Do you have adblock enabled?
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)   Justice Scalia makes a factual error in his dissent of the EPA ruling, which means Obama remains president and he has to gay marry Justice Thomas   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 62
    More: Amusing, Scalia, EPA, Supreme Court, objections, Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting opinions, law clerks, justices  
•       •       •

1994 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2014 at 9:17 AM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-30 08:42:39 AM  
Scalia was wrong? Must've been on one of those rare days that Drew had a beer too.
 
2014-04-30 08:47:27 AM  
Hmmm... guy doesn't have a recollection of his previous actions. Sounds like an early sign of dementia to me.

/Doesn't he look tired to you?
 
2014-04-30 08:51:18 AM  
Facts are inconsequential when the decision was reached before the arguments.
 
2014-04-30 08:53:23 AM  
www.weavils.com theenergycollective.com


Simpsons did it.
 
2014-04-30 09:01:54 AM  

EvilEgg: Facts are inconsequential when the decision was reached before the arguments.


...said the Queen of Hearts to Alice.
 
2014-04-30 09:18:56 AM  
Obama has to gay marry Justice Thomas?
 
2014-04-30 09:20:04 AM  
It's not often that a Supreme Court justice makes a factual blunder in a formal opinion.

Define "often." I'm pretty sure Scalia has written a number of formal opinions.
 
2014-04-30 09:20:28 AM  

Mr.Tangent: Obama has to gay marry Justice Thomas?


Or Scalia, works either way
 
2014-04-30 09:21:16 AM  
6-2 decision. "Scalia wrote in his dissent, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. "

I knew it. The worst of the SCOTUS had to dissent this. The damage that pair is doing to the country will take years and years to repair.
 
2014-04-30 09:22:38 AM  
Niccage.gif
 
2014-04-30 09:23:51 AM  

PapaChester: Niccage.gif


What do bees have to do with anything?
 
2014-04-30 09:24:48 AM  
I think this is a decent piece of circumstantial evidence that Scalia decides cases based on how he feels about the issue and then tries to wrassle the law into supporting his decision.  If he were legitimately trying to apply the law to an issue, wouldn't he have some idea about how he specifically interprets the law and at least have a passing memory of the logic he used in a similar situation?
 
2014-04-30 09:26:49 AM  
Well, it's probably time to float him out to sea.
 
2014-04-30 09:28:04 AM  

PapaChester: Niccage.gif


While I haven't read Scalia's dissent, I have a feeling that his argument was probably valid. The factual errors just make it unsound.
 
2014-04-30 09:28:34 AM  
The guy is an ideologue. He makes his decision the minute he knows the case will be heard by the court based upon his political opinions. Thereafter, he will be cherry picking facts, creating razor-thin distinctions and, apparently in this instance, completely misstating facts to justify his decision.

The best part about it, his dissents will be filled with personal attacks and statements about how the other "idiots" can't understand things like him.
 
2014-04-30 09:29:41 AM  
It seems the SCOTUS let him edit the dissent after release; is there historical precedent for that?
 
2014-04-30 09:31:11 AM  
Even if he got the actors mixed up it does appear that Whitman v. American Trucking Assns  bars the EPA from taking cost into consideration.
 
2014-04-30 09:31:20 AM  

danvon: The guy is an ideologue. He makes his decision the minute he knows the case will be heard by the court based upon his political opinions. Thereafter, he will be cherry picking facts, creating razor-thin distinctions and, apparently in this instance, completely misstating facts to justify his decision.

The best part about it, his dissents will be filled with personal attacks and statements about how the other "idiots" can't understand things like him.


Sounds like a lot of farkers.
 
2014-04-30 09:36:15 AM  
To be fair, it's tough keeping all your shiat straight when you make up the rules as you go along.
 
2014-04-30 09:37:36 AM  

danvon: The guy is an ideologue. He makes his decision the minute he knows the case will be heard by the court based upon his political opinions. Thereafter, he will be cherry picking facts, creating razor-thin distinctions and, apparently in this instance, completely misstating facts to justify his decision.

The best part about it, his dissents will be filled with personal attacks and statements about how the other "idiots" can't understand things like him.


I'm sure you've been told this by a lot of people, but why don't you go ahead and give us an example?  I should be here till about 5:00 eastern.  I'll even give you TF for a month.
 
2014-04-30 09:40:01 AM  
Sounds like somebody is going to advertising for a new law clerk.
 
2014-04-30 09:41:07 AM  

FLMountainMan: I'm sure you've been told this by a lot of people, but why don't you go ahead and give us an example


Give an example of Scalia using personal attacks and questioning the intellect of the other jurists?
 
2014-04-30 09:42:13 AM  

FLMountainMan: danvon: The guy is an ideologue. He makes his decision the minute he knows the case will be heard by the court based upon his political opinions. Thereafter, he will be cherry picking facts, creating razor-thin distinctions and, apparently in this instance, completely misstating facts to justify his decision.

The best part about it, his dissents will be filled with personal attacks and statements about how the other "idiots" can't understand things like him.

I'm sure you've been told this by a lot of people, but why don't you go ahead and give us an example?  I should be here till about 5:00 eastern.  I'll even give you TF for a month.


is that just for Danvon or can we all participate?

/I work in law library
 
2014-04-30 09:46:12 AM  
Calling another justice an "idiot" in a dissent.
 
2014-04-30 09:46:54 AM  

FLMountainMan: I'm sure you've been told this by a lot of people, but why don't you go ahead and give us an example? I should be here till about 5:00 eastern. I'll even give you TF for a month.


I think this very article satisfies the parameter that he will make misstatements about facts to justify his decision.
 
2014-04-30 09:46:58 AM  
I'd genuinely love to read it if it exists.
 
2014-04-30 09:49:01 AM  

FLMountainMan: Calling another justice an "idiot" in a dissent.


I never said he called anyone an idiot in those words, it was a characterization of how he references the other lesser beings in the court.
 
2014-04-30 09:51:16 AM  

danvon: FLMountainMan: Calling another justice an "idiot" in a dissent.

I never said he called anyone an idiot in those words, it was a characterization of how he references the other lesser beings in the court.


It is not an insult if it is the truth.
 
2014-04-30 09:51:25 AM  
So tired of this meme.

/grumpy, sorry
 
2014-04-30 09:51:39 AM  

FLMountainMan: danvon: The guy is an ideologue. He makes his decision the minute he knows the case will be heard by the court based upon his political opinions. Thereafter, he will be cherry picking facts, creating razor-thin distinctions and, apparently in this instance, completely misstating facts to justify his decision.

The best part about it, his dissents will be filled with personal attacks and statements about how the other "idiots" can't understand things like him.

I'm sure you've been told this by a lot of people, but why don't you go ahead and give us an example?  I should be here till about 5:00 eastern.  I'll even give you TF for a month.


How about this one, from his dissent in the DOMA case:
That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people's Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every-where "primary" in its role.

Scalia long ago decided that all things homosexual were wrong.  And to support this assertion in his dissent in Hollingsworth v. Perry, he appears to claim that the Supreme Court should not be allowed to decide whether or not some act by the other two branches of government is constitutional.
 
2014-04-30 09:51:42 AM  
If we ever needed final proof that Scalia's "convictions" about his positions were a cover for the fact that he writes the current republican political position and calls it "constructionist", regardless of how contradictory, you're not going to get better than this.
 
2014-04-30 09:51:56 AM  

abb3w: It seems the SCOTUS let him edit the dissent after release; is there historical precedent for that?


Typically no. An incorrect opinion must be withdrawn and a new on substituted in its place, with an order noting the change. Appellate court justices do not get to nunc their own opinions.

In all honesty, though, who are you going to complain to?
 
2014-04-30 09:56:30 AM  
The biggest error was appointing him to the court. Everything else is just gravy.
 
2014-04-30 09:56:32 AM  

Saiga410: danvon: FLMountainMan: Calling another justice an "idiot" in a dissent.

I never said he called anyone an idiot in those words, it was a characterization of how he references the other lesser beings in the court.

It is not an insult if it is the truth.


Nah, he's just a dick

http://theweek.com/article/index/213100/why-does-justice-scalia-insu lt -his-colleagues
 
2014-04-30 09:57:57 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: abb3w: It seems the SCOTUS let him edit the dissent after release; is there historical precedent for that?

Typically no. An incorrect opinion must be withdrawn and a new on substituted in its place, with an order noting the change. Appellate court justices do not get to nunc their own opinions.

In all honesty, though, who are you going to complain to?


Plus, it's a Scalia dissent, so it's not like anybody bothers to read it.  Law students everywhere are thrilled to see a Scalia dissent, because they can safely skip the next two pages of reading, secure in the knowledge it contains nothing more important than a cranky old man's ranting
 
2014-04-30 10:00:34 AM  
You think facts matter to a guy like Scalia? He makes his own facts, subby.
 
2014-04-30 10:01:46 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Hmmm... guy doesn't have a recollection of his previous actions. Sounds like an early sign of dementia to me.

/Doesn't he look tired to you?


It could be a stroke. Or maybe he was just drunk.
 
2014-04-30 10:03:44 AM  

Karac: FLMountainMan: danvon: The guy is an ideologue. He makes his decision the minute he knows the case will be heard by the court based upon his political opinions. Thereafter, he will be cherry picking facts, creating razor-thin distinctions and, apparently in this instance, completely misstating facts to justify his decision.

The best part about it, his dissents will be filled with personal attacks and statements about how the other "idiots" can't understand things like him.

I'm sure you've been told this by a lot of people, but why don't you go ahead and give us an example?  I should be here till about 5:00 eastern.  I'll even give you TF for a month.

How about this one, from his dissent in the DOMA case:
That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people's Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every-where "primary" in its role.

Scalia long ago decided that all things homosexual were wrong.  And to support this assertion in his dissent in Hollingsworth v. Perry, he appears to claim that the Supreme Court should not be allowed to decide whether or not some act by the other two branches of government is constitutional.


That's not a personal attack.  I know it's hard to accept on Fark, but disagreeing with someone's political ideology (or legal philosophy) doesn't mean that you have to dislike the individual.  This may shock you, but I don't think liberals are bad people just by virtue of them wanting more government in society than I do.
 
2014-04-30 10:04:32 AM  

Last Man on Earth: Obama's Reptiloid Master: abb3w: It seems the SCOTUS let him edit the dissent after release; is there historical precedent for that?

Typically no. An incorrect opinion must be withdrawn and a new on substituted in its place, with an order noting the change. Appellate court justices do not get to nunc their own opinions.

In all honesty, though, who are you going to complain to?

Plus, it's a Scalia dissent, so it's not like anybody bothers to read it.  Law students everywhere are thrilled to see a Scalia dissent, because they can safely skip the next two pages of reading, secure in the knowledge it contains nothing more important than a cranky old man's ranting


Didn't Thomas join Scalia in his dissent?  Does this mean Thomas didn't review the 2001 case either?
 
2014-04-30 10:06:48 AM  

FLMountainMan: I'm sure you've been told this by a lot of people, but why don't you go ahead and give us an example? I should be here till about 5:00 eastern. I'll even give you TF for a month.


This is what he said about Justice O'Connor in a dissent.

Similarly irrational is the new concept that Justice O'CONNOR introduces into the law in order to achieve her result
Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 537, 109 S. Ct. 3040, 3067, 106 L. Ed. 2d 410 (1989)

Same decision, again about Justice O'Connor.

The real question, then, is whether there are valid reasons to go beyond the most stingy possible holding today. It seems to me there are not only valid but compelling ones. *535 Ordinarily, speaking no more broadly than is absolutely required avoids throwing settled law into confusion; doing so today preserves a chaos that is evident to anyone who can read and count.
Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 534-35, 109 S. Ct. 3040, 3065, 106 L. Ed. 2d 410 (1989)

This is what he had to say about the justices in the majority.

"A limitation that is so unsupported in reason and so absurd in application is unlikely to survive."
Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 543, 110 S. Ct. 2084, 2104, 109 L. Ed. 2d 548 (1990) overruled by United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 113 S. Ct. 2849, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1993)
 
2014-04-30 10:09:00 AM  

Jairzinho: 6-2 decision. "Scalia wrote in his dissent, which was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. "

I knew it. The worst of the SCOTUS had to dissent this. The damage that pair is doing to the country will take years and years to repair.


Clarence Thomas is literally nothing more than a second vote for Scalia.
 
2014-04-30 10:10:29 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: abb3w: It seems the SCOTUS let him edit the dissent after release; is there historical precedent for that?

Typically no. An incorrect opinion must be withdrawn and a new on substituted in its place, with an order noting the change. Appellate court justices do not get to nunc their own opinions.

In all honesty, though, who are you going to complain to?


Congress could pursue an entirely symbolic motion of censure, or an entirely impossible impeachment.  Censure would be pretty lulzy here.

Last Man on Earth: Plus, it's a Scalia dissent, so it's not like anybody bothers to read it.  Law students everywhere are thrilled to see a Scalia dissent, because they can safely skip the next two pages of reading, secure in the knowledge it contains nothing more important than a cranky old man's ranting


Scalia's dissents aren't entirely unimportant--they provide easy answers to the question "What is an example of dicta?"
 
2014-04-30 10:12:36 AM  
He's so mild-mannered, I'm sure he took the public embarrasment in stride.
 
2014-04-30 10:15:57 AM  
Scalia and Thomas are an embarrassment to the United States.
 
2014-04-30 10:17:47 AM  

FLMountainMan: Karac: FLMountainMan: danvon: The guy is an ideologue. He makes his decision the minute he knows the case will be heard by the court based upon his political opinions. Thereafter, he will be cherry picking facts, creating razor-thin distinctions and, apparently in this instance, completely misstating facts to justify his decision.

The best part about it, his dissents will be filled with personal attacks and statements about how the other "idiots" can't understand things like him.

I'm sure you've been told this by a lot of people, but why don't you go ahead and give us an example?  I should be here till about 5:00 eastern.  I'll even give you TF for a month.

How about this one, from his dissent in the DOMA case:
That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people's Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every-where "primary" in its role.

Scalia long ago decided that all things homosexual were wrong.  And to support this assertion in his dissent in Hollingsworth v. Perry, he appears to claim that the Supreme Court should not be allowed to decide whether or not some act by the other two branches of government is constitutional.

That's not a personal attack.  I know it's hard to accept on Fark, but disagreeing with someone's political ideology (or legal philosophy) doesn't mean that you have to dislike the individual.   This may shock you, but I don't think liberals are bad people just by virtue of them wanting more government in society than I do.


so this really isn't about they way Scalia does his job but more about you standing up up for a fellow conservative?
 
2014-04-30 10:21:41 AM  
Why does Thomas never speak during SCOTUS oral arguments?

Because Scalia is a lousy ventriloquist.
 
2014-04-30 10:28:35 AM  

ckccfa: Why does Thomas never speak during SCOTUS oral arguments?

Because Scalia is a lousy ventriloquist.


Same reason you never see both of Scalia's hands.
 
2014-04-30 10:41:25 AM  
So how do we, as citizens being represented by this court, force a retirement? Because it's farking time.
 
2014-04-30 10:46:14 AM  
As of Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court has corrected Scalia's opinion. The relevant passage now excludes his erroneous mention of the EPA and replaces the header with a new one that drops an EPA reference.


Anyone else not know they could do that?

I woudl thave thought these have some permanance to them.
 
2014-04-30 10:47:55 AM  
He's so used to rewriting history for his own purposes, he just got overzealous.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report