Antonin Scalia doesn't even try to hide his bias these days

[Poiuyt]

Supreme Court justices expressed their doubts about the scientific expertise behind global warming during testimony on "a challenge to the Bush administration's refusal to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases in new vehicles," The Washington Post reports.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in particular, made his skepticism known as he made several revelatory remarks. "When is the predicted cataclysm?" he asked an attorney representing twelve states who object to the EPA's relaxation of emissions standards for new automobiles.

snip -

"Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere," Milkey said.

"Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist," Scalia said to laughter. "That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth."

more -

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Scalia_on_global_warming_I_mean..._1130.html

So much for blind justice. The man should be removed from the bench.

[originalpckelly]

1. Sniff, sniff, do I smell oil?

I wonder if Justice Scalia is on the take? That's illegal, that could lead to impeachment.

[Maat]

3. I often wonder the same thing (n/t).

[Riddler]

14. Forget impeaching the chimp, can't we impeach this asswipe?

[Maat]

2. He never should have been put on the bench!

But, he needs to be impeached and removed for pure incompetence (the incompetence which you duly noted).

[bluerum]

4. Hopefully that phat phock will choke on a cigar. nt

[Kerrytravelers]

5. And this man is suppose to be one of the great minds of American law?

The Supreme Court is no more than a pack of clowns shuffling out of a clown car.

[Lautremont]

6. Is there a way that a specific judge can be kept back during important

cases, perhaps given a magazine to read to pass the time, and then wheeled out for the frivolous cases? Perhaps Scalia can be put into this category.

[upi402]

7. Supreme Court is invalid after Gore was elected and Bush Appointed n/t

[G Hawes]

8. If someone's quoting from the proceeedings,

it would be helpful if they posted the actual transcript of the proceedings so that others can read it for themselves in context. Any idea whether rawstory or another source has sought and obtained a transcript? Not that I doubt that Scalia says stupid things - he does so on a regular basis, after all - but I don't really trust rawstory as a source and I doubt that the snippets presented there are the whole story. It's easy to pick out a few quotes and center a story around them but without the transcript and full context, it's not certain that the story accurately depicts the facts.

[Poiuyt]

11. It's from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112900169_pf.html

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Yeah, well, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. So why do I have to deal with them trying to outlaw

abortion, making my wife's birth control prescriptions harder to fill, and interfering with my health, body, and end-of-life decisions? Why should my kid have to listen to garbage about a 6,000 year old Earth or Dinosaurs on "Noah's Ark" in his public school science class? Why does the Texas GOP affirm in their platform that the United States is a "Christian Nation"?

I'd really prefer not to have to DEAL with ANY of that bullshit, Tony. Capice?

[OneBlueSky]

10. Scalia is living proog that highly intelligent, well educated people . . .

can still be idiots . . .

[WFF]

13. OneBlueSky is living proof that highly intelligent, well educated people

should check their spelling :)

[Lautremont]

17. Ha! You have a misspelling too!

I believe it's spelled "proog."

[OneBlueSky]

18. and just where did I claim to be either intelligent OR educated? . . . :) n/t

.

[WFF]

19. It's quite obvious that if you post on DU that you are intelligent!

I just don't know if you got your intelligence through education or through osmosis.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

12. Reminds me of a comment made by a scientist in that NOW special

Too Hot To Handle, I think it was called. He related his frustration with being asked by politicians to pin down exactly when the Earth was going to become unsustainable for life. He made a very apt analogy of a doctor telling a patient that his high blood pressure and cholesterol were going to kill him. Imagine the patient saying something like, "Well, I'm not going to do anything about it until you can tell me EXACTLY when my condition is going to kill me!" It's really that ludicrous, yet deniers like Scalia will still make statements like that with a straight face. :banghead:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

15. When did he ever?

[Fuzz]

16. Science, Schmience. Who needs it?

:shrug:

[MrCoffee]

20. It is a perfectly legitimate question, and an important issue in the case.

It goes to standing, specifically injury. You don't have a case unless you can show that the party bringing suit has a concrete and protected legal interest. The injury must be concrete, not speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife.

It's a necessary hurdle that must be overcome, or else the court simply can't rule on the case.