Justice Antonin Scalia [merged]

[hermanding]

Re: Rep. Frank calls Scalia a homophobe

rareboy seems correct to me. Scalia has all the appearances of a homophobe. perhaps it is time to use the same tactic used by the right wing ministers who were going to pray for 'God to take certain justices'- perhaps prayers can be offered for Scalia and possibly others to be 'taken'-
ding

 

[rareboy]

Re: Rep. Frank calls Scalia a homophobe

When Scalia effectively equated homosexuality with murder in justifying moral indignation against an equal benfits law, in a decision some years ago, he went wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy over the line; his comments were just short of hate speech. The fact that this hyper-right-wing fucktard is likely to occupy space on the bench for another decade at least really rankles.

 

[G-Lexington]

Re: Rep. Frank calls Scalia a homophobe

His comments are accurate. That doesn't mean they're not out of line.

Lex

 

[metta]

Re: Rep. Frank calls Scalia a homophobe

So, I guess this clinches it.

We will no longer be putting any Catholics on the Supreme Court.

Why would that be? How many 'Catholics' follow what their church tells them? Condoms and birth control for example. Many Catholics call themselves Catholics and even go to church but do not necessarily believe or follow what their leadership tells them.

 

[RationalLunacy]

Re: Rep. Frank calls Scalia a homophobe

The answer to the problem, therefore, is to appoint Barney Frank as a Supreme Court justice to balance out the court.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

Re: Rep. Frank calls Scalia a homophobe

Gee what a bunch of sissies you guys are. Frank is right and everybody knows it. Why shouldn't he say it? Screw Scalia.

 

[Huskerboy]

Re: Rep. Frank calls Scalia a homophobe

When Scalia effectively equated homosexuality with murder in justifying moral indignation against an equal benfits law, in a decision some years ago, he went wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy over the line; his comments were just short of hate speech. The fact that this hyper-right-wing fucktard is likely to occupy space on the bench for another decade at least really rankles.

We need supreme justices who uphold the Constitution NOT their own agendas! Get rid of the hate monger!

 

[hermanding]

Re: Rep. Frank calls Scalia a homophobe

let's get those people praying for his being 'taken'
ding

 

[hotatlboi]

Justice Scalia shows his true colors

that is, a whore for the radical right.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scalia-20110105,0,6424868.story

He accepted an invitation from Bachmann to talk to incoming House members about the Constitution (or repealing Obamacare, or whatever else).

 

[JB3]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

that is, a whore for the radical right.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scalia-20110105,0,6424868.story

He accepted an invitation from Bachmann to talk to incoming House members about the Constitution (or repealing Obamacare, or whatever else).

What's your point? Its for all incoming house members, democrats included.

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

What's your point?

That this kind of action is highly irregular and gives the impression that Scalia is supporting his political allies on the right, who just took over the House, rather than being an impartial adjudicator as is his role.

 

[cocksucker4use]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

That this kind of action is highly irregular and gives the impression that Scalia is supporting his political allies on the right, who just took over the House, rather than being an impartial adjudicator as is his role.

Anton Scalia has always been the personification of radical conservatism, and I don't think anyone has ever confused him with imapartiality or objectivity.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

The problem is not that a justice is addressing congresscritters, it's that particular congresscritters invited a particular justice.

Such a request should have been addressed to the Court, not a particular justice, and should have come from either the Speaker of the House or Majority Leader of the Senate, or both.

I see in that article (and a few others) that constitutional scholar Jonathon Turley has scorched Scalia good for this. If Turley, who's a hard-line original-intent guy who's hated by Republicans because he wants the Court to just go ahead and declare all individual rights incorporated against the states and be done with it (hint: that would mean freedom of association....), thinks Scalia is out of line, then Scalia is surely out of line.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

Anton Scalia has always been the personification of radical conservatism, and I don't think anyone has ever confused him with imapartiality or objectivity.

I learned recently that he has on more than one occasion either deliberately misquoted or flat out fabricated statistics to support his position in a number of rulings. He's sort of the reactionary counterpart to Michael A. Bellesiles, who fabricated and distorted data about American history badly enough he was stripped of his Bancroft Prize and booted from his university chair.

Too bad we have no honest 'board of governors' who can strip Scalia of his law degree and boot him from D.C.

 

[JB3]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

Yeah... there's supposed to be separation of powers and balance of power. It's not supposed to be all one big chummy club.

You don't understand the concept of separation of powers if you think this is a violation of that.

 

[JB3]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

That this kind of action is highly irregular and gives the impression that Scalia is supporting his political allies on the right, who just took over the House, rather than being an impartial adjudicator as is his role.

I'd be interested to know if its ever been asked before. If not, you can't say its highly irregular because there is no 'regular' of denying the request. I'd also be interested to know if they asked other justices and were turned down, or if Scalia was their only choice.

 

[rareboy]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

It should not have been a supreme court justice delivering the lecture on Constitution 101 to a bunch of noobs in the House.

They should have asked a constitutional scholar or panel of scholars to address the members.

But Scalia is a whack job of the first order and I have no doubt would be able to bend the constitution to permit a dictatorship as long as it was conservative christian.

The idea of Scalia as impartial adjudicator beggars belief.

 

[jackoroe]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

There is no one more intelligent on the court than Scalia. No on on the court has a better understanding of the Constitution than Scalia. Explaining the Constitution to the members of Congress is a great idea. Some of you whined about Beck and Bachman's bona fides when they offered to do so. You don't have that argument anymore.

Much ado about nothing.

 

[rareboy]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

I'm not arguing the man's intelligence.

I am suggesting that it is inappropriate for one supreme court justice to be delivering a lecture on the constitution to another branch of government.

The SC is not there to help ensure that the legislature crafts a bill to suit the SC, particularly any one justice's opinion of what the constitution means.

The SC is there to be the final adjudicator of an issue.

Does this mean that in the future, Scalia or other SC justices can be called upon by the legislators to advise while legislation is being crafted?

I also agree that explaining the constitution to a bunch of political animals is a good thing. I just think there are much better ways to do it that don't begin to blur the roles of each branch of government realtive to the other.

 

[palemale]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

Scalia does not believe the 14th Amendment protects women against unequal treatment. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html It seems he is not a "strict constructionist," i.e., he does not believe the constitution should be interpreted as written. Rather, he is an "originalist," and believes the constitution should be interpreted by the intent of the drafters, rather than the ordinary meanings of the words.

This nonsense about the 14th Amendment is a perfect example. The 14th Amendment grants equal protection to "citizens." It doesn't specify male citizens, but that's what Scalia thinks the drafters intended, so that's why he believes it does not afford equal protection to women. Following his logic, he certainly would not believe it afforded equal protection to gay men (forget about lesbians), since the drafters never contemplated gay marriage or DOMA. Of course, I guess he might think it protects the rights of gay men to marry each other, but not lesbians. Utter nonsense. Scalia is all about a reactionary, result-driven jurisprudence.