Fat Tony Scalia - A Pig, But An Honest Pig

[MrCoffee]

There seems to be a bit of shock that Scarface denied the TX Repukes motion to stay enforcement of the injunction that would have put DeLay back on the ballot. I'm surprised that folks feel that way. Sure he's a pig, but he's honest about it. He's one of the most consistent jurists on the bench, in spite of his radicalism (and this is in no way, shape or form an endorsement of Nino). His decision today was not surprising at all.

[Fridays Child]

1. His decision in December of 2000 was not consistent with his...

...states' rights position.

[MrCoffee]

3. Neither were the other 8 Justices

None of them were consistent in 2000.

[Fridays Child]

5. Nevertheless, the subject is Scalia and, contrary to your assertions...

...he is neither consistent nor honest.

[MrCoffee]

7. He's extremely consistent in his jurisprudence

and he's true to his judicial philosophy (which is crap, but still, he gets points for sticking to his guns)

I'm just saying that it's no surprise at all that he denied to stay the injunction. It's dead in line with his philosophy.

[elehhhhna]

13. TX law is also so clear on this there was no way other way to rule.

Not much wiggle room here.

[MrCoffee]

14. Yeah, but once the Qualifications Clause was violated

there's no state elections law on the books that saves the TX Repukes. I think Nino recognized a clear Qualificaitons Clause violation when he saw one, and didn't overturn a good decision by the lower courts. That's what I'm sayin.

[Swamp Rat]

10. Nor a pig

He's an alien lizard.

[Fridays Child]

16. Hello, Swamp Rat!

:hi:

[MrCoffee]

17. That's gonna haunt me for days

[unhappycamper]

18. Ya gotta stop doing that.

The voices in my head keep me up at night. lol

[AndyA]

2. Sorry, I disagree. Scalia is a disgrace.

How honest was he when he voted to give George W. Bush the White House? That was a biggie, and should have been handled by the states, not the feds.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[MrCoffee]

4. TY for the welcome, but the 2000 decision was dishonest by all of them

The 4 dissenters (Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and the other one) were all for state's rights then, and they're the biggest Federalists around.

I'm not disagreeing that Scalia's a turdblossom, but he's an honest one (ignoring the 2000 aberration, when they ALL took positions opposite to what they normally espouse)

[Grateful for Hope]

15. I agree

that case should never have been accepted by the Supreme Court. The fact that is was accepted tells (me at least) that the outcome was predetermined.

[Time for change]

6. I strongly disagree - He's as phony as the come

The Bush v. Gore decision was nothing but blatant partisanship, dressed up by Scalia as having had some legal thought put into it. Here's a good article on that:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi

And here's some more on Scalia:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=461511

[MrCoffee]

8. Re: Bush v. Gore

I know all about Bush v. Gore. You can bash all the judges who took part in that equally hard for their opinions in Bush v. Gore. Which is why I consider it to be neutral. YES, it was a crap decision. YES, Scalia was on the side of evil. BUT, it was a huge aberration for the court, and you have to be willing to slap Ginsburg and Stevens and the rest with Bush v. Gore just as hard as you slap Scalia and Rhenquist with it.

[bunkerbuster1]

9. This, plus his ability to laugh at himself when Colbert razzed him...

ok, it's not worth squat, but I just wanted to mention (again) that he was the only right-winger targeted by Stephen Colbert at the Press Club dinner who seemed to be enjoying the humor.

But yeah, still a pig. For sure.

[MrCoffee]

11. Scalia and Colbert=paisans for life!

Too funny.

[Greeby]

12. Fat Tony must be going soft

:evilgrin: