If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   In a new book: "I can read the minds of dead people, so you're wrong" Scalia spells out his judicial philosophy   (npr.org) divider line 50
    More: Obvious, judicial philosophy, Scalia, Scalia Disputes, dead people, Eighth Amendment, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, warrantless wiretapping, originalist  
•       •       •

1680 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jul 2012 at 8:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-25 08:27:42 AM
Powers do not extend to living people.
 
2012-07-25 08:33:15 AM
He is godlike in that he is a entity unto himself, but also an inseparable element of a trinity - Scalitomas!
 
2012-07-25 08:40:39 AM
Opus Dei is a helluva drug
 
2012-07-25 08:42:33 AM
Just heard this douche on the radio.

He is still butthurt about the healthcare ruling, he wouldnt even mention it by name.

Suck it Republicans.
 
2012-07-25 08:45:13 AM
static.guim.co.uk

/speaking for the dead? Lemme show ya how it's done son.
 
2012-07-25 08:45:43 AM
In a new book co-authored with Bryan Garner, Scalia spells out his judicial philosophy...

I read that as Bryant Gumbel and was momentarily confused.

the always voluble, charming and combative justice sat for a wide-ranging interview

[Inigo]

his "best friend on the court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg

I need to sit down now.
 
2012-07-25 08:46:18 AM
So we can't ever look at decisions differently because of advances in technology or society? This religious fixation on the Constitution is baffling to me.

Can we use this rationale to get rid of the Air Force? We could probably save a few bucks there.
 
2012-07-25 08:50:50 AM
@NateGrey: Good thing the new healthcare law went into effect so he can see a doctor about that problem.
 
2012-07-25 08:51:58 AM
He believes the court was similarly wrong in barring warrantless wiretapping.

"That's simply contrary to the text of the Fourth Amendment, which never protected privacy in some broad sense," he said. "It's very specific [in barring unreasonable searches only of] persons, houses, papers and effects."


You horse's ass!
 
2012-07-25 08:52:00 AM
Derp, got passed not in full effect yet
 
2012-07-25 08:53:47 AM

Lanadapter: @NateGrey: Good thing the new healthcare law went into effect so he can see a doctor about that problem.


Amusingly, Justice Scalia already has one of the best healthcare plans in the country, provided by the Federal Government.
 
2012-07-25 08:54:17 AM
Sometimes I wonder what people who lived and died before I was born thought of certain issues and what agreements they had made. If only there was a way to know such. Perhaps the ability to somehow record an idea will be established.
 
2012-07-25 09:01:00 AM
It will take decades to undo the legal damage that Scalia has done.
 
2012-07-25 09:13:47 AM
But torture is still ok, right?
 
2012-07-25 09:15:08 AM
How is this guy any more that a dog catcher?
 
2012-07-25 09:17:38 AM

bujin: So we can't ever look at decisions differently because of advances in technology or society?


Yup. Which is why police arresting sovereign citizens for so-called "computer crime" or "child pornography" is such an abomination.
 
2012-07-25 09:17:51 AM

PanicMan: He believes the court was similarly wrong in barring warrantless wiretapping.

"That's simply contrary to the text of the Fourth Amendment, which never protected privacy in some broad sense," he said. "It's very specific [in barring unreasonable searches only of] persons, houses, papers and effects."

You horse's ass!


no shiat. if the founding fathers intended to protect the privacy of a phone call they would have said so...am I right?

/seriously
 
2012-07-25 09:22:42 AM
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
 
2012-07-25 09:22:50 AM
conventional wisdom about the court and its history.

This man does not know what this sentence means.
 
2012-07-25 09:23:17 AM
Heard this ass clown this morning... He believes that the idea of 1 person, 1 vote is not constitutional... He almost got caught in saying that women shouldn't have the right to vote too.
 
2012-07-25 09:24:56 AM
Scalia: one of the obviously terrible human beings currently sitting on the US Supreme Court.
 
2012-07-25 09:26:52 AM

DamnYankees: But torture is still ok, right?


Only if the torture is either cruel or unusual. If it is both cruel AND unusual then it is forbidden by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers intended torture to be the norm that way it couldn't be labeled 'unusual' by liberals.
 
2012-07-25 09:28:15 AM

Muta: DamnYankees: But torture is still ok, right?

Only if the torture is either cruel or unusual. If it is both cruel AND unusual then it is forbidden by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers intended torture to be the norm that way it couldn't be labeled 'unusual' by liberals.


It's also ok if you do it for fun. Or to extract information. Or to deter other people. As long as you don't do it as a 'punishment'.
 
2012-07-25 09:31:38 AM
What a hateful little homunculus.
 
2012-07-25 09:35:11 AM

PanicMan: He believes the court was similarly wrong in barring warrantless wiretapping.

"That's simply contrary to the text of the Fourth Amendment, which never protected privacy in some broad sense," he said. "It's very specific [in barring unreasonable searches only of] persons, houses, papers and effects."

You horse's ass!


I would think a strict Constitutionalist would categorize the electrical impulses over a phone line created by the sound of someone's voice as 'effects'.
 
2012-07-25 09:35:48 AM

DamnYankees: But torture is still ok, right?


As long as the method used was invented after the 1700's, it's great!
 
2012-07-25 09:39:30 AM
His continued use of strict constitutionalist to defend his rambling, inconsistent, partisan rulings is one of the great travesties of an unelected, lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

That he actually used reasoning that torture is ok but it isn't really punishment since the victims weren't convicted of a crime makes me sick to my stomach.
 
2012-07-25 09:39:54 AM
I heard some of that interview today, it was pretty good.
 
2012-07-25 09:40:06 AM
scalia has done far more damage to the united states than osama bin laden. he, along with his minions on the court, is one of the greatest threats this country currently faces.
 
2012-07-25 09:41:06 AM

KellyX: Heard this ass clown this morning... He believes that the idea of 1 person, 1 vote is not constitutional... He almost got caught in saying that women shouldn't have the right to vote too.


The only reason Scalia doesn't think that Thomas should only have 3/5 of a vote is that he controls that vote.
 
2012-07-25 09:48:12 AM
Supreme Court justices should be appointed for limited terms, like 4 or 5 years, that can be renewed, not for life.
 
2012-07-25 09:59:45 AM

farkityfarker: Supreme Court justices should be appointed for limited terms, like 4 or 5 years, that can be renewed, not for life.


Something RON PAUL suggested (and I tend to agree) is that the terms be limited to one18 year term. Every two years a president selects a Supreme Court judge. If one dies or retires then the President nominates another to finish the term. I guess a replacement judge could be re-nominated. A set up like this would be long enough to maintain some degree of long term judicial consistency while maintaining a regular, predictable turn over to keep the court's mindset in line with the general public.
 
2012-07-25 10:04:44 AM

farkityfarker: Supreme Court justices should be appointed for limited terms, like 4 or 5 years, that can be renewed, not for life.


No, you don't ever want a justice thinking "what do I need to do to get re-nominated".

Each justice should serve one 18-year term, and then retire.
 
2012-07-25 10:08:01 AM
His philosophy is flawed. You cannot know what the original intent was without the bias of your opinion getting in the way. First of all, who do you look to to find original intent? The authors? The collective body of those at the Constitutional Convention? The representatives at the state level that ratified the document? You could never come to a consensus unless you cherry pick what makes you opinion valid. It's simply a philosophy of convenience.
 
2012-07-25 10:14:06 AM

bgilmore5: His philosophy is flawed. You cannot know what the original intent was without the bias of your opinion getting in the way. First of all, who do you look to to find original intent? The authors? The collective body of those at the Constitutional Convention? The representatives at the state level that ratified the document? You could never come to a consensus unless you cherry pick what makes you opinion valid. It's simply a philosophy of convenience.


It's pretty easy really, you turn the lights down low and take a psychic poll with a ouija board.
 
2012-07-25 10:29:07 AM
If you want a true example of exactly how ludicrous Scalia can be, read his majority opinion in the case that applies the 2nd Amendment to the States...McDonald v. City of Chicago. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the analysis Scalia used to get there is nothing short of absurd.
 
2012-07-25 10:29:24 AM
I asked Scalia about what, in his book, he calls the "cardinal principle" of statutory construction: "As between two possible interpretations of a statute ... our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act."

...so, Justice Scalia agrees with Chief Justice John Roberts that the health care mandate should be interpreted as a tax penalty?

Please color me "confused".
 
2012-07-25 10:33:15 AM
 
2012-07-25 10:36:14 AM
by his logic, the second amendment allows you to own nothing more than a brown bess musket.
 
2012-07-25 10:39:43 AM
Conversely, because the death penalty existed at the time the Constitution was written, it cannot be that the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment allows a constitutional ban on capital punishment. The question, he says, is whether current methods of execution are more cruel than hanging, which was the method of execution in 1789. He thinks the court thus has been wrong to bar the death penalty for the mentally disabled and the young.

...

He believes the court was similarly wrong in barring warrantless wiretapping.

"That's simply contrary to the text of the Fourth Amendment, which never protected privacy in some broad sense," he said. "It's very specific [in barring unreasonable searches only of] persons, houses, papers and effects."


Pro death penalty for children and the mentally disabled. Doesn't believe in the right to privacy. He's a Conservative's wet dream.
 
2012-07-25 10:45:41 AM

RyogaM: Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.


If there was only some mechanic that would let us alter the wording of the constitution so that it can better reflect our beliefs. Maybe such a mechanic would let us alter it 10, 16,, 27 or even more times.
 
2012-07-25 10:53:33 AM

Muta: PanicMan: He believes the court was similarly wrong in barring warrantless wiretapping.

"That's simply contrary to the text of the Fourth Amendment, which never protected privacy in some broad sense," he said. "It's very specific [in barring unreasonable searches only of] persons, houses, papers and effects."

You horse's ass!

I would think a strict Constitutionalist would categorize the electrical impulses over a phone line created by the sound of someone's voice as 'effects'.


Our Founding Fathers didn't have voices. That's why they wrote everything down.
 
2012-07-25 10:53:57 AM
I must be getting old. I heard this report on my ride in this morning and came away with a more favorable opinion of him than before (which isn't saying much) and look forward to reading his book.
 
2012-07-25 10:57:58 AM

bujin: So we can't ever look at decisions differently because of advances in technology or society? This religious fixation on the Constitution is baffling to me.


The argument is more that when technology and society change there's ways of changing the law that don't involve *imagining* a different meaning to them.
 
2012-07-25 10:59:16 AM

featurecreep: I must be getting old. I heard this report on my ride in this morning and came away with a more favorable opinion of him than before (which isn't saying much) and look forward to reading his book.


You sound tired as well.
 
2012-07-25 11:28:20 AM
Muta
Something RON PAUL suggested (and I tend to agree) is that the terms be limited to one18 year term.

The average time served for justices is 16 years. Paul's suggestion would only make the process more politicised. Do you really want a constant steam of interum short term justices? If you have an opening for a two-year term, that's only going to be appealing to party hacks who'll be trying to earn a payoff.
 
2012-07-25 12:33:18 PM

bulldg4life: His continued use of strict constitutionalist to defend his rambling, inconsistent, partisan rulings is one of the great travesties of an unelected, lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

That he actually used reasoning that torture is ok but it isn't really punishment since the victims weren't convicted of a crime makes me sick to my stomach.


That really is disturbing.
 
2012-07-25 04:04:02 PM
I would like to find out if his arteries are hardening.
 
2012-07-25 05:40:07 PM
Scalia is a boil on the ass of America.
 
2012-07-25 07:30:52 PM
@Lunchlady: Which is a good reason to hate him, he's ruining an otherwise nice ass.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report