Fanning furor, Justice Scalia says appeals court judge lied

Comments (27)
masaccio wrote:

Next up: how Scalia elected George Bush in strict compliance with the words of the Constitution.

Sep 17, 2012 12:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Truth559 wrote:

Scalia, you’ve allowed the earth to be poisoned, and therefore the groundwater, and therefore the people. Therefore, your arguments are as shallow as a whitewashed tomb you dysfunctional pomp! You have betrayed the American people, as has the federal government as a whole. Effectively, as one, you’ve led the people into darkness. to conclude that a national health care bill would be acceptable without first extracting the things that are making people sick and replacing those things, with what is healthful, is liable. You treat this issue like the Mexican government deals with its drug cartels…You think you can play with corruption. Now look at the black hole you’ve created (allowed). On artificial solution after another. Take for example a farmer who was farming his land when pesticides were first available. Any farmer with understanding greater than a chimp knew that the poisons would eventually get in the ground water and other places. So unless he had enough hate (this exactly the right word) for himself/neighbor/his family/future generations/creation itself and/or accepted the lies of a promised “neutralizer”, he would be automatically divided within himself in using such a product. So his ability to grow as a farmer, as to build wealth, would be also hindered, if he did not have enough hate or believe a murderous (i.e. cancers) liar (i.e. monsanto). So by your satanic judgements you’ve created an environment for those that are like Cain (who murder his brother) to excel out of his hate and jealousy. And those that are good natured, to be subordinate to your satanic betrayals (judgements).

Sep 17, 2012 12:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jeff81201 wrote:

What a class act, ole puffy Scalia.

Sep 17, 2012 12:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
nirmasuma wrote:

“We are not nuts.” I only hope he used the pronoun only to
include all other judges and not himself among them. There
can be no doubt that he is a nut when he makes such statements unbecoming to a sitting judge, only to sell his books. In the mind of this nut, the world has been at a standstill after the proclamation of the Constitution.

Sep 17, 2012 12:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jaroca wrote:

…and we’re stuck with him for life………….

These clowns are as bad as royalty (they actually act as though they are in many cases).

Can we change the Constitution and limit their terms? 9 years? Give each POTUS a crack at the scales? Hmmmm……?

Sep 17, 2012 12:46am EDT  --  Report as abuse
borisjimbo wrote:

Scalia insists that the meaning of the Constitution is set in stone, yet he glides over its Great Compromise, that creating a bicameral legislature which gives inordinate power to states with smaller populations, at that time the slave states.

Sep 18, 2012 1:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
borisjimbo wrote:

Yes, we can amend the Constitution to make Supreme Court justices have term limits just like the conservatives want for Congress. We already did it once for presidents.

Sep 18, 2012 1:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Lord_Foxdrake wrote:

Screw him and his stupid book.

Sep 18, 2012 3:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ToTuffforYou wrote:

We have to get rid of these judges who legislate from the bench.

Sep 18, 2012 7:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
cautious123 wrote:

I’m shocked–to learn that Scalia can read and write!

Sep 18, 2012 8:26am EDT  --  Report as abuse
DavidinWY wrote:

This court, like the other two bodies of government are basing nearly all of it’s decisions on political, not legal basis. They have become highly partisan, and activist. As each election, they are being seated with (at least on the republican side) with youthful highly activist judges that are picked with the mindset that the judge will be able to sit on the court for the most years so that subsequent democratic presidents won’t be able to appoint liberal ones, not that they are the best judges!

Sep 18, 2012 10:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jeff81201 wrote:

One wonders if this sort of behavior might not drive Roberts and Kennedy a bit further away form Scalia.

Sep 18, 2012 10:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
paulastone wrote:

i think scalia and other “originalists” are an insult to the founding fathers and framers of the constitution. they assume that the brilliant minds that built our country intended for the constitution to be a static, dead document that doesn’t adapt to the changes in the country and the world.

i choose to believe that the understood that times change, and interpretations will change. originalism is nothing more than one interpretation (which assumes that all other interpretations are wrong).

but i guess scalia believes that the united states in 2012 should be governed by 18th-century thinking. i think he does our country a great disservice.

Sep 18, 2012 10:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pipkinra wrote:

A truly horrible man! Luckily he’s 76 and hopefully won’t be around much longer.

Sep 18, 2012 12:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Randy549 wrote:

I don’t think Scalia believes the constitution to be a “static, dead document.” He’s only saying that if at a later point in time we want to change what it says and means, we should change the constitution — not take the lame, disingenuous route of just deciding to interpret what’s there in a different way.

If the words in the constitution as written in the 18th century no longer suit the United States in 2012, then change the words.

Sep 18, 2012 2:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Ecdysis wrote:

I just wanted to point out a factual inaccuracy in this story. “One prominent exception to that is Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling that legalized abortion.” Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion per se. Abortion was already legal in some states. It ruled that individuals have a right of “privacy” which includes the right to have an abortion, and it effectively took that debate out of the democratic process. Even if you are pro-choice, as I am, it is easy to see how terrible the decision was in terms of Constitutional analysis. Thankfully we have Scalia on the Court, who is humble enough to realize the limits of his judicial power.

Sep 18, 2012 2:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
yrconscience wrote:

Antonin Scalia is a pompous windbag who only asserts “textual originalism” when it suits his purposes. Certainly his vote regarding the Citizens United ruling is devoid of any attachment to it.

Sep 18, 2012 2:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

I agree with yrsconscience.

The answer to the question as to why we need term limits in the SCOTUS is simple, justices Scalia and Thomas. Scalia can certainly argue both side of a fence, to push on his own bias, i.e, ‘who he is’. It doesn’t take law school, legal experience, honor, patriotism, or respect and knowledge of the US Constitution to adjudicate from personal beliefs and bias. The two of them have sullied the honor, reputation, and public approval of the SCOTUS, to historic lows.

Sep 18, 2012 4:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Janeallen wrote:

Alas, judges are making themselves look like clowns.

Where’s the likes of Justice Oliver Holmes, who simply stated his case. & even if he was in the dissent then, his legal framework would strongly influence generations to come, more than the majority opinion.

Sep 18, 2012 4:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rmkraussr wrote:

i’ll have to agree . . . . scalia is pompous

Sep 18, 2012 8:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
deke44 wrote:

Scalia di9dn’t seem to mind ignoting the Constituiton in the Gore/Bush decision. He completely ignored the 1oth Amendment which states “any power not expressly given to the federal government is reserved for the states. Our founding fathers did not mention one word about the conducting of elections. It was left to each individual state to determine the eligibility of voters by age, residency, etc. It was also left to the individual states as to how elections were to be conducted. It was left to the states to determine the winners of elections and it was also left to the states to determine how close elections would be resolved. Each state had its own close election parameters and recount legislation. Yep Scalia and that infamous court completely ignored the Constitution by stopping the legitimate recount being conducted according to Florida law. They like to either apply or ignore the Constitution according to which would benefit Republicans the most.
They were so ashamed of their own ruling that they added a codicil to their ruling which said ” This decision applies to this case and this case only”, which means it can never be used as a precedent. That decision was as ignoble as “a corporation is a person”. As a resu8lt of those two decisions that court will go down in history as the worst court in the history of this nation.

Sep 19, 2012 6:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

More inane babble from arrogant judges on obvious problems.

It’s our 2nd amendment constitutional right; supposedly – what is there to debate?

But that’s ok – debate it all you want, I’ll just stick to the word of Thomas Jefferson, “The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

See Judge.. it’s NOT UP TO YOU what rights I get – they are mine, and I will take them. That’s not just what I personally am saying; You know – that part about ‘endowed by our creator’? Or did you forget that?

Sep 19, 2012 9:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
arguethefacts wrote:

“We are textualists. We are originalists. We are not nuts,” he said.

No Scalia you are nuts, in fact you are completely crazy.

According to your theory blacks have no rights other than being 3/5ths of a white person because that’s what is originally in the Constitution. And of course women have no rights originally. They couldn’t own land, they couldn’t get a divorce. They became the chattel property of their husband when they married and everything they owned became his. The marriage license was registered in the same place where the sales transactions for cattle were registered.

Originalists are incredibly stupid. They don’t allow that the world changes. The United States is much different than it was in 1789. And to try to make laws based on 1789 is absurd.

Scalia is also corrupt and bought and paid for by the oil industry. He gives secret speeches, which are sometimes, fortunately, taped.

He goes hunting with VP Cheney right before hearing cases involving Cheney, and does not recuse himself.

And Gore v. Bush in which the court said that it was a case that could never be used as a precedent. They stopped the vote count in Florida with the rational that continuing the count would hurt George W. Bush. They gave him the presidency because the majority of the court were rightwing traitors who wanted their philosophy to prevail over actual justice.

Sep 20, 2012 11:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
arguethefacts wrote:

“We are textualists. We are originalists. We are not nuts,” he said.

No Scalia you are nuts, in fact you are completely crazy.

According to your theory blacks have no rights other than being 3/5ths of a white person because that’s what is originally in the Constitution. And of course women have no rights originally. They couldn’t own land, they couldn’t get a divorce. They became the chattel property of their husband when they married and everything they owned became his. The marriage license was registered in the same place where the sales transactions for cattle were registered.

Originalists are incredibly stupid. They don’t allow that the world changes. The United States is much different than it was in 1789. And to try to make laws based on 1789 is absurd.

Scalia is also corrupt and bought and paid for by the oil industry. He gives secret speeches, which are sometimes, fortunately, taped.

He goes hunting with VP Cheney right before hearing cases involving Cheney, and does not recuse himself.

And Gore v. Bush in which the court said that it was a case that could never be used as a precedent. They stopped the vote count in Florida with the rational that continuing the count would hurt George W. Bush. They gave him the presidency because the majority of the court were rightwing traitors who wanted their philosophy to prevail over actual justice.

Sep 20, 2012 11:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MassResident wrote:

Changing the laws by redefining the words they are written in is both dishonest and dangerous. It disregards the hard work the original authors put into deciding what the laws should be and changes them in ways that are unknown and unpredictable. It is invariably an attempt to avoid the difficulty of changing the laws and the Constitution through a proper debate, careful consideration, and the achievement of the consensus required for such changes. The consequences are often the kind of long lasting acrimony we have seen with the abortion issue which is “settled” in name only and will never go away.

Sep 22, 2012 10:02am EDT  --  Report as abuse
just_asking wrote:

If you do not like the law, change it through legislation. Too many people use the courts. The constitution does not change because you do not like what it says. It changes because enough people get together and get congress to do their jobs. The constitution states, if it is not there, it is a state issue. Too many judges are becoming are changing the laws by there decisions and over riding the constitution.

Sep 22, 2012 9:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Allstreets wrote:

Justice Scalia, please advise what original text of the Constitution declares that “corporations are persons” as meant therein, and what text defines spending money to be the same as speech, since you have so ruled on various ocassions.

Sep 23, 2012 12:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.