Home

Antonin Scalia: Rush Limbaugh's Man on the Supreme Court

Submitted by mark karlin on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 10:26am.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
by Mark Karlin
Editor and Publisher

June 30, 2008

Antonin Scalia is Rush Limbaugh's high I.Q. alter ego; in short, Nino is a partisan hack and fabulist.

We once chastised Harry Reid for saying -- after Rehnquist's death and before Roberts' nomination -- that Scalia was so brilliant that he might make an okay Supreme Court Chief Justice, even if Reid disagrees with his decisions.  Good grief!

c

Scalia Gives the Media the Italian Finger

The reality is that Scalia is a totally partisan creature, who follows legal precedent and so called "original intent" only when it suits his right wing bias.  But since the actual Constitution and legal precedent rarely support a radical agenda, Scalia is reduced to fabulist statements and legal circumlocutions that are so dishonestly twisted that they would make Nino the equivalent of a circus contortionist.

Take Scalia's lead decision on overturning more than 230 years of precedent on the Second Amendment.  Okay, let's repeat that, if Nino is a so-called "strict constructionist," how could he lead a band of right wing GOP partisans in a brazen act of legal activism by overturning the combined legal legacy of all the Supreme Courts that preceded him and his gang from the beginning of the nation until now?

Easy, Scalia pretty much ignored the Constitutional convention debates that serve as the battle ground for interpreting the Constitution, ignored the legal precedent of the Court that he sits on, and -- instead -- brought up an inane, bizarre argument right out of the NRA that isn't even in the Constitution: self-defense in the home (which Scalia anecdotally described in the most rabid NRA fashion of a man with a locked-up handgun dialing 911. Uh, did they even have handguns or telephones during the American Revolution?) Alas, the self-defense in the home issue isn't even in the Second Amendment, but that's of no hindrance to a man on a mission: Antonin Scalia.

Scalia also cited English laws before the American Revolution, as if we didn't have a revolution.  Scalia isn't a "strict constructionist": to him revolution is a dangerous word.  He wants to return to an English monarchy style of government.

And of course there's Scalia's aversion to common sense.  Okay, if you ban a handgun, but allow rifles, how are you denying an individual right to bear arms, even if you accept that as an "absolute" right?  There were no modern handguns during the revolutionary period.  Is Scalia telling us that the framers of the Constitution could see 230 years ahead and put in a few words in the Second Amendment that every American has a right to a semi-automatic Beretta? But thinking in a rational sort of way is not Scalia's specialty nor is it of much interest to him.  He is a political creature who dons himself in judicial flourishes that would be comical if they weren't so pernicious to democracy and our Constitution.

Then, Scalia wrote an opinion that we should deny habeas corpus to men in Guantanamo because "30" already have returned to the "battlefield."  Where does Nino get his "facts", from the same place Bush and Cheney claimed that Saddam Hussein was tight as a bug with Osama bin-Laden? 

What's more Scalia ignored the countless Guantanamo inmates who have been determined not to be terrorists but got caught up in a somewhat random dragnet and falsely denounced by people who were paid to identify likely Al-Qaeda members. 

Oh, and let's not forget the infamous and mind-boggling 2000 election.  Remember when Scalia stopped the recount in Florida, took away Constitutionally guaranteed State's Rights in elections, overturned a conservative Atlanta-based federal appellate court, and declared -- more or less -- that if Al Gore won the recount it would hurt the reputation of George W. Bush, because Scalia was going to make sure that he "won" anyway -- and he did.  Then he made sure that the eventual ruling only applied to Florida, because, of course, it wasn't grounded in the Constitution. (He told a British paper this weekend  that the ruling was Al Gore's fault. We are not making this up.)

Scalia's decisions are a marvel, as if he were a highly biased law student asked to make his or her best case for defending the indefensible, after being told that he could use any law that they wanted -- even if it wasn't relevant -- if he made it sound "smart."  And he would also be able to toss in their personal thoughts, arrogance, scorn, and tall tales.

There's so much more to be said about the University of Chicago Law School version of Rush Limbaugh, including when he gave the press the finger (such a well-mannered Federalist, Nino is.)

But we'll conclude with a true story we recall of Scalia speaking to a synagogue in Alabama two or three years back.  He assured them that there was no fear for America becoming a "Christian nation" (oh, yes, of course, that would mean that Scalia doesn't believe in the separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution.).  Scalia comforted the congregants with the statement that no Christian leader had ever made the Jews suffer.

Is this man completely bonkers? You know in a Unabomber or Ted Bundy sort of way?

The guy is so delusional he doesn't remember Hitler, the Spanish Inquisition, and the long line of Christian nations and leaders under which the Jews suffered.

Good grief.

Rush Limbaugh is starting to sound downright sensible compared to Scalia. 

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Bookmark/Search this post with:
buzzflash buzzflash | delicious delicious | digg digg | yahoo yahoo | technorati technorati
Technorati Tags:

» login or register to post comments | printer friendly version

ACLU....Pro Scalia

Submitted by corey on Mon, 06/30/2008 - 5:20am.
Here is an email I recieved from the ACLU when I questioned them when inviting Justice Scalia to one of their latest "shin-digs"....I am now an x-member of the ACLU because if this: Dear Friend, Thank you for contacting the American Civil Liberties Union. I am sorry that you disagree with our inclusion of Justice Scalia in events at our Member Conference. Justice Scalia participated in the ACLU’s 2007 Member Conference in a debate with the ACLU’s President Nadine Strossen. During that debate, Ms. Strossen noted that Justice Scalia is a friend and valued legal colleague, which is why he was invited to speak at our celebration of Ms. Strossen’s work. Sincerely, Kitt Barrett Member Services Coordinator ACLU National Office 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 212-549-2545 kbarrett@aclu.org Here is my original email: Justice Scalia and "Our Lady Liberty" June 2008 Dear ACLU, I hope you will rethink your invitation to Justice Antonia Scalia to speak and honor your president Nadine Strossen at you’re "Our Lady Liberty: Celebrating Nadine Strossen: in June this year. I believe that his current statement, to "Get over it" when questioned about the 2000 election, and the very fact that he does not seem to vote in favor for American's civil rights. He does not believe that the Construction should be upheld and it is a shame that the is on the Supreme Court, further ruining America. I was extremely shocked when I received your news letter in the mail with Justice Scalia’s photo in it. I support all you do in allowing everyone equal rights, free speech etc…. However, to have Justice Scalia involved in anything that the ACLU is part of, is a disgrace on your organization and makes me question my economical membership and donations. I ask you to remove Justice Scalia in the celebration honoring ACLU President Nadine Strossen. Thank you. Sincerely, Corey Mondello Boston, Massachusetts www.CoreyMondello.com 4-25-08 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Some links of interest: Antonin Scalia, self-made martyr He could have been the next chief justice. Today, he's just a poster boy for intolerance, vitriol and questionable ethics. http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/04/02/scalia_pfaw Excerpt: As he travels the country speaking to law schools and religious groups, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia likes to say that the U.S. Constitution is dead. It's not a "living document" whose meaning changes with the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," but rather a set of rules established once and for all in 1789. The Constitution, Scalia says, means "what it meant when it was adopted." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Justice Scalia and Mr. Cheney Published: February 28, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/28/opinion/28SAT1.html?ex=1393390800&en=21b855f2713942bd&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND Excerpt: “Justice Antonin Scalia went duck hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney in January, just weeks after the Supreme Court accepted an important case involving Mr. Cheney. There were widespread calls on Justice Scalia to recuse himself, which he refused. Now it turns out that Justice Scalia accepted free air travel from Mr. Cheney, making the case for recusal far stronger. And there are reports of questionable contacts between Justice Scalia and another person with a case before him. In the interest of justice, and of the court's reputation, Justice Scalia should step aside in Mr. Cheney's case.” =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- A Justice's Sense of Privilege By BOB HERBERT Published: April 12, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/12/opinion/12HERB.html?ex=1397102400&en=040af3ed39230bf7&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND Excerpt: Justice Scalia, the big shot, does not like reporters to turn tape recorders on when he's talking, whether that action is protected by the Constitution of the United States or not. He doesn't like it. And he doesn't permit it. "Thirty-five minutes into the speech we were approached by a woman who identified herself as a deputy U.S. marshal," Ms. Konz told me in a telephone conversation on Friday. "She said that we should not be recording and that she needed to have our tapes." In the U.S., this is a no-no. Justice Scalia and his colleagues on the court are responsible for guaranteeing such safeguards against tyranny as freedom of the press. In fact, the speech Mr. Scalia was giving at the very moment the marshal moved against the two reporters was about the importance of the Constitution.
» login or register to post comments

Has Anybody Considered Impeaching Scalia?

Submitted by drprodny on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 11:26pm.
At this point, he's got to have admitted to committing some kind of impeachable offense, given his spate of blowhard statements lately! If nothing else, he's proven beyond a doubt he's not competent to be any kind of judge, let alone a justice of the highest Court in the Land - and we HAVE impeached Supreme Court Justices before...sometimes even successfully! Maybe w/Scalia as an example and his replacement w/a fine Liberal Justice, Roberts, Alito and Thomas will fall into line like they deserve to....

Who's running an "Impeach Scalia" campaign? I'm sure I can't be the first person to consider this.

PS: Maybe that gesture isn't "flipping the bird" exactly, but it serves the same purpose of contemptuous dismissal....
» login or register to post comments

If you want to protect your family...

Submitted by VettaKing on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 7:26pm.
a hand gun in your home isn't the way to go. You are statistically more likely do be shot by your own gun than to shoot an intruder. The "Justices" argument just doesn't make any sense historically, legally, statistically, or logically. Not to mention a shotgun is better than a hand gun anyway and those were already legal. I had an uncle who was a police officer and he used to have to go break up fights at several biker bars that were located on his turf, and he always said that when he would roll up in there he would always brandish a shotgun, because nothing gets a perps attention like a shotgun. Same with my grandfather, a WW2 vet who definitely had some experience with firearms. He ran a motel for over 30 years. He never owned a handgun in his life. A shotgun was the best protection against the occasional whacko, and he never had to actually use it. All this will bring is even more easily concealed weapons which can be used against anyone, anywhere, and anytime. The NRA is now going for a federal conceal and carry law, so everyone can be packing heat at all times, in all places. Their reasoning is of course "personal security". They should be really proud of the nation they have created. We the people now have to have a deadly weapon on us at all times just to feel safe walking down the street. Thanks for all the "protection" NRA.
» login or register to post comments

Scalia and Rush two peas in the pod

Submitted by Donnat on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 6:00pm.
The pod of mindless, bigoted, anti-intellectual bloated frogmen in love with the sound of their own voice and full of disdain for anyone who holds any beliefs different from their own limited ones. Donnat
» login or register to post comments

Facists r us

Submitted by ChiefJBR13 on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 3:32pm.
Herr Limbaugh, the pill popper, never met a fascists he did not like. Scalia treats the Constitution like a roll of TP and he and his New World Order buddies want to flush it down the proverbial toilet. It's too bad he doesn't go hunting with his buddy Cheney more often. These guys are absolute losers and should be taken out to the woodshed or Gitmo. Maybe then they might cry about habeas corpus and their rights. Way to go Anton, you got that vote right in the 2000 election! (Sarcasm for you neo-cons) Boy are we better off now with Bush and Cheney at the helm for seven years. My five year old knows more about right and wrong than you fear-mongering deuchebags!
» login or register to post comments

It's not "the finger".

Submitted by beowulf on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 2:02pm.
uh1h Just to clear things up for the people who read this. The rest(including many Italian Americans) will continue to get it wrong. The gesture of flicking your fingers under your chin towards some one comes from the man,hot and sweaty from a day in the fields, coming home to the wifes nagging and complaining. His taciturn response? Flicking the sweat from under is chin at her as if to say "this for you" or," this is how much I care." In certain parts of Italy (and still,in Bayridge or Bensonhurst Brooklyn) whole conversations can be had using meaningful hand and finger gestures. Because our ignorant,lazy press prefers something dirty or scandalous every time they jumped on this gesture as meaning something other than it does just like they did with oh, say, the war.
» login or register to post comments

Scalia

Submitted by Michael Cullen on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 11:41am.

Interesting is that he uses the right reasoning for the wrong decisions. In his Guantanamo dissenting opinion he wrote (or said)that as a result more Americans might die. That should have come out of his mouth in the DC-gun-law case ... almost definitely more Americans will die when everybody in DC can have any weapon he/she wishes.
Michael S. Cullen
Berlin, Germany

» login or register to post comments

Antonin Scalia

Submitted by protectdemocracy on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 11:29am.
When conservatives say that they want judges who are not activists, who will not legislate from the bench, of course they mean that they want activist judges who are committed to the conservative agenda. Scalia is their poster child. Scalia's presence on the Supreme Court should be a daily reminder to all of us that we can't have another Republican appointing judges.
» login or register to post comments

When all is said and done

Submitted by grolaw on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 11:03am.

Nino Scalia is the archetype for the "activist judge." No other justice has so often ignored statute and precedent. Let his hypocrisy be his legacy in Con Law classes across the nation for the remainder of the Republic's existence.

"In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying."
- Bertrand Russell -

» login or register to post comments