Apparently Scalia is the Supreme Court Justice equivalent of that annoying aunt who forwards every chain e-mail she receives to everyone in her address book. That actually isn't all that surprising.

Does anyone find it shocking any more that so much of "conservatism" in its current flavor* is baseless fearmongering?

_{*To any remaining genuine conservatives, I feel for you.}

mcwebe0: Apparently Scalia is the Supreme Court Justice equivalent of that annoying aunt who forwards every chain e-mail she receives to everyone in her address book.

Scalia helped bring down Big Oil by not buying gas for one day.

He does kinda get in the way of those who legislate from the bench. What a pain in the ass he is.

Jon Snow: Does anyone find it shocking any more that so much of "conservatism" in its current flavor* is baseless fearmongering?

*To any remaining genuine conservatives, I feel for you.

Fear the Conservatives!! The Dem's are just as bad with fear mongering. They use economics and scorched earth (global warming). Oh, and fear the evil corporations!!!

GaryPDX: He does kinda get in the way of those who legislate from the bench. What a pain in the ass he is.

His opinion reads like a statement from the floor of Congress. He has lost any authority on the subject of "legislating from the bench." He had a legal argument for his position, but he eschewed it for a political one. F*ck him.

Jon Snow: Does anyone find it shocking any more that so much of "conservatism" in its current flavor* is baseless fearmongering?

You're going to burn in hell... Er are going to be blown up by terrorists... Er thrown in prison without charges...I mean ahhh beaten by jack booted thugs... for those comments.

Oh well, you get what I mean.

GaryPDX: He does kinda get in the way of those who legislate from the bench. What a pain in the ass he is.

The slanted view that you get of the world must make for fantastic discussion around the dinner table.

Interview regarding torture/a> (new window - not RickRoll)

"SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think - Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so."

So his point is that since the act of torturing someone is not to punish them, but merely to extract information, the act of torturing is not punishment and therefore, cannot be 'cruel and unusual'.

But the act is still the same act, whether the intention is to extract information or to punish.

/it's the medication

GaryPDX: The Dem's are just as bad with fear mongering. They use economics and scorched earth (global warming).

The Dems aren't even going to get rid of all of Bush's tax cuts and they couldn't get a climate bill passed. If those are your examples of Democratic fearmongering they're neither baseless nor it seems something that the Democrats are fighting particularly hard for.

Scalia is no more of a constitutionalist than Ginsburg, no matter what he says to the contrary. He's simply a "conservative" judicial activist, who cares no more about the Constitution when it's opposed to his personal opinion than does the rest of the Court.

Scalia gave up years ago. He's now just a partisan hack drawing a fat paycheck by phoning it in.

how exactly does one prove a judge has not been holding their office in good behavior?

This is why Republicans suck. There's no real gap between their craziest nutjobs and their party leaders--they literlly all think the same. Coulter = Malkin = Hannity = Limbaugh = Bush = Scalia. A collection of nutjobs who managed to get elected since most of their base is every bit as batshiat crazy as they are.

Dems have nutjobs, and a few of them have even gotten elected (McKinney, etc.) but for the most part they're semi-reasonable centrists who want what's best for the country.

There isn't a sane Republican left in the country.

GaryPDX: He does kinda get in the way of those who legislate from the bench. What a pain in the ass he is.

Ah yes! The ol' Fark Independents™!

GaryPDX He does kinda get in the way of those who legislate from the bench.


Scalia's making political pronouncements based on facts not in evidence, and apparently false. The majority made a legal decision about the scope of a Constitutional right, which cannot be altered by statute. Scalia is a political actor draping himself in principles that he wouldn't recognize if they slapped him in the sack.

Terrorism is conservative porn.

Poopspasm: This is why Republicans suck. There's no real gap between their craziest nutjobs and their party leaders--they literlly all think the same. Coulter = Malkin = Hannity = Limbaugh = Bush = Scalia. A collection of nutjobs who managed to get elected since most of their base is every bit as batshiat crazy as they are.

Dems have nutjobs, and a few of them have even gotten elected (McKinney, etc.) but for the most part they're semi-reasonable centrists who want what's best for the country.

There isn't a sane Republican left in the country.

Although I'm quite liberal, and as sick of the neocons as anyone, I have to disagree. There are many Republicans who dislike the neocons that hijacked the party.

Jon Snow: GaryPDX: The Dem's are just as bad with fear mongering. They use economics and scorched earth (global warming).

The Dems aren't even going to get rid of all of Bush's tax cuts and they couldn't get a climate bill passed. If those are your examples of Democratic fearmongering they're neither baseless nor it seems something that the Democrats are fighting particularly hard for.

Yes, because the proper proof that Dem's aren't fearmongerers is that they're incompetent and useless.

Scalia gave up years ago. He's now just a partisan hack drawing a fat paycheck by phoning it in.

Supreme court justices give up the potential to earn a hell of a lot more than their government salaries when they take the job. Whether you agree with them or not, these are some of the shrewdest political minds in the country, and they could be earning significantly more than $200.000 a year with ease.

Farnn: Supreme court justices give up the potential to earn a hell of a lot more than their government salaries when they take the job. Whether you agree with them or not, these are some of the shrewdest political minds in the country, and they could be earning significantly more than $200.000 a year with ease

They don't do it for the money. They do it for the power and prestige. Just like most politicians.

What I really want to know is whether he and his wife ever commit sodomy.

The Beacon Man: Fark.com's liberals say it and so YOU need to believe it:

The Taliban are innocent until proven guilty.

Every one is innocent until proven guilty.

/liberal only in the classical sense

The Beacon Man: Fark.com's liberals say it and so YOU need to believe it:

The Taliban are innocent until proven guilty.

Not one person in this thread has said that.

LordJiro: Although I'm quite liberal, and as sick of the neocons as anyone, I have to disagree. There are many Republicans who dislike the neocons that hijacked the party.

They say they are, but only because they don't like the results. They still love the ideas, as evidenced by the fact that they go right out and vote for more of them every election. I wish I could agree with you, but I don't.

I've seen plenty of these "reasonable conservatives" on Fark: "Sure our candidate is a flip-flopping, senile Bush clone...BUT AT LEAST HE'S NOT A COMMUNIST!!1!"

Like I said, batshiat insane.

I never really understood how Scalia's original argument made sense anyway. Putting prisoners on trial is the method we, in this culture, determine official guilt or innocence.
It's as though he was suggesting that since we released guilty detainees after never going on trial, it was imperative that we continue preventing detainees from going to trial.

GaryPDX

He does kinda get in the way of those who legislate from the bench. What a pain in the ass he is.


It must be frustrating to hold on to that talking point when Scalia's dissent in the heabus corpus case was basically "we can't let the law or constitution get in the way of the fact that i'm shiatting my pants right now thinking of how scary it would be if we allowed the terrorists to be tried in a court of law so we basically have to make shiat up."

Could have used the Obvious tag on this one.

m2313 The Beacon Man: Fark.com's liberals say it and so YOU need to believe it:

The Taliban are innocent until proven guilty.

Not one person in this thread has said that.

Hey, fiction's all he's got to work with.

It's laughable that there are people who think this decision will result in bombed american cities. As if any of these GITMO inmates would ever be allowed back into the US even if they were found innocent. I don't know how you republicans get any work done with all your quivering like a scared pussy underneath your desks.

The Beacon Man: Fark.com's liberals say it and so YOU need to believe it:

The Taliban are innocent until proven guilty.

Hmm, so only liberals support a bedrock American principle as this? LeatherAfternoonHellbentDogDelight, you're slipping.

The newest rightist meme is that liberals are really fascists who don't believe in this:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Axolotl m2313 The Beacon Man: Fark.com's liberals say it and so YOU need to believe it:

The Taliban are innocent until proven guilty.

Not one person in this thread has said that.

Hey, fiction's all he's got to work with.

Reality has a liberal bias.

What's sad is that he has a legendary reputation for being a vigorous proponent of textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation, when frankly many of his opinions are so partisan it's sickening...

It is not possible to dance to both a nonpartisan beat and a conservative beat at the same time, and this man has shown us why.

When his ability to administer justice blindly has been tested, he has failed. Badly.

See: Bush v. Gore. 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

When questioned on 60 minutes about that decision, which was quite possibly one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, he simply said people who were upset by the decision should get over it. Considering the profound impact that decision had on America, and the many terrible repercussions that have come about as a result, one has to question whether he is even aware of the detrimental effects his partisanship has had on our nation.

Don't get me wrong. He, like Vice President Dick Cheney, is an incredibly smart man. But as with Cheney, I question whether Justice Scalia is either a good man, much less a just one. And when the men who determine the fate of our nation's justice system are neither good nor just, a legitimate question arises as to whether our system of justice has become as corrupt and lacking as the other two branches of the federal government.

As a student of the law soon to take the bar, it saddens me to see that so many in the legal community still hold this man in such high regards.

Just my opinion, but I really think the time has come for him to step down.

McStinky: So his point is that since the act of torturing someone is not to punish them, but merely to extract information, the act of torturing is not punishment and therefore, cannot be 'cruel and unusual'.

And he is absolutely correct. Your 8th Amendment rights do not attach until you've been sentenced to a crime. He isn't saying torture isn't cruel and unusual, just that it doesn't violate the 8th Amendment if it is used to interrogate detainees. Of course, it likely violates your 5th Amendment rights, but the remedy for that is exclusion of evidence obtained in that manner.

I'm sure that people held in a prison camp (illegally or not) will hold no ill will upon release... sure of it!

Sorry but this sounds like a situation to be treated with, at least, a great deal of caution. An abused dog is prone to bite and pretending it wont is a sure way to get your hand chewed.
Thats not to say that the initial insult was justified. Its simply logical to protect yourself in the situation that exists now by carefully dealing with the aftermath.

Antidamascus:
Terrorism is conservative porn.

Sometimes only four words are needed to make a brilliant, and frighteningly and unfortunately accurate, statement.

aka

THIS

\does your newsletter come with a t-shirt?

The Beacon Man: Fark.com's liberals say it and so YOU need to believe it:

The Taliban are innocent until proven guilty.

yes. That you don't believe in innocence until guilt is proven is.... insane. And scary.

The Beacon Man: Fark.com's liberals say it and so YOU need to believe it:

The Taliban are innocent until proven guilty.

As opposed to what, the Republican policy of considering them guilty first and then LETTING THEM GET AWAY?

How Republicans can let AQ and the Taliban get away with 911 and then claim to be tough on "terrorism" is beyond me.

If waterboarding isn't considered torture, and interogations are not considered punishment, why arn't the local police to waterboard suspected criminals?

saintstryfe The Beacon Man: Fark.com's liberals say it and so YOU need to believe it:

The Taliban are innocent until proven guilty.

yes. That you don't believe in innocence until guilt is proven is.... insane. And scary.

Why does The Beacon Man hate America?

Scalia just likes to play the victim

Farnn: Scalia gave up years ago. He's now just a partisan hack drawing a fat paycheck by phoning it in.

Supreme court justices give up the potential to earn a hell of a lot more than their government salaries when they take the job. Whether you agree with them or not, these are some of the shrewdest political minds in the country, and they could be earning significantly more than $200.000 a year with ease.

I like how you said "political" and not legal, because Scalia and Tomas are just worthless as far as that goes.

The Dem's are just as bad with fear mongering.

So whenever a conservative messes up, instead of defending their position or even admitting that they did indeed mess up, you find the discussion instead calls for "but, but, dems!" handwaving. Pathetic.

Stop being part of the problem with your ra-ra-ra cheerleading bullshiat for once.

The guy at the end of the thread If waterboarding isn't considered torture, and interogations are not considered punishment, why arn't the local police to waterboard suspected criminals?

I am so going to steal that.

Bucky Katt: Hmm, so only liberals support a bedrock American principle as this? LeatherAfternoonHellbentDogDelight, you're slipping.

Farnn: Supreme court justices give up the potential to earn a hell of a lot more than their government salaries when they take the job. Whether you agree with them or not, these are some of the shrewdest political minds in the country, and they could be earning significantly more than $200.000 a year with ease.

But then they'd face the risk of being fired, would have to give up the large staff of clerks that do all the real work, and might have to work more than 100 days a year.

Sandelaphon I actually meant legal, just made a mistake.

Troy McClure You do realize that to get to the position they did before they were appointed to the court they would have had to have been extremely hard workers. After busting your ass for a long time its hard to just have tons of free time.

The article is a complete strawman. Scalia never said that the detainees who were released killed Americans. He said they have killed "innocent" people. His statement about "more Americans will be killed" was made in a completely separate paragraph and had nothing to do with his detailing of the deaths of people attributed to former Gitmo detainees.

Here's the full statement for those of you who probably have never read anything Scalia has written anyway:

"In the long term, then, the Court's decision today accomplishes little, except perhaps to reduce the well-being of enemy combatants that the Court ostensibly seeks to protect. In the short term, however, the decision is devastating.
At least 30 of those prisoners hitherto released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to the battlefield. See S. Rep. No. 110-90, pt. 7, p. 13 (2007) (Minority Views of Sens. Kyl, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, and Coburn) (hereinafter Minority Report). Some have been captured or killed. See ibid.; see also Mintz, Released Detainees Rejoining the Fight, Washington Post, Oct. 22, 2004, pp.A1, A12. But others have succeeded in carrying on their atrocities against innocent civilians. In one case, a detainee released from Guantanamo Bay masterminded the kidnapping of two Chinese dam workers, one of whom was later shot to death when used as a human shield against Pakistani commandoes. See Khan & Lancaster, Pakistanis Rescue Hostage; 2nd Dies, Washington Post, Oct. 15, 2004, p. A18. Another former detainee promptly resumed his post as a senior Taliban commander and murdered a United Nations engineer and three Afghan soldiers.
Mintz, supra. Still another murdered an Afghan judge. See Minority Report 13. It was reported only last month that a released detainee carried out a suicide bombing against Iraqi soldiers in Mosul, Iraq. See White, Ex-Guantanamo Detainee Joined Iraq Suicide Attack, Washington Post, May 8, 2008, p. A18."

Now, if you want to argue that Scalia was wrong, that's fine. But you also have to argue that the Washington Post, the U.S. Senate and others were wrong as well, since that's where he got the information he's relying on.

OriginallyDC, if you can't see that Bush v. Gore was rightly decided, you're letting both your partisanship and your 20/20 hindsight cloud your judgment. The outcome of the election is not the point of the case. The Florida Supreme Court was trying to rewrite Florida's election laws sua sponte. That's BS. But that's an argument for a different thread. Good luck with the bar.

OriginallyDC: Don't get me wrong. He, like Vice President Dick Cheney, is an incredibly smart man.

Do you know who else was a smart man?

DeltaXi65: Now, if you want to argue that Scalia was wrong, that's fine. But you also have to argue that the Washington Post, the U.S. Senate and others were wrong as well, since that's where he got the information he's relying on.

I don't remember if it was in TFA or somewhere else today, but I saw a report claiming exactly that. I believe it was a later report by DOJ that demonstrated the manifest falseness of those claims.