Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He sounds just like Rush Limbaugh. I thought judges were supposed to be fair and non biased. I guess he is, if you are using Fox News definition of fair and balanced.
Quote:
In a stinging, 22-page dissent to Monday's decision striking down most of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized President Obama
Quote:
Harvard Professor of constitutional law Laurence Tribe suggested that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia tone down his political barbs in writing court opinion lest he wishes to drive public opinion of the court down to Congress’ abysmal approval ratings.
He sounds just like Rush Limbaugh. I thought judges were supposed to be fair and non biased. I guess he is, if you are using Fox News definition of fair and balanced.
Scalia is, always has been, and always will be, a total A**hole. The best thing that could happen to this Country is for Tony Soprano to take him out. He's an embarrassment to all good Italians.
He sounds just like Rush Limbaugh. I thought judges were supposed to be fair and non biased. I guess he is, if you are using Fox News definition of fair and balanced.
I do believe that Justice Scalia is 'partisan'. I also think his 'originalist' theory is a little wacky. If it were up to him, then we would have only 13 states, since that is what we had in 1789.
The reason I think he is partisan: heretofore most (not all) Supreme Court Justices at least recognized the legal theory of stare decisis. Yet I think Justice Scalia is firmly of the opinion that all Justices that served before him were 'fools' (or, more likely, "liberal fools") and that he does not have to respect prior decisions at all.
In law school it was quite interesting to read a court decision in which the Justices obviously disagreed with some prior precedent, and the author of the decision would engage in legal gymnastics to point out how the prior decision was still valid, but that it allowed the 'exception' being made law in the current decision. It is indeed a very, very rare case in which the Court will utterly over rule a prior decision.
It used to be almost laughable how many times a president would nominate a person for a seat on the Court, thinking that said nominee shared his political views, only to be disappointed when said person, after taking his seat, would utterly change his viewpoint due to being on the Highest Court in the Land. Mostly the change would be due to recognizing stare decisis, but also recognizing that the Court spoke to broad issues, and that once you donned the black robe, you shook off any personal political beliefs. I think Justice Scalia has not shook off anything.
It'll be interesting to see whether he deviates from his judicial philosophy in the Affordable Care Act decision. He seems to support both sides of Wickard as his politics suit him, which makes him a very, very bad judge.
He seems to be the only justice who knows anything about the law
Right. The other eight are plumbers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
