Less than two weeks ago, Justice Ginsburg was speaking at the European University Institute in the Tuscan hillside overlooking Florence. Many of the restored villas date from the Renaissance.
Don’t know if she was paid for the speech, but I’d bet the accommodations alone were worth $400/night.
Just asking questions, of course.
Besides all the people affected by pollution, the reality is that Scalia used even laws that were superseded by recent rulings and new laws in his thankfully failed attempt at making the dreamers suffer.
Scalia had no problem reaching for laws that referred to the treatment of former slaves.
As Matt Iglesias from Slate noted then, “Justice Scalia genuinely cited restrictions on migration of freed slaves as precedent for SB 1070.”
Wow. Quoting Business Insider. One wonders what the National Inquirer’s take is…
Actually they are quoting Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, Matt Iglesias and Scalia himself.
Not even you can possibly believe that the purpose of busing was to create societal upheaval. The intent was to correct an imbalance, of rich schools for white kids and poor schools for black kids. The intent was to remedy societal upheaval.
The courts have a long history of enforcing remedies to constitutional abrogations. This isn’t “inventing new rights,” but guaranteeing the rights that are spelled out in the constitution.
If a state or local government violates “equal justice before the law,” it is not “inventing a new right” for the court to compel them to cut it out.
But even if you don’t agree with that, you cannot conceivably be so brain-dead as to imagine that “upheaval” was the intended goal of Brown vs. Board of Education.
It’s not that inconceivable.
To hijack a little, I understand that the use of rubber truncheons on the target of such investigations is not an investigative method the police are permitted to use. I can accept an assertion that the 8th Amendment is not the one implicated in removing it from their toolkit. Could you share with me which one is?
Personally, I’m kinda leaning toward the Fifth, on account of breaking or otherwise injuring an accused person’s physical body counts as depriving him of his property, and a police investigation DOESN’T count as due process of law.
You ready to come back?
By societal upheaval I meant a wholesale upsetting of societal norms, which is exactly what forced busing was intended to do. I could argue with much of the rest of your post too but it’s late and I have an early day tomorrow, but I thought I’d take a few minutes to straighten you out on this matter since it seemed to send you into such high dudgeon.
I concur. Antonin appeared to be laughing heartily and genuinely.
For those that don’t want to watch all 26 minutes (though why wouldn’t you? It’s one of the funniest and ballsiest things ever!), the bit with Scalia is at 15:02.
Yes, and nope.
Yes, the Fifth Amendment, but nope, not due to a theory that injury is deprivation of property.
The Fifth Amendment forbids compelled self-incrimination: “I take the Fifth,” being the well-known phrase that asserts this protection. Information obtained from the application of a truncheon is compelled self-incrimination.
No.
But I took your comment to be targeted at my complaint about these “questions,” proffered concerning Scalia’s activities. In other words, I complained about the tactic of making baseless accusations disguised as merely asking questions, and you then observed that right wingnuts are upset at this tactic after using it themselves against Secretary Clinton’s e-mail server.
And then I responded to point out that I had not only condemned the tactic when it was used against Clinton, but specifically started a thread about how crappy a tactic it was.
So my question to you would be: well?
More specifically, how do you reconcile what you see here: the repudiation of the tactic against Clinton and the gleeful use of it against Scalia?
I think you’ve confused the disease and the remedy.
The “wholesale upsetting of social norms,” did indeed happen. But it was the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments which did so. The social norms that continued to exist were suddenly on borrowed time: the government could no longer constitutionally enforce these social norms.
When state governments sought to do so in contravention of these constitutional guarantees, the people thus aggrieved brought suit, and won. Courts ordered states to comply with the guarantees.
And when states refused, using a variety of stratagems, the courts fashioned more direct remedies.
I acknowledge that the busing issue was at times an overly invasive exercise of judicial power, but it arose from an even more blatant disregard of legitimate judicial authority by state and local governments. The courts did not set out to usurp legislative or executive authority; they simply fashioned an equitable remedy where legislatures and governors failed to act as they were mandated to do.
Scalia’s politics are irrelevant. He wasn’t a politician. His judicial philosophy is the issue (except when he inserted his politics into his job as judge).
To me, he was complex. I thought he was an absolute idiot about 90% of the time. But in the case of the other 10%, he was genius and made me ashamed of the liberals on the court.
Yes, and to be more precise, it was often guaranteeing rights that are NOT spelled out in the Constitution, and therefore were not as easily guaranteed. Human rights exist independent of the Constitution, and the fact that they aren’t specifically deliniated doesn’t mean they don’t exist, as the Ninth Amendment says. Anyone who says judges just make up rights that aren’t in the Constitution needs to read that amendment.
I’ll tell you after the eighth Congressional investigation into Scalia’s activities at the ranch.
I read the Nimoy one as well, but that was on a parody site. Possibly the best parody site I’ve ever seen ( check out the banner at the top of the page ), but parody nonetheless.
http://harddawn.com/nimoy-and-obama-killed-scalia/
And you left out the best part, the motive was that Obama needed Scalia off the bench so he would have the SCOTUS votes to cancel the 2016 election and declare himself king.
I’m stealing this.
Why not, he stole it too.
It’s just common sense, at least to the point where I would not wonder what a newspaper reporter was doing following Sotomayor or Sanders around.