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.

(Las Vegas Sun)   Antonin Scalia goes to a special Mass for judges with a bunch of judges and lawyers in Vegas. MoveOn.org has a problem with this   (lasvegassun.com) divider line 60
    More: Obvious, Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court, lot, Las Vegas Sands Corp., Palazzo, liturgy, Sheldon Adelson, Las Vegas Strip  
•       •       •

1445 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Sep 2012 at 4:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-05 12:31:00 PM
I think Scalia has a few things he could teach them. And they would be better for learning it.
 
2012-09-05 12:36:46 PM
I would feel more comfortable if Scalia took responsibility for his own actions instead of trying to blame it on the invisible man.
 
2012-09-05 12:39:41 PM
I know when I think blessings, I always think Las Vegas

/the hell?
 
2012-09-05 12:43:52 PM
Had to click the article to make sure he wasn't coming to my state.

Dude doesn't DESERVE to visit Boston. :P
 
2012-09-05 12:50:52 PM
It's time to put the justices party affiliation next to their names in the news. Antonin Scalia(R-Supreme) is much more succinct than stating he was appointed in 1986.
 
2012-09-05 12:51:33 PM
He's probably out there on Adelson's tab.
 
2012-09-05 12:55:33 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I think Scalia has a few things he could teach them. And they would be better for learning it.


Please name them.
 
2012-09-05 12:57:21 PM

Linoleum_Blownapart: It's time to put the justices party affiliation next to their names in the news. Antonin Scalia(R-Supreme) is much more succinct than stating he was appointed in 1986.


So, someone like Souter would have been....?
 
2012-09-05 01:10:25 PM

Linoleum_Blownapart: It's time to put the justices party affiliation next to their names in the news. Antonin Scalia(R-Supreme) is much more succinct than stating he was appointed in 1986.


Listen, Scalia is an idiot, and everyone with a brain knows that, but it's not because he's "conservative". Conservative Justices can, have, and most certainly will again, produce good decisions. I give you Roberts and Obamacare as a recent, notable example.
 
2012-09-05 01:21:25 PM
They're just now finding out about Red Masses? Well, that's understandable given they've only been around for most of the previous millennium.
 
2012-09-05 01:49:22 PM
Scalia defends torture. This is what a judge on our highest court actually thinks:

STAHL: If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person - if you listen to the expression "cruel and unusual punishment," doesn't that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think - Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you're in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody-
SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?
 
2012-09-05 01:51:57 PM
A planned visit by conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to a Las Vegas Roman Catholic church for a ceremony seeking divine guidance for legal professionals and to a Las Vegas Strip casino reception afterward

An itinerary of hypocrisy, fitting for our republican supreme court justices...
 
2012-09-05 01:52:08 PM
This guy went to churches too:

4.bp.blogspot.com

I'll let you decide who is the bigger asshole.

Hint: It's not the fictional character.
 
2012-09-05 02:10:12 PM

hurdboy: Linoleum_Blownapart: It's time to put the justices party affiliation next to their names in the news. Antonin Scalia(R-Supreme) is much more succinct than stating he was appointed in 1986.

So, someone like Souter would have been....?


Souter would have been an R as well, much as Olympia Snowe(R-ME) or Scott Brown(R-MA) are still Republicans. Or for that matter, as much as Bush the Elder still counts as a Republican.
 
2012-09-05 02:21:09 PM

Linoleum_Blownapart: Souter would have been an R as well, much as Olympia Snowe(R-ME) or Scott Brown(R-MA) are still Republicans. Or for that matter, as much as Bush the Elder still counts as a Republican.


And Willard M. Romney is the nominee, with a Catholic Gen-Xer from Wisconsin........?

Meanwhile, the Democrats got their Harriet Miers confirmed.

//Somebody put Tucker Max on SCOTUS; somebody from outside the Ivy League would be a refreshing change, even if that does mean Duke.
 
2012-09-05 02:30:52 PM
So, one person is mentioned...she seems to be opposed to the Citizens United decision and the involvement/access of people like Adelson in American politics.

I'm totally...outraged??
 
2012-09-05 02:52:22 PM

impaler: Scalia defends torture. This is what a judge on our highest court actually thinks:

STAHL: If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person - if you listen to the expression "cruel and unusual punishment," doesn't that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think - Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you're in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody-
SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?


how can a man who is that much of a literalist defend the private ownership of firearms? by his narrow interpretation of the constitution, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own a brown bess musket or maybe a kentucky long rifle.
 
2012-09-05 04:07:17 PM

FlashHarry: impaler: Scalia defends torture. This is what a judge on our highest court actually thinks:

STAHL: If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person - if you listen to the expression "cruel and unusual punishment," doesn't that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think - Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you're in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody-
SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

how can a man who is that much of a literalist defend the private ownership of firearms? by his narrow interpretation of the constitution, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own a brown bess musket or maybe a kentucky long rifle.


That's because he's not a literalist. He's an asshole.
 
2012-09-05 04:09:40 PM

Saborlas: Had to click the article to make sure he wasn't coming to my state.

Dude doesn't DESERVE to visit Boston. :P


F**king this.
 
2012-09-05 04:10:33 PM
Hey look, a fully bought and paid for Justice.
 
2012-09-05 04:11:56 PM
Antonin Scalia goes to a special Mass for judges with a bunch of judges and lawyers in Vegas. MoveOn.org has a problem with this

FTFA
 
2012-09-05 04:13:13 PM

MacEnvy: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I think Scalia has a few things he could teach them. And they would be better for learning it.

Please name them.


He knows the Constitution inside out, and is probably one of the best scholars around on the Federalist papers and early writings of the Founders. He is also frighteningly literate and a skilled debater and brilliant writer. And he knows how to frame an argument when presenting it before a court.

Now, he may not be using those talents on behalf of the common person, and may be very liberal (in the classic sense of the term) in how he interprets those old documents; but the fact remains he's as skilled a jurist and lawyer as Rommel was a tank commander, or Genghis Khan was a military strategist. Know thy enemy doesn't mean approving of his tactics, but you better acknowledge his skill and ability or he will slaughter you every time.
 
2012-09-05 04:13:47 PM
MoveOn.org still exists?
 
2012-09-05 04:14:17 PM

urbangirl: Antonin Scalia goes to a special Mass for judges with a bunch of judges and lawyers in Vegas. MoveOn.org has a problem with this

FTFA



Oops. FTFM
 
2012-09-05 04:14:18 PM
Who knew that a man with no scruples or sense of decency could have such a successful career in law?
 
2012-09-05 04:17:39 PM
Ya know, I'd take the whole 'conservative jurist' whine more seriously if the 'liberal jurists' didn't do this kinda shiat...

Kelo v. New London 

//both sides bad, vote....

www.heavyharmonies.com
 
2012-09-05 04:24:41 PM
http://MoveOn.org/ One peron has a problem with this

a liberal activist who promised demonstrations to mark the events.


Can't wait to hear how many people participate in these 'demonstrations'.

*yawn*
 
2012-09-05 04:28:55 PM

sprawl15: FlashHarry: impaler: Scalia defends torture. This is what a judge on our highest court actually thinks:

STAHL: If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person - if you listen to the expression "cruel and unusual punishment," doesn't that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think - Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you're in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody-
SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

how can a man who is that much of a literalist defend the private ownership of firearms? by his narrow interpretation of the constitution, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own a brown bess musket or maybe a kentucky long rifle.

That's because he's not a literalist. He's an asshole.



I cannot believe I'm saying this, but there is an important distinction between some forms of ill-treatment and 'punishment.'

Punishment implies that you have done something wrong, and deserve what you're getting. For a person to be ill-used during an interrogation is not 'punishment' because they have not (necessarily) done anything wrong...in any case, the abuse is not due to whatever the person may or may not have done. So, it's not punishment per se, just abuse, or worse, torture.

It's a legally important distinction because, for example, the state is allowed to incarcerate for lengthy periods as legal, statutory punishment for a criminal act, and you wouldn't think of it as abuse.

/Military Officers who commit service offences are most often given 'administrative' sanctions, and never 'punished.' Officers may only be 'punished' by a Base/Formation Commander, Court Martial, or General Officer, something that is not terribly practical for most small offences - and so avoided. (Canadian Queen's Regulations & Orders, as they exist in my memory)
 
2012-09-05 04:30:50 PM
Linda Overbey, a union organizer and volunteer with the advocacy group MoveOn.org, focused on Scalia's planned attendance at a Red Mass liturgy and a reception following the service hosted by the conservative St. Thomas More Society of Nevada at the Palazzo resort. The property is owned by Las Vegas Sands Corp. and its chief, Sheldon Adelson.

"Adelson and Scalia. Two poster boys of Citizens United. One ruled for it and one benefits from it," Overbey said.


Subby, I don't think you read TFA... It really doesn't say that this chick is protesting the EVENT, she' protesting Scalia and his cuddly relationship with Adelson. Not only that, but it doesn't say that MoveOn has planned a protest either, just this Linda Overbey chick.
 
2012-09-05 04:34:22 PM

KWess: I cannot believe I'm saying this, but there is an important distinction between some forms of ill-treatment and 'punishment.'


When the ill treatment is purposeful and allocated only against certain classes of detainees due to presumed guilt, it's punishment in the context that he's talking about.
 
2012-09-05 04:38:09 PM
Dear GOP & Democratic Christians,

Now I don't know what to believe. Jack Chick, and MANY fundamentalist evangelical tells me all Catholics are going to Hell. Chick's teaching mirror evangelicals believing the 'body of christ' wafer that Catholics eat in the 'whore' church, is actually a pagan cookie offered to Baal in Babylon and Osiris in ancient Egypt. Now should I vote for the Mormon who denies the virgin birth of baby jesus and believes God (Elohim) is farking moon maidens on the planet Kolob & that Jesus and Satan are actually brothers. Or should I vote for the seekrit Mooslim who spent all his Chicago church time hating whitey with Rev. Jeremiah?

catholictechtips.stblogs.com


Scalia's penis must be like some kinda moral compass or Sword of Solomon device.
 
2012-09-05 04:44:45 PM

sprawl15: KWess: I cannot believe I'm saying this, but there is an important distinction between some forms of ill-treatment and 'punishment.'

When the ill treatment is purposeful and allocated only against certain classes of detainees due to presumed guilt, it's punishment in the context that he's talking about.


BUT not in the legal context, which is what Scalia was using; and which is the way he argues and writes his opinions. In law, words have different meanings than in common usage, and Scalia knows that. Just because YOU feel that torturing someone would be punishment does not mean that in the sterile world of legal definitions it is "punishment", which can only be levied after a conviction has been handed down (i.e. sentenced).

Ergo, Scalia is right and you are wrong, at least in a courtroom. In the real world, we all KNOW that torture is punishment even when used for interrogation; but in court is the only place those opinions count. And unless you know both meanings of the word, you will lose in court, just as Scalia's foes keep losing in their arguments to the Supreme Court. Where you have more liberal (in the modern sense of the word) justices, who are willing to look beyond the definition of the word to it's meaning, you have a better chance of making that argument (that torture is punishment even where the person was not sentenced to it), but law is all about definitions and hair-splitting; and Scalia is the master of finely-split hairs.
 
2012-09-05 04:50:26 PM
Saborlas

Had to click the article to make sure he wasn't coming to my state.

Dude doesn't DESERVE to visit Boston. :P


Yeah no one does, well maybe Charles Manson or Hitler were he alive or that guy Pol Pot, yeah they deserve to go to Boston.
 
2012-09-05 04:50:30 PM

Gyrfalcon: Scalia is the master of finely-split made-up hairs.


Fixed that for you.
 
2012-09-05 05:03:01 PM

Macinfarker: Gyrfalcon: Scalia is the master of finely-split made-up hairs.

Fixed that for you.


They're still just as finely split.
 
2012-09-05 05:07:02 PM
Why can't MoveOn.org just Move On?

Hounding someone as they attend church services sounds more like Westboro Baptist Move On folks.
 
2012-09-05 05:09:14 PM

bdub77: This guy went to churches too:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 642x355]

I'll let you decide who is the bigger asshole.

Hint: It's not the fictional character.


Shoot, at least he was honorable about it.

/And settled all family business while in church
 
2012-09-05 05:12:06 PM

Gyrfalcon: BUT not in the legal context, which is what Scalia was using; and which is the way he argues and writes his opinions. In law, words have different meanings than in common usage, and Scalia knows that. Just because YOU feel that torturing someone would be punishment does not mean that in the sterile world of legal definitions it is "punishment", which can only be levied after a conviction has been handed down (i.e. sentenced).


You're putting the cart before the horse. The nature of our legal system is specifically designed to restrain punishment until after conviction, when there is legal justification for said punishment. A lack of justification does not make the punishment something that is no longer punishment, it just makes that punishment extralegal. We go to great lengths to prevent that.

You could look at legal revisions over time (example) that handle it exactly this way.
 
2012-09-05 05:22:28 PM

Gyrfalcon: which can only be levied after a conviction has been handed down


And, keep in mind, these are people that are being held not as criminals, but under war powers as indefinite detainees via prisoner of war powers. They are determined to be of a class that can be legally detained before detainment occurs - the closest thing to a ruling of guilt is determined before they are detained. Cruel and unusual acts against this category of individual cannot be ruled as 'something other than punishment due to lack of conviction' because they are not of a category where convictions need ever apply.
 
2012-09-05 05:23:54 PM

impaler: Scalia defends torture. This is what a judge on our highest court actually thinks:

STAHL: If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person - if you listen to the expression "cruel and unusual punishment," doesn't that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think - Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you're in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody-
SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?


What makes anything in that statement a defense of torture. Where does he say torture is a good thing?

It's simply a legal analysis of whether or not an interrogation technique is "cruel and unusual punishment" within the context of the Eighth Amendment. I don't like a 95% tax rate yet I would tell you it's perfectly constitutional. That's not me extolling the virtues of a 95% tax rate.
 
2012-09-05 05:27:53 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I know when I think blessings, I always think Las Vegas

/the hell?


Las Vegas isn't hell.

It is, however, adjacent to it.
 
2012-09-05 05:31:12 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: MoveOn.org still exists?


Was thinking the same thing.

Shouldn't they have moved on by now?
 
2012-09-05 05:32:43 PM

Nabb1: They're just now finding out about Red Masses? Well, that's understandable given they've only been around for most of the previous millennium.


This here farker (me, I mean) is going to sing his fifteenth Red Mass this October at the Cathedral of St Matthew in DC, where I am a professional member of the Schola Cantorum. It's an interesting event. I also sang at Chief Justice Rehnquist's funeral. That was interesting and a little weird. The Chief's favorite song apparently was "The Streets of Laredo" and the cantor from his Lutheran church sang a newly compsed arrangement of Amazing Grace that incorporated the melody of SOL in the piano part. Can't say it worked as a composition (to my ears, anyhow) but it seemed to mean a lot to his family, so it served its purpose.

One other thing was striking. There were four eulogies, By Justice O'Connor, one of the Chief's sons, the Chief's 12-year-old granddaughter, and President Bush. Bush was the worst speaker of the lot. The Chief's granddaughter wrote and impeccably delivered a very heartfelt tribute. The President said nothing that hadn't already been said, better, by the other three, and came off very much like a ill-prepared schoolboy giving an oral report who desperately wanted to be anywhere else than where he was.

But the Red Mass should be interesting this year. It's been getting a lot more overtly political since Cardinal Weurl replaced Cardinal McCarrick. There could be fireworks.
 
2012-09-05 05:37:09 PM

Deucednuisance: Nabb1: They're just now finding out about Red Masses? Well, that's understandable given they've only been around for most of the previous millennium.

This here farker (me, I mean) is going to sing his fifteenth Red Mass this October at the Cathedral of St Matthew in DC, where I am a professional member of the Schola Cantorum. It's an interesting event. I also sang at Chief Justice Rehnquist's funeral. That was interesting and a little weird. The Chief's favorite song apparently was "The Streets of Laredo" and the cantor from his Lutheran church sang a newly compsed arrangement of Amazing Grace that incorporated the melody of SOL in the piano part. Can't say it worked as a composition (to my ears, anyhow) but it seemed to mean a lot to his family, so it served its purpose.

One other thing was striking. There were four eulogies, By Justice O'Connor, one of the Chief's sons, the Chief's 12-year-old granddaughter, and President Bush. Bush was the worst speaker of the lot. The Chief's granddaughter wrote and impeccably delivered a very heartfelt tribute. The President said nothing that hadn't already been said, better, by the other three, and came off very much like a ill-prepared schoolboy giving an oral report who desperately wanted to be anywhere else than where he was.

But the Red Mass should be interesting this year. It's been getting a lot more overtly political since Cardinal Weurl replaced Cardinal McCarrick. There could be fireworks.


Wow. That's very interesting. I've attended a couple of the Red Masses at St. Louis Cathedral in New Orleans, but it's been a while. It's a fairly big affair for the Louisiana legal community and the entire state supreme court (located in New Orleans as well) attends along with most of the prominent members of the profession and many state leaders. New Orleans and the surrounding parishes are deeply Catholic, so it's a pretty significant event on the calendar.
 
2012-09-05 05:45:57 PM
So do I. Religious affiliation should disqualify one for the bench.
 
2012-09-05 05:57:18 PM

Gyrfalcon: Ergo, Scalia is right and you are wrong, at least in a courtroom. In the real world, we all KNOW that torture is punishment even when used for interrogation;


So Scalia is right that it is legal to torture innocent people, as long as you don't intend for it to be punishment?

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it's illegal to torture innocent people, regardless of motive.
 
2012-09-05 06:10:44 PM

impaler: So Scalia is right that it is legal to torture innocent people, as long as you don't intend for it to be punishment?


Worse than that - as long as it's not punishment handed down by a court. Extralegal punishment doesn't count for purposes of the 8th.
 
2012-09-05 06:11:37 PM

impaler: Gyrfalcon: Ergo, Scalia is right and you are wrong, at least in a courtroom. In the real world, we all KNOW that torture is punishment even when used for interrogation;

So Scalia is right that it is legal to torture innocent people, as long as you don't intend for it to be punishment?

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it's illegal to torture innocent people, regardless of motive.


the issue in that context isn't legality, it's whether the 8th amendment applies to pre-conviction mischief. if it's punishment, then there's the 8th amendment protection. if it's not punishment, then there's due process. the two are different standards with different purposes. you have to interpret the event under the appropriate law to determine the proper application. for example, it's not free speech, but what if someone argued that, you'd have to say, nope... you are not protected from torture by first amendment. that doesn't mean you support torture.

(i never read this case, and I don't really plan on it, so I'm making up what I assume they talked about)
 
2012-09-05 06:14:37 PM

sprawl15: impaler: So Scalia is right that it is legal to torture innocent people, as long as you don't intend for it to be punishment?

Worse than that - as long as it's not punishment handed down by a court. Extralegal punishment doesn't count for purposes of the 8th.


and, back in the day, police could torture the accused to get a confession and use the confession in court. they only concluded that the protection against self-incrimination only meant that you could not be tortured before the judge while you were on trial.

/ this country has moved forward from the dark ages in many respects, despite the trend to say otherwise
 
2012-09-05 06:16:30 PM

pute kisses like a man: and, back in the day, police could torture the accused to get a confession and use the confession in court. they only concluded that the protection against self-incrimination only meant that you could not be tortured before the judge while you were on trial.


Yup.

That's kind of why the 8th working in tandem with due process is so important.

A BLOO BLOO BUT A JUDGE DIDN'T SENTENCE THEM TO TORTURE is farking barbaric.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report