• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obscene United State Supreme Court judge?

Re: Scalia Gives a Sicilian Gift

ludahai said:
From the original post.

Typical liberal. Trying to get a Conservative for something that DID NOT HAPPEN!

Complete misrepresentation, the liberal method of debate.

Do you have anything substantive to say, ludahai? Yeah, I didn't think so.

What's so funny is that danarhea is an equal opportunity political party basher, so your calling him a liberal is quite interesting to me. :lol: How sad that you assume that only liberals can come to a conclusion like this.
 
Re: Scalia Gives a Sicilian Gift

KCConservative said:
Ah yes, the topic. Did Scalia give the reporter "the finger", as dan asserted? The answer, which came hours ago, is no.

Well true to form, you made a statement with no support. The observation, that came days ago, is you are a passive aggressive flamer.
 
Re: Scalia Gives a Sicilian Gift

jallman said:
Well true to form, you made a statement with no support. The observation, that came days ago, is you are a passive aggressive flamer.

What are you talking about?!?!? Read the thread. The evidence is there. Justice Scalia DID NOT give the reporter the finger!
 
Re: Scalia Gives a Sicilian Gift

jallman said:
Well true to form, you made a statement with no support. The observation, that came days ago, is you are a passive aggressive flamer.
The support is provided in this thread, jallman. Get off your flaming crusade and answer the question. Did Scalia give the reporter the finger, as Dan has alleged, or didn't he? Once again, the support you keep asking for has already been presented.

Here is what Dan alleges:

Originally Posted by danarhea
He then stuck his middle finger prominently in the air and said "That's Sicilian." That was quite an unseemly thing for a Supreme Court Justice to do, but it IS hilarious.

Here is what actually happened:

You know what I say to those people?” Scalia, 70, replied, making an obscene gesture, flicking his hand under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flak for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.
 
Last edited:
It seems that the moment was caught on film:

scaliagesture03302006.jpg


It appears exactly how Scalia described it.
 
Re: Scalia Gives a Sicilian Gift

ludahai said:
From the original post.

Typical liberal. Trying to get a Conservative for something that DID NOT HAPPEN!

Complete misrepresentation, the liberal method of debate.


Liberal ? Compared to Dan, repubs are PETA members.
 
Just a hunch, but post #104 is why jallman never returned to this thread. :cool:
 
KCConservative said:
Just a hunch, but post #104 is why jallman never returned to this thread. :cool:

Good think you said "hunch," as I highly doubt that is the reason. I think he decided he was done with this exchange. :cool:
 
KCConservative said:
Just a hunch, but post #104 is why jallman never returned to this thread. :cool:

Actually, dont be so smug. I had decided early on that you were close to the bottom of my lists of priorities when posting and so never bothered to look back until now, when I happen to have an abundance of free time...you know...like a weekend when I am not actually...gee, working for a living. :doh

I mean, your previous posts have been a little less than engaging, so forgive me if my interest was lost the second time you made an assertion and were unwilling to back it up. But, since you saw fit to call me out, I might as well defend myself against your less than innovative attack.

But now that I am here...lets go...

Dana was totally out of line reporting mechanics of the hand gestures that were not true. Dana...bad dana...I should smack you on the nose with a newspaper.

Happy now?

So, that out of the way...lets go back to the topics brought up to you that you didnt bother to respond to...namely, those in post 76. I mean, if it unsettles you that much, take the real saber rattling out and just answer the points...here, I will name them for you and you can use post 76 as a reference....

Was it appropriate for a Supreme Court justice to make a hand gesture signifying apathy to a group of reporters?

Was it not in Scalia's best interest to take into account his potential audience of ALL OF AMERICA when presenting this hand gesture on the steps of a Church?

Those are the real questions...now lets see if you have some real answers. I am tired of the saber rattling.
 
Re: Scalia Gives a Sicilian Gift

Deegan said:
Anyone ever think to question how we seem to be treating our civil servants? I mean, I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for them, but we do force these kinds of frustrations sometimes, and that says more about us, then it does about them. This man has been good enough to speak at many places, and to all kinds of people, and he gets some tuff questions, I have been there when this has happened.

Civil servants? A guaranteed lifetime position with good pay and no boss...
yeah, one heckuva life of servitude.;)
 
Re: Scalia Gives a Sicilian Gift

aps said:
I just think that a Supreme Court justice shouldn't be giving hand gestures. I bet President Bush would NEVER do that, nor any of the other 8 justices on the Supreme Court. I still think it's appalling and a disappointment.

Not sure if this was being sarcastic or not, but if not, just thought I should throw this out.

bush_finger_trimmed-med.png
 
Re: Scalia Gives a Sicilian Gift

XShipRider said:
Civil servants? A guaranteed lifetime position with good pay and no boss...
yeah, one heckuva life of servitude.;)

Considering the fact that anyone of the caliber to be an appeals court judge, much less Supreme Court judge, would make anywhere between 1 and 3 million a year in private practice working 20 hours a week, and retiring at 50, then yes, I would consider working regularly at a difficult job, always being criticized, well into your 70's and 80's, and making under 200,000 a year to be servitude.
 
jallman said:
Was it appropriate for a Supreme Court justice to make a hand gesture signifying apathy to a group of reporters?

At an actual conference or speech I'd agree with you. But in this case the so called reporter is operating more like paparazzi staking out a place on the church steps to bait a man coming out of mass.

Was it not in Scalia's best interest to take into account his potential audience of ALL OF AMERICA when presenting this hand gesture on the steps of a Church?

Perhaps Scalia doesn't underestimate the public and he realizes those who will make a deal out of the gesture are those who don't and never will like him anyway. Those who have no problem with the man one way or the other will see it as no big deal or a stupid reply to a stupid question.
 
talloulou said:
Perhaps Scalia doesn't underestimate the public and he realizes those who will make a deal out of the gesture are those who don't and never will like him anyway. Those who have no problem with the man one way or the other will see it as no big deal or a stupid reply to a stupid question.

Or perhaps Scalia doesnt give a ****, knows that it has nothing to do with his ability to rule from the bench, knows that the people who hate him will still hate him, the people who love him will still love him, and he sure as hell isnt going to lose his job.

:lol:
 
RightatNYU said:
Or perhaps Scalia doesnt give a ****, knows that it has nothing to do with his ability to rule from the bench, knows that the people who hate him will still hate him, the people who love him will still love him, and he sure as hell isnt going to lose his job.

:lol:
Amen to that, brother. Bravo.
 
You all are so unbelievable! I know that if one of the liberal justices did something like that, you all would be all over him. But guess what? They would never stoop to such a level, so I guess we'll never know how you all would react if they did.

talloulou says the question was stupid. Asking a justice on the Supreme Court about whether his religion has any impact on his decision-making is stupid? Okaaaaaaaaaaay. It's totally relevant. It would be one thing if the person asked, "So what kind of birth control do you and your wife use?" This question was related to his work, for Christ's sake.

NYU, I have a hard time believing that the picture you posted of Bush is authentic. I wasn't being sarcastic.
 
aps said:
NYU, I have a hard time believing that the picture you posted of Bush is authentic. I wasn't being sarcastic.

That Bush pic is authentic. It's from a sound check/tech check before a news conference. I've seen the full clip. To me it's not a big deal - right up there with Reagan's "We begin bombing in five minutes."

Prior to his weekly radio address on August 11 1984, Reagan uttered what is now a famous but humorous gaffe when he did not think the microphone was on.

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
http://radio.about.com/od/funradiothingstodo/a/aa060503a.htm

Audio Clip here:
http://radio.about.com/library/reagan_bomb.mp3
 
aps said:
talloulou says the question was stupid. Asking a justice on the Supreme Court about whether his religion has any impact on his decision-making is stupid? Okaaaaaaaaaaay. It's totally relevant. It would be one thing if the person asked, "So what kind of birth control do you and your wife use?" This question was related to his work, for Christ's sake.

The question is completely stupid. Unless one has reason to believe the man has used the Supreme Court as a vehicle to assign an organized religion as the law of the land. Furthermore the question was used to bait a man leaving mass. They wanted to film him leaving church so he could be painted as an out of control holy roller whose trying to spread christianity through the Supreme Court. And the suggestion behind the question is that no supreme court judge should be religious. Which is completely unconstitutional. We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion. The question implies that perhaps Supreme Court judges should be atheists...does it not? What's not stupid about that?
 
aps said:
You all are so unbelievable! I know that if one of the liberal justices did something like that, you all would be all over him. But guess what? They would never stoop to such a level, so I guess we'll never know how you all would react if they did.

Oh, no, I really honestly wouldn't. We're all hypocritical sometimes, no matter how hard we try not to be, but I make every effort to avoid it when it comes to the SC. I have no problem admitting that Scalia's sometimes stretchs his arguments to fit the cases so as to keep his "originalist" credentials, nor that the court is slightly right-leaning right now, and will possibly/probably move more in that direction when Stevens or Ginsburg drops.

But the fact is, I just don't think this was a big deal, even if Scalia did give the guy the vaffanculo, which he says he didn't. People are people. Scalia more than any of the other justices is attacked constantly by people wherever he goes, hoping to goad him into reacting. He's usually very even tempered. Everyone's human.

talloulou says the question was stupid. Asking a justice on the Supreme Court about whether his religion has any impact on his decision-making is stupid? Okaaaaaaaaaaay. It's totally relevant. It would be one thing if the person asked, "So what kind of birth control do you and your wife use?" This question was related to his work, for Christ's sake.

I'd bet that it wasnt so much the question as the way it was asked.

NYU, I have a hard time believing that the picture you posted of Bush is authentic. I wasn't being sarcastic.

It's actually real. Some backstory:

Before the election, video was leaked of Bush preparing for a video test before a commercial spot when running for Gov. During the test, he gave the camera the finger. It got some play on the internet, but sort of backfired when another video surfaced of edwards getting primped for a commercial. In edwards video, he and a stylist spend 5 minutes getting him ready, primping the hair, etc etc. It's actually incredibly painful to watch. Someone took the two videos and put them together, comparing Bush and Edwards unfavorably. It's quite hilarious.

Bush original video

"The Choice" - This is probably one of the funniest videos I've seen, comparing Bush and Edwards.

And just so you don't think that the vulgarity comes only from one side, read these choice quotes from John Kerry that Newsweek didn't publish until after the election (of course).

The morning after the Feb. 3 primaries, which vaulted Kerry into a virtual-ly insurmountable lead, the candidate was fuming over his missing hairbrush. He and his aides were riding in a van on the way to a Time magazine cover-photo shoot. Nicholson had left the hairbrush behind. "Sir, I don't have it," he said, after rummaging in the bags. "Marvin, f---!" Kerry said. The press secretary, David Wade, offered his brush. "I'm not using Wade's brush," the long-faced senator pouted. "Marvin, f---, it's my Time photo shoot."

Nicholson was having a bad day. Breakfast had been late and rushed and not quite right for the senator. In the van, Kerry was working his cell phone and heard the beep signaling that the phone was running out of juice. "Marvin, charger," he said without turning around. "Sorry, I don't have it," said Nicholson, who was sitting in the rear of the van. Now Kerry turned around. "I'm running this campaign myself," he said, looking at Nicholson and the other aides. "I get myself breakfast. I get myself hairbrushes. I get myself my cell-phone charger. It's pretty amazing." In silent frustration, Nicholson helplessly punched the car seat.

In the biggest fight of his charmed life, John Kerry swung between bewilderment and anger when things didn't go his way on the campaign trial. "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot," the Massachusetts Democrat sighed to a staffer when President Bush's poll numbers surged in April.

"Why the **** didn't he take it?" he wondered when Republican Sen. John McCain refused to be his running mate a half-dozen times. "It's a pack of ****ing lies, what they're saying about me," he shouted at an adviser as a group of Swift boat veterans stepped up attacks on his Vietnam War record while his team refused to let him respond...

I don't think these had any effect on Kerry's ability to govern, nor should they have influenced people either way. But it just proves that when it comes down to it, everyone, on both sides of the aisle, is human.
 
talloulou said:
The question is completely stupid. Unless one has reason to believe the man has used the Supreme Court as a vehicle to assign an organized religion as the law of the land. Furthermore the question was used to bait a man leaving mass. They wanted to film him leaving church so he could be painted as an out of control holy roller whose trying to spread christianity through the Supreme Court. And the suggestion behind the question is that no supreme court judge should be religious. Which is completely unconstitutional. We have freedom of religion not freedom from religion. The question implies that perhaps Supreme Court judges should be atheists...does it not? What's not stupid about that?

Wow, talloulou, I'm impressed that you're a mind-reader. You know the bases for the question that the reporter asked? The only reason to ask a Supreme Court justice that question is to imply that he has used the Court as a "vehicle to assign an organized religion?" Where did you come up with that bogus reason? He was filmed coming out of mass so he could be painted as a "holy roller"? There's the mind-reader at work. You know the meaning of the question? Do you know how Scalia voted in the Ten Commandment case, where a judge placed them in a court house? Look it up. And no, I do not believe for a second that it implies that justices should be atheists. That's your putting your own spin on it, and it makes no sense to me. :roll:
 
aps said:
Wow, talloulou, I'm impressed that you're a mind-reader. You know the bases for the question that the reporter asked? The only reason to ask a Supreme Court justice that question is to imply that he has used the Court as a "vehicle to assign an organized religion?"

Well religion is not illegal for anybody in the good 'ol USA. Not even a Supreme Court Judge......so the only thing that could possibly be wrong with this Supreme Court Justice's religion is if he were trying to use the supreme court to make his religion the rule of the land.

Where did you come up with that bogus reason? He was filmed coming out of mass so he could be painted as a "holy roller"?

Yep, sad as it is, being anti-christian right now is very "in." If the reporter wanted a serious discussion he wouldn't have staked out the church steps.

There's the mind-reader at work. You know the meaning of the question? Do you know how Scalia voted in the Ten Commandment case, where a judge placed them in a court house? Look it up. And no, I do not believe for a second that it implies that justices should be atheists. That's your putting your own spin on it, and it makes no sense to me. :roll:

Well I don't personally have a problem with how Scalia voted in the 10 commandment case. Now if Scalia agreed that a person should be punished for breaking 1 of the 10 commandments that would be different. If instead of saying, "You broke the law....a judge said you broke one of God's 10 commandments....." then I'd have a problem.

But public religious displays don't bother me in the least and I'm not religious. God is in the pledge of allegiance which is still said in many schools. In God we Trust is on our money. God is mentioned in the Star Spangled Banner our National Anthem! You would have to work long and hard to get religion and God completely eradicated from the public sector or the government. As long as noone is forcing me to practice or abide by religious law why should I care? As far as I am concerned the law frees me from being forced to accept a government sponsered religion. That's all. It doesn't seem to me that the law in anyway promises that every governmental building, school, and public sector will be free of any and all ideas of god and religion.
 
Last edited:
aps said:
talloulou says the question was stupid. Asking a justice on the Supreme Court about whether his religion has any impact on his decision-making is stupid? Okaaaaaaaaaaay. It's totally relevant.

I wouldn't say it was stupid. It was calculated, but thinly veiled.
It was a question designed to generate a specific answer,
a poor excuse for good journalism. I hope the "journalist" has enjoyed
his fifteen minutes. His time is now up, and not likely to be seen again.
 
talloulou said:
Well religion is not illegal for anybody in the good 'ol USA. Not even a Supreme Court Judge......so the only thing that could possibly be wrong with this Supreme Court Justice's religion is if he were trying to use the supreme court to make his religion the rule of the land.

Okay, I see what you're saying. I think the question was meant, in some respect, to bait Scalia. I would be surprised if anyone with a brain would think that Scalia was trying to make his religion the rule of the land (this is not insulting you, but anyone who would truly think that).


Yep, sad as it is, being anti-christian right now is very "in." If the reporter wanted a serious discussion he wouldn't have staked out the church steps.

I think that could be said if Scalia was here in Washington, but think about how often a Boston reporter has the opportunity to see him or any other justice on their territory.


Well I don't personally have a problem with how Scalia voted in the 10 commandment case. Now if Scalia agreed that a person should be punished for breaking 1 of the 10 commandments that would be different. If instead of saying, "You broke the law....a judge said you broke one of God's 10 commandments....." then I'd have a problem.

But public religious displays don't bother me in the least and I'm not religious. God is in the pledge of allegiance which is still said in many schools. In God we Trust is on our money. God is mentioned in the Star Spangled Banner our National Anthem! You would have to work long and hard to get religion and God completely eradicated from the public sector or the government. As long as noone is forcing me to practice or abide by religious law why should I care? As far as I am concerned the law frees me from being forced to accept a government sponsered religion. That's all. It doesn't seem to me that the law in anyway promises that every governmental building, school, and public sector will be free of any and all ideas of god and religion.

I didn't mean to imply that I had a problem with the way he ruled in that case. Someone could perceive him as being affected in his decision by his religion. I feel exactly like you do in that displaying religious things in public does not bother me. Although it's one thing to have religious statues and such displayed in a courthouse that have been there for decades and another thing to intentionally display them to make a point. The latter is just plain wrong. But still, I wouldn't protest it or make an issue out of it because I don't care enough about that kind of thing to make it an issue.
 
aps said:
Okay, I see what you're saying. I think the question was meant, in some respect, to bait Scalia. I would be surprised if anyone with a brain would think that Scalia was trying to make his religion the rule of the land (this is not insulting you, but anyone who would truly think that).

I think that could be said if Scalia was here in Washington, but think about how often a Boston reporter has the opportunity to see him or any other justice on their territory.

I didn't mean to imply that I had a problem with the way he ruled in that case. Someone could perceive him as being affected in his decision by his religion. I feel exactly like you do in that displaying religious things in public does not bother me. Although it's one thing to have religious statues and such displayed in a courthouse that have been there for decades and another thing to intentionally display them to make a point. The latter is just plain wrong. But still, I wouldn't protest it or make an issue out of it because I don't care enough about that kind of thing to make it an issue.

How odd aps....it almost appears as if we don't disagree too much! Maybe there will be peace in the middle east.
 
talloulou said:
How odd aps....it almost appears as if we don't disagree too much! Maybe there will be peace in the middle east.

LOL I'm sorry we have fought in the past, and I apologize for being an obnoxious witch, if you know what I mean.

:cheers:
 
Back
Top Bottom