# Justices Kagan and Scalia **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368 "2011-01-12T18:23:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/1 "2011-01-12T18:23:13Z")
The Supreme Court dealt with a bankruptcy case. The person filing bankruptcy wanted to be able to deduct money for his car, which he owned free and clear, because the law allows a deduction for car payments. On the other side were, in effect, his creditors, who would get less money from the bankrupt individual if that view were adopted. It’s an article of faith amongst many here that Scalia rules whichever way he wants the thing to come out. So we assume that mean, evil Nino said, “Screw you, bankrupt guy.” And we might assume that compassionate Kagan said, “No, no, whatever help we can give to the poor suffering bankrupt individual, we’ll give.” Right? ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/2 "2011-01-12T18:25:36Z")
Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/3 "2011-01-12T18:26:17Z")
Is that a debate? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/4 "2011-01-12T18:27:33Z")
WTF **Bricker**? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/5 "2011-01-12T18:28:38Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Is that a debate? Yes. Forgive me for not marking the lines more clearly: For those who believe that Scalia is driven by results as opposed to a consistent analytical methodology, how would you explain today’s result in _Ransom v. FIA Card Services_, which would seem to run counter to the political views and desired result ascribed to Scalia? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/6 "2011-01-12T18:28:42Z")
n/m ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/7 "2011-01-12T18:30:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Forgive me for not marking the lines more clearly: > > For those who believe that Scalia is driven by results as opposed to a consistent analytical methodology, how would you explain today’s result in _Ransom v. FIA Card Services_, which would seem to run counter to the political views and desired result ascribed to Scalia? If that’s the case, wouldn’t you be better served to clearly state what happened and how each party ruled rather than saying “Whatcha think happened? Hmmm? HMMMM???” ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/8 "2011-01-12T18:33:28Z")
Could you at least spell out the issue of law here, so we might discuss it? Or should we all go search out the decisions? I see it was an 8-1 ruling, with only Scalia dissenting, so I haven’t the first idea why he would go the way he did. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/9 "2011-01-12T18:34:02Z")
Well, Nino has traditionally sided with business in the past such as Ledbetter v. Goodyear and Citizens United v. FEC and Kelo v. City of New London. That said Scalia likes to say the law must be applied as written and if the law says the guy can take a deduction then I guess Scalia would say he can have it. Up to congress to change the law (which I am betting if this guy gets away with this it will be). I have not seen enough of Kagan yet to say one way or another how she will rule on the Supreme Court. ETA: I do not know the case at hand or who decided what and who wrote what. The above is just more in general from what little I could glean from the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/10 "2011-01-12T18:37:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Supreme Court dealt with a bankruptcy case. > > The person filing bankruptcy wanted to be able to deduct money for his car, which he owned free and clear, because the law allows a deduction for car payments. > > On the other side were, in effect, his creditors, who would get less money from the bankrupt individual if that view were adopted. > > It’s an article of faith amongst many here that Scalia rules whichever way he wants the thing to come out. > > So we assume that mean, evil Nino said, “Screw you, bankrupt guy.” And we might assume that compassionate Kagan said, “No, no, whatever help we can give to the poor suffering bankrupt individual, we’ll give.” > > Right? Has anyone ever explained to you the difference between “baiting” and “debating”? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/11 "2011-01-12T18:38:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For those who believe that Scalia is driven by results as opposed to a consistent analytical methodology… I’d say Scalia is intelligent enough to twist his methodology to fit anything he wants it to. See Heller for an example of that (he “found” a right to self defense yet IIRC he is critical for the court “finding” a right to privacy in Roe). ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/12 "2011-01-12T18:45:01Z")
I don’t think it was driven by “ideology”, as that’s normally thought of. The majority went for what seems to me to be a purely literal interpretation, while Scalia thought that it lead to an absurd result: the bankrupt person gets the “ownership costs” regardless of how low they are, or of how long they will continue in the future. I understand Scalia’s logic, but I think it’s wrong for a judge to be as activist as this: he should simply have gone with the majority, and pointed out the absurdity of the law, so that the legislature could fix it. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/13 "2011-01-12T18:45:30Z")
OK, after reading a bit more it sounds like Scalia was just being ornery, and perhaps a bit pedantic in his reading of the text. He cited a 1942 British ruling and complained about the meaning of the word “applicable” (in particular he seemed to think the law should say “monthly expenses, if applicable” instead of “applicable monthly expenses”). The clear meaning of the law seems to be that you only get the “ownership costs” deduction if you have payments. You get the “operating costs” deduction if you have a car at all. ---
**Author:** ![Carnacki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5e925/32.png) [@Carnacki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnacki)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/14 "2011-01-12T18:47:09Z")
Without going into too much detail (I can try if you want), the Bankruptcy code references a specific IRS chart (the “National and Local Standards”). For the majority to reach its decision, it had to conclude that while reading the National and Local Standards, we have to also take into account the IRS “Collection Financial Standards”, which is nowhere referenced in the Bankruptcy code. (Disclaimer: I didn’t read the entire majority opinion). It looks like Scalia is arguing we shouldn’t be taking into account stuff that’s not in the actual text of the law. (Disclaimer: I didn’t read the entire minority opinion either!) ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/15 "2011-01-12T18:47:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s an article of faith amongst many here that Scalia rules whichever way he wants the thing to come out Most people tend to vote in a manner most pleasing to them. ---
**Author:** ![DrumBum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e79b87/32.png) [@DrumBum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrumBum)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/16 "2011-01-12T18:53:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Supreme Court dealt with a bankruptcy case. > > The person filing bankruptcy wanted to be able to deduct money for his car, which he owned free and clear, because the law allows a deduction for car payments. > > On the other side were, in effect, his creditors, who would get less money from the bankrupt individual if that view were adopted. > > It’s an article of faith amongst many here that Scalia rules whichever way he wants the thing to come out. > > So we assume that mean, evil Nino said, “Screw you, bankrupt guy.” And we might assume that compassionate Kagan said, “No, no, whatever help we can give to the poor suffering bankrupt individual, we’ll give.” > > Right? Absent a cogent explanation of the ruling you might provide me, I will assume that Justice Scalia based his decision on what the original writers of the Constitution had intended. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/17 "2011-01-12T18:55:50Z")
I don’t really see why people who own cars should get preferential treatment in bankruptcy cases, regardless of whether the cars are fully paid-for or not. That aside, didn’t Scalia write a book in which he plainly admitted to sometimes ruling on the basis of how he wanted things to come out? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/18 "2011-01-12T19:03:28Z")
[Ruling](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-907.pdf). I figure someone might as well actually help the “debate” along, since the OP isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/19 "2011-01-12T19:05:29Z")
Next time, why not just tell us something “The President” said and invite us to comment on what “The President” said? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2011, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368/20 "2011-01-12T19:08:40Z")
ETA: I’m not going to waste much time on the OP, it’s that ridiculous. I will point out that the opinion was 8-1, with Scalia being the sole dissenter, and Kagan, Sotomayer, and all the other “liberal” members of the court sided with the credit card company. I’m sure that must mean something to **Bricker** like Scalia’s dissent did, but I’ll be damned if I’m wasting more time figuring it out. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justices-kagan-and-scalia/567368.md?page=2)