Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

SCALIA UNPLUGGED. What a pig.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:13 AM
Original message
SCALIA UNPLUGGED. What a pig.


From CNN's "Situation Room"
...Scalia was pressured to recuse because he made strong remarks three weeks ago about detainees, but those comments at a Swiss law school were the tip of the iceberg from Scalia that day.

TODD: At another point Justice Scalia talks about the Supreme Court's ruling that upheld the right to flag burning which he supported.

SCALIA: I don't like that result. If it were up to me and I were king, I would take scruffy, bearded, sandal-wearing idiots who go around burning the flag and put them in jail.

TODD: On a question about gay rights --

SCALIA: The question comes up, is there's a constitutional right to homosexual conduct. Not a hard question for me. It is absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/28/sitroom.03.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. he is not qualified to be ANY kind of judge
what a disgusting piece of SHIT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. Before Impeaching Bush, Scalia Needs to be Impeached FIRST.
when the Dems get back the House.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devlzown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. It isn't just homosexual conduct. Sodomy statutes
outlaw certain acts between heterosexuals as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. Another "roll up your shirtsleeves", power-mad pig
Thanks Tony, but I don't you to be my Daddy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
5. What a piece of shit he is n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
6. slavery was legal for how long? I supppose that would be okay, too. and
women were not allowed to vote until the 19th amendment, so I guess it's okay for states to rescind that right?

I have always known he is an asshole, but this goes beyond even what I thought of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
7. I will have to caution you on your use of language.
Pigs have redeeming traits.
scalia, well, we are still looking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. You're right. My bad


:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
9. It's My Cousin Vinny in our highest court.
who nominated this clown, anyways?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Yeah, he blends.
I remember when Ronnie Raygun appointed him. Sailed through confirmation, like 98-0, I think.

He was a pig then, and he's a pig now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaleWgnDg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #9
27. Indeed . . . !!
Edited on Wed Mar-29-06 03:01 AM by TaleWgnDg
Who?

Who nominated Antonin Scalia to our nation's highest bench as the final arbiter of American law and legal ethics? The class B Hollywood movie idol, twice-married, aged, and Alzheimer Disease inflicted president, Ronald Reagan.

Why do I suppose you are not too surprised? Oh, that was a rhetorical query?

    Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, was born in Trenton, New Jersey, March 11, 1936.
    He married Maureen McCarthy and has nine children - Ann Forrest, Eugene, John Francis, Catherine Elisabeth, Mary Clare, Paul David, Matthew, Christopher James, and Margaret Jane.
    He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School, and was a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University from 1960–1961.
    He was in private practice in Cleveland, Ohio from 1961– 1967, a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia from 1967–1971, and a Professor of Law at the University of Chicago from 1977–1982, and a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University and Stanford University.
    He was chairman of the American Bar Association’s Section of Administrative Law, 1981–1982, and its Conference of Section Chairmen, 1982–1983.
    He served the federal government as General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy from 1971–1972, Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States from 1972–1974, and Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel from 1974–1977.
    He was appointed Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982.
    President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat September 26, 1986.
    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf (.pdf format, AdobeReader(R) required)
    (bold-faced type emphasis added by TaleWgnDg)






________________________________________________________________

edited to add: NPR audio stream
Scalia Remarks Draw Criticism Before Guantanamo Case,
All Things Considered, Monday, March 27, 2006,
RealAudio(R) 4:09 minutes
Nina Totenberg, Legal Affairs Correspondent, NPR news
http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=27-mar-2006&segNum=11&NPRMediaPref=RM&getUnderwriting=1





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
land of the free Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
10. So, is this supposed
to make us feel better that Bush is King of America instead of Scalia?

Wow. I mean, wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Do you feel comforted?
:rofl:

Welcome to DU!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
land of the free Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. um, "comforted" is definitely not the right word ;)
thanks for the welcome, BTW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NEOBuckeye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
13. Scalia Unplugged? Wouldn't he need an enema to accomplish that? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
14. How does one go about impeaching a judge from the SCOTUS?
Can it be done? Is there a precedent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Yes, Congress has the power to impeach them.
The Constitution provides that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean life. However, Justices may resign, retire into senior status, or be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (the last has never occurred). On average, a vacancy arises every two years; however, long stretches without any vacancies occur from time to time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Nomination.2C_confirmation_and_tenure_of_Justices
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Lower court judges have been impeached for bribery...
but I don't know of any Supreme having been impeached.

Strictly criminal conduct would be the reason, not being a lousy judge, or a general scumbag.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. Samuel Chase = Impeached but not removed
Chase was served with 6 articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives in late 1804, explicitly over Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more articles would later be added. The Jeffersonian Republican-controlled United States Senate began an impeachment trial against Justice Chase in early 1805. He was charged with political bias, but was acquitted by the Senate of all charges on March 1, 1805. To this day, he remains the only Supreme Court justice to be impeached. His acquittal is believed to have ensured that an independent Federal judiciary would survive partisan challenge in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase#The_impeachment_proceedings
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Oh sweet jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick...
I'd give an arm to see Scalia get walked out by security. The man's the poster scumbag for the whole crooked arrogant mean-spirited right-wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kskiska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
15. "…scruffy, bearded, sandal-wearing idiots…"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Pfft. That Liberal Hippie
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. Thou shalt not mock my appearance, Justice Scalia...
A blessing of anal boils for you, jackass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pansypoo53219 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
16. eons ago when i was young
PBS had a show called ethics in america. panel discussions. scalia was on one and his reasoning disturbed me then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ToeBot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
20. Wow, I bet this guy had a hard time getting through the confirmation...
gauntlet that is the US Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. "I don't think it would be proper for me to answer...."
The New York Times
NATIONAL DESK | August 6, 1986
By STUART TAYLOR JR., SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES

Judge Antonin Scalia gave glimpses of his conservative views on such issues as constitutional interpretation today in low-key testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering his nomination to the Supreme Court. But he declined to answer most of the questions in which the senators were most interested, those bearing on his views on such specific issues as abortion rights. Asked by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, whether, if confirmed, ''you expect to overrule'' the Supreme Court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion in certain circumstances, Judge Scalia said, ''I don't think it would be proper for me to answer'' because, he said, he could later be accused of ''having a less than impartial view.'' He added: ''I assure you I have no agenda. I am not going onto the Supreme Court with a list of things that I want to do. My only agenda is to be a good judge.''
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/antonin_scalia/index.html?s=oldest&offset=30&inline=nyt-per
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeNY Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
25. The Bill of Rights are enumerated to protect rights not grant them
All rights "not listed" so to speak and all political power not listed goes to the people... so Scalia is wrong when he says the Bill of Rights "gave a right to homosexual conduct" or anything.. some Constitutionalist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnnydrama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:50 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. scalia
Is the one person in all 3 brances of government that makes me have second thoughts about how things are done in this country.

Should supremes really be there for life, if a guy like this can thumb his nose at everybody, not recuse himself
from cases that he obviously should, and basically do what he damn well pleases.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-29-06 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
29. He really don't belong sitting as judge!
Senate have to impeach him. :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC