Scalia: His Indian Name is “Writes With Idiots”
So Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has some very strong feelings about immigration.
In his aggressive defense of Arizona’s immigration law, Justice Antonin Scalia pointedly went after President Obama’s recent immigration policy shift and accused him of deliberately refusing to enforce immigration statutes.
You know, because Antonin Scalia is so obviously descended from people who came on the Mayflower.
And, you know, since we didn’t let him and his pals on the court pick the President this time, everything has just gone to hell in a hand-basket. Plus, he’s found out that President Obama immigrated from Hawaii.
Scalia, bless his little Reagan-appointed heart, is trying to argue that state are sovereign over powers vested in Congress, such as the authority over immigration and naturalization. I do not know what Scalia did with all that “Founding Fathers” crap he usually spouts, but what the hell – screw Obama, even if the Founding Fathers agree with him.
So Scalia and his adorable little puppy Clarence Thomas voted to allow arrests for being brown while living. Even without a warrant. And they claim to have read the Constitution. They think it has a clear liberal bias and has nothing to do with them, but they read it.
I could be wrong about this, but Scalia’s outrage and prissy nastiness about President Obama personally in his dissenting opinion leads me to think that Scalia might have also lost the Affordable Health Care Act decision. He’s having a temper tantrum because he and Thomas have already been paid in full for that decision.
I could be wrong. I’m trying to make sense of crazy people, which generally doesn’t work out well for me.
I’m so glad to know the SCOTUS doesn’t have to get by only on Citizens United to get their palms greased.
1Justice Scalia is an easily influenced asshat who too often refuses to acknowledge the basics of Constitutional law, the basics of judicial ethics, and the basics of judicial analysis.
He might have had a fairly decent legal mind at one time, but he has allowed greed and power to erode whatever objectivity he may have had (if he ever had any). There have been too many cases where he should have recused himself because of his own self-interest in the outcome or his friendship or involvement with the parties in the case.
He brags he doesn’t believe in the need to recuse. That means he feels free to apply his self-serving and preconceived biases to a case. He gets angry should anyone point out that judges at all levels need to rise above the appearance of impropriety. He simply feels we should trust him to be objective even if he pals around with parties to the case. He accepts paid speaking engagements, trips and gifts from right-wing advocates.
He is so arrogant that he doesn’t even try to hide most of what he does that would dishonor and perhaps even unseat justices at state levels and judges at all levels. The. Man. Makes. Me. Crazy.
2What’s worse is that SCOTUS (at least the conservathugs) knocked down the Montana state law prohibiting corporate money in elections. Over 100 years ago, Montanans decided to take back their democracy from the mine owners and big ranchers who were busily buying their state representatives. But, NOOOOOO, the Injustices said that it violated the Citizens United ruling and, by the way, corporate money hasn’t been shown to corruption the system. What unbelievable putzes. Headed by Scalia, of course.
3JJ, people, isn’t there SOMETHING that can be done to get this ignorant sumbich (sorry Momma) off the Court? I think I read somewhere that you can’t impeach them. What happens if one of these guys gets in criminal trouble – too bad doodad? Can Congress pass a law to make it easier to get rid of these guys (like recusing yourself if there is a conflict of interest)?
4It’s hard for me to get my mind around just have awful Scalia and Thomas are. I would rather not think people are evil, but I have to say they come very close if they haven’t already become that.
So states’ rights are okay for immigration matters (in which event states should bear the entire cost of such), but states have no right to make state election laws. On what planet does this make sense?
5The wife is part Navajo. Her Indian name is “Running Late”.
6Sadly I believe that Scalia is perfectly capable of this outrage and prissy nastiness whether he won or lost on ACA. In fact, I would be astonished not to see him act like this at any time. FYI, guys, the correct acronym is no longer SCOTUS–it’s SCROTUS (google it).
7It is crazy to me that Alito believes he is anything but a Catholic Republican partisan hack. As someone else pointed out he doesn’t believe that he should ever recuse himself because we should all just believe that he is completely impartial. Because you know, even though he has been on record now for years telling everyone that his very Catholic religion tells him how to vote we are supposed to believe that he is somehow unbiased.
Effing crazy (sorry momma).
I am particularly concerned about this as Perry v. Crazy heads to the Supreme Court. And Alito and his puppet Thomas have been so very vocal about how their Catholic faith tells them that homos are all sorts of nasty and should be burning in hell.
And yet neither one will recuse themselves even though both have been very vocal about how they would decide the issue. Because they are both so impartial. Okay, Scalia pretends to be impartial and Thomas is just Scalia’s ass puppet and he votes however Scalia tell him to vote.
OY.
Sorry for the rant. My head hurts now.
Please excuse.
8Scalia has an agenda and as to anything inconsistent with that agenda his attitude is let the Country and Constitution be damned. He is not stupid; he is an evil, calculating fraud.
9Scalia mentioned the Nebraska kickback during oral argumetn on the Affordable Care Act even though that concept was not in the final law as passed by the House and the Senate.
Scalia has written a book on statutory construction and is taking the position that a decision that he cited are relied on may no longer be good law http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/18/12283151-scalias-intellect-and-integrity?lite Wickard v. Filburn is a key decision on the commerce clause from back in the new deal era. Scalia cited this opinion in his concurring opinion on a medical marijuana case but now just before the ruling on the ACA, Scalia thinks that this opinion is no longer good law.
This is from the article cited above:
Scalia himself cited Wickard in his 2005 opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, concurring with a 6-3 majority that said Congress may, under the Commerce Clause, prohibit a licensed medical marijuana patient from growing pot in his or her backyard even if it’s legal in the state. A central foundation for that sweeping federal power, the winning side argued, flowed from Wickard.
At the time, Scalia emphatically agreed, writing in his concurring opinion that “where Congress has authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective
10Perhaps a medical intervention is needed in Scalia’s case. The aberrant behavior he displays could easily be a sign of incipient dementia. I’m reminded of the bizarre statements of a Houston judge (actually, he is a classmate of mine) who eventually resigned because of Alzheimers.
I imagine it’s quite strange to clerk for him.
11I saw Scalia on TV this morning talking about “how can you require someone to buy something”? Evidently he doesn’t live in Texas. I HAVE to buy car insurance, I HAVE to buy homeowners insurance, I HAVE to buy registration tags for my car, etc etc. We don’t have a state income tax, but we make up for it in a LOT of other ways. Why isn’t this illegal?
12When you get done attacking Scalia don’t forget the CJ Roberts. I understand he has earned the Roger B. Tawney award for the worst CJ in the 20th & 21st century.
Also, don’t forget the total loser Alito. He is the scum at the bottom of the barrel.
Also, tell the clown Thomas that none of his pals would have voted in favor of Loving v. Virgina. They all believe that it is a matter of state rights. Scalia was not impressed with Brown V. Board of Education.
13Juanita Jean honey, I think you are being awfully broadminded giving Scalia and Thomas the benefit of the doubt on their having read the constitution. I, myself, do not think they have read the actual, real McCoy, full and unabridged constitution. I think they might have glanced at some heavily edited, Pat Buchanan/Robertson and NRA approved version.
14@KathyS: Yes, a Justice can be impeached. But, it has to first go through the House for an impeachment vote and then 2/3 (3/4?) of the Senate has to vote to affirm the impeachment, after a Senate trial. Just like they did to Bill Clinton. Not gonna happen. Just don’t drink to the old fool’s health.
15I’m with LynnN– Scalia does outrage and prissy nastiness pretty much whenever he opens his mouth or takes up a pen.
He is possibly the primary reason, though there are certainly others, why respect for the Supreme Court has been dropping, because most people know that the justices decide cases based on their political views and not the merits of the case or precedent.
A piece in the WashPost said that there’s nothing in the Constitution about having nine judges on the Supreme Court, and the number has varied. Many countries have larger final courts. The author, Jonathan Turley, suggested 19 judges, to avoid the current situation where one “swing” judge ends up deciding so many important cases at 5-4.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fate-of-health-care-shouldnt-come-down-to-9-justices-try-19/2012/06/22/gJQAv0gpvV_story.html
16I think Scalia thinks he is profound, but he is showing signs of dementia, with bombastic style. Throwing temper tantrums in second childhood is neither attractive or curable.
17@barbinDC, thanks for the information and education. I wonder if it would do any good to get petitions started on some of these SCJ’s for such things as not recusing themselves for certain cases or overturning 100 years of campaign finance reform. Maybe if enough people signed up and they were geared towards actual incidents, maybe they would pay attention or Congress would try to do something? Nah, wishful thinking, KathyS…but I think it might have a bigger impact than some poll showing how low their approval level is.
18David Horsey, LA Times cartoonist and columnist, has a cartoon today suggesting that Scalia and Limbaugh could trade jobs and no one would notice.
19While still insisting that Scalia is not stupid, I have to concede perhaps he is suffering dementia. Mean and demented, God help us!
There is nothing in the Constitution the says there must be only 9 justices on the supreme court. When FDR was faced with opposition to parts of the New Deal he started an initiative to appoint more justices. He didn’t prevail in that, but it got some people to sit up and take notice. We need another FDR, big time! From Wikipedia:
During Roosevelt’s first term,[4] the Supreme Court had struck down several New Deal measures intended to bolster economic recovery during the Great Depression, leading to charges from New Deal supporters that a narrow majority of the court was obstructionist and political. Since the U.S. Constitution does not mandate any specific size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices in order to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench.[3] Opponents viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court, leading them to call it the “court-packing plan”.[2]
The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937 and was the subject, on March 9, 1937, of one of Roosevelt’s Fireside chats.[5][6] Shortly after the radio address, on March 29, the Supreme Court published its opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish[7] by a 5–4 ruling, after Associate Justice Owen Roberts had joined with the wing of the bench more sympathetic to the New Deal. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his perceived about-face was widely interpreted by contemporaries as an effort to maintain the Court’s judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. His move came to be known as “the switch in time that saved nine.” However, since Roberts’s decision and vote in the Parrish case predated the introduction of the 1937 bill,[8] this interpretation has been called into question.[9]
20Scaly claims to be an “originalist”, regarding the words of the framers as holy writ, dictated by God, and commended to parchment sans error. The words of the document are to be taken literally with the meaning of the words as they were understood by the framers. Somehow, it seems to me that this would involve a Ouija Board or some other seance type thing to achieve. Both those procedures are prohibited by his religion, so it’s no wonder he has a burr the sizes of basketball nestled between his cojones and his sphincter.
And if we’re talking original, how does he manage to translate “keep and bear arms” as part of a “well regulated militia” to “buy and privately own as many dang automatic weapons as you please”?
It’s time for him to find a nice, shady rock with access to a swarm of gnats and set up a retirement home.
21