Actually, in Lawrence, Thomas wrote a separate dissent to say, in judicialese, “Nino, I agree with the result, but you wrote some seriously fucked up shit there with the gay-bashing. Leave me out of that crap”
I agree with Scalia that there was a common law rationale for making sodomy illegal, the logical extension of which would be stoning adulterers in the public square.
OK, so Tony, what about the 3/5s comprimise? Let’s say an “activist” court in 1814 made all the slaves free.
Good, or bad?
His head starts to emit smoke
They didn’t make it a crime for gay people to vote, they made it a crime for gay people to be gay. Ok, they really made it a crime for gay people to have sex, but considering that ‘gay’ is a description of sexuality, the two are kind of linked.
I knew if I waited long enough, Minty, we could find something on which we agree.
Somehow I’m visualizing Rhenquist carryign around the One Ring now.
Anyway, though I made a small noise on Scalia’s behalf in the GD thread, the guy is a prick. I guess being a Justice doesn’t pay well enough, so he has to take speaking engagements and make himself look like a flat-headed, bejowled douchebag. And a sore loser. People 200 years from now will be ridiculed the United States for even NEEDING Lawrence v. Texas - just like they’ll be ridiculing the logic behind Bush v. Gore.
Minty, let me point out the obvious. We are always going to be stuck with “outcome based decisions,” in which a judge determines how he wants a case to be decided and then goes looking for a rational to reach that decision. That is not the way it is supposed to work but it is in fact the way it works all too often. In appellate decisions the process sometimes takes the form of just ignoring inconvenient facts which, since they are never recited in the appellate opinion, you never know about unless you have a connection to the case–this process is enhanced in criminal and civil appeals since when the claim is that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the trial court decision the standard of review is an "any credible evidence "standard. Regrettably this sort of fundamentally dishonest judicial decision making is common both on the trial and appellate level.
Scalia certainly is an “outcome based” justice. He differs from the rest of the crowd by having a transparent agenda and by being a lot more out spoken about it than many others. We knew that when he was appointed to the court and that was the reason he was nominated in the first place. Unlike some others appointed to advance an agenda, Scalia has shown no inclination to depart from a rigid adherence to the agenda–that is his views and his approchs have not changed when confronted with the solemn responsibilities of the job.
Again you screw up a detail.
Scalia is all prostate and no heart.
This is a very silly rant. So minty green is entitled to comment about legal issues but not Scalia? Scalia, much like minty, believes in his legal philosophy, and for this reason is sometimes given to publicly arguing on favor of this ideology - also much like minty.
Bottom line is that when Scalia supports an armed revolution to overthrow the government in favor of one espousing his ideology get back to us. Until then, stop whining over the fact that someone publicly disagrees with you.
This is a stupid, stupid, stupid Pit rant.
Nancy Pelosi no doubt disagrees with many of the votes taken in the House of Representatives. On a regular basis, her vote determines the lives and deaths of her fellow citizens. On a regular basis, her vote is overruled by the majority of her colleagues, and the lives or deaths of her fellow citizens continue in some manner contrary to her judgment.
If she were to criticize her fellow legislators for their support of some bill that had just passed, would you be calling her a “giant pussy,” and telling her that she should “suck it up like a big [girl], have some motherfucking respect for the institution on which your fat, bigoted ass sits, and shut your damn fool mouth, you reprehensible piece of shit”?
The only difference is the branch of government Pelosi and Scalia occupy. Which isn’t a meaningful distinction here – while the rules of judicial ethics proscribe justices from commenting on pending cases (Scalia correctly recused himself from the upcoming pledge case, f’rinstance), there’s nothing unethical or disconcerting about a judge criticizing the decision in a case that has reached its final disposition.
Justice Scalia has every right to comment on past cases. Doing so does not make him a whiny motherfucker. It makes him a citizen exercising his right to criticize the government, same as you and me. Whining about his decision to speak publicly about his view of the issue is really pretty pathetic – “Waaaaaahh, the big mean conservative is talking about his disagreement with the court, waaaaaah.” Someone here is indeed a big fucking pussy, but it isn’t Justice Scalia.
I was going to rant on this very topic but taking a somewhat different tack. This rant’s much more entertaining than mine would have been anyway, I’m sure.
Scalia is every bit as entitled to spew his bile on legal issues as minty. The difference being, no offense minty, minty’s bile is not so situated as to poison the lives of hundreds of millions of people and Scalia’s is.
Note to self: no more protest votes, vote for Bush to make these people stop.
And, yes, I live in Florida.
You’ll notice, Dewey, that I did not claim Scalia was not entitled to express his opinion outside of the courtroom. My point is that he is an ass for doing so, particularly in such a mocking manner and in front of a group of rabid political partisans. The man has no decorum whatsoever. He’s a boob, a bigot, and an embarrasment to the Court on which he sits.
This, from a guy who just called a sitting justice a “giant fucking pussy,” an “asshole,” a “fat, bigoted ass” and a “reprehensible piece of shit.”
But that’s an interesting worldview you’ve got there, minty, where the mere expression of a contrary opinion in blunt language renders one an “ass.” God only knows what you must think of me.
To look at Scalia’s statements in light of his ethical obligations, I think we should consider Canon 4 of the Code of Conduct for United State’s Judges. Canon 4 allows judges to write and teach about the law, appear at public hearings before legislative or executive bodies on matters concerning the law or the administration of justice, and may serve on organizations devoted to the improvement of the legal system as long as it does not cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before the judge. At first blush, this Canon may make Scalia’s comments somewhat questionably ethical.
However, the reporter’s notes to the Canon indicate:
This quote allows much broader latitude to a judge to make comments about cases, even those he’s written. Still, I think Scalia is walking a plenty thin line, and it’s not a huge step to see that his impartially is more and more being called into question.
Of course, none of this changes the fact Scalia is a whiny bitch.
This is the Pit, Dewey, and I am not a member of the Court. Impropriety is, after all, measured with reference to the identities of the forum, the occasion, the audience, and the speaker.
Sorta like the difference between me farting in the bathroom and the Pope farting in the middle of Easter Mass.
Be that as it may, don’t you see some disconnect between accusing a man of lack of decorum in one breath and calling him a “giant fucking pussy” and a “reprehensible piece of shit” in the next? **
Justice Scalia was not speaking from the bench. He was speaking to an audience who had come specifically to hear what Scalia had to say about the court’s recent jurisprudence. My God, if his remarks are inappropriate there, where the hell are they appropriate? **
Again, Scalia wasn’t on the bench. Surely the Pope can fart in the Popemobile or during public appearances that are not part of liturgical ritual without being considered an “ass.”
What you’re basically saying is “Scalia is an ass if he criticizes the court’s jurisprudence in any public setting whatsoever.” You’re saying that if Scalia criticizes the court in any setting larger than a few friends at the local pub, he’s an asshole. Which is simply absurd. There is nothing unseemly about public comment, even harsh public comment, from a government official about government actions with which he disagrees, so long as he remains within the ethical rules.
Really. The only whiny bitch here is you.
I find it funny that he’s speaking to a group that claims to be for “limited government & individual liberty” about Lawrence, a case that involved the police breaking into a private home. And by “funny”, I mean “hypocritical”.
Depends on the context. Calling people names in a rant in the BBQ Pit at SDMB does not constitute a lack of decorum (“Appropriateness of behavior or conduct; propriety” — American Heritage). In fact, the opposite is the case.
The “mocking tone” that he adopted while reading the ruling seemed inappropriate to me. I don’t know why it should be appropriate for him to mock the other justices at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
The issue in Lawrence was not the propriety of the police entry into the home – that issue simply wasn’t raised – but rather the constitutionality of sodomy laws.
And one can dislike Lawrence, approve of limited government and individual liberty, and not be a hypocrite. Part of “limited government” is a respect for federalism, the right of states and localities to chart their own course, even when one disagrees with the course chosen. Lawrence represents the federal government limiting the ability of state and local governments to self-govern. It is on those grounds that thoughtful conservatives disapprove of that opinion.
You seem bound and determined to ignore the context of these comments: “an audience of conservative activists.” It is unseemly for a sitting member of the Supreme Court to embroil himself in partisan politics. What’s next? The keynote speech at the 2004 Republican Convention? Television commercials for El Presidente? Lobbying for the anti-gay marriage amendment? So much for the independent judiciary, eh?
It is not appropriate for a sitting member of the Supreme Court to mock his colleagues anywhere. Take issue with their reasoning, their analysis, their case cites, whatever. But to publicly adopt a “mocking tone to read from [Lawrence]”? What a whiny little bitch.
I have said no such thing. You have simply failed to acknowledge the distinction between criticizing the Court’s jurisprudence and mocking it to promote a political agenda in front of a partisan political group.