# Scalia issues unilateral rulling on non-existant church/state case **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2003, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324 "2003-01-13T17:05:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/1 "2003-01-13T17:05:07Z")
[http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/13/scalia.ap/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/13/scalia.ap/index.html) > [@](#): > > Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia complained Sunday that courts have gone overboard in keeping God out of government. 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, > [@](#): > > [Scalia] said past rulings by his own court gave the judges in the Pledge case “some plausible support” to reach that conclusion. However, the justice said he believes such decisions should be made legislatively, not by courts. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/2 "2003-01-13T17:11:03Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/3 "2003-01-13T17:17:03Z")
I do hope Mr. Scalia now recuses himself from the Pledge of Allegiance case. If he does not, I hope the bar associations of whatever states to which he is admitted disbar him for a gross breach of judicial ethics. Sua ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/4 "2003-01-13T17:41:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/5 "2003-01-13T18:01:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > I do hope Mr. Scalia now recuses himself from the Pledge of Allegiance case. > > If he does not, I hope the bar associations of whatever states to which he is admitted disbar him for a gross breach of judicial ethics. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/6 "2003-01-13T18:06:02Z")
Can a Supreme Court justice be disbarred? If so, does he lose his seat on the court? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/7 "2003-01-13T18:11:11Z")
Excuse my ignorance here, but: > [@](#): > > “That is contrary to our whole tradition, to ‘in God we trust’ on the coins, to (presidential) Thanksgiving proclamations, to (congressional) chaplains, to tax exemption for places of worship, which has always existed in America.” When did Thanksgiving become a religious holiday? I was under the impression that it was secular. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/8 "2003-01-13T18:17:23Z")
He meant Thanksgiving proclamations. Presidents have traditionally proclamed “National days of Prayer and Thanksgiving”. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/9 "2003-01-13T18:32:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Can a Supreme Court justice be disbarred? If so, does he lose his seat on the court? \*\* One is not required to be an attorney to be a SCOTUS justice, so no. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/10 "2003-01-13T18:36:10Z")
Thanks, Sua. Can he be disbarred? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/11 "2003-01-13T19:55:02Z")
Certainly. This is far from a disbarring offense, however. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/12 "2003-01-13T20:04:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*Certainly. This is far from a disbarring offense, however. \*\* Sadly, that’s true. IMO, if anything should be a disbarring offense, however, it should be a judge prejudging a case yet to be put before him/her. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/13 "2003-01-13T20:06:55Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/14 "2003-01-13T20:12:03Z")
—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. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/15 "2003-01-13T20:40:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*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. ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/16 "2003-01-13T20:42:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/17 "2003-01-13T20:49:06Z")
So, I suppose you haven’t read 28 U.S.C. sections 144 and 455, huh? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/18 "2003-01-13T20:57:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*So, I suppose you haven’t read 28 U.S.C. sections 144 and 455, huh? \*\* Can you provide a link or quote the relevant excerpt? ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/19 "2003-01-13T21:02:11Z")
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? Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2003, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324/20 "2003-01-13T21:41:50Z")
[28 USC 144](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/144.html) > [@](#): > > **Sec. 144. - Bias or prejudice of judge** > > Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. > > The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith. [28 USC 455](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/455.html) > [@](#): > > **Sec. 455. - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge** > > (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. > > (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: > > (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; > > […] [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scalia-issues-unilateral-rulling-on-non-existant-church-state-case/148324.md?page=2)