You’re entitled to this view, but it’s not the one society has adopted.
With good reason, considering how difficult it seems to be to indict and convict police.
I wasn’t snarking on him for his inconsistency. All too consistently wrong, in my estimation. Perhaps you weren’t really answering me, my quote was just a convenient hook to hang a post upon?
But, pray, how is it in the first paragraph you set a trap for the unwary to come play “case law” with a lawyer, calling upon us to prove his inconsistency? And finish up with “He voted with the liberal bloc more than any other liberal bloc justice voted with the conservatives.”. What are we to make of that, your approval for his inconsistency? Or merely another way to wedge in some “liberal hypocrisy”?
And this puzzles a boor with little brain:
So, when his conservative approach did not favor a conservative outcome, he would “break ranks”?
Dude! Radical.
Here’s a start. Bias all around, but exceptionally strong in the case of Scalia (and Thomas)
From cited article:
Speaking as a Scruffy-American…
I was not aware that there ever was all that much in the way of flag-burning going on. Lots of talk about it, like it was rampant across the nation. But according to the “pics, or it didn’t happen” standard, not so much.
Bearded, scruffy and sandaled, eh, Tony? You know who else was bearded, scruffy, and sandaled?
Hitler, right?
Only when hanging out with Eva at the grotto in the Eagle’s Nest.
Oh, Hell, no! Allen Ginsberg! Jesus, you guys are thick sometimes~
No.
First of all, a link is not a cite. You’re asking me to read the entirety of the article and pick out the specific example you feel supports your case.
But I did that.
And I did not find anything.
More specifically, the article claims that when considering First Amendment cases, Scalia was more likely to uphold the speech of conservative speakers than that of liberal speakers.
But that does not show inconsistency. It shows nothing, because we don’t know what the underlying issues were. The article lists some cases at the end, though, so I had to click even further.
I am not going to analyze every case. If there are a pair of cases that you believe highlights Scalia taking contrary positions on a specific aspect of free speech, please bring them to the table. I will select the first one from each category the article mentions.
The Court protected hateful speech at military funerals, and simultaneously ruled against a government whistleblower. Scalia was in the majority in both cases. This shows inconsistency, says the article.
But there is no inconsistency. The hateful speech at military funerals was that of a group of private citizens. But the “whistleblower,” here was a district attorney who, in his professional capacity, alleged that a warrant used by police was defective contrary to his boss’ instruction. He alleged that after doing so, he suffered professional reprisals. The Court held that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline. So there is no contradiction between these two cases.
I am not going to break out each case, taking hours of time in response to your posting one link. Why don’t you post the specific case, or pair of cases, that you contend shows his inconsistency. Not someone else’s opinion: the specifics.
Why can’t anyone do this, when his supposed bias is so pervasive?
My approval for his consistency.
Yes.
Google “Bigfoot Sightings”. Do you get a metric shit-ton of results and does that mean it is true?
Drifted on to six pages now (I use 100 posts per page for easier reference) and I’m out of popcorn.
Help me out here, perhaps I’m misunderstanding something/a lot.
Others posited that Scalia was against torture after conviction. That would be “cruel and unusual” under the constitution. He was okay with or at least didn’t see a prohibition of torture before conviction in the constitution - do I have that right?
Who would do this torture? It shouldn’t be the Feds IAW with some of his other reasoning. Actions like treaties, tariffs, post office, interstate commerce, etc… were Federal territory. All the rest of governing power were reserved for the states. IOW, if the constitution didn’t say the Feds could do it, then it was a state area (originalist view). The commerce clause has been stretched to unimaginable limits but I don’t see its applicability here so how do we get to torture by the Feds?
Yes, that’s more or less accurate. But we don’t know much more than that; Scalia’s views on torture were publicized during a conference in Ottawa where he defended Jack Bauer (in response to a claim that we shouldn’t torture anyone to find out where a nuke was hidden). Some years later, he gave a radio interview where he said the same thing.
It’s a bit unfair to say he was defending torture. More like he was saying it could be justified in rare circumstances, and not necessarily constitutionally prohibited.
Of course, the Fifth Amendment bars any subsequent prosecution based on torture evidence, but Scalia has also railed against the exclusionary rule in the past (though other respected jurists like Cardozo have too).
And Scalia was always with the latter.
If you were asked, in a one-word post, “Cite?” then, no, it doesn’t prove it’s true, but it is a cite.
What do you think a cite is?
It’s what you asked for and got.
Goodness, but fantastic scenarios abound in the Republican mind: voters must be protected from losing faith because of super-dooper close election, torture must be legal because of a scenario half Jack Bauer, half Tom Clancy.
The threat is grim, massive. We know just about everything about this plot, we even have the criminal mastermind and his white Angora cat. There is no time! (We know the schedule as well.)
And no one else, apparently, knows what he knows, none of the steps that lead us to him know. So, either he spills the beans, or untold numbers die.
Well, hell, we’ve gone this far! Why skimp on fantasy, lay it on thick!
Say the decision is mine, there is no one else, usually I’m absorbed pressing wildflowers or dipping candles, but today is my day in the gun barrel, I’m the Head Hippy in Charge. What do I do? I do it, don’t I?
I do what is repellent to me, certain that it will stain my soul because it is wrong. But I will, and then I will walk myself to the nearest authority and turn myself in, because I am a criminal. It was not legal, it was not right, it was evil to prevent worse evil, and there is no more slippery a slope anywhere, any time. Here Be Monsters, and This Way Lies Madness.
Let there be judgement, of course. But after the fact, so that the decision can be examined as a fact, rather than a conglomeration of grim fantasy.
All I know is that if “a links isn’t a cite” Great Debates is going to take forever, what with mailing books to each other every time someone demands, “CITE!”
That’s actually a pretty good paraphrase of what Scalia said. Good job!