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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Scalia will be a hypocrite if he sides with the Catholics on the birth control case. Justice Scalia? A hypocrite? Why I never *faints*   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 85
    More: Obvious, Justice Antonin Scalia, Catholics, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, mandatory vaccinations, SCOTUSblog, child labor laws, landmark case, environmental legislation  
•       •       •

1635 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Mar 2014 at 9:12 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-24 07:52:49 AM  
oh I fully expect Scalia to be a hypocritical bastard on this issue.  he lacks morals, ethics and a soul so....he really has nothing to lose here.
 
2014-03-24 07:57:55 AM  
If Scalia can't find a way to rationalize finding for business, I'm sure he'll just ignore his own precedent. If there's any principle on which Scalia is consistent, it's that business can do whatever it wants.
 
2014-03-24 08:07:26 AM  

MisterBill: If Scalia can't find a way to rationalize finding for business, I'm sure he'll just ignore his own precedent. If there's any principle on which Scalia is consistent, it's that business can do whatever it wants.


I also suspect Scalia will directly contradict his previous rulings, then go out and maliciously taunt everyone about it after the fact.  'nanny nanny boo boo!  and there's nothing you can do about it!'

*sigh*

such a hateful little man.  But he wears the black robes, so we're stuck with him.
 
2014-03-24 08:18:15 AM  

Weaver95: MisterBill: If Scalia can't find a way to rationalize finding for business, I'm sure he'll just ignore his own precedent. If there's any principle on which Scalia is consistent, it's that business can do whatever it wants.

I also suspect Scalia will directly contradict his previous rulings, then go out and maliciously taunt everyone about it after the fact.  'nanny nanny boo boo!  and there's nothing you can do about it!'

*sigh*

such a hateful little man.  But he wears the black robes, so we're stuck with him.


He's the one justice I want Obama to have the opportunity to replace. He's the reason I would love to see the constitution amended to allow Supreme Court justices one x year term. You can't get rid of a senile or sick justice who won't resign except through impeachment. That's just too dangerous for someone in that position.
 
2014-03-24 08:32:22 AM  

MisterBill: If Scalia can't find a way to rationalize finding for business, I'm sure he'll just ignore his own precedent. If there's any principle on which Scalia is consistent, it's that business can do whatever it wants.


It's enshrined in Scalia's constitution.
 
2014-03-24 09:06:20 AM  
The problem with Scalia is that he never stopped thinking like a lawyer when he became a judge.

Lawyers are supposed to form the best argument for the side which they represent, even if that argument is the direct opposite of what they argued yesterday.

Judges are supposed to consistently and fairly apply the law regardless of their personal beliefs.

Scalia decides which side he wants to win beforehand, and then comes up with the best argument in support of it, rather than hearing the arguments, and deciding which one best represents the law.
 
2014-03-24 09:15:35 AM  

nmrsnr: and then comes up with the best argument


Pretty generous use of the word "best" but otherwise accurate.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-24 09:15:42 AM  
Scalia is a disaster for the court.  He is damaging the legitimacy of the court.
 
2014-03-24 09:16:25 AM  
nmrsnr: 
Scalia decides which side he wants to win beforehand, and then comes up with the best argument in support of it, rather than hearing the arguments, and deciding which one best represents the law.



This. It's not the first case where he's obviously argued backwards from his pre-formed opinions either. He's just a pompous piece of shiat who ignores precedent except when it's convenient for him.
 
2014-03-24 09:21:12 AM  
I think Justice is a pretty cool guy. Eh kills freedoms and doesnt afraid of anything.
 
2014-03-24 09:21:43 AM  

vpb: Scalia is a disaster for the court.  He is damaging the legitimacy of the court.


Hateful, ignorant and inconsistent is only part of the problem too.

The biggest issue is that the man seems PROUD OF IT.
 
2014-03-24 09:26:12 AM  
Brian Beutler pointed out a case I hadn't heard of from back in 2006, Domino's Pizza v. McDonald. John McDonald was the sole shareholder of a company that was contracted to build some locations for Domino's. Shenanigans ensued after the first location was built, and he sued for breach of contract as a result of racial animus. SCOTUS minus Alito heard the case and unanimously ruled that the agent of a party to a contract cannot file discrimination claims because the agent is not the party making or enforcing the contract. In other words, a corporation cannot have a race.

So here's the question I have. If a corporation can't be black by SCOTUS precedent, can a corporation be Christian?
 
2014-03-24 09:26:34 AM  

BeesNuts: vpb: Scalia is a disaster for the court.  He is damaging the legitimacy of the court.

Hateful, ignorant and inconsistent is only part of the problem too.

The biggest issue is that the man seems PROUD OF IT.


Well, yeah.  Most trolls get off on making people annoyed or angry.
 
2014-03-24 09:31:31 AM  
Scalia's an ass.
 
2014-03-24 09:32:27 AM  

Weaver95: MisterBill: If Scalia can't find a way to rationalize finding for business, I'm sure he'll just ignore his own precedent. If there's any principle on which Scalia is consistent, it's that business can do whatever it wants.

I also suspect Scalia will directly contradict his previous rulings, then go out and maliciously taunt everyone about it after the fact.  'nanny nanny boo boo!  and there's nothing you can do about it!'

*sigh*

such a hateful little man.  But he wears the black robes, so we're stuck with him.


He'll just say "Since I'm a Constitutional Scholar, the Constitution says whatever I say it does!" And then throw around terms like "strict constructionist".
 
2014-03-24 09:34:40 AM  

Serious Black: Brian Beutler pointed out a case I hadn't heard of from back in 2006, Domino's Pizza v. McDonald. John McDonald was the sole shareholder of a company that was contracted to build some locations for Domino's. Shenanigans ensued after the first location was built, and he sued for breach of contract as a result of racial animus. SCOTUS minus Alito heard the case and unanimously ruled that the agent of a party to a contract cannot file discrimination claims because the agent is not the party making or enforcing the contract. In other words, a corporation cannot have a race.

So here's the question I have. If a corporation can't be black by SCOTUS precedent, can a corporation be Christian?


Of course. According the GOP water carriers, racism no longer exists in our country but persecution of Christians in the US is worse than a the Holocaust.
 
2014-03-24 09:35:04 AM  

IlGreven: He'll just say "Since I'm a Constitutional Scholar, the Constitution says whatever I say it does!" And then throw around terms like "strict constructionist".


There should be a Scalia drinking game for whenever he writes an opinion.

At least everyone could get drunk while reading it.
 
2014-03-24 09:47:49 AM  

MisterBill: Weaver95: MisterBill: If Scalia can't find a way to rationalize finding for business, I'm sure he'll just ignore his own precedent. If there's any principle on which Scalia is consistent, it's that business can do whatever it wants.

I also suspect Scalia will directly contradict his previous rulings, then go out and maliciously taunt everyone about it after the fact.  'nanny nanny boo boo!  and there's nothing you can do about it!'

*sigh*

such a hateful little man.  But he wears the black robes, so we're stuck with him.

He's the one justice I want Obama to have the opportunity to replace. He's the reason I would love to see the constitution amended to allow Supreme Court justices one x year term. You can't get rid of a senile or sick justice who won't resign except through impeachment. That's just too dangerous for someone in that position.


You can get rid of them. In the Constitution, they are held to the same standards of behavior as any federal judge. I seem to recall they can only be tried by Congress, but you can most certainly get rid of them by proving such things as corruption and, given how much Scalia(and Thomas, btw) love taking corporate money and how often they hear cases involving the interests of those corps and how rarely they recuse themselves from such cases, proving official corruption would probably be pretty easy if there was any will to do so.

The reasons we don't try to impeach or prosecute them for misconduct isn't because the Constitution doesn't provide for such eventualities; rather the reasons are purely political. The political elite in general don't want to be held to any standards of behavior if they can help it, and the Dems know that if they did try to go after Conservative Justices for their obvious financial corruption, then the Rs would respond by impeaching every Dem-appointed Justice for the rest of eternity. Plus, the trial would be entirely political given the current state of our politics.
 
2014-03-24 09:48:50 AM  

Serious Black: So here's the question I have. If a corporation can't be black by SCOTUS precedent, can a corporation be Christian?


Since Scalia manages to get away with stating that voting is a privilege based on race, I'm sure he'll find a way to rationalize whatever conclusion he wants, just like he does most every other time.
 
2014-03-24 09:51:37 AM  
www.nationalmemo.com


PROBLEM?
 
2014-03-24 10:14:00 AM  
This is possibly the stupidest article i have seen on this matter.

Jesus TPM.

Yes his position in Smith should preclude a finding against the government here, as obamacare is ostensibly a statute of general applicability.  But the whole point of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was to overturn that holding.  Even though RFRA only applies to the federal government, it applies to obamacare.  Thus Scalia is pretty much required to follow that statute - regardless of whether he hates it (and he reportedly does).

It wouldn't make him a hypocrite to follow a law specifically drafted to overturn his prior opinion.  It would make him a judge.
 
2014-03-24 10:20:18 AM  

Teiritzamna: This is possibly the stupidest article i have seen on this matter.

Jesus TPM.

Yes his position in Smith should preclude a finding against the government here, as obamacare is ostensibly a statute of general applicability.  But the whole point of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was to overturn that holding.  Even though RFRA only applies to the federal government, it applies to obamacare.  Thus Scalia is pretty much required to follow that statute - regardless of whether he hates it (and he reportedly does).

It wouldn't make him a hypocrite to follow a law specifically drafted to overturn his prior opinion.  It would make him a judge.


Yes, but he would also have to overturn a prior opinion of his own writing that for-profit corporations with a common shareholder suspect classification do not acquire that suspect classification and, thus, that RFRA does not apply to Hobby Lobby or Conestoga.
 
2014-03-24 10:22:40 AM  
Ignoring personal precedent is the Scalia Precedent.
 
2014-03-24 10:26:56 AM  

MisterBill: Weaver95: MisterBill: If Scalia can't find a way to rationalize finding for business, I'm sure he'll just ignore his own precedent. If there's any principle on which Scalia is consistent, it's that business can do whatever it wants.

I also suspect Scalia will directly contradict his previous rulings, then go out and maliciously taunt everyone about it after the fact.  'nanny nanny boo boo!  and there's nothing you can do about it!'

*sigh*

such a hateful little man.  But he wears the black robes, so we're stuck with him.

He's the one justice I want Obama to have the opportunity to replace. He's the reason I would love to see the constitution amended to allow Supreme Court justices one x year term. You can't get rid of a senile or sick justice who won't resign except through impeachment. That's just too dangerous for someone in that position.


Obama could enlarge the supreme court to, say, 11 members and appoint 2 justices to nullify scalia-thomas.
 
2014-03-24 10:29:29 AM  

Weaver95: MisterBill: If Scalia can't find a way to rationalize finding for business, I'm sure he'll just ignore his own precedent. If there's any principle on which Scalia is consistent, it's that business can do whatever it wants.

I also suspect Scalia will directly contradict his previous rulings, then go out and maliciously taunt everyone about it after the fact.  'nanny nanny boo boo!  and there's nothing you can do about it!'

*sigh*

such a hateful little man.  But he wears the black robes, so we're stuck with him.


Argle bargle.
 
2014-03-24 10:32:10 AM  

Serious Black: Yes, but he would also have to overturn a prior opinion of his own writing that for-profit corporations with a common shareholder suspect classification do not acquire that suspect classification and, thus, that RFRA does not apply to Hobby Lobby or Conestoga.


The for profit/not for profit distinction is basically a matter of straight statutory interpretation - which pretty much precludes it.

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-
. . .
the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals . . . ."


Dictionary Act 1 U.S.C. 1

And

"(a) In general
     Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception
     Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person-

     (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
     (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

42 U.S.C.  § 2000bb-1 (RFRA)

And

"Context" here means the text of the Act of Congress surrounding the word at issue, or the texts of other related congressional Acts, and this is simply an instance of the word's ordinary meaning: "[t]he part or parts of a discourse preceding or following a `text' or passage or a word, or so intimately associated with it as to throw light upon its meaning." Webster's New International Dictionary 576 (2d ed. 1942). While "context" can carry a secondary meaning of "[a]ssociated surroundings, whether material or mental," ibid., we doubt that the broader sense applies here. The Dictionary Act uses "context" to give an instruction about how to "determin[e] the meaning of a[n] Act of Congress," a purpose suggesting the primary sense. If Congress had meant to point further afield, as to legislative history, for example, it would have been natural to use a more spacious phrase, like "evidence of congressional intent," in place of "context."

Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council
, 506 U.S. 194, 199-200 (1993)
 
2014-03-24 10:32:49 AM  
i182.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-24 10:36:45 AM  
 
2014-03-24 10:40:36 AM  

Weaver95: oh I fully expect Scalia to be a hypocritical bastard on this issue.  he lacks morals, ethics and a soul so....he really has nothing to lose here.


The only thing Scalia is worried about losing is his personal ballsack barnacle that is called Justice Clarence Thomas.  And even if he did lose Clarence, I'm sure Justice Samuel Alito will be more than happy to pick up Scalia's scrotum slack.
 
2014-03-24 10:40:46 AM  

Serious Black: Yes, but he would also have to overturn a prior opinion of his own writing that for-profit corporations with a common shareholder suspect classification do not acquire that suspect classification and, thus, that RFRA does not apply to Hobby Lobby or Conestoga.


Also, which case are you referring to?
 
2014-03-24 10:45:25 AM  

Teiritzamna: This is possibly the stupidest article i have seen on this matter.

Jesus TPM.

Yes his position in Smith should preclude a finding against the government here, as obamacare is ostensibly a statute of general applicability.  But the whole point of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was to overturn that holding.  Even though RFRA only applies to the federal government, it applies to obamacare.  Thus Scalia is pretty much required to follow that statute - regardless of whether he hates it (and he reportedly does).

It wouldn't make him a hypocrite to follow a law specifically drafted to overturn his prior opinion.  It would make him a judge.


Wait...you mean I can't take a snippet of someone's judicial opinion without any further context and apply it to any other unrelated fact pattern I wish to use?
 
2014-03-24 10:51:37 AM  

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: Yes, but he would also have to overturn a prior opinion of his own writing that for-profit corporations with a common shareholder suspect classification do not acquire that suspect classification and, thus, that RFRA does not apply to Hobby Lobby or Conestoga.

Also, which case are you referring to?


Domino's Pizza v. McDonald. I cited it earlier in the thread. This guy had a likely even more ironclad case of suspect classification applying since he is black and the sole shareholder of the corporation.

Admittedly, IANAL, and neither is Brian Beutler whose article pointed out the existence of the case to me. I could be interpreting the opinion way differently than reality.
 
2014-03-24 10:53:18 AM  

Weaver95: MisterBill: If Scalia can't find a way to rationalize finding for business, I'm sure he'll just ignore his own precedent. If there's any principle on which Scalia is consistent, it's that business can do whatever it wants.

I also suspect Scalia will directly contradict his previous rulings, then go out and maliciously taunt everyone about it after the fact.  'nanny nanny boo boo!  and there's nothing you can do about it!'

*sigh*

such a hateful little man.  But he wears the black robes, so we're stuck with him.


He has done it before...I mean I seem to remember he wrote a concurring opinion about 5 or 6 years ago and his argument was heavily based on the Wickard case. Fast forward to fight over healthcare, He at some point came out and said that  Wickard was wrongly decided.  Either that or its a liberal myth and don't feel like looking it up because as the arch-priest of "orginialism" Scalia still receives his legal opinion from the founders when he has his seances with them.....and boy are they pissed..

So Sayeth Scalia.
 
2014-03-24 10:54:04 AM  
I poured a forty out the day Mr. Rogers died. I will throw a party the day Scalia gets hit by a bus.

/While being waterboarded in the middle of the street.
//While tickets are sold.
///Free enterprise!
 
2014-03-24 10:59:11 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia


I loved that back and forth they had over that article.  Scalia in an interview got asked about that article and acted like he really didn't know who Posner was.  I about died laughing at that I mean Posner is probably the most effective Circuit Judge in the country and he is also generally considered a conservative. I mean most first year law students know who Posner is.
 
2014-03-24 11:04:44 AM  
Can someone please add a link that says Hobby Lobby and Conestoga's CEOs are members of the RCC?
 
2014-03-24 11:04:55 AM  

Serious Black: Domino's Pizza v. McDonald. I cited it earlier in the thread. This guy had a likely even more ironclad case of suspect classification applying since he is black and the sole shareholder of the corporation.

Admittedly, IANAL, and neither is Brian Beutler whose article pointed out the existence of the case to me. I could be interpreting the opinion way differently than reality.


Ah.   Domino's involved a different statute and the reverse problem.   42 U.S.C. § 1981 grants a federal right of action to those claiming discrimination in the enforcement of contracts.  Thus if you and i make a contract and then you breach that contract specifically because i am black, i can sue you in federal court for discriminatory breach. In Domino's, the plaintiff was a guy who was the sole shareholder and president of a company, JWM.  Domino's breached contracts with JWM.  McDonald sued Domino's under § 1981, in his personal capacity, claiming that Domino's was discriminating.  

In holding against him, the court found that McDonald didnt make the contracts, JWM did.   Thus McDonald didn't have a case under § 1981 because he wasn't a contracting party, while JWM might have.  The court actually indicates that corporations could sue for racially based breach under the statute.  Thus, Domino's is very distinguishable from Hobby Lobby, as Domino's involved a shareholder seeking to "stand in the shoes" of the corporation for purposes of suit.  In Hobby Lobby, the corporation is seeking to enforce its own (argued) rights.
 
2014-03-24 11:05:46 AM  

Mantour: [i182.photobucket.com image 600x389]


Thomas More's view on the law:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Antonin Scalia's view of the law:

Justice Antonin Scalia: Vaffanculo!!! Throw him in GITMO!  I got mine!!  It's comfortable under this bridge!  Suck harder, Clarey!
 
2014-03-24 11:05:58 AM  

Oxygen_Thief: Almost Everybody Poops: The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia

I loved that back and forth they had over that article.  Scalia in an interview got asked about that article and acted like he really didn't know who Posner was.  I about died laughing at that I mean Posner is probably the most effective Circuit Judge in the country and he is also generally considered a conservative. I mean most first year law students know who Posner is.


I've never taken a law class in my life and I know who Posner is.
 
2014-03-24 11:09:46 AM  

Sorry I forgot to post this:



"few observers doubt that Justice Antonin Scalia's sympathies will be the Catholic business owners who charge that the mandate violates their religious liberties."

Can someone place post a link that says the CEOs of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are members of the RCC? I thought Conestoga Wood was started by Mennonites?
 
2014-03-24 11:11:36 AM  

allylloyd: Can someone place post a link that says the CEOs of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are members of the RCC? I thought Conestoga Wood was started by Mennonites?


Conestoga Wood is Amish, so yeah - Mennonitish

Hobby Lobby is run by the Green family, who are Southern Baptists
 
2014-03-24 11:17:45 AM  
The Reagan-appointed jurist is a devout Catholic who has extolled "traditional Christian virtues" and insists the devil is "a real person."

Well... he would know, wouldn't he?
 
2014-03-24 11:41:31 AM  

Teiritzamna: allylloyd: Can someone place post a link that says the CEOs of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are members of the RCC? I thought Conestoga Wood was started by Mennonites?

Conestoga Wood is Amish, so yeah - Mennonitish

Hobby Lobby is run by the Green family, who are Southern Baptists


I know for a fact the last thing a Catholic wants is to be compared to a Mennonite or a Southern Baptist and the last thing a Mennonite or Southern Baptist wants is to be compared to a Catholic.

I think people are ignoring the Appellate Courts that made the decisions taking this to the Supreme Court. Conestoga Wood's home office is in a very conservative part of PA; however, its appellate court is in Philadelphia (very liberal) and the opposite for Hobby Lobby.
 
2014-03-24 11:43:03 AM  
It's not hypocritical, see that other case wasn't  about white people and the religion wasn't Christian so it doesn't apply as precedent.
 
2014-03-24 11:46:53 AM  

Mantour: [i182.photobucket.com image 600x389]


I hope you're posting a pic of Scalia with St. Thomas More for compare-and-contrast.

More had principles and was willing to die for them. He would consider Scalia to be a greater tavern whore than Cromwell and Rich combined.
 
2014-03-24 11:47:24 AM  

wax_on: It's not hypocritical, see that other case wasn't  about white people and the religion wasn't Christian so it doesn't apply as precedent.


Or, you know, holding for Hobby Lobby would require application of a statute specifically written to overturn the prior opinion discussed.

[biatchcrackers.jpg]
 
2014-03-24 11:47:42 AM  
So if I'm reading this correctly, which can't be possible, if Scalia sides with the Catholics peyote will be legalized?
 
2014-03-24 11:48:36 AM  
I've met Scalia.

He's just as much of a dick when he's not on the bench as you think he is.
 
2014-03-24 11:52:53 AM  

Teiritzamna: Yes his position in Smith should preclude a finding against the government here, as obamacare is ostensibly a statute of general applicability.


Contrariwise, there's also the question of whether the vast quantity of grandfather exceptions for pre-existing plans disqualifies the ACA as a "statute of general applicability", which IAmNotALawyer think might be a greater barrier than the RFRA's "furtherance of a compelling government interest" and "least restrictive means" tests -- as "enabling women to get health care" and "filling out a form to say you don't want to do that" seem pretty compelling and nonrestrictive, respectively.

Nohow, if the two companies didn't bring that up before, I think they're precluded from introducing such argument during the appeals.
 
2014-03-24 11:59:01 AM  

abb3w: Contrariwise, there's also the question of whether the vast quantity of grandfather exceptions for pre-existing plans disqualifies the ACA as a "statute of general applicability", which IAmNotALawyer think might be a greater barrier than the RFRA's "furtherance of a compelling government interest" and "least restrictive means" tests -- as "enabling women to get health care" and "filling out a form to say you don't want to do that" seem pretty compelling and nonrestrictive, respectively.

Nohow, if the two companies didn't bring that up before, I think they're precluded from introducing such argument during the appeals


Those arguments weren't waived - so yeah, if the court holds that RFRA applies to for profit companies as it has already (impliedly) held it controls non-profit companies, the government will have a very very hard time arguing RFRA scrutiny.  In fact, the possibility of single payer stands as a huge argument against finding that obamacare satisfies "least restrictive means" - even assuming arguendo that ensuring birth control (or any health care) is a compelling government interest, the companies can easily argue that the government providing such care itself would be a far less restrictive means.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 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