What trouble me is that Tony seems already to have made up his mind on an issue that has not yet been presented to his court. And surely there will be First Amendment issues presented to the court again, the most likely candidate being the California/Pledge of Allegiance issue. Regarding the California ruling,
Legislation should be the mechanism by which religion is constrained in our society. Did I misunderstand Mr. Scalia? Wouldn’t that give way to a “majority rules” situation with regard to religion in politics?
Well, he doesn’t seem to know the difference between “God” and religion. I’m kind of surprised that a SC justice would make such an intellectually weak argument. I’m also surprised that he seems to have no grasp at all of the first amendement. How did this idiot even make it through law school, much less to the SCOTUS?
Also, Scalia and his supporters seem to be quite vague as to what level of government endorsement of religion would not “go too far”. Their answer to that seems to be whatever the majority of voters decide, but this shows a disregard for what Constitutional principles are meant to be, which is the protection of the rights of miinorities from the tyranny of the majority.
And they’re also being deliberately vague and misleading when the talk about “public life”. There’s plenty of room for religious expression in public life, but whether or not something is government sponsored makes all the difference.
First thing I thought of when I heard those comments. While it’s acceptable for a judge to discuss general principles of law, it is highly improper to comment on the substance of a case that is pending or is likely to appear before the court.
Motion to recuse Justice Scalia, your honors. See 28 U.S.C. sections 144, 455.
Scalia actually had an SC opinion somewhere (I’d have to dig it up) where he lectures a couple for a social situation that he doesn’t like (a nasty divorce, I believe). He’s always seemed confused as to what his job is: to interpret the law, not to boss people around or hold forth on whatever subjects please his fancy. We empower them as jurists, not authorities on morality, opinion, science, or society.
—While it’s acceptable for a judge to discuss general principles of law, it is highly improper to comment on the substance of a case that is pending or is likely to appear before the court.—
It might be improper, even unethical, but I’m not sure in the way that warrants sanctions. During the Korematsu case, the Justices actually discussed the case with the President, which is normally very very verboten and frowned upon… but I’m not sure is any sort of illegal.
—IMO, if anything should be a disbarring offense, however, it should be a judge prejudging a case yet to be put before him/her.—
Well, if one is familar with the issues under question (and the issues here aren’t hard: it’s simply an appeal to the establishment reasoning in the first amendment, which Scalia has strong opinions), it would probably be a little silly to pretend that one DOESN’T prejudge such cases.
This is a point I also was thinking of. Scalia’s impropriety appears to somewhat academic, since his opinion on this issue was already more-or-less known. Also, in this case, the legal ethics would appear to restrict his freedom of speech.
I find the Arrogance level in this thread way past all limits of tolerability.
Anyone here a lawyer, much less a peer to a standing supreme court justice?
Since no case is presently before him that his comments can directly affect, his comments are his personal opinions and have no judicial weight. Once a case is brought before him, it would be the lawyers jobs to convince him of their legal viewpoint and Scalia’s opinions cannot be a factor to his decision. His decision then would be base only on legal and constitional interpretations, not personal bias. If you can prove then that his personal opinions are affecting his judgement only then will you be able to even think about doing something about it. Judge Scalia is free to express his own personal opinions just like any other citizen of thsi country.
So is the idea here that a SC Justice can have a very obvious opinion on how the judiciary is supposed to work, and everybody can know about it, and that’s fine… But as soon as he goes out and puts it to words, then he’s no longer fit to serve?