Justice Scalia must resign

[Somerville]

EJ Dionne at the Washington Post has a few words about Justice Antonin Scalia and his recent actions that appear to be in contrast with the concept of judicial impartiality

Justice Scalia must resign

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

my emphasis



and it used to be the conservatives railing about "activist judges"

 

[rocket88]

EJ Dionne at the Washington Post has a few words about Justice Antonin Scalia and his recent actions that appear to be in contrast with the concept of judicial impartiality

my emphasis



and it used to be the conservatives railing about "activist judges"

you probably don't need me to tell you, but it's only bad when the other team does it.

 

[StillBallin75]

Yeah, if you read Scalia's dissent it sounds a hell of a lot more like a blog post than a judicial argument. At least the majority phrased their argument in a way that sounded rational and conciliatory.

 

[lpast]

Ok fellas hate to blow up your balloons...but there is no more partisan a justice that Ruth Bader Ginsburg who has NEVER made anything but a liberal decision....what does that mean...They are all appointed by a Republican Pres or a Democrat and they are appointed to uphold the liberal or conservative view...in other woulds the supreme court is a bunch of Kaka and never has been based on common sense law.

 

[clownboy]

Earl Warren was never impeached, despite the public and political uproar against him. Neither shall Scalia be.

You want to read blog posts masquerading as judicial decisions, go back and read some of your own favorite justices' decisions with a grain of salt to dim your bias. There's been some gymnastic doozies.

 

[specklebang]

There is exactly ONE Justice who isn't 100% partisan, Anton Kennedy. He's a bit conservative but he is very rational and I respect him. The other 8 are useless scum and its a good thing there are 4 of each or we'd be in real trouble.

 

[StillBallin75]

Earl Warren was never impeached, despite the public and political uproar against him. Neither shall Scalia be.

You want to read blog posts masquerading as judicial decisions, go back and read some of your own favorite justices' decisions with a grain of salt to dim your bias. There's been some gymnastic doozies.

Don't have a favorite justice :shrug:

 

[SgtRock]

Scalia should resign right after Kagen, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg form a suicide pact, hold hands a jump off a freeway overpass into the path of a semi truck. Yeah, thats the ticket. The thought makes me all giggly inside.

 

[a351]

I must admit that the dissent was poorly worded, but I also have to muse at the timing of this article. An opinion piece, attacking the character of a supreme court judge on the eve of a rather important ruling. That's not to say that Scalia was ever in any danger of siding with the administration in regards to the mandate, but it almost seems as if the author was launching a preemptive strike of sorts, to soften the blow of the law itself being struck down by chalking it up to extreme partisanship.

 

[StillBallin75]

I must admit that the dissent was poorly worded, but I also have to muse at the timing of this article. An opinion piece, attacking the character of a supreme court judge on the eve of a rather important ruling. That's not to say that Scalia was ever in any danger of siding with the administration in regards to the mandate, but it almost seems as if the author was launching a preemptive strike of sorts, to soften the blow of the law itself being struck down by chalking it up to extreme partisanship.

I think the timing had more to do with post-Arizona SB1070 than it had to do with pre-Obamacare.

 

[a351]

I think the timing had more to do with post-Arizona SB1070 than it had to do with pre-Obamacare.

I don't doubt it's relevance to the Arizona case, just speculating that the article could have multiple motives. Nothing concrete, just shooting from the hip.

 

[nota bene]

I'm not a Constitutional scholar nor an expert on SCOTUS. And I am aware of the liberal leans of certain justices and the conservative leans of others. I also don't think SCOTUS is infallible, and I realize that there occasional "gymnastic doozies."

But having said all this, I really don't understand comments about the Justices being "useless scum." Color me credulous if you please, but I want to believe that each one of the Justices is doing his/her scholarly/judicial best and with honor, and I respect this even if I thoroughly disagree.

 

[Misterveritis]

EJ Dionne at the Washington Post has a few words about Justice Antonin Scalia and his recent actions that appear to be in contrast with the concept of judicial impartiality

my emphasis

and it used to be the conservatives railing about "activist judges"

Do you believe that siding with the Constitution is what makes one an activist judge?
EJD is a fool. He has been for a very long while.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Do you believe that siding with the Constitution is what makes one an activist judge?
EJD is a fool. He has been for a very long while.

I am quite sure all of the justices believe they are siding with the constitution.

What you are basically saying is that you don't have a problem with this guy because he happens to agree with you.

 

[Misterveritis]

I am quite sure all of the justices believe they are siding with the constitution.

What you are basically saying is that you don't have a problem with this guy because he happens to agree with you.

Really? I do not. I have not for a very long time.
Is the government constrained or unleashed. If constrained the rule is probably in line with the Constitution. If unleashed it most likely is not. Every time the government gets more power to rule over you and me we are less free.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Really? I do not. I have not for a very long time.
Is the government constrained or unleashed. If constrained the rule is probably in line with the Constitution. If unleashed it most likely is not. Every time the government gets more power to rule over you and me we are less free.

All of this depends on which method one chooses to interpret the constitution. Originialist is only one method among many.

 

[Misterveritis]

All of this depends on which method one chooses to interpret the constitution. Originialist is only one method among many.

True. Those who despise the Constitution as it limits government's power to dominate and rule us prefer a living Constitution. Which side do you find yourself on?

As a Conservative I believe we are doomed if we do not go with original intent.
As a Progressive I suspect you believe the government should be able to do whatever it wants so long as it advances the statist agenda.

 

[Slartibartfast]

True. Those who despise the Constitution as it limits government's power to dominate and rule us prefer a living Constitution. Which side do you find yourself on?

I neither despise nor aggrandize it. It is a legal document that has shown some use in building a more stable and wealthy society. However, it is not perfect either. My stance is that the constitution was a major step forward from despotism and monarchy, but it does not represent the end goal (as there is no end goal or if there is one, its always changing with available technology)

As a Conservative I believe we are doomed if we do not go with original intent.
As a Progressive I suspect you believe the government should be able to do whatever it wants so long as it advances the statist agenda.

Your suspicions are wrong. I tend to go issue by issue and am not wholly on any side of this debate.

 

[Misterveritis]

I neither despise nor aggrandize it. It is a legal document that has shown some use in building a more stable and wealthy society. However, it is not perfect either. My stance is that the constitution was a major step forward from despotism and monarchy, but it does not represent the end goal (as there is no end goal or if there is one, its always changing with available technology)



Your suspicions are wrong. I tend to go issue by issue and am not wholly on any side of this debate.

Yep. You are the living constitution kind of guy. Understood. A living pliant Constitution is not a Constitution at all and need not get in the way of your utopian dreams.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yep. You are the living constitution kind of guy. Understood. A living pliant Constitution is not a Constitution at all and need not get in the way of your utopian dreams.

I have no utopian dreams. Human nature will always cause problems no matter what philosophy we follow.

Are you going to debate me or some person in your head?

If you are curious about my positions on things, the best thing to do is simply ask.

 

[Misterveritis]

I have no utopian dreams. Human nature will always cause problems no matter what philosophy we follow.

Are you going to debate me or some person in your head?

If you are curious about my positions on things, the best thing to do is simply ask.

I did. You answered. You do not accept the constitution as a limit to federal government power. You are a living constitution guy. What part do you think I have misunderstood?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I did. You answered. You do not accept the constitution as a limit to federal government power. You are a living constitution guy. What part do you think I have misunderstood?

What makes you think that I don't think the constitution is a limit to federal power?

Here is a hint, I don't think federal power should be unlimited as that does not best serve the needs of society.

 

[roughdraft274]

EJ Dionne at the Washington Post has a few words about Justice Antonin Scalia and his recent actions that appear to be in contrast with the concept of judicial impartiality

my emphasis



and it used to be the conservatives railing about "activist judges"

Not to mention, his reasoning, that Arizona has a right to meddle in immigration, because he doesn't feel that the federal government is doing a good job, is about as unconstitutional and irrational as it gets.

 

[American]

What makes you think that I don't think the constitution is a limit to federal power?

Here is a hint, I don't think federal power should be unlimited as that does not best serve the needs of society.

So you believe the Constitution limits the federal government, and particularly the Congress, to certain enumerated powers?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So you believe the Constitution limits the federal government, and particularly the Congress, to certain enumerated powers?

yes, but i suspect my interpretation is different from yours as i am not an origionalist.