Justice Antonin Scalia [merged]

[Kulindahr]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

The word privilege has a specific legal meaning when used in that context. In layman term it is identical to a right. See Article IV Section 2 of the constiution and the 14th ammendment which was written 90 years later and use almost identical language.

Good point.

I just spent a half hour perusing various sources concerning privilege. There seem to be two definitions: first, something granted by government, as opposed to a right, which is inherent; second, something essentially the same as a right, but which pertains to one class of persons, not to all -- the most notable cases being priest-penitent privilege and attorney-client privilege, both of which are no different than a right except that they apply to specific professions, i.e. clergy and lawyer.

The term "privilege" with respect to habeus corpus definitely falls under the second definition.


The first, BTW, is fallacious. Government has nothing which does not come to it from the people; thus, it can grant nothing which does not come from, and thus already belongs to, the people. If government can grant habeus corpus, habeus corpus must already belong to the people, and so is a right.

 

[Roland00]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

Seapuppy if they are so dangerous why haven't we just shot them already, it would be far less cruel, and any intelligence they have is now useless due to it being over 5 years old.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

So, Seapuppy, take John Adams position that it is better for a thousand guilty to walk free than one innocent man be condemned, and apply it to this situation.

 

[Andross]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

Always nice to be lectured about human rights by the experts...

Get used to it. That's where your society is heading. The difference is, we learned from our historical mistakes. Your nation is too young and still needs to make its own mistakes to learn from.

 

[Andross]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

Hm, Germany was unified in 1871. USA unified from individual colonies after declaring independence in 1776 and recognized in 1783.

Germany as a nation was unified then - true. But the German people existed before that. The Americans can consider themselves lucky that they sit on a continent practically alone with no hostile neighbors who could be a threat.

 

[Andross]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

The adventures of former European great powers (or even super powers) like Great Britain, France or Spain can hardly be called "European". There was no European spirit back then and certainly Britain, France and Spain are not all of Europe. I don't get what you mean with Soviet Union, China, Vietnam or the Middle East. Neither have anything to do with the Europe of today - certainly the Soviet Union is anything but European - not to mention that most of their landmass is in the Asian region anyway. Any legacy of the British Empire is just that - a legacy of the British, not of Europe as a whole. That said, I am afraid the U.S. is still in that period itself now making a legacy of its own, which others will have to clean up due to the collossal incompetence of the American administration, their lackeys and accomplices in crimes against humanity and international law. I am not so sure that is something to be proud of. I always thought history was there to learn from. Apparently national arrogance and blind patriotism can exist in any era and in any country, regardless of its government system and lead to similar results as we have seen in Europe.

 

[Andross]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

I recall Russia trying to invade Afghanistan and failing. I recall Rumsfeld meeting with Hussein, shaking hands with one of the strongest allies the U.S. had in the middle east during the 80s. How were that European mistakes? Surely some European powers made mistakes in the past, but I'd not consider illegal wars the U.S. fights today to be "cleaning up missions" of European mistakes. Nobody asked you to do it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

I sense an effort to have it both ways here -- that Europe is older, and the U.S. is a young country, still to learn what older, wiser Europe already did, but that Europe is young, because "Europe as such" didn't exist before....
So is Europe young, or old? It can't be both.

Also recall that the U.S. was born out of learning from Europe's mistakes. I'd say that gives the U.S. a head start.... It certainly has a head start in knowing about liberty; only Britain had any lead on it at all (well, maybe Switzerland, in some ways).

What the U.S. is "learning" now is the age-old story of freedom descending to tyranny, and then insurrection leading to starting over. In those terms, Europe is also younger, not having beaten off tyranny, for the most part, until almost the American Civil War. And on the Continent, most countries' law is still Roman-based, a system which is intrinsically contrary to liberty.

So I don't see much room for this attitude of European superiority.

 

[Andross]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

But it's there, with hasty generalizations against the United States and completely ignoring its responsibility for the world order as it is.

That is not correct. I don't ignore the responsibility - but I don't stretch it as far as you do to excuse everything the U.S. has become (and will become) with past mistakes made by our ancestors. The U.S. has its own history to write and since the last 60 years since WW2, there were too many wars, mostly unjust ones, started in the name of America. This is not our responsibility, but yours. The sad thing is, that you didn't learn from history - neither from ours nor from your own. Vietnam should have been a lesson. Apparently it wasn't.

 

[Andross]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

What the U.S. is "learning" now is the age-old story of freedom descending to tyranny, and then insurrection leading to starting over.

I really don't want to live in a world with a U.S. that is a dictatorship or that unilaterally uses its power to bully other nations to do its bidding. There is enough tyranny in the world - the U.S. should lead by example and be a good nation. Instead it is increasingly displaying the signs of a misguided society bathing in national arrogance and ignorance. Even so-called "allies" of the U.S. mean nothing to them anymore. Where will it end? WW3? No thank you.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

the last 60 years since WW2, there were too many wars, mostly unjust ones, started in the name of America. This is not our responsibility, but yours. The sad thing is, that you didn't learn from history - neither from ours nor from your own. Vietnam should have been a lesson. Apparently it wasn't.

Name these numerous wars, please.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

Well, then it is not, as you have pointed out yourself. It may have the force and even the importance of being a 'right', but it is not, which is why it is not legally referred to as such.

Let's take a similar example to what I'm arguing. We interned tens of thousands of POW's in WW II from Italy and Germany. While they were on American soil, not charged with any crime, not guilty of any crime...did they have the 'right' of assembly? When we searched their personal belongings for the hundreth time, did they have the 'right' of the 4th Amendment? How bout' to assemble? Of course not! Has any foriegn combatant, engaged in war with us, lawful or unlawful, ever had the 'right' of Habeas Corpus? I don't think so. This is how far off the rails this country has become in it's prosecution of this war. This is why I posted to ICO& that Congress even having to pass a law denying Habeas to terrorist would not have even been considered in an earlier age.

I just showed that the term "privilege" as applied to habeus corpus bears the meaning of right, so I don't follow your first paragraph.

Yes, they had the right of freedom of assembly -- that's an inherent right, as all are. They had the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Did they have the right of habeus corpus? Yes -- and as I understand the Geneva Conventions, that's spelled out -- no prisoner of war can be confined without cause without his superior officer(s) present being notified, and if a prisoner just disappears, his superior(s) can demand of the camp command information concerning his/her whereabouts, and cause for same.

War is a strange creature, but rights are rights, and government does not magically get bestowed with authority out of nowhere just because there is a war. The truth of the matter is that under conditions of war, the government exercises the right of the citizens of the country to be free in their persons and property from violent intrusion, and since if the enemy combatants were left free to do as they pleased they would certainly proceed to intrude upon said freedom of person and property, they are rightfully restrained from doing so. So their rights to move as they please, assemble as they please, etc. are restricted because permitting them those would be granting to them permission to invade and intrude upon the rights of the land to which they are hostiles. So also with the search and seizure business -- "unreasonable" being the key word. Since they are in the occupation of practicing hostilities on the citizens of the country they were/are fighting against, and do not give up their intent to pursue that activity, and since the right of the citizens to be free of such activity is to be protected, it falls within the authority of the commander of a prisoner of war camp to search as he finds reasonable to ascertain whether the prisoners under his care are engaged in significant material efforts to further their hostilities. This cannot be done frivolously, but must be reasonable -- the definition of that word being modified due to their circumstances and intent.
So also they are due habeus corpus, but again within the limits of their situation, i.e. limited to the camp and their officers there present.

So the question is not whether the detainees at Guantanamo are due the right of habeus corpus; they are. The question is rather this: given the situation of an undeclared war, with its attendant uncertain legalities, and the irregular sort of command structure under which they serve(d), how far does that right extend?

Clearly it extends beyond their immediate jailers. If this were an actual war, i.e. one which Congress had declared, the extent would be limited to the military structure. Since this is not actually a war, the answer is... unclear. Yet though unclear, a reasonable default position, I'm thinking, would be that they retain the right to appeal through military channels to demand a show of cause why they are being detained.

The real problem is that the rules as we have them did not take into consideration the present sort of fluid, ad hoc, free-flowing command structure and manner of hostilities. To have that addressed is by itself sufficient cause for the matter to be brought to the Supreme Court. The Court might be wise to order the JAG command to draw up proposed rules for this new sort of situation and let Congress approve or disapprove; someone must, and I do not for a moment believe that it is the task of the civilian portion of the administration to be formulating military law on what is also, at present, an ad hoc basis.

We must always, as civilized people, return to the fact that these men own themselves, just as we own ourselves. Any and all forms for handling them in this situation must proceed from that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

If they were criminal defendants in a criminal trail, sure. They are not. They are not even POW's. They are unlawful enemy combatants. They are terrorist. Some form of military commission, as the President want's, is both historic and the only way to be sure. The commission is not a trail. It is to make a final determination as to their status as terrorist. We will of course, not ever shoot any of them I suspect. We probably should, to set the example to the world as to our seriousness in fighting terror.

p.s. to everyone. Long weekend without electricity. That's why I havn't responded until now.

Are you claiming that because there are hostilities going on, innocence suddenly is of little weight? That's nonsense -- Adams' stricture still applies: better that one thousand guilty walk free than that one innocent man be punished.

The big issue here revolves around whether they are what they are accused to be. Most apparently are, and are proud of it -- no difficulty there; they're under the rules that flow from the fact that their right to act freely ends where they set in harming someone else, and the corollaries developed to apply in situations of mass, armed, hostilities.

Those who dispute their status are due at the least a substantial investigation to establish who is right. Their right to habeus corpus enters in at that point, and as I wrote above, the question is how far it extends. Can they appeal straight out of the military's hands to the federal courts? That on the face of it appears to be contrary to standard procedure; such an appeal should result in the federal court ordering the matter back to a military court with proper jurisdiction -- they have no business appealing straight to the federal courts, and the courts have no business hearing such an appeal, than I would in trying to take a matter of a traffic ticket straight to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Do they have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court ultimately? Actually, I have to say yes. In practice, that may be neither sensible nor practical in a time of hostilities; the military may have good reason to hold them "for the duration" - but once that duration has come to an end, they have the right to appeal, and even to sue for false imprisonment... and the military had best have a very good case.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

Seapuppy, I was going to answer in detail, but decided not to.
Your arguments essentially boil down to this: might makes right; we've done it before so we can do it again; military expediency trumps all.

It is precisely this sort of mindset that makes people think war is okay -- and it isn't. There is no way to have a war and not violate rights, and your argument is that since it's a war, it's okay to violate rights. That's wrong -- it is NEVER okay to violate rights; it is never warranted, or justified. Violation of rights always, ALWAYS demands restitution, no matter the circumstances -- that's justice. So another way to describe your position would be to say that in war it's okay to throw out justice.

Those German prisoners of war you referred to? They did in fact have the right to hold rallies; the exercise of that right was denied them. Certainly those who denied them that exercise believed they had good reason -- but there is NEVER a good reason to deny the exercise of a right. People may deprive themselves of the free exercise of a right, by demonstrating that they are not competent to exercise it, but such deprivation by anyone else is unjust and illicit -- regardless of what rules or laws someone may have cobbled together to rationalize their actions.

Sometimes it is necessary to trample some rights -- for example, if I knew for a fact that six terrorists had managed to slip a nuke into a warehouse in New York, but I wasn't sure what warehouse, I wouldn't hesitate to cheer on the National Guard as they ransacked building after building until they found the bomb -- but afterward I would demand, as any civilized person should do, that they make restitution to the owners of every bit of property for every last smidgin of damage they'd done.
As for those detainees -- their rights are being trampled, if they are innocent. And someone had better be ready, not with a, "Sorry, sir", when it is found that they are innocent, but with thorough restitution for the mess made to their lives.

I think what you don't understand is that just because there is a law doesn't mean a thing is right. Whatever military law may say, it doesn't, it CAN'T, change what is right. What is right proceeds from "You own yourself", and nowhere else. Any violation of that demands restitution.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

Seapuppy, I was going to answer in detail, but decided not to.
Your arguments essentially boil down to this: might makes right; we've done it before so we can do it again; military expediency trumps all.

[QUOTE-Seapuppy]
Brace yourself kuli, I'm going to have to 'bust your cherry' on this...yes, in war, on the battlefield, might, most certainly, makes right. No prizes for second place. If we want a certain outcome to our security position, than we damn sure better not loose this thing!

Then there should not ever have been any war crimes trials, anywhere, and there are no such things as war criminals. Flamethrowers, nerve gas, boiling oil, plutonium dust, bullets with botulism in them, mustard gas, fuel-air bombs, acid fogs... are all fine, and there's no need to apologize for "collateral damage", civilian casualties, or any other such thing.

Dude, to believe that "might makes right" under ANY circumstances is to abandon civilization. That position is the essence of what we call barbarism, and it breeds politicians who believe that because they have a bigger army they can do as they please around the world.

Do the words "Give me liberty, or give me death!" mean anything to you? From your arguments I would presume they mean that they authorize anything and everything a military commander might decide is expedient to "protect liberty". But what about the words, "All men are created equal"? There's no room for that one in what you've argued -- your version in essence is actually "All men on my side are created equal".

It is precisely this sort of mindset that makes people think war is okay -- and it isn't. There is no way to have a war and not violate rights, and your argument is that since it's a war, it's okay to violate rights. That's wrong -- it is NEVER okay to violate rights; it is never warranted, or justified. Violation of rights always, ALWAYS demands restitution, no matter the circumstances -- that's justice. So another way to describe your position would be to say that in war it's okay to throw out justice.

Honestly kuli, I want you running my city council, or being in charge of 'fun day' for the kiddies in the park. Your ideas are adorable, but please, stay out of the national security business.

War is not o.k. It is, however, sometimes necessary. I wish it weren't. I think we should make all reasonable effort to avoid non-combatant casualties and suffering. I believed in, and enforced such protocols while in uniform, but war is not a lawn tennis match in our garden whites. It's brutal and ugly and innocent people die. I can no more rescind that fact, than the laws of gravity.

Dude, it's the people in the national security business who need to remember these things the most. ALL men are created equal -- that means those guys on the other side, too. They have all the rights you do, and you have to keep that in mind.

Those German prisoners of war you referred to? They did in fact have the right to hold rallies; the exercise of that right was denied them. Certainly those who denied them that exercise believed they had good reason -- but there is NEVER a good reason to deny the exercise of a right.

You may believe that, but I can assure you that any attempt to exercise "rights" as we know them, by German prisoners in regards to freedom of movement or being secure in their property or speech or, whatever, was put down harshly. Exercising your 'rights', by holding an anti-American rally, while you attempted to 'keep and bear arms' would have been greeted by an immediate .30-06 Garand round though your forehead from the nearest American guard.

You don't read very closely, for one thing -- or you wouldn't have put in the crack about bearing arms.
That it would have been put down harshly would not have made it right to do so. Those measures were not taken with any thought of rights in mind, but of expedience for the military holding the prisoners. It was easier to treat them the way that was done, but it was not right, nor did it being easier make it right. Those prisoners retained their rights, and were due the free exercise of any which did not actually constitute resuming hostilities.

Your making an assumption that I find incredulous. You really believe that people never can be denied a "right"? Felons have no right to own a firearm, vote, even live in certain areas. You are aware of this, yes? When you decide to make war against my country, you have very few 'rights' I plan on honoring.

So what you're saying is that all a government has to do to remove someone's rights is to re-label him. Just make a DUI a felony -- oh, heck, make all crimes felonies, even parking tickets, and cut the number of voters down to a righteous few!
What you're saying is that any time a person can be framed, accused, and convicted, he or she loses whatever rights a government feels like taking away -- oh, by law, of course! Can't you see that from your position, the concentration camps were legitimate?!
The truth is that some felons have given up their right to firearms -- you'll notice that point is in my previous post. But all non-violent felons retain the right to keep and bear arms, and the government which has restricted their free exercise of that right has done so immorally and unjustly, and to the extent which it does not acknowledge this and make repair, it establishes itself as an illegitimate government, one not "of the people, by the people, and for the people".
Voting, of course, isn't really a 'right' in the proper sense; it is hardly inherent. It's part of the machinery of how a nation works, and can be altered in whatever way seems to work -- so long as it does not deny liberty.
Back to felons: you betray your ignorance of what rights are when you localize the rights, or their lack, of felons. Rights do not change by locale; that was the argument of King George III in his usurpation of the rights of colonists.

Sometimes it is necessary to trample some rights -- for example, if I knew for a fact that six terrorists had managed to slip a nuke into a warehouse in New York, but I wasn't sure what warehouse, I wouldn't hesitate to cheer on the National Guard as they ransacked building after building until they found the bomb -- but afterward I would demand, as any civilized person should do, that they make restitution to the owners of every bit of property for every last smidgin of damage they'd done.

And when a liberal judge threw out your search for lack of a signed warrant, and ordered the return of the property of the alleged terrorist and their immediate release? What then?

If I were the National Guard commander on the spot, and a judge did that, I'd tell him to take it up with the governor if he had a complaint.
But no judge would have the prisoners under his authority in the first place -- they invaded the United States, and aren't under the judge's jurisdiction.
Though it would be tempting to shoot the judge as a danger to the United States of America...
But my being a member of the military would not make that legitimate -- nor would any authorization to me to determine who was and was not an enemy combatant.

My response, using your 'National Guard" example. A 'nuke', is not a stick-up. It is an act of war. As members of the military, they should not concern themselves with calling 9-11, but should immediately seize all that is necessary and bundle their captives off to Army Intelligence for a nice stay at Club Gitmo.

Sorry kuli, but your 'better to let a hundred guilty go than..."just doesn't cut it with me. I will re-post my exact feeling on it from a soldiers, rather than a lawyers, perspective.

Then your America is not the America of the Founding Fathers -- sorry.

"Members of the military" -- seapuppy, the military is not a privileged class! It wouldn't matter if it was members of the military, a SWAT team, a sheriff's deputy and an impromptu posse, the local chapter of the Pink Pistols, or a bunch of grannies with an attitude! If they learned that there were terrorists with a nuke, and went after them, they're acting properly. And don't give me any "law and order" harrangue; law and order are servants of the people, and if they get in the way, they can be tossed out -- and sort it out later. If I were in that situation, as just plain me, and a cop tried to stop me from breaking in a door to find that nuke, I'd bother explaining to him -- not cooperating, only explaining -- only if I had spare manpower; otherwise I'd disable him in some fashion and get on with what was necessary. If he shot at me to stop me, I'd shoot back and remove the impediment to saving the place -- and expect to make such restitution as possible later, for my decision.

As for those detainees -- their rights are being trampled, if they are innocent. And someone had better be ready, not with a, "Sorry, sir", when it is found that they are innocent, but with thorough restitution for the mess made to their lives.

Hey, they get a free plane ticket back. Three hots and a cot while they are our guest. I would say "Our bad. Sorry" and give them a brief explanation that we can't put everything right for them, but sorry anyway. So tell me Kuli, if the millions upon millions of people, and their descendants, file suit against us from WW II, due to the countless destruction we caused on several continents, and won. Say the result is that American taxpayers, must shell out half of our total budget every year for the next lifetime or so, to pay for every teakettle we broke....you get the silliness of this? And no, the Marshal Plan wouldn't begin to cover it.

We don't, and the rest of the world, sanely, doesn't bother asking, because they know, that every thing in life....hang on... is not fair. Sorry, but it just isn't.

I think what you don't understand is that just because there is a law doesn't mean a thing is right. Whatever military law may say, it doesn't, it CAN'T, change what is right. What is right proceeds from "You own yourself", and nowhere else. Any violation of that demands restitution.

True, but in this case, it is right.

Kuli and ICO7,

Our country is engaged in active combat, in battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe, (and how this got to be the 'odd man out' assumption is mind-boggling.), that our armed forces and security services have the aegis of prosecuting it. they should be commended, and given wide latitude in protecting our national interest. They are not 'thugs'. They are not 'savages'. Our Commander in Chief is freely elected by the American people. Our generals and admirals who are responsible for prosecuting war are confirmed in their ranks by our Senate. Our soldiers are the sons and daughters of your country who have been trained in human rights, military law, and ethics, as well as the arts of war. They have honorably decided on their own, to serve their country in harms way, and they pay the price. Abu Ghraib was an anomaly. Our military goes to extraordinary lengths to protect the innocent. As best as they can. Give them some slack. It is an impossible task to never make a mistake.

Yes, I am appealing to old fashioned ideas. I believe with all my heart in them.

Wow -- what you're appealing to is authoritarianism and the notion of corporate responsibility.
Yes, we violated a lot of European people's rights in WW II, and restitution was owed. They didn't ask, so it's a moot point now -- but I don't think most would have anyway. And if they had, it would not have been a gripe against the U.S., but against the people who made those decisions, and it couldn't possibly have amounted to anything like you suggest, because we're talking restitution, not pipe dreams.
Violating rights is never right -- ever, at all.
"Oops" is a valid part of a defense (as is ignorance of the law, anywhere but America). But in order for it to be an "oops", you have to know that it was wrong -- but what you've been arguing is that might makes right, so it wasn't wrong, Sorry we fucked up your life, but we're the ones with the guns, so See ya!
Soldiers are supposed to deal with reality. Part of reality is that the guy they are running past, or chasing, or seeking cover from, has the same rights they do. Each soldier owns himself, and so does each of his foes. And if they aren't being taught that, then their ethics are what their commanders find expedient, not what is true and right.
Rights come first.


Oh -- the President isn't freely elected by the American people; he's elected by the Several States of the United States of America.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: I bet Scalia can't wait.....

Seapuppy, yours is the argument that says there are no war criminals, not mine.
There is no excuse for barbarism, but you seem to think that governments have some right to authorize it. I'll have to repeat this: governments have no rights; they have only authority granted them by the people. Since none of the people has any right to violate the rights of others, they cannot grant the government any right to do so. Thus any action by a government which violates someone's rights is immoral, just as it is for an individual.
Rights cannot be taken away -- ever. It can't happen, because rights are inherent in each person, who owns himself. The only way a right can vanish is if the person nullifies it (as I have explained and illustrated).
On the whole subject of felons you are incredibly naive, but it's part and parcel of your virtual worhsip of government. People are falsely arrested, framed, mistakenly arrested quite regularly, and get convicted as well, and thus become felons even though quite innocent. District attorneys prosecute people they know to be innocent, just as the police arrest people they know to be innocent.
Taking away the free exercise of any right from an innocent person is utterly immoral -- yet you affirm the practice.
Soldiers have no power except what is granted to them. Any power granted arises from the rights of the people. Thus any authority possessed by soldiers is an authority inherent in the people from whom it comes. That the people assign soldiers to carry out the application of this authority does not remove it from the people.
You don't seem to grasp at all what restitution is, but that's because you clearly don't understand what rights are -- your exaltation of government apparently blinds you to that. And your argument that some people can be authorized by government to act in immoral fashion is part of the same whole.
And if you were to proceed in actuality to "violate the hell out of" anyone's rights because you thought you were proper in doing so as a soldier, you would be as immoral as any arbitrary dictator from Caligula to Idi Amin. But since you don't grasp what rights are, I see why you would say what you do.

You seem to be unable to even see quite a few points I've been making, and that blindness fits the pattern of your thought. And you hold contradictory positions without seeming to know it. I see why IC07 gave up on trying to show you anything; you're just blind to it.

I'll just say this before I do the same: rights trump government; any society which denies this denies the intrinsic worth of each human being, and any person who denies it is the enemy of civilization, knowingly or not.

 

[swerve]

Justice Scalia on 60 Minutes...

WOW!!!

It is SO RARE to be able to take a peek into the minds of the Extraordinarily POWERFUL and MOSTLY UNSEEN members of the Supreme Court...

Unfortunately, my trucks TV signal DIED for the last segment...

BUT...

In the FIRST segment, I saw him as much LESS of a schill than I expected...

I suspect his problem is just plain ARROGANCE...

People that are THAT POWERFUL and think that they're ALWAYS RIGHT SCARE ME!!!

Anyone else get to watch this???

I'm curious as to how the 2nd segment came across...

 

[jackoroe]

Re: Justice Scalia on 60 Minutes...

I really like Scalia. One of the greatest minds on the court in my memory. He's confident, that's for sure. Sometimes that's confused for arrogance by some. I've not seen any of the interview, I'll look for it on the web.

 

[sunoftheskye]

Re: Justice Scalia on 60 Minutes...

Here's a clip.

 

[sixthson]

Re: Justice Scalia on 60 Minutes...

Agreed, confident not arrogant. I loved the fact that he and Ruth Ginsberg are great friends on the court and in their personal lives. She spoke very highly of him.
They tend to be polar opposites in their judicial and political views.

Also, he's an only child with no cousins (WOW, Italian) but he and his wife have 9 children and over 20 grandchildren.

I think often it is too easy to dismiss someone who has different political views than our own. I've always thought he was a great man.