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)   Turns out the blunder made by Scalia is unprecedented. Pfft, like Scalia needs precedent to f*ck up   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 159
    More: Followup, Scalia, United States Solicitor General, University of Baltimore, Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting opinions, majority opinions  
•       •       •

4119 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 May 2014 at 9:22 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-01 08:28:14 AM  
I would think these things are proof read by his staff before release to the general public.  Why didn't any of them catch it?  I wonder if they were afraid to tell him the basis of his argument is bullshiat.
 
2014-05-01 08:33:39 AM  
Maybe he's going prematurely senile and his days on bench are limited.
 
2014-05-01 08:55:22 AM  
He can't really write the real reasons that he's opposed to the ruling. Something like "EPA bad". So it's no surprise because anything he writes is:

payload.cargocollective.com
 
2014-05-01 09:16:07 AM  

LasersHurt: Maybe he's going prematurely senile and his days on bench are limited.


personally, i hope his heart explodes sometime before the current congressional term expires.
 
2014-05-01 09:22:01 AM  

FlashHarry: LasersHurt: Maybe he's going prematurely senile and his days on bench are limited.

personally, i hope his heart explodes sometime before the current congressional term expires.


Eh I don't want to wish harm on him. But I guess whatever gets him off the bench...
 
2014-05-01 09:25:32 AM  
I'm actually just surprised that they corrected it.

I'd have figured 'disregaurd the old reality, we have a new one' reflex would kick in.
 
2014-05-01 09:27:03 AM  

EvilEgg: I would think these things are proof read by his staff before release to the general public.  Why didn't any of them catch it?  I wonder if they were afraid to tell him the basis of his argument is bullshiat.


I've heard law clerks do most of the actual work at the Supreme Court -- maybe they're the ones who wrote it?

//I'm sure they were very zealous
 
2014-05-01 09:28:58 AM  
IMPEACH!
 
2014-05-01 09:29:50 AM  

Arkanaut: EvilEgg: I would think these things are proof read by his staff before release to the general public.  Why didn't any of them catch it?  I wonder if they were afraid to tell him the basis of his argument is bullshiat.

I've heard law clerks do most of the actual work at the Supreme Court -- maybe they're the ones who wrote it?

//I'm sure they were very zealous


I think Scalia just uses the "scholars" at the CATO institute, rather than law clerks.  They pay better.
 
2014-05-01 09:30:21 AM  
"Scalia was dissenting from a 6-2 decision upholding the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate cross-state coal pollution. To help back up his judgment, he cited a 9-0 opinion he wrote in 2001 called Whitman v. American Trucking Association. But the EPA's stance in that case was the exact opposite of what Scalia said it was in Tuesday's opinion."

Wait a conservative rewriting history to fit their current argument. This is my shocked face :-0
 
2014-05-01 09:31:01 AM  
But I'm told that he's a strict constructionist and an originalist and a legal genius of a kind the world has never seen before.

There must be some kind of mistake.
 
2014-05-01 09:32:17 AM  

LasersHurt: Maybe he's going prematurely senile and his days on bench are limited.


The guy is almost 80, seems about the right time for the faculties to start going.
 
2014-05-01 09:32:47 AM  
He just makes shiat up on the fly, whatever will appease his backer's politics at the time. This exposes that more than anything.
 
2014-05-01 09:33:37 AM  

EvilEgg: I would think these things are proof read by his staff before release to the general public.  Why didn't any of them catch it?  I wonder if they were afraid to tell him the basis of his argument is bullshiat.


Now, don't get me wrong here - I hate having to defend Scalia, but ... it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.  His error doesn't change the basis of his argument, just which side had made it years ago.

He got the parties backwards on the case he was citing, but cited the ruling correctly.  Using a well known case, it's as if he had said that Brown vs. the Board of Education ruled that segregation in public schools, and then noted that it was the Board of Education that was against segregation.
 
2014-05-01 09:33:44 AM  
"Strict" "constructionist"
 
2014-05-01 09:38:32 AM  

Kibbler: But I'm told that he's a strict constructionist and an originalist and a legal genius of a kind the world has never seen before.

There must be some kind of mistake.


I'm waiting for the Scalia fans to show up and address what a brilliant legal mind he has. He's basically the Paul Ryan of the SCOTUS: Overrated intellect, anachronistic rationales (Ryan trickle-down, Scalia textualism). Both bullshiat.
 
2014-05-01 09:40:47 AM  
I'm not a lawyer so I don't understand how they can correct a fact like this and not have the change reflect somehow on his opinion in the document.

I mean if they were to issue an opinion that green is the best color because the sky is green and then correct the last part to blue, the stated facts would be correct but the opinion wouldn't make sense.

For court purposes, is this opinion totally useless now?

Can anyone explain this to me?
 
2014-05-01 09:41:04 AM  

Karac: EvilEgg: I would think these things are proof read by his staff before release to the general public.  Why didn't any of them catch it?  I wonder if they were afraid to tell him the basis of his argument is bullshiat.

Now, don't get me wrong here - I hate having to defend Scalia, but ... it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.  His error doesn't change the basis of his argument, just which side had made it years ago.

He got the parties backwards on the case he was citing, but cited the ruling correctly.  Using a well known case, it's as if he had said that Brown vs. the Board of Education ruled that segregation in public schools, and then noted that it was the Board of Education that was against segregation.


Segregation in public schools is what?  I need to know.
 
2014-05-01 09:42:18 AM  
Karac: Now, don't get me wrong here - I hate having to defend Scalia, but ... it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.  His error doesn't change the basis of his argument, just which side had made it years ago.

He got the parties backwards on the case he was citing, but cited the ruling correctly.  Using a well known case, it's as if he had said that Brown vs. the Board of Education ruled that segregation in public schools, and then noted that it was the Board of Education that was against segregation.


Not sure if serious, or just missed the part where Scalia completely mischaracterized a unanimous SCOTUS decision of which he was the author.
 
2014-05-01 09:42:26 AM  
Strict constructionist... meaning, he strictly constructs narratives to fit his masters agenda.  He's got lots of practice at making shiat up.
 
2014-05-01 09:42:27 AM  

heap: I'm actually just surprised that they corrected it.

I'd have figured 'disregaurd the old reality, we have a new one' reflex would kick in.


We have always been at war with Eurasia.  We have never been at war with East Asia.

When you consider the output of the right-wing noise machine over the past 15 years:

WMDs!
Saddam bad man!
The surge worked!
Lower wages create jobs!
Corporations are people!
Jobless=lazy!
Half the country is worthless scum!
Freedom and liberty means restricted birth control, restricted voting, unlimited spying!
Executive orders are either wonderful, or terrible, depending on whether my guy is in the White House!
Obama is a weak-willed do-nothing dictator!
Health insurance reform is the single greatest threat EVAR!
Keep your gubbmint hands off my Medicare!
I was on food stamps, did anybody help me, NO!


...Scalia comes off as almost erudite in comparison.  Maybe he's made a decision to move into the "black-is-white, up-is-down, day-is-night" camp.
 
2014-05-01 09:43:15 AM  
Obama has lowered the standards for our Supreme Court.
 
2014-05-01 09:43:23 AM  

Karac: Using a well known case, it's as if he had said that Brown vs. the Board of Education ruled that segregation in public schools, and then noted that it was the Board of Education that was against segregation.


Counter-argument: It would be like that if he had A) Ruled on Brown vs. The Board of Education and B) *WRITTEN THE DAMN OPINION* for Brown.
 
2014-05-01 09:46:05 AM  

hungryhungryhorus: I'm not a lawyer so I don't understand how they can correct a fact like this and not have the change reflect somehow on his opinion in the document.

I mean if they were to issue an opinion that green is the best color because the sky is green and then correct the last part to blue, the stated facts would be correct but the opinion wouldn't make sense.

For court purposes, is this opinion totally useless now?

Can anyone explain this to me?


That's off a bit from what happened.  Here's a better example.

Original text from Scalia: "It is my opinion that blue is the best color because, as I noted in my previous decision, the Grass v. Sky, the grass is blue."
Edited text: "It is my opinion that blue is the best color because, as I noted in my previous decision in Grass v. Sky, the sky is blue."

He mistake wasn't in what the previous decision was, but simply on which party was making which side of the argument in that decision.
 
2014-05-01 09:47:23 AM  

thanksagainandagain: Kibbler: But I'm told that he's a strict constructionist and an originalist and a legal genius of a kind the world has never seen before.

There must be some kind of mistake.

I'm waiting for the Scalia fans to show up and address what a brilliant legal mind he has. He's basically the Paul Ryan of the SCOTUS: Overrated intellect, anachronistic rationales (Ryan trickle-down, Scalia textualism). Both bullshiat.



Justice Scalia is very big on limited police powers along with strong 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights that police and most elected leaders try to erode.
 
2014-05-01 09:47:35 AM  
Facts are of little concern to Scalia.
 
2014-05-01 09:47:44 AM  

Zagloba: Karac: Now, don't get me wrong here - I hate having to defend Scalia, but ... it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.  His error doesn't change the basis of his argument, just which side had made it years ago.

He got the parties backwards on the case he was citing, but cited the ruling correctly.  Using a well known case, it's as if he had said that Brown vs. the Board of Education ruled that segregation in public schools, and then noted that it was the Board of Education that was against segregation.

Not sure if serious, or just missed the part where Scalia completely mischaracterized a unanimous SCOTUS decision of which he was the author.


Like I said, I hate having to defend him, but he did not 'completely' mischaracterize his previous decision.  He just got the names of which party wanted what backwards, not what the actual ruling was.
 
2014-05-01 09:51:49 AM  
The Scalia decision tree:

1. Is it truthy?
--->YES then go with it
---> NO then change things around until it is and repeat

Example, bribing politicians with unlimited cash

1. Is it truthy?
---> NO so rule that money is speech and repeat

Revised: Successful job creators deserve a voice in our vibrant democracy; after all, you can work as many hours as a campaign volunteer as you like*, so why should successful job creators face restrictions that you don't face, and why on Earth would anyone imagine that a successful job creator would expect a politician to vote in line with his interests just because he gave money to that politician's campaign, what kind of sick, warped, twisted, paranoid cretin are you, you want to talk about people who are a threat, what about those hippies pooping on cop cars and breaking the law, and all those illegals lining up to vote, like, 50 times, and putting people like Obama into office?

1. Is it truthy?
---> YES (PROFIT)

*Actual argument I read from a pundit this week
 
2014-05-01 09:52:56 AM  

"I can't be arsed to look it up," moaned Scalia. "Just go ahead & write in whatever backs up my opinion," he told the clerk. "It's not like it matters."

 
2014-05-01 09:55:41 AM  
Karac: He just got the names of which party wanted what backwards, not what the actual ruling was.

...in a way that vitiated his conclusion. Don't forget that part.
 
2014-05-01 09:57:17 AM  
FTFA: "This is a topic I know fair amount about, and I do not know of any other instance when a Justice has mischaracterized one of his own prior opinions, let alone in such a loud fashion and when he is otherwise criticizing others for their blunders," said Richard J. Lazarus, a Harvard law professor. "I strongly doubt it has ever happened before."

This is the crux of it... it's not just that a mistake was made, it's that a mistake was made by the loudest, most  self-impressed douche in the history of the court. And will there ever be an apology, or even an acknowledgement of fallibility by this arrogant gasbag? Nope. He'll just put on his robes and waddle back to the bench, and continue haranguing and blathering and drawing attention to himself with his customary  @sshole antics.
 
2014-05-01 09:59:39 AM  

Zagloba: Karac: He just got the names of which party wanted what backwards, not what the actual ruling was.

...in a way that vitiated his conclusion. Don't forget that part.


How so?  Does the fact that the EPA did not want to use cost analysis in their rule making change that the court ruled that the EPA could not use cost analysis in their rule making
 
2014-05-01 09:59:50 AM  

hungryhungryhorus: I'm not a lawyer so I don't understand how they can correct a fact like this and not have the change reflect somehow on his opinion in the document.

I mean if they were to issue an opinion that green is the best color because the sky is green and then correct the last part to blue, the stated facts would be correct but the opinion wouldn't make sense.

For court purposes, is this opinion totally useless now?

Can anyone explain this to me?


Since it is a Scalia/Thomas dissent, it's totally useless anyway.
 
2014-05-01 10:01:21 AM  
1. nothing changed
2. dissenting opinions are interesting, but not that noteworthy.
 
2014-05-01 10:07:44 AM  
The only thing that is going to happen is that whatever clerk was tasked with cite checking this opinion is so farking fired that his children's children will never work in law.

I mean seriously, cite checking is the core requirement of the job.  farking up a cite in a brief is bad, in a judicial opinion, worse, but miss-citing an opinion that your boss wrote - that is nuclear.
 
2014-05-01 10:07:48 AM  
The guy makes up wholesale judicial justifications for doing the thing he had predetermined to do at the outset. The 'opinion' is just words to justify the outcome after the fact. So sure, he'll inevitably contradict himself, his record, and reality.
 
2014-05-01 10:08:03 AM  
what does he care? it's not like he can be voted out or anything. He could go to work every morning, take a giant dump on his secretary's desk, and still have job security
 
2014-05-01 10:09:41 AM  
If Scalia disagrees with himself, what the hell is Clarence Thomas supposed to do?
 
2014-05-01 10:11:05 AM  
Modern medicine, increasingly, enables the body to outlive the mind.
Supreme Court justices can't be removed by any means, save they commit a serious crime.
This may be a problem the founders did not foresee.
In my opinion, Scalia and Thomas are both showing marked signs of senility. Irascibility, stubborness, delusional thinking - and it's only going to get worse.
We need to amend the Constitution so that SCOTUS judges can be removed for medical reasons, before something really bad happens. Scalia, in particular, has always been a hostile, unstable personality, and a bizarre judicial activist - and his opinons are getting weirder at an alarming rate. It's really no joke, and there is NOTHING that can be done about it, as things stand.
 
2014-05-01 10:11:15 AM  
What are you going to do, sue the Supreme Court?
 
2014-05-01 10:14:37 AM  

ModernPrimitive01: what does he care? it's not like he can be voted out or anything. He could go to work every morning, take a giant dump on his secretary's desk, and still have job security


Not quite, he can be impeached by Congress.

Granted it requires a 2/3rd's majority, and it has not happened before, but it is on the books.
 
2014-05-01 10:14:40 AM  
Scalia's boner?
 
2014-05-01 10:15:03 AM  

hungryhungryhorus: For court purposes, is this opinion totally useless now?

Can anyone explain this to me?


It was a dissenting opinion, so other than giving Scalia a forum to biatch, it doesn't have any real use anyway.
 
2014-05-01 10:16:02 AM  

SirGunslinger: ModernPrimitive01: what does he care? it's not like he can be voted out or anything. He could go to work every morning, take a giant dump on his secretary's desk, and still have job security

Not quite, he can be impeached by Congress.

Granted it requires a 2/3rd's majority, and it has not happened before, but it is on the books.


Isn't some sort of criminal wrongdoing, or at least a congressional allegation thereof, required? I'm not entirely clear on that.
 
2014-05-01 10:17:19 AM  

Karac: hungryhungryhorus: I'm not a lawyer so I don't understand how they can correct a fact like this and not have the change reflect somehow on his opinion in the document.

I mean if they were to issue an opinion that green is the best color because the sky is green and then correct the last part to blue, the stated facts would be correct but the opinion wouldn't make sense.

For court purposes, is this opinion totally useless now?

Can anyone explain this to me?

That's off a bit from what happened.  Here's a better example.

Original text from Scalia: "It is my opinion that blue is the best color because, as I noted in my previous decision, the Grass v. Sky, the grass is blue."
Edited text: "It is my opinion that blue is the best color because, as I noted in my previous decision in Grass v. Sky, the sky is blue."

He mistake wasn't in what the previous decision was, but simply on which party was making which side of the argument in that decision.


Thank you!  That makes a lot of sense.  In that light it seems like it would be more of an easy mistake to make mixing up the parties either as an accident or political Freudian slip but the calls of "dementia" seem a bit overblown.

/yea yea, "welcome to fark", I know...
 
2014-05-01 10:17:43 AM  

SirGunslinger: ModernPrimitive01: what does he care? it's not like he can be voted out or anything. He could go to work every morning, take a giant dump on his secretary's desk, and still have job security

Not quite, he can be impeached by Congress.

Granted it requires a 2/3rd's majority, and it has not happened before, but it is on the books.


I'm going to guess that even in crazy circumstances unless that 2/3rds majority is all liberal, I doubt the conservatives would vote against one of their own, at least not unless they had a conservative replacement waiting in the wings
 
2014-05-01 10:20:17 AM  

jso2897: We need to amend the Constitution so that SCOTUS judges can be removed for medical reasons, before something really bad happens. Scalia, in particular, has always been a hostile, unstable personality, and a bizarre judicial activist - and his opinons are getting weirder at an alarming rate. It's really no joke, and there is NOTHING that can be done about it, as things stand.


I don't think an amendment to remove a federal judge for medical reasons would work well in practice, since it inevitably would result in years of back and forth litigation concerning whether the judge is truly medically incapable of performing his duties.

What wouldn't be a bad a idea is removing the lifetime appointment benefit clause for all federal judges, from the Supreme Court down to the District Courts. Perhaps a 15-year appointment with the ability to get a second 15-year appointment, but after that, you're done. Too many federal judges take the approach of doing whatever the hell the want knowing nothing can happen to their job security.

Just a thought.
 
2014-05-01 10:21:02 AM  
I, for one, can't wait until we can finally vote this A*hole out of office.
 
2014-05-01 10:22:28 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: it's that a mistake was made by the loudest, most  self-impressed douche in the history of the court.


Google "Roger Taney" and get back to me on that.
 
2014-05-01 10:22:54 AM  

jso2897: Modern medicine, increasingly, enables the body to outlive the mind.
Supreme Court justices can't be removed by any means, save they commit a serious crime.
This may be a problem the founders did not foresee.
In my opinion, Scalia and Thomas are both showing marked signs of senility. Irascibility, stubborness, delusional thinking - and it's only going to get worse.
We need to amend the Constitution so that SCOTUS judges can be removed for medical reasons, before something really bad happens. Scalia, in particular, has always been a hostile, unstable personality, and a bizarre judicial activist - and his opinons are getting weirder at an alarming rate. It's really no joke, and there is NOTHING that can be done about it, as things stand.


Oh for the love of Pete, the [biatcheatingcrackers.jpg] brigade is getting a bit overblown here.  A clerk farked up in the attribution of which party made an argument in a prior case.  This is a screw up of massive proportions . . . for that clerk. He will probably be fired.

It is not, however, a sign of dementia.  And if it were, it would be a sign of dementia in a likley 25-28 year old law clerk.  Otherwise this is a non-issue. It is not legally relevant, and is pretty much on par with misspelling a party's name.  It's just funny and embarassing.

/i disagree with Scalia on the majority of issues
//disagreement doesn't mean one party is insane
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report