prof from Wingnuttia U. School of Law for the year. In spite of his irrational devotion to fresh-water economic theories he was a great prof who taught a very ambitious class quite well.
One thing we spent a fair bit of time on was Scalia, who had authored a number of very well reasoned, very important decisions affecting and clarifying bankruptcy law. One of the first things we discussed was whether it was true that Scalia was a (strict or not) constructionist. Zywicki’s position, supported by Scalia’s own decisions, was that Scalia had given up on ‘constructionism’ as an unworkable and useless doctrine, and had resorted to a much less vague and more supportable doctrine of ‘textualism’.
I won’t try to define these terms for you, because my notes are in a box in a basement several thousand miles away from me, and because pearls before swine, et cetera.
But I thought I would mention it to you that if you think declaring Scalia as being right because he is a ‘strict constructionist’ is some sort of trump card to throw out here, the only person who is trumped here is you. You reveal yourself to be unfamiliar with even the basic contours of the debate over these issues within the conservative camp.
Bugger off, troll.
gogol's wife
@BGinCHI:
Let me know if you get past page 10 of Wolf Hall. I haven’t been able to yet, after getting it for my birthday over a year ago. (Too much Balloon Juice, I guess, but it certainly doesn’t grab me.) Jennifer Egan’s Welcome to the Goon Squad, however, which I got for this year’s birthday, I’m almost done with already.
SP
This sounds like something Scalia would routinely mock if a liberal said it in a death penalty appeal case:
If this were about whether to fry someone who was proven innocent after their appeals clock had run out, well, Scalia would be the first to point out that dry legalities make excellent kindling.
Tokyokie
@Scott S.: Well, technically, Velveeta isn’t cheese, but I’m sure the founders intended it to be such, so Tony the Chin would be able to eat the crap.
shortstop
@handsmile: Um, it was an open thread. You forgot to turn on the deflection rays that rendered your conversation invisible, I guess.
handsmile
@BGinCHI: (#77)
The powers-that-be here may become annoyed if we can extend this off-topic much longer, but in fact I don’t disagree with your rating Carroll. He showed real commitment and Kuyt-like effort during his spell on the pitch. I expect your wish re Parker will be granted.
Alsotoo: The Moviegoer appears to be the current front-runner.
sparky
i’m not going to defend this rather odd dissent, except to say that this somewhat arcane notion of Scalia’s of what a state sovereign is is not a new notion. he’s been pushing it since the 1990s.
gogol's wife
@SP:
I noticed that too. Good point.
Chris
@Roger Moore:
Is it just me, or is it a bad thing that in this country, any prospect of a major restructuring of the government – e.g. by drastically reducing the role of the Senate or changing the nature of the Supreme Court – is considered unthinkable? I mean, other countries have been known to write new constitutions or restructure their governments from time to time. It doesn’t have to be the end of the world. But in the U.S. the reverence for the Sacred Text is such that it might as well be, for a large number of people.
waynski
@Omnes Omnibus: Please don’t feed the Troll.
jon
Scalia is so brilliant, and he’s on the Supreme Court, alsowise! That’s why he got two whole Supreme Court Justices to agree kindasorta with his Originalistically-Pure Approach.
Shiny!
BGinCHI
@gogol’s wife: Careful, my dear, careful.
Wolf Hall is an amazing novel. I’m a specialist in 16th-century drama and historiography, including the religious controversies and political machinations of the early Tudors. I wondered how she would pull of writing about her subject. Many novels about the Tudor court and the society of the time are overly romanticized and/or grasp the details poorly. Mantel gets it exactly right. And she manages to write a gripping novel while doing it. Her Cromwell is a fascinating, deeply wrought character.
Egan’s novel is certainly well-written. It’s obviously an entirely different genre and so is hard to compare. My problem with it is that her world is just not that interesting to me. It’s a bourgeois novel, and as such explores the quirks of characters we might all know if we grew up in a certain place and in a certain class. I just don’t get attached to those kinds of books.
handsmile
@shortstop:
All these rules…all these gadgets…all these buttons!
Plots were so much easier to hatch in the days of pen and paper and ponies.
Stooleo
Yeah, yeah, states rights, except for Montana.
BGinCHI
@handsmile: OK, great. I like me some Percy.
gogol's wife
@BGinCHI:
Okay, I will give Wolf Hall another chance. The problem is probably that I read 600-page Russian novels for a living, so in my off hours I prefer the lighter side (unless it’s Dickens or Thackeray). I agree with you that Egan’s subject matter is pretty uninteresting, but she writes about it cleverly (if in a gimmicky way).
shortstop
@gogol’s wife:
Do you really? You’d be fun to have a cup of cherry tea with.
gogol's wife
@shortstop:
God, every time I go off on a Dostoevsky rant here I feel as if I’m embarrassing everyone.
Roger Moore
@Chris:
I think the biggest problem is that the amendment process is too hard. There are too many veto points in the system, so most groups that would lose out from any amendment can successfully block it. The only amendments I can imagine passing these days are ones that tinker around the edges or fix problems so obvious and clear-cut that nobody is willing to stand up in public and defend the current situation. It’s immensely frustrating, but that seems to be the situation.
Liberty60
Gawd, who was asleep at the Ellis Island the day they let riff-raff like the Scalias into the country?
BGinCHI
@gogol’s wife: Wolf Hall looks like a heavy novel but it’s not. It’s much more like Thackeray and, hmm, a bit like Dickens in its ensemble and savage humor. Give the main character a chance to grow.
Have you ever read Russell Banks’ novel Cloudsplitter? A big book you can’t put down.
Mark S.
There was a time when Scalia was somewhat respected, but he’s been a total hack the last decade or so.
shortstop
@gogol’s wife:
I can’t wait to use this in a sentence of my own making. Maybe at the post office this afternoon.
BGinCHI
@shortstop: Go to the one on Broadway. They have a Dostoyevsky window.
gogol's wife
@shortstop:
Just don’t say the words “Pevear and Volokhonsky.” It’s like “Niagara Falls” to me.
Sharl
Justice Vaffanculo strikes again! Quick, find a scapegoat to blame for it and fire that peon’s *ss!
bemused
A guest on the Thom Hartmann Show was in the courtroom and said it was astonishing to be there and see how Scalia behaved, hear him and his tone.
gogol's wife
@bemused:
I guess there’s no video, right? They’ve seen to that.
gogol's wife
@bemused:
Please, please let this mean that he’s losing it because he lost on ACA.
Mnemosyne
@John Weiss:
You can’t have one without the other. There’s no way in hell that it’s mathematically possible for Romney to be elected but the House and Senate to go to the Democrats.
If you want to flip the House and shore up the Senate, Obama goes along with that package.
shortstop
@BGinCHI: Oh, sweet jesus, do they ever.
@gogol’s wife: Maybe you don’t like their translations so much, but you have to admit their ice dancing is tight as hell.
Valdivia
@handsmile:
wait! how did that get past me? And here I thought we were going to go with the more highbrow Las Edades de Lulu in english, of course.
waynski
@Omnes Omnibus:
Sarah Palin can answer that one… all of them!
Jebediah
@Xenos:
One of the many things I like about this blog is how frequently troll slap-downs are educational. That was an interesting comment – thanks!
BGinCHI
@shortstop: Plus the tall fur hats.
So tall.
So furry.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@beltane:
Abraham “Habus Corpus is problematic”Lincoln as a strict Constitutionalists? ROFL
bemused
@gogol’s wife:
Ha! Thom and guest (didn’t catch his name) talked about that too…that’s probably why the Supreme Court nixed being televised…if they were, their approval rating would be well below the approval rating of Congress.
Truly, Scalia, from descriptions so far, sounds like he was not only pissed off in court but nasty and rude. He’s got an authoritarian personality what I’ve read of him. I pity his family growing up with him.
John Weiss
@Mnemosyne: That sounds good.
handsmile
@Mnemosyne: (#111)
A grave concern of mine remains that while Obama may be reelected, the Democrats will lose their Senate majority. Current polling on competitive Senate races does nothing to alleviate that concern.
This week’s Supreme Court decisions illustrate in ALL CAPS BOLDFACE how vital it is for Democrats to hold the chairmanship and majority of seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in order to shepherd Obama’s nominations for probable Court vacancies in his second term.
Obama’s coattails this November must be tungsten-clad.
Also, re your comment #14: The same hope/thought occurred to me. The rantings of a frustrated old man.
pragmatism
scalia is just a dick. i had the misfortune to attend a dinner where he was the guest of honor as a starry eyed student. he berated the waitstaff. anecdotes aren’t data but that event started the path to belief, for me, that he is a dick.
MattR
@Shalimar:
So in year 5 of the GWB administration he would have named 5 SCOTUS justrices which would have given him carte blanc to do what he wanted for the last 3 years of his term without worrying about judicial review.
Which leads to the next problem of the court becoming both more partisan but also more inconsistent. I can see the GWB court overturning Roe v Wade followed by the Obama court reversing that reversal, etc… (Or the Obama court reversing Citizens United before the next Republican president names justices who restore it)
athena
And Sam Alito has a sad because the majority of his colleagues won’t let him send juveniles to prison for life!
Which of these two creeps is worse?
Scott Supak
Scalia seems really angry, especially at Obama. I wonder what that’s about? Did they vote on the AZ immigation bill after they voted on health care?
The Sailor
@Caz: “He’s a strict constructionist”
Umm, so he forgot about the fact the constitution can be and has been changed over the years. And that that’s in the Constitution?
Pfft, in one day he came out for states’ rights (SB1070) and voted against states’ rights (Montana).
He, like you luuurves them some states rights and constitushinum, when he agrees with what ever ointment is being salved for on his enrichment.
Omnes Omnibus
@athena: Alito. He is younger.
Horrendo Slapp (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.)
More and more, I come to believe that nobody did more harm to this country than Gerald Ford in 1974. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he was telling the truth that he pardoned Nixon to spare the country, but, shit, it set an awful precedent.
We now have a press and a whole big hunk of our government who think that it’s always better to just let the lawbreakers off the hook, since this country is just too delicate, and all of us Americans are such big shrinking violets that we can’t handle the stress of seeing politicians who break the law get prosecuted.
Fuck. Our political system is a lot stronger than that. We’ve made it through a vicious Civil War, the Depression and four assassinated presidents. Our society is a lot stronger than that. We’ve made it through two cataclysmic World Wars and that Depression and Civil War I mentioned before. I think we could have handled seeing Dick Cheney in a courtroom.
But if any Democrat even brought up impeaching Scalia or Thomas, the press and the Republican Party would be all over them for “politicizing” the judiciary, and even if some young reporters or crusading senator came up with solid proof that they’d broken the law, the “serious” press and the Republican Party would wave it all away by mumbling about how “the country wouldn’t survive” such a trial or some bullshit like that. I really don’t understand why these people have so little faith in this country or its institutions or its people.
bootsy
This may’ve been said in another thread… BUT I’ll say it again:
Scalia cited fugitive slave laws as precedent for his George Wallace ‘dissent’.
That’s right, fugitive slave laws.
I’m pretty sure that when you create a constitutional amendment to end, well slavery, that the laws which helped slavery continue to enslave Americans because of their skin color become, well, NOT PART OF CANON.
TenguPhule
Yes, out of the USS Missouri’s Main gun on a one way trip to the GOP Florida Convention.
TenguPhule
Easy, they believe everyone else is like them.
El Cid
@TenguPhule: Any governing system which would allow people like themselves to destroy it is clearly too weak to gain their respect. Therefore, they have to destroy it — either to test it, or just to destroy it. It doesn’t matter.
Jebediah
@Horrendo Slapp (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.):
Yes! All the big tough sooper-patriots have so little faith in the US of A. It’s just us pansy un-American liebruls who do… and good gawd, Cheney in the dock would give me a joygasm.
Gus
@Omnes Omnibus: This. The “Founders” didn’t fucking agree on what the Constitution allowed. Marbury v. Madison happened in fucking 1803.
Mike G
@Caz: “He’s a strict constructionist”
No, he’s a strict destructionist, a snake-mean asshole who doesn’t even bother to hide anymore ruling based on whatever bigoted current of anger and selfish whim is running through his head at the time.
Gus
@Jebediah: Sadly, it’s obvious the troll was hit and run. He just wanted to drop in and shit on the thread, then leave.
Horrendo Slapp (formerly Jimperson Zibb, Duncan Dönitz, Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.)
@bootsy:
I went to the link and one of the comments had a supposed quote from Scalia that read:
And while I’m nine tenths sure Scalia didn’t ever really write that or say it, there’s still one tenth of me that believes that that quote might have actually come from his dissent. How depressing is it that I can have any question about this when we’re talking about a fucking United States Supreme Court justice?