Hello everyone,
On campus, I hear lots of people make Justice Scalia look like a far, right-wing conservative. Are the accusations of racism and partiality founded on any semblance of truth?
Thanks for reading!
- Honesty
Scalia is a real character, and I that’s what gets him special ire. He is outspoken and can be insulting and very pompous. But I don’t know of any legitimate racism accusations at all. As for partiality: well he is partial to his own views about the law. He is certainly a far right conservative, but then most of the justices can be characterized in a political direction. It cannot be avoided given that SC justices are very much picked out and made by politics.
I think the court would be a LOT poorer without him, both in character and in representation of ideology. I disagree very strongly with many of his views both on politics and factual matters, but his legal position is very much needed on the court, even if I don’t always agree with it, even though I don’t feel he applies it consistently (it’s always easiest not to break the rules when you’re lecturing someone else, not so easy when something is standing in your way).
Who bent the law for the Republican Party in their infamous 2000 election decision. That alone renders him hateworthy. He also feels there is no right to privacy to be found in the Constitution – his strict reading thus renders what I feel is a profoundly un-American sentiment. He belongs in some Third World banana republic court, not America’s court.
And he’s refusing to recuse himself from a case involving Dick Cheney after going duck hunting with him immediately prior to hearing a case involving him.
He’s a cheap fraud at best, a traitorous scumbag at worst. I lean toward the traitorous scumbag theory.
What Evil Captor said but with lots and lots of four letter words.
That would be because Justice Scalia is, unabashedly, a far, right-wing conservative.
I’m not aware of any solid argument that Scalia is racist, although he is certainly insensitive to racial concerns. Partiality, on the other hand, has been well established: his refusal to recuse himself after engaging in conduct that creates the appearance of partiality (going on an extensive duck hunt with a named plaintiff in a case before the Court) converts that appearance into a presumption of partiality. For that alone he should be impeached, disbarred, and quite probably imprisoned.
Don’t forget, he’s a Republican, so he is racist, too. :rolleyes:
Antonin Scalia is hated because he is the leading proponent of a particular school of constitutional thought. This is not unusual. Those who think it is unusual should take a trip in the Wayback Machine to see bumper stickers reading “Impeach Earl Warren.”
I’ve always thought Rehnquist and Scalia were interchangable and didn’t dislike one more than the other. Just curious if anyone knows of an instance where they voted in opposition to each other.
Hey, that’s a good idea. Maybe I should start selling “Impeach Antonin Scalia” stickers!
It does occasionally happen. Scalia and Rehnquist are not interchangeable, although you do have to dig to find instances where they have not agreed. Those instances have become less common in recent years, from what I’ve seen. Scalia’s jurisprudence was more distinctive early in his service; lately he has stood less for the banner of strict constructionalism (for which Dewey worships him). His judgments of late have reflected his right-wing political ideology far more than his ostensible espousement of strict constructionalism (which, as far as I’m concerned, has always been a sham).
Under what statute would he be prosecuted and imprisoned?
Honesty:
What do your contemporaries have to say about Justice Thomas? 
The case that comes to mind is Texas v. Johnson, where Justice Reinquist said that the government had the right to ban flag burning, and Scalia said that it was protected under free speech.
I’m sure he’s accepted influence money at some point in his judicial career. That’s a felony, I’m pretty certain.
I used to hold the opinion that Justice Scalia was a very intelligent jurist with whom I merely disagreed. However, in the past few years I have changed my mind: he is a nasty, bigoted man who uses his position to further a moral agenda, in the disguise of forwarding a principled concept of jurisprudence. His principled jurisprudence goes out the window whenever the issue sub judice tickles his moral precepts, which are very right-wing conservative, bigoted, and prejudicial. His histrionic opinion in Lawrence v. Texas was a sterling example of this sort of behavior, and exhibits the true hypocrisy of his Justiceship. There was no basis in “strict constructionalism” for the raving bigotry set forth in that opinion; that rant came from his black little heart and nowhere else.
There are “Impeach Antonin Scalia” stickers on CafePress, if anyone is interested.
The vote in Bush v. Gore was 7-2, wasn’t it? It looks that way in the decision.
So, how about those other two traitorous Democrat judges? Are they de facto Republican slimeballs too?
Care to enlighten us with specifics?
Scalia’s current controversy (involving Cheney) doesn’t speak well for his sense of ethics, whether or not he is technically correct about staying within the boundaries of the law. And his contemptuous “quack, quack” response when quizzed about it was disgusting. He should recuse himself from the case.
Well, I think Clinton picked judges much closer to the mainstream. I don’t see any justices on the Court anymore that are as far left and as ideological as Scalia and Thomas are. Probably in the days of Brennan and Marshall, one could at least make that case…But not now.
Well, it was a confusing decision. The vote was 7-2 on one aspect but 5-4 on another. (Essentially, 2 of the 7 thought that they had to go back and do something fairer like recount all of the votes in the state but they did not just say “Game over…Bush won.”) I believe there was even one aspect that was 6-3 in the sense that the 3 conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist) went even further on one aspect than the other 2 in the 5-4 majority were willing to go. (Does anybody have a stronger recollection on this?)
I’d like to understand how the application of the “equal protection” clause in this cause goes along with Scalia’s “strict constructionist” philosophy. The reason why they were able to get 7-2 on a part of it was because some justices who had actually long felt that the equal protection clause was important joined some who were, as near as I understand it, pretty much just discovering this clause for the first time (unless they had tried to apply it in one of the “reverse discrimination” cases). [At any rate, I personally do not endorse Evil Captor’s use of the word “traitorous” in reference to any of these Supreme Court justices because I think the Right has been good enough at labeling people as traitorous or treasonous and I’d rather not see the Left join them in this game.]
I have no respect for Scalia the person and am somewhat contemptuous of Scalia the jurist, but, unless you have evidence for this claim, it is nothing but a libelous smear. I think you ought to stick to facts or arguable philosophy rather than throwing out gratuitous and unsupported claims of dishonesty.
Then I’m sure you can present a credible cite to back up the charge. And something more than an allegation, please…
If I had specific charges, I’d have already made them. I merely said that I’m sure that such incidents have occured, on the basis that he’s such a slimeball. You are free to assume I’m wrong; won’t bother me a bit.
That’s even worse than I thought. I had expected you were at least referring to some rumor. “I don’t like the guy, so I’m sure he’s done something illegal” is a statement that I hope everyone on this board, not just me, will assume is wrong.