RSN June 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Scalia brushed off Obama's comments aimed at the court regarding the healthcare law and a campaign finance ruling. "What can he do to me? Or to any of us?" Scalia said. "We have life tenure and we have it precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, 03/08/12. (photo: AP)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, 03/08/12. (photo: AP)



Scalia: 'What Can Obama Do to Me?'

By Reuters

30 July 12

 

upreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday renewed his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts' reasoning in upholding President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare law and also said the Constitution undoubtedly permits some gun control.

The 76-year-old Scalia - a leading conservative on the court who has served as a justice since 1986 - also was asked whether he would time his retirement in order to let a conservative future president appoint a like-minded jurist.

"I don't know. I haven't decided when to retire," Scalia told the "Fox News Sunday" program. "... My wife doesn't want me hanging around the house - I know that."

"Of course, I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I've tried to do for 25 years, 26 years, sure. I mean, I shouldn't have to tell you that. Unless you think I'm a fool."

Roberts, also a conservative, sided with the nine-member court's four liberals in upholding the constitutionality of Obama's healthcare law, considered the Democratic president's signature domestic policy achievement.

Scalia joined in a sharply worded dissent on the day of the June 28 ruling and added to his criticism on Sunday.

A central provision of the law is the "individual mandate" that most Americans obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The ruling found that this penalty "may reasonably be characterized as a tax" and thus would be constitutionally permissible under the power of Congress to impose taxes.

"There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax. ... In order to save the constitutionality, you cannot give the text a meaning it will not bear," Scalia said.

"You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig."

Supreme Court justices rarely give media interviews. Scalia is making the rounds to promote "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts," a new book he co-wrote.

Scalia brushed off Obama's comments aimed at the court regarding the healthcare law and a campaign finance ruling.

"What can he do to me? Or to any of us?" Scalia said. "We have life tenure and we have it precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody."

He was asked "why you push people's buttons every once in a while." Scalia said, "It's fun to push the buttons."

Gun Control

Scalia wrote the high court's 2008 ruling that a ban on handguns in the U.S. capital violated the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution's Second Amendment.

In light of the July 20 massacre in which a gunman killed 12 moviegoers in Colorado, Scalia was asked whether legislatures could ban the sale of semiautomatic weapons.

He said the 2008 ruling stated that future cases will determine "what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are."

Scalia - a proponent of the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted using the meaning of its text at the time it was written - cited "a tort called affrighting" that existed when the Second Amendment was drafted in the 18th century making it a misdemeanor to carry "a really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax."

"So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," he said. "I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear' (arms). So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be ... decided."

Regarding the death penalty, Scalia said opponents want it struck under the ban on cruel and unusual punishment included in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

"But it's absolutely clear that the American people never voted to proscribe the death penalty," he said. "They adopted a cruel and unusual punishment clause at the time when every state had the death penalty and every state continued to have it. Nobody thought that the Eighth Amendment prohibited it."

Scalia also took issue with decades-old Supreme Court precedent, saying the Constitution does not provide Americans with a right to privacy, despite a landmark 1965 ruling finding that it does. That ruling helped pave the way for the court's 1973 ruling legalizing abortion.

"There is no right to privacy - no generalized right to privacy," Scalia said. "No one ever thought that the American people ever voted to prohibit limitations on abortion. I mean, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that."

Scalia also was asked about his past criticism of rulings by Supreme Court colleagues in which he called them "folly" and "sheer applesauce."

"I don't know that I'm cantankerous," he said. "I express myself vividly."

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+179 # dkonstruction 2012-07-30 09:16
What an arrogant, disingenuous hypocrite. On the one hand he says about the first ammendment (look at his recent interview with Brian Lamb on CSPAN) that one has to look at the first ammendment as not just being about speech (i.e., that comes out of your mouth) but is also about private letters since this was clearly the intent...on the other hand, when someone else raises the intent line and it doesn't agree with Scalia's views he says that this is not what judges should be doing.
 
 
+47 # Tazio 2012-07-30 14:04
Indeed. And what Obama can do to Scalia is: present his argument so well that other conservative judges will side with the liberals and turn their backs to Scalia and his thinking.
 
 
+15 # CL38 2012-07-31 11:17
Read an article that came out on 7/9, speculating that Scalia is going to retire next year. If true, all the more reason to make sure Romney is not President.

Here's the link: http://www.thechicagodope.com/2012/07/09/scalia-to-leave-the-supreme-court-next-year/
 
 
+3 # Mellifluous 2012-08-02 01:46
CL38: Were you aware that The Chicago Dope is a political satire site? I'm not sure which is worse: understanding that this is satire and citing this article anyway to spook folks, or being utterly sincere and missing the gag. The motto under the site's title reads: "Never True. Always Accurate" and the lead paragraph reports that Scalia is leaving the bench to "pursue his lifelong dream of being a talk radio host..." It goes on to say, " Sources said Scalia had been in talks with the producers of Rush Limbaugh’s radio show for months..." So why would you bring this to RSN readers' attention as a serious item?

I suppose all of this is plausible, if Scaly-a didn't regularly display such conspicuous mirth in wielding power in the way that he does, subverting the Constitution he claims to be defending in his ceaseless quest to advance the interests of the most reactionary elements of the Vatican hierarchy and his corporate benefactors. No, I reckon he'll keep maneuvering to normalize corporate personhood, bring back slavery under a form of industrial feudalism and turn the country into a theocratic police state as long as he can manage to. They'll carry him out of his chambers feet first unless some determined and resourceful patriots manage to curtail the length of his lifetime tenure.

I'm almost embarrassed to ask: do you have any other sources for this story? I'd like to give you the benefit of a doubt, but I'm guessing you don't.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2012-08-02 12:03
Why the harsh judgement? Please...do give me the benefit of the doubt. I run my own small business, so can't spend as much time as I'd like researching and keeping up. Honestly didn't see that the Chicago Dope is political satire. No other sources.
 
 
-5 # Mellifluous 2012-08-02 16:57
Friend, that *was* me being as gentle as I can muster. I asked pertinent questions about your item, I tried to understand why you might have posted it and I asked you both why you did and whether I'd missed any corroborating evidence. Note: I avoided assumptions, didn't cast aspersions, and despite your reaction to my reply, I tried not to humiliate you, even though I thought you'd acted carelessly. Me harsh? Grow a skin.

In the past, I've been on the receiving end of some unkind judgements in the blogosphere when it didn't look as though I knew what I was writing about. (Sometimes Republicans ridicule reflexively -- that's different.) I can well relate to wanting desperately to comment on a subject, not taking the time to research it and then looking foolish in public. Aren't pseudonyms wonderful?
 
 
0 # Mellifluous 2012-08-02 16:58
(cont'd) In an age where original reporting is underfunded and diminished while the amount of commentary has increased exponentially, I think it's still crucial to use standards of documentation and clear logic when opining. You can see from my remarks that I think Scaly-a is a dangerous hypocritical traitor -- now *that* was harsh! -- but as one who still cares about little things like freedom, privacy, the environment, the economy, community and self-determinat ion, I think that educating and informing our peers and the rest of the public is most effectively done when we are scrupulously honest and keep things in perspective. (Yeah, I know I probably read like hair-on-fire sometimes. Having tried to follow the news for 35+ years, I genuinely think it's that dire.) That's not easy, just necessary. If professional reporters are to be supplanted by citizen-journal ists, I think we would do well to learn the conventions of reporting, develop skills and hold ourselves -- and each other -- to standards of veracity and accuracy (not to mention spelling and grammar, but that's another post.).

This really is a word to the wise and I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. Your mistake was understandable, but it shouldn't've happened. Once we got into an exchange, I used it as a platform to elucidate some general principles that apply in this instance (as if anyone cares...). Good luck with your business. Be careful out here.
 
 
+223 # tedrey 2012-07-30 09:16
I don't mind his opinionativenes s and cantakerousness so much; however I think his recent public airing of his opinions on matters not yet before the court, and even flat statments on how he will vote on pending cases before the lawyers have even presented the arguments might be sufficient grounds for his removal by Congress.
 
 
+61 # Billy Bob 2012-07-30 09:32
Which Congress are you refering to?
 
 
+49 # Walhalla 2012-07-30 10:21
I second that which Congress indeed.
 
 
+22 # tedrey 2012-07-31 08:19
I said "sufficient grounds" for removal; I didn't say that a corrupt and incompetent Congress would do it.
 
 
+159 # universlman 2012-07-30 09:17
Dinosaurs disappeared because they could not adapt and change. This outdated button pusher will do the same, hopefully before he does much more damage.
 
 
+65 # Archie1954 2012-07-30 09:27
We can always hope!
 
 
+37 # colpow 2012-07-30 10:41
. . .but the dinosaurs had a little extinction help from a meteor. Just sayin'
 
 
-89 # John Locke 2012-07-30 12:35
"There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax. ... In order to save the constitutionali ty, you cannot give the text a meaning it will not bear," Scalia said.

"You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig."

neither can a penalty be a tax!...

This is something the Liberals here don't want to hear...But Scalia is correct...
 
 
+25 # CL38 2012-07-30 17:50
Republicans don't have a problem with mandated auto insurance that's also a "tax". If we insure our cars, we should certainly insure our health care is covered by paying for health insurance. Our health and subsequent costs for care are much more important than auto insurance. (I'd prefer single payer option.)

It's utter hypocrisy for Republicans to be at ease with auto insurance and then go ballistic over health insurance for the care and preservation of our bodies.
 
 
-26 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:50
CL38: sorry you lost me with your argument... what in the world does mandatory auto insurance have to do with a penalty for not buying health insurance?

A penalty is a penalty no mtter what you call it, Scalia is correct, and just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact!
 
 
+17 # CL38 2012-07-31 08:10
I'm pointing out the lack of logic demonstrated by republicans who bitch about people being required to pay for health insurance. You support Scalia's prejudicial bias. Fine. But that doesn't change facts.

We PAY for insurance to cover damage to our cars. Republicans have no problem with that. Taking care of our bodies is just as important, if not MORE important personally and as a society, than taking care of our cars.

People who refuse to buy health insurance end up in emergency rooms when they're sick or become seriously ill and the rest of us end up paying outrageous fees for their emergency care. So either they pay, or we do, on top of paying for our own coverage.

There's nothing wrong with requiring people to be responsible for paying for their own health care.
 
 
+6 # Jim Young 2012-07-31 09:36
A minor point, required auto insurance is more for liability for damage to others' cars and injury to persons in all vehicles. You usually don't have to insure your own vehicle for yourself, the lenders usually require it to protect their interest in the debt until it is paid off.

Though there have been ineffective bastardized versions of it, no-fault insurance (like that implemented many years ago in Massachusetts)l owered the cost as much as 75% for some of us, by eliminating most involvement of lawyers on damages less than $10,000. It wasn't as cost effective to fight over who was at fault as it was to simply pay for the damage to your own customers. Those who didn't buy the required insurance didn't get reimbursed for non-injury related damages. Basic universal health care, covered by taxes, could similarly dramatically reduce the cost for the simple stuff. The UAW's Walter Reuther wanted such universal health care, but couldn't get his own union members to get past their careless self interest in what they thought were going to be forever superior benefits for just them. If you want Cadillac health care coverage, pay the extra premiums yourself, or find a company that uses enhanced health insurance as a recruiting tool.
 
 
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:18
I am not the ony one with insurance so that means the other guy that hits me or I hit gets my insurance card to get his vehicle or himself to fix.

We cannot have things both ways...we hate people on welfare or with no insurance but then when we put a start of healthcare in, now we don't want it. Do you really think the Republicans who have been in Office too many times in forty years are going to put a Health Care in? No they would rather take your home, belongings, bank accounts or Farm.

By the way were you at the meetings at Union bargaining tables with Insurance Companies? If so then perhaps you can let me know, I have lot of questions. You see I know the Unions were sold out by them as were the Contractors because I read the laws...Workmans ' Comp was a real swing in Insurance way and boy did they lie to large and small bus. I am sure you are a Business owner too? My Cousins actually wrote the Laws and they could not believe what happened and how fast but Congress, Senate, Lobbyists, Insurance sure made lot of money.

I would rather see something started like a project and revamped than have nothing at all. But then Republicans do not want the People to have anything, eh?
 
 
0 # Jim Young 2012-08-03 13:05
I think I can agree with most of what you are saying, but please take a look at my user-profile (and recent comments) before forming too many assumptions. I recheck my own, as well as others that I feel I need to get to know better. I do regret sometimes not following Kareem Abdul Jabbar's advice to try to get my points across without offending or confusing those I'm engaged with.

I do not own a business but I always worked as if the military mission, business, customer, or student's, success depended on me doing my best. I've never joined a union (have seen both good and bad ones) and appreciate what the good ones do.

A neighbor's father was Walter Reuther's pilot (lost in the crash that may have been helped by a faulty altimeter, just like the one that almost got Walter Reuther's brother several months before). The impressions I got from him help me cut through a lot of baloney some would try to feed us.

I did have a rude awakening on how they treat anyone with even the slightest claim on workmens comp, being treated almost as a criminal for a simple infection from a bug bite at work. The company seemed to strongly suggest I should claim I'd been bitten at home, perhaps to avoid jacked up rates if they let any claims get through. Don't know how many abuse it, especially health care provider fraud compared to patient fraud, but it scared me how much pressure was put against legitimate claims.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:10
In some States, and I believe it should be all States, it is a. mandatory to have auto insurance...whe re are those snivelers?

I am sure that you are the biggest sniveler about people not having insurance and what it costs you. Well, I am tired of it too I do not care what they called it...It is HealthCare. Not OB Care, however it does look and read except for some exceptional clauses Ob Got us like MittensCare.

I do not care you do not like Democrats but where are you sticking up for kids lives? Seniors? Vets? Disabled esp those who cannot get SSI or Disability due to laws? How about Illegals ?

I do not believe in turning people away but I have friends dying, they need organs. Funny thing is the people who get organs usually do not have donor card on them. Many believe they have to be buried or cremated whole...I guess they believe that almighty creator cannot make a couple new parts?? I think we have to have something, this is not perfect..neithe r are we, but at least we can make it better. INstead Your leaders want to throw it out...then we will never see it again. Your leaders want us to Die...that includes You and Yours. Come to grips with that, there is not card in the pile saying you are more special than anyone else...If we have the internet next year I will look for you...you will be under another face but we will know ye!
 
 
+16 # rayb-baby 2012-07-30 18:06
It's a matter of semantecs and interpretation. If a bill is written with a tax and a tax deduction for buying something, or a requirement to buy something and a penalty for not buying it, the results are EXACTLY THE SAME. We already have things that if we spend money on them that we can get a tax deduction for and they have not been deemed to be unconstitutiona l. I believe that Roberts used this in coming to his conclusion of constitutionali ty. Therefore, Scalia is WRONG.
By the way, when (as an example) a credit card company fines you a large penalty and raises your APR for being one day late on your payment, that is done by greedy pigs (the APR was already way too high). So I guess a penalty can be a pig. Guess Ya just can't trust anything Scalia has to say.
 
 
-11 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:55
rayb-baby: Incorrect, in law we have specifics, example an independent contractor vs an employee there are guidelines and calling a person an independent contractor when he is an employee will have ramifications on the employer including a fine!

You can’t circumvent anything simply by calling it something different…a fine is a fine and a tax is a tax, a fine can never be a tax! A fine is a penalty a tax is for support of government!

Failure to understand the difference does not change it
 
 
+7 # rayb-baby 2012-07-31 12:22
Tell that to Justice Roberts. I stand by what I said. In fact, you have a comment down below where you said that the Constitution is a living document, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Is it only living when it suits your agenda? Plus, you have made other comments that only a Faux Noise watcher could believe.
 
 
+1 # lexy677 2012-07-31 21:58
Is mandatory auto insurance a tax?
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:25
When it fits their leisure
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:24
Not if you are in the right locality. I know of almost no contractors if they are in favor of having to pay fines.
I see laws about backfilling wetlands let us say...I see a contractor backfill twenty acres and contact right sources including Media. Contractor goes to Court and get fined by many agencies. But ten years later, he pays a tenth of fine, does not give the amount of land back. I question why...and given bs. However, a regular guy backfills a half an acre and he has to pay the whole amount ... wow I guess the pictures the Media and I have is something different than backfilling wetlands. oh the same contractor under a no fire in the County...burned tires....You could see the fire for twenty miles in all directions...no fines. Yes people get away with stuff all the time, it is whose pocket you can grease always has been

Sorry but again Mr L you only work the street on your side so you never look at the whole street. Lot like Scalia, eh...Yupper
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:18
Amen
 
 
+9 # bigkahuna671 2012-07-31 10:44
John, yes, you can't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig." However, when you attempt to travel to another country, you need to have a passport for which you must pay, in order to drive your car legally you must obtain a driver's license for which you must pay, if you wish to own your own car you must have license plates for which you must pay, to do business you must obtain a business license which means you pay up front, to remodel your home you must obtain the proper licenses and have the proper inspections, all of which cost $$$, to register to do almost anything in this country you must pay for permission, and even to get buried requires registration of the death certificate which means more $$$ even after you've died. These costs are taxes, whether you wish to call them that or not, they are. So having to pay for insurance is a tax. All of the above can also be called penalties for doing business or for living in this country. So, if you want to do any of them, prepare to pay the penalty, the tax, or whatever. Of course, maybe this is something YOU DON'T want to hear.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-31 11:23
Very well said. As Locke would say to another right-winger, "You took the words out of my mouth! I could not agree more!"
 
 
0 # Jim Young 2012-08-04 07:19
Penalty is not my 1st choice, try investment, mutual or co-op contribution ($ or sweat-equity), tithe, or HOA-like fee. How do the conservatives feel about HOA fees,tithes used through many cultures under many names? Or do they just want a cheap ride for themselves, special tax advantages, even payment of trillions in bailouts to those who not only don't pay net taxes, but take our money, too? Who pays the most in payroll taxes (40% of revenues compared to 42% from individual income tax) and in basic requirements (shelter, transportation, insurance, interest on necessary borrowing)? Seems many in the lower quintiles don’t have much left after the necessaries, pay huge amounts in interest on debt (to 5th quintile), while the top quintile rents our country back to us and “lends” us money at far higher rates than they borrow it (additional money even given to them through bailouts, etc).

Franklin got us off to a good start with mutual type investments in insurance, fire companies, postal services, etc, that returned very cost effective benefits to not only the original contributors, but to many that added more. The Internet is the best modern example. What if we hadn't taken the lead? Would we even have it, or want to do without it now? Can you imagine what too much privatization/" piratization" of this mutually funded and contributed infrastructure would do to it, and us?
 
 
+16 # BlueReview 2012-07-30 15:08
Yeah, where's a good meteor when you need one? Just sayin'!
 
 
+182 # VoiceofReason613 2012-07-30 09:23
Of the many important reasons to reelect President Obama is to prevent the Supreme Court from moving even further to the right. Three of the liberal justices are 75 years old or older. The Supreme Court has already done much damage through letting the election be stolen for Bush in 2000 and through its Citizens United ruling that enabled major spending on behalf of conservative candidates..
 
 
-86 # JackB 2012-07-30 14:02
Many important reasons to reelect Barry??? There really is a reason??? Even Barry doesn't know what it is. All he does is bash Romney.

SC has done much damage? Bush election? Sour grapes unless you have proof Gore won it. Citizens United ruling - major spending on conservative candidates? As of the 2008 campaign no one had ever spent more money getting elected than Divine Barry.
 
 
+26 # Okieangels 2012-07-30 16:04
Get paid much to reply on here?
 
 
-26 # JackB 2012-07-30 18:28
Nah. The humor in many of the responses is more than adequate.

This is a liberal board & I prefer that. I won't learn much going to a conservative board where I admit I do more agreeing than I do here. I come here in the hope that someone will submit a post that makes me think. I have erasers on all my pencils & I try to be fair to the opinions of others. It does happen. Not as often as I would like but it does happen.

Like most conservative blogs the majority of responses here are knee-jerk reactions devoid of any thought. They are usually funny.

Permit me to point out that, as I type this, I have received 31 negative votes. Not one of those people have told me where I am wrong. If my statements are wrong they are wrong for a reason not simply because someone says so.
 
 
+30 # Billy Bob 2012-07-30 20:34
Citizens United didn't happen before 2008. So, what does a 2008 statistic have to do with now? Seems a bit dishonest, don't you think?

"Sour grapes"? How about the fact that Gore won the popular election and was ahead in the Florida counties where the recount was considered necessary? The counties where he was behind "didn't require a recount". How about the fact that repugs claim to be pro-state's rights, but immediately jumped behind the Supreme Court decision that forced a state to stop counting and disregard everything that had been counted? How about the fact that no one really disagreed with the fact that voter's intentions were obviously being disregarded for reasons about "hanging chads". The whole argument that "hanging chads" were nitpicking was disingenuous from the start. It was obvious what people tried to vote for.

It's obvious what's going on when election laws specifically target minority voters, and specifically make it more inconvenient for them to vote and have their vote counted.

As far as I can tell, those were the only two "points" you made, unless snark about The President of the United States being called "Barry" is something you think deserves a response.

The humor is that you think you're somehow more intelligent than the rest of us, because your remarks were so inane they really didn't deserve a response.

If you want to take us on intellectually, try using substance.
 
 
-27 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:14
Billy: he is more intellectual then most who put comments here...and he doesn't need to make up false facts to support his case!

I know, I know, liberals don’t like to be confused with facts…it’s much easier to attack with nonsense! Those who give us thumbs down can’t support a reason other then the fact they don’t want to hear the truth…

Most liberals live in a case, locked away from reality, few really get the picture because they are too busy apologizing for a looser! Who is the loser “OBAMA”

Change we can believe in…where is it? What happened to it?

How did one man fully trash our Bill of Rights? And how could an entire party accept it because he is a democrat…

You talk about the Republicans being the party of NO! The Democrats are a party of enablers! The Democrats more then any party are the real cause of the trashing of our republic! But it takes intelligence to see that and to understand it!!!
 
 
+14 # tedrey 2012-07-31 09:08
John; take a deep breath and look at what you have written here. There is a hash of OPINIONS, but NOT ONE SUPPORTED FACT!
 
 
+8 # Bodiotoo 2012-07-31 11:30
and the conservative consistantly make up the facts and the stroy line without a shred of evidence. John Locke you lower yourself to name calling, labeling becaue dep down you know your are wrong...and hve lost the agrument because you have no arument.
 
 
+7 # bluevistas 2012-08-01 04:35
typical Republican bs.

Get a mirror. (what you accuse Democrats of more likely applies to yourself!)
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:39
How would you know who is intellectual unless your cult is the ones who have to come here to support each other.

If we are so stupid, why are you here unless like the rest of those you represent, you like wallowing in the lower realms. Pigs love to wallow in their own shit also.

I do not believe you are your buds are Mensa material.

I like being an enabler. Do you realize in 55 years I have enabled women to get away from abusers? I have enabled people to fight environmental crimes and criminals? I have enabled people who had problems to go get support?

I like being an Enabler. Do you know Jesus was an enabler also. I am here because he died for my sins. What did you do today?

I know looking at Bushies, Reagun is like looking in the Mirror and I do not know many that can see beyond that superficial, clone like resemblance of human you see looking back. Republicans today are like Aids, a disease we all want cured.
 
 
-17 # JackB 2012-07-31 07:21
The SC decision came a month or so after the election. The Dems had a month to prove their case. It's over unless you have proof of wrongdoings.

I don't consider myself more intelligent. The cure for cancer won't come from me. The people I laugh at are those who just give knee-jerk reactions. If someone gives one or two nanoseconds of thought to an issue they deserve to be laughed at. Look at some of the responses you get on this board - they are not even bumper sticker quality. Before you get your nose out of joint the same thing happens on conservative blogs.

These blogs are for like-minded people. Look how smart I am - the person who wrote the article agrees with me. If you don't question what you read you are just a tablet for the author to write on.

I assume the "obvious" election law comment has to do with photo ids. How come photo ids are only a problem with voting - no big deal about anything else? How come they are not a big deal for poor whites? Poor Asians?
 
 
+17 # Billy Bob 2012-07-30 20:35
In other words, arrogance is unbecoming, especially when you can't back it up.
 
 
-19 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:17
Billy: Exactly! Thats why we don't respond to your attacks...They are not based on facts but fantasy!

I am not going to argue with you either... when you can make a comment that is factual and not argumentative you will get responses!
 
 
0 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:42
You are replying and you are lowering yourself to argue...See you are a Republican.

Mirror up, join the real people not necessarily Democrats...jus t real people
 
 
+22 # Billy Bob 2012-07-30 20:57
By the way, I've replied to you on other threads. You didn't follow up. Why? I've told you where you were wrong. It doesn't stop you and you don't feel the need to defend your hit-and-run commentary.
 
 
+12 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2012-07-31 06:05
Politics, most often is an emotional prejudice learned from our parents. Much like religion. I'm an independent. I was a Republican in college. The Democratic party was not my thing as the then president used a weapon of mass destruction in Viet Nam-Agent Orange. Yet, Bush & Cheney used a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq-uranium alloy ammunition. What is referred to as "Depleted Uranium." A unranium alloy round has some deadly characteristics . Penetrates a tank, starts on fire, deadly gas emitted and the tank operator gets nailed with radiation. Using uranium alloy is classified as a weapon of mass destruction and American soldiers invaded Iraq with the belief that Iraqi's leader had and intended to use nuclear weapons. The Cheney lie. A good reason to stay out of that party.
So, being an Independent is for me a good idea. I simply do not know why Bush and Cheney were not prosecuted and jailed for their war crimes-but it is not "over yet."
 
 
-19 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:01
JackB: I gave you a thumbs up...I agree fully, you can't have a debate with people who are so closed minded that their "leader" can do no wrong and its always the other guy! I too laugh when I get thumbs down for stating the obvious truth!
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-31 10:31
The two of you are getting a big chuckle at the expense of the American people. Most of us don't make enough money to get "the joke".
 
 
+8 # Bodiotoo 2012-07-31 11:33
Quoting John Locke:
JackB: I gave you a thumbs up...I agree fully, you can't have a debate with people who are so closed minded that their "leader" can do no wrong and its always the other guy! I too laugh when I get thumbs down for stating the obvious truth!

Still waitng for some truthfrom you...been months and as yet have not seen any from your postings...must be using invisible ink.
 
 
0 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:45
Any persons on here who are closed minded are you and your cloned buddies or other pseudonyms.
You are not original, just another duplicate. I wonder if in Public if you would be so strong a speaker or just another sneak. I am glad people like you can come on places like this to remind us of what not to lower ourselves to.

Thanks for keeping me fighting for Democracy.
 
 
+6 # Bodiotoo 2012-07-31 11:27
a rare right of center approach. I find most righties have thier fingers firmly planted in thier ears.
 
 
+7 # Patch 2012-08-01 08:50
While I agree there is some knee-jerk reaction to responses here, by and large there is quite a lot of thought given to the particular article. One thing I've noticed about conservatives is that they don't think. If they did, most of them would be liberals.
 
 
0 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:50
Or perhaps smart enough to want to change and start a better party.
If everyone here could meet, assemble our thoughts imagine. I am speaking of all the RSN persons. If we could integrate all the feedback, we could possibly represent the American Public, perhaps achieve better leadership.
But no, better just to snivel about each other's politics and do nothing but cast a single ballot that could destroy millions of middle and lower paid Americans. Nice to be Judge and Jury with a vote just like Scalia.
 
 
+2 # kbarrand 2012-07-31 05:07
Perhaps, but all the big donors were disclosed, and there were limits.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:32
Rehash on Gore not having won it is old news. Retard ran the country showing the sheeple for what they are on both sides of the street.

Romney is not the right person. I believe someone could have been but I just believe that the Mockery of the People is beyond belief. But the People allowing it is more the Disgust. Again the Democrats or you peoplze Liberals are not any better than the above name.

I am not thumbing ya down, because your view has nothing to do with the Headline...it is your opinion, like mine it is free.
 
 
+151 # patmonk 2012-07-30 09:26
A truly arrogant and despicable example of the need to reform the Supremely Suspect Court. For example maybe they should only be guaranteed reappointment for two presidential cycles and then have to run for re-election. Many of these creatures should be given life sentences not life tenure.
OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED.
 
 
+108 # NanFan 2012-07-30 09:27
Quote:
"There is no right to privacy - no generalized right to privacy," Scalia said.
What a scumbucket!

How can he be hurt? Don't buy his book, and do not give him press time at all.

N.
 
 
+27 # Doll 2012-07-30 14:47
Of course there is no mention of privacy in the constitution.

Back in those days, they did not have indoor plumbing. If someone would need to relieve himself, he would say, "I need my privacy."

Even to this day, bathrooms are called privies and our genitals are called privates. The meaning of privacy has changed.

I suppose the inalienable rights clause gives us a right to pee.

Other parts of the constitution suggest that our current meaning of privacy is to be upheld.
 
 
+20 # Old Man 2012-07-30 14:52
Quoting NanFan:
Quote:
"There is no right to privacy - no generalized right to privacy," Scalia said.


What a scumbucket!

How can he be hurt? Don't buy his book, and do not give him press time at all.

N.
He can be hurt by following the "Money".
This man if you can call him that will die of hatred. He isn't fit to clean my toilet.
 
 
+8 # RLF 2012-07-31 03:21
I wonder if the book talks about there expensive junkets he collects from right wingers...hunti ng trips with Cheney, etc. I'll bet not!
 
 
+68 # bingers 2012-07-30 09:27
I have an idea, extraordinary rendition. You'd have trouble finding anyone who needs it more. ;o)
 
 
+115 # Billy Bob 2012-07-30 09:35
"What can he do to me? Or to any of us?" Scalia said. 'We have life tenure and we have it precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody.' "

WE NEED TO RE-ELECT OBAMA. The lesser of two evils is STILL LESS EVIL.

What we COULD do to him is impeach him, if only we had a Congress of REAL Democrats willing to take the bullshit by the horns.

Otherwise, perhaps we need a Constitutional amendment limiting a judge's tenure to 20 years.
 
 
-10 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:19
Or perhaps elect Federal Judges
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-31 10:33
If we "elect" our federal judges we'd be going against the Constitution. You always spout off about how "Constitutional " you are. You're not being hypocritical, are you?
 
 
-2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:59
I believe we should have a say finally.
I believe each district of the USA should be given the right to combine on questions to ask, then vote who we believe should go before those who get the last say.
I do not believe we should have been ignored on this Vote with what I have see for twenty years.
Tenure should also go
 
 
-2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:57
I believe that they should be elected. Perhaps if not directly than by districts in the USA voting on which candidate for SCOTUS to be better.
We would have choice. I believe if the Declaration of Independence Signers and Writers came back today they would agree that we are out of control.
Allowing ourselves to be manipulated by a Document that gave us Freedom now imprisons us. I believe tenure can be gotten rid of without offense to these first gentleman of the the USA no less us.
 
 
-2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 19:53
We need to take away tenures not tenors.

If we had a real congress of real humans...not clones.

I find neither party a bargain...
 
 
+122 # Feral Dogz 2012-07-30 09:36
"You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig."

Maybe not, but a Supreme Court Justice can be.
 
 
+139 # Bill Clements 2012-07-30 09:40
"What can he do to me? Or to any of us?" Scalia said. "We have life tenure and we have it precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody."

WHAT? What is Scalia tripping on? Not influenced by politics?! That's the most outrageous things I've come across today. It takes the cake as one of the biggest lies I've heard out of a SC Justice.
 
 
+138 # Larry 2012-07-30 09:42
" . .precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics . . "

The irony! Scalia is more influenced by politics than any other justice I can remember, except perhaps Thomas.
 
 
+115 # allie 2012-07-30 09:42
I am at a loss for words, yet again, over his latest outburst against the Obama administration. It’s unethical to say the very least. His behavior is unbefitting a Supreme Court Justice and downright arrogant. Once more he has overstepped bounds of propriety. The lack of restraint and respect coming from the republicans is mind boggling.
 
 
+85 # m... 2012-07-30 09:47
Seems to me that I remember a time when a Corpo-Hacktavis ta-Supreme Court 'Justice' said that the Constitution was as dead as stone and set in stone and therefore, not subject to ACTIVIST Interpretation.
But then, magically and with WAH LAHness.., suddenly The Constitution-- OUR Constitution, says somewhere that GLOBAL Corporations, often with Super Wealthy Foreign Interests as Major Shareholders, are allowed to influence OUR Elections with as much money as they wish to spend on that effort because MONEY=SPEECH...
Really?
Our Constitution says that..?
Please excuse me.
I'll have to stop writing here and go read it again. I must have missed that part...
 
 
+39 # mdhome 2012-07-30 10:49
I think we all missed that part, I would like to see him point it out!!!!!
 
 
-65 # RightForAReason 2012-07-30 12:53
At least the corporations are choosing to spend their own money that they EARNED providing good or services customers valued. When Unions force their members pay to support candidates they don't agree with that is fine and dandy, as long as the candidates are liberals? Unions extort money from many of their members against their will. Just look at Wisconsin. Public employee union memberships dropped like a rock when members had a choice.
 
 
+56 # conniejo 2012-07-30 14:02
Public union membership dropped in Wisconsin because after the drastic cuts people suffered in their take-home pay they had to choose between union dues and feeding their kids! I'm in a different category than these folks but I work with them and I know their thoughts. Save your self-righteous opinions for something about which you have a clue. Corporations earned the money they contribute on the backs of often-underpaid workers who are the REAL providers of goods and services. And they contribute without asking the real producers (the workers) for their opinions about how it should be spent. How many hours and how much sweat does it take to put one's signature on a contract or a stock purchase? What do the "owners" really produce? Nothing. The workers produce it all. So don't give me your BS about "earning" the money the give to their political whores. They are living off the caloric expenditures of the 99%.
 
 
+43 # BlueReview 2012-07-30 15:17
I'm not a member of any union, but I'm smart enough to know what unions have done for workers: 40-hour work week, time and a half for overtime, breaks, paid vacations, and competitive wages, and humane working conditions. Which the union-bashers would like to see taken away.
 
 
+5 # Bodiotoo 2012-07-31 12:07
Worked a no-union shop for a decade, got benefits that matched or bettered most oter local outfits. Why? because the owners didn't want a union, but the thought and potential led them to making sure we had all the bells and wistles a union would have demanded...
 
 
0 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 20:06
However, those days are coming down, layoffs... There were good in both at one time, our employers knew us.

Time for us to be sweatshop workers for corporate slugs
 
 
+11 # m... 2012-07-31 10:37
Rightfora 'reason'...?
Your cavalier attitude towards the stark raving fact that the Supreme Court has opened the door to unrestrained corporate influence of our elections as if they are also WE THE PEOPLE is, frankly, stunning and disturbing. Some of that corporate influence is as I describe.., basically an open back door to FOREIGN influence in AMERICAN ELECTIONS. You are comfortable with that?
You seem to think that because Corporations 'earned' their money that they should indeed have this right.
I can't use the words here that I would otherwise say to such a comment from an American Citizen, especially one who I feel sure would agree with me on this if he or she perceived the corporate money to be flowing in a political direction contrary to their own political viewpoint.., much as I can see that as you while you accept the tidal wave of corporate influence in our elections, you despise Union influence in our elections, even as unions exclusively represent AMERICAN CITIZENS using American Citizen Funds.
I personally disagree with ALL but PUBLIC FINANCING of OUR Elections.
 
 
0 # KittatinyHawk 2012-08-01 20:05
I am seeing less and less right to chose what I buy in America that is made in America and I am an American who believes in American Products.

I believe no Unions should have Republicans. I think republicans should work for minimum and no benefits just like the rest of us. Adios

I have been Union, my spouse and family none of us were ever extorted Another person, a republican rep, lying.

Wisconsin is a disgrace..peopl e were fired guess you would not be union anymore eh just like other States where Union members of Police, Teachers, Fire, Ambulance lost jobs. You know those people who teach and save your lives.

Very scary.. I really wish we could have a Democratic part of USA and Rethug part. It would be like illegal immigration watching the worms crawl over to our side. I would let the chickens roam.
 
 
+75 # LonnyEachus 2012-07-30 09:53
I agree; Scalia is a hypocrite. And right after he says that The People have a right to bear arms, he then gives an opinionated (and inaccurate) OPINION about the historical meaning of the word "bear". Armies "bore" cannons just as they bore other weaponry. It doesn't HAVE TO mean "something carried on your shoulder". It only means to wield the weapon, it does not necessarily relate to transport.

If you accept Scalia's definition of "bearing" arms, then, a grenade or bomb that can be carried is okay, but any gun large enough to require multiple people to carry is not. Clearly this is not a valid division.
 
 
+4 # LonnyEachus 2012-07-30 21:40
In case what I was saying was not clear: "bearing" an arm means the same as "bringing the weapon to bear". That is to say, to wield and use the weapon. It has nothing to do with carrying anything. And if Scalia really thinks it does, he's a bigger fool than I gave him credit for.
 
 
+78 # sapereaudeprime 2012-07-30 09:55
This unflushed sack of cowbird excrement is exactly why we need term limits for Supreme Court Justices. If it comes to class war, he can count on being deported to Italy, and I doubt they'll accept him unless it be as a flash-frozen organ donor.
 
 
+69 # alces 2012-07-30 10:01
So many things that need fixing:
Term limits for Supreme Court justices
Public funding for national elections
Reverse Citizens United
Strict and enforced gun laws
Change in term limits for House of Representatives (longer terms but limit number of terms)
Etc
Etc
 
 
-10 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:22
alces: How do you intend to make these changes?
 
 
+2 # Bodiotoo 2012-07-31 12:10
Quoting John Locke:
alces: How do you intend to make these changes?

How about serious debate and dicussion and representative actually working on issues and laws they could move forward on?
Do not necessary agree with the list provided by alces, bt bi-partisan actions and feed back rom the citizens would be nice.
 
 
+84 # wolf8888 2012-07-30 10:09
To Scalia, you are rigth of course, Obama or the people can not touch your arrogant Attitude?You are a senile old Puppet for the Republicans, and do not tell me you are APOLITICAL..You r stupid comments are the sign that you have lost Objectivity and you should retire, soon
 
 
+66 # feloneouscat 2012-07-30 10:13
"I would not like to be replaced by someone who immediately sets about undoing everything that I've tried to do for 25 years, 26 years, sure."

Is this an admission that it would be relatively easy to undo the damage created him? It certainly seems as if he doesn't have the country in mind, but what he's "tried to do for 25 years"...

Hmmm...
 
 
+30 # ronaldbosch 2012-07-30 10:15
this buffoon's real name is "Scumia" and not "Scalia"
 
 
+81 # Lisa Moskow 2012-07-30 10:17
I say it again and again. Scalia must go
and Thomas with him.

Scalia is the MOST political of all supreme court judges.

I can see why his wife doesn't want him around the house.

Please vote for Obama. I am disappointed in him also, but he is all we've got now--other than OURSELVES being activists.
 
 
+34 # Bodiotoo 2012-07-30 10:19
But under the NDAA the sitting President can round up and remove to points unknown anyone he deems a national threat without charge. Isn't this the act the Republicans forced down Obama's throat and to which he signed an executive statement stating he would not enforce the provision...BUT HE COULD!
 
 
+22 # mdhome 2012-07-30 10:54
Good point, with any luck Scalia and Thom ass will "disappear". can you say rendition?
 
 
+2 # Bodiotoo 2012-07-30 20:02
and park Bachmann. Boehner and Mitchell in a cage , parts unknown too!
 
 
+47 # reiverpacific 2012-07-30 10:29
Another bunch of arrogant medievalist rhetoric from the God-a-father of the Supreme Robed Mafia.
But WE can call for his impeachment -and that of his lapdog Thomas.
And an amendment should be compiled to cut off these ludicrous lifetime impositions on the population. Nobody is above the will of the people, or at least the people who care and are engaged on an ongoing basis instead of once every four years.
 
 
+49 # angelfish 2012-07-30 10:31
What else do we need to HEAR from these Self-serving, Imperial, "ME First-ers"? They defecate on the Constitution every time they open their mouths! They have STOLEN the American People's Right to Justice and Truth by perverting the Law to favor the wealthy, they allow their "Party" to rig Elections by dis-enfranchisi ng THOUSANDS, they make Corporations "People" with MORE rights than an actual LIVING, breathing human beings, and allow our Country to be BOUGHT out from under us by... WHO?... the Chinese, the KOCH brothers? WHO the Hell knows?! Another reason to never, EVER vote ReTHUGlican! Unless of course, you LIKE what the "shrub's" Administration did to us during his eight (8), LONG, Murderous, COSTLY years in office! Give them their walking papers in November! Our Goal should be a Filibuster-proo f Congress for President Obama's next Term! The People, UNITED, will NEVER be defeated!
 
 
+12 # oakjoan 2012-07-30 11:38
It should be "The people, united, will never be defeated" but if the people are NOT united, or if they are united by do NOTHING, it doesn't mean anything and we will ALWAYS be defeated!

We have to organize and actually WORK for change in order for our lame, wimpy, cow-towing President to actually do something to help the country.

We need to have millions in the streets. Without that, we'll have the same old, same old.
 
 
+33 # genierae 2012-07-30 10:33
Maybe President Obama can't do anything to Justice Scalia, but karma can and will lay him low. He's running up a karmic tab that he will eventually have to pay, and he will pay dearly. Evidently, in his cynicism he doesn't believe in karma, but what goes around, really does come around, that is why Jesus teaches us to "love thy neighbor as thyself". I bet he's a "Christian" too.
 
 
+26 # bmiluski 2012-07-30 11:08
but karma can and will lay him low. He's running up a karmic tab that he will eventually have to pay, and he will pay dearly......... .......Still waiting for bush/cheney to get theirs.
 
 
+7 # CL38 2012-07-30 13:24
They will eventually.
 
 
+2 # angelfish 2012-07-30 20:53
Quoting bmiluski:
but karma can and will lay him low. He's running up a karmic tab that he will eventually have to pay, and he will pay dearly................Still waiting for bush/cheney to get theirs.

Patience, Patience, dear friends, "Vengeance is MINE"! saith the Lord! He will mete it out all in good time.
 
 
0 # genierae 2012-08-02 08:14
bmiluski, karma doesn't always show up in the way you want it to. It often comes as family troubles, illnesses, loss of friendships, financial ruin, loss of reputation, loss of personal peace, etc. Karma is not revenge, it is justice, therefore it is indifferent to how we want it served up. Check out a current picture of Bush these days, he looks like hell because he is going through it. His legacy is death and destruction, and the fall of the American economy. He will have no peace as long as he refuses atonement.
 
 
+18 # Cassandra2012 2012-07-30 12:02
He (and his petdog, Thomas too) are members of the Opus Dei cult.... of inquistio fame etc.
 
 
+33 # theshift33 2012-07-30 10:40
Wow! A pretty scary megalomaniac.
King s$$t on turd hill.
 
 
+23 # Legandivori 2012-07-30 10:40
Interesting comments. Scalia is incorrect about their lifetime job and little if any ways to cast them aside. Obama has amassed a team of constitutional law experts. Under provision of the Patriot Act along with expanded powers given the Presidents through Executive Orders under ROBERTS, they could be held as traitors and sent to Guantanimo for questioning, if you get the gist. The Supreme Court's 5-4 insane radical right majority under instructions of big corporations might have actually hung themselves without realizing it. Roberts already realized it and decided to vote for Obamacare, rather than do time in federal prison or sent out of the USA for extended "questioning". I understand Mr. Obama has already used those powers by signing an executive order for Marshall Law at his time of choice. Watch for the general elections to be cancelled. For all those who think it would be terrible if Obama would envoke Marshall Law, the alternative of having another far right coup Romney and Rove running the ship again is tantamount to allowing the fox back into the chicken coup.
 
 
+10 # bmiluski 2012-07-30 11:09
Not holding my breath.
 
 
+14 # colpow 2012-07-30 10:43
Someone forgot to take his meds.
 
 
-17 # Montague 2012-07-30 10:51
Scalia: blah blah blah. RSN community: blah blah blah, pig, blah blah, hypocrite, blah, scumbucket, blah. So much for RSN guidelines, so much for purposeful discussion. Most of us can agree we have no time for Scalia's views. Fine. But increasingly posts are little more than rants full of obvious truisms. Anyone agree?
 
 
+16 # CL38 2012-07-30 13:27
Every time he opens his arrogant mouth, he demonstrates fanatical right wing bias. How can justice be the guiding light for SC justices with a far right agenda???
 
 
+11 # reiverpacific 2012-07-30 18:24
Quoting Montague:
Scalia: blah blah blah. RSN community: blah blah blah, pig, blah blah, hypocrite, blah, scumbucket, blah. So much for RSN guidelines, so much for purposeful discussion. Most of us can agree we have no time for Scalia's views. Fine. But increasingly posts are little more than rants full of obvious truisms. Anyone agree?

So what are you tryin' to say?
Blah, blah, blah yourself -far into the night but no substance, just a nitty-pick, which I fail to see any justification in posting. Please Illuminate, us o' wise one in yer wisdom, with what you have in mind.
Checklist: Scalia is an embarrassment to the judiciary and should be impeached, is a member of Opus Dei and totally beholden thereto, is cuckolding the presidency and all it tries to do for his masters in the Vatican and his Corporate Power-drunk allies, he is and bully and a latter-day incarnation of Al Capone, Ghengis Khan and Cap' Bligh of the "Bounty"! 'Nuff said but it bears repeating and acting upon often and anon until someone beyond the purlieus of RSN recognizes it and wakes up to spread the stink of corruption and hubris further.
His very presence in a position of power is something to howl from the rooftops until the rest of the county gets it.
So a couple of suggestions if ya will.
Put in on Facebook or whatever social medium you use, or write to the press, start or sign a petition, spread it around as much as possible -but don't bitch at us -OK!
 
 
+3 # angelfish 2012-07-30 20:59
So what are you tryin' to say?
Blah, blah, blah yourself -far into the night but no substance, just a nitty-pick, which I fail to see any justification in posting. Please Illuminate, us o' wise one in yer wisdom, with what you have in mind.
Checklist: Scalia is an embarrassment to the judiciary and should be impeached, is a member of Opus Dei and totally beholden thereto, is cuckolding the presidency and all it tries to do for his masters in the Vatican and his Corporate Power-drunk allies, he is and bully and a latter-day incarnation of Al Capone, Ghengis Khan and Cap' Bligh of the "Bounty"! 'Nuff said but it bears repeating and acting upon often and anon until someone beyond the purlieus of RSN recognizes it and wakes up to spread the stink of corruption and hubris further.
His very presence in a position of power is something to howl from the rooftops until the rest of the county gets it.
So a couple of suggestions if ya will.
Put in on Facebook or whatever social medium you use, or write to the press, start or sign a petition, spread it around as much as possible -but don't bitch at us -OK!
Well said, reiverpacific, VERY well said indeed!
 
 
-13 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:31
reiverpacific: The fact is, you nor I may like Scalia, but what he said was accurate and truthful...He has life tenure, doesn't he...and he can't be removed as long as he does nothing improper...

he correctly outed the Obamacare ruling, as any lawyer will tell you...if it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck its a duck...so someone please explain to me how a duck suddenly becomes a pig? "a penalty became a tax???"

Think instead of reacting because you can't face the truth...
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-31 10:04
The mask is pretty obvious. You don't have to pretend you "may not" like Scaley-a. As you yourself said, you've been outed. Stay out where we can see you.
 
 
+24 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2012-07-30 10:52
Why is it that thousands of Chinese citizens showed up to protest a papermill wanting to build a pipeline to the sea to dumps horrendous amounts of polltants into the sea and we do not protest Scalia. Where are the Democrats on this issue? And China is a system run by the military-and the people WON!
 
 
+8 # Kenwood 2012-07-30 10:54
Call it a tax. Give a refund to those who buy insurance. Same difference?
 
 
+27 # vgirl1 2012-07-30 11:11
The question, Scalia, is how can we be protected against you and your life long tenure that makes you feel beholding to no one but the politicial cronies who cater to the likes of you and Thomas and even give you money through spouses and other backdoor avenues? Even then we have no power to force you to take the ethical stand and recuse yourself from cases as you should. Scalia, you and this comment are the perfect pronouncement of the arrogance and disdain you display toward the American people and their well being. It is why no matter how much you try to deny it, the American people find the court to be a very activist political body and not an independent branch of the United States government.
 
 
+14 # NewYorker6699 2012-07-30 11:16
Legandivori: Where did you get THAT one?? First of all it's "martial law", nor "Marshall law". In other words, the miltary would be called into enforce whatever edicts are proclaimed by the leader of government. Secondly, Obama would set off a civil war, by canceling the elections that would make the 1861-65 conflict look like a gabfest, considering the proliferation of much-more-power ful and more widely-distribu ted weaponry across a much bigger, more heavily-populat ed country. Stay away from the FoxNews channel, and all of the other conspiracy-mong ers that seem to have influenced your thinking. It's dangerous for you.
 
 
+20 # Terrapin 2012-07-30 11:19
A few borrowed words from Dylan.
"...I'll follow your casket on a pale afternoon.
and I'll watch as you're lowered into your deathbed.
and I'll stand over your grave
until I'M SURE THAT YOU'RE DEAD!"

Think about it Tony ... on that day, outside of the people you are legally pimping for. the vast majority of AMERICANS will just say ... GOOD!!
 
 
+16 # panhead49 2012-07-30 11:20
"What can Obama do to me?" Probably not much. So we need to get Mrs. Scalia to add a couple more layers of cheese to his plate of lasagna. Not good for the heart. Assuming he has a heart. Certainly doesn't look like he works out every (or ever any) day.
 
 
+19 # in deo veritas 2012-07-30 11:42
unfortunately he could then bleed our tax dollars to get a new one like draftdodger Cheney did.
 
 
+12 # hobbesian 2012-07-30 13:48
Quoting panhead49:
"What can Obama do to me?" Probably not much. So we need to get Mrs. Scalia to add a couple more layers of cheese to his plate of lasagna. Not good for the heart. Assuming he has a heart. Certainly doesn't look like he works out every (or ever any) day.


Well he has a terrific health care plan, courtesy of us the people.
 
 
-54 # fredboy 2012-07-30 11:37
While I am at odds with so many of Scalia's beliefs, it is refreshing to see someone--anyone --in the national government spotlight with balls.
 
 
+43 # CL38 2012-07-30 13:31
Those aren't 'balls 'he's demonstrating. It's a sociopath's arrogant thinking and ego-driven behavior.
 
 
-19 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:33
CL38: But the undisputable fact is Scalia is correct, and that is hard for liberals to accept!
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2012-07-31 10:05
By "liberals" are you refering to yourself? Afterall, you only were opposed to Obama's re-election because he wasn't liberal enough for you just a few months ago.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2012-07-31 10:42
In the tradition of the right who always has to have the last (incorrect) word, Scalia is wrong. Read my other posts.
 
 
+4 # rayb-baby 2012-07-31 12:49
Give it up, already! You have been proven wrong by my comments, other commenters and Justice Roberts. Your saying the same thing over and over and over...... isn't going to make it true. Most of on this site don't buy into Goebbels/Rove propaganda, but you obviously do.

You are getting (have been all along) REALLY BORING!
 
 
+4 # angelfish 2012-07-30 21:12
Quoting fredboy:
While I am at odds with so many of Scalia's beliefs, it is refreshing to see someone--anyone--in the national government spotlight with balls.

Balls? BALLS??? He has NO balls! What he DOES have is a LOUD mouth and a Whole Sh*t load of POWER given to him when he was appointed to the SCOTUS! This is something that MUST be addressed by the NEXT Congress, the reining in of an out of control, Politically Motivated SCOTUS! They have done more damage to this Country with their "Citizen's United" Bull-Puckey than can be reasonably calculated. Guess what? No one lives forever Antonin, you too, will have to stand in front of your Creator and read your page out of the Book. I'm pretty sure you and a few other Colleagues on the Court will be found SERIOUSLY wanting! Be vigilant, fellow citizens. We CAN'T let Romney get elected to appoint anymore like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, or Alito to the Court. Never, EVER vote ReTHUGlican!
 
 
-9 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:34
angelfish: Where were your democrats when Scalia was affirmed...are democrate not just a little bit rsponsible!
 
 
+1 # angelfish 2012-07-31 20:56
Quoting John Locke:
angelfish: Where were your democrats when Scalia was affirmed...are democrate not just a little bit rsponsible!

He was qualified and approved by a BIPARTISAN Congress! Who knew that he was such a hard line Conservative Putz? Then again, this is what ReTHUGlicans do, lie, cheat and steal their way into high positions to wreak their havoc on the unsuspecting Public!
 
 
+1 # genierae 2012-08-02 08:22
fredboy, what good are balls without heart. This man is evil!
 
 
+32 # gioia 2012-07-30 11:40
Of course his wife doesn't want him "hanging around the house". What woman in her right mind would? However
I also don't want him to continue "hanging around" the Supreme Court.
So she'll have to take him back. She married him after all.
 
 
-4 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:35
gioia: Now that is an intellectual opinion!
 
 
+11 # in deo veritas 2012-07-30 11:40
Life tenure is uncertain for all of us including members of the Supremely Corrupt Court. Scalia had better be worrying more about what happens when he is before the Ultimate Judge of us all. His misdeeds will earn him boarding space with the likes of Bush and Cheney. If the people of this country get off their dead butts and vote out the teabaggers that have ruined our country then impeachment would be a possibility. If they do NOT then they deserve what then happens to them. Give them two more years and they would try to forbid emigration by those who have had enough.
 
 
+6 # margpark 2012-07-30 12:36
God only know why anyone would try to interpret the constitution by trying to intuit what the founders were thinking. Obviously the world has gone on since then and many things the founders could base their knowledge on have happened since then. No matter how brilliant you are you can't know the future.
 
 
-28 # Hot Doggie 2012-07-30 12:37
"[Scalia] said the 2008 ruling stated that future cases will determine "what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are." This is sell out to WTP and his peace offering to Obama. Scalia has gone over to the dark side along with Roberts.
 
 
+16 # OldRedleg 2012-07-30 12:40
"Scalia - a proponent of the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted using the meaning of its text at the time it was written..."

This means then that, at best, the only arms people are allowed to "bear" are the muzzle-loading weapons available at the time the Constitution was written since no one envisioned the semi-automatic pistols of today or the fully automatic assault rifles that are the darlings of the NRA.
 
 
+10 # conniejo 2012-07-30 14:09
I like your argument. It's more rationale than arguing that the founders intended any and every weapon to be legal.
 
 
-9 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:44
conniejo: You might like his opinion but it is simply incorrect...the Constitution is a living document subjct to change and interpretation:

in Missouri v. Holland 252 U.S. 416 (1920), Oliver Wendel Holmes made this remark on the nature of the constitution.

"With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago. The treaty in question does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution. The only question is whether [252 U.S. 416, 434] it is forbidden by some invisible radiation from the general terms of the Tenth Amendment. We must consider what this country has become in deciding what that amendment has reserved"

Arms are arms whether a musket or a winchester repeater!
 
 
+4 # dkonstruction 2012-08-01 12:40
Quoting John Locke:
conniejo: You might like his opinion but it is simply incorrect...the Constitution is a living document subjct to change and interpretation:


You keep saying that Scalia is right but then say that "the Constitution is a living document subject to change and interpretation" which is precisely what Scalia is saying the Constitution is not. How do you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions? Scalia's argument is that a judge should rule based on the meaning of the constitution (or ammendment) at the time it was written and is thus not open to contemporary interpretation. So, for example, he said about "arms" that it refers to weapons one can carry and so did not include canons which existed at the time?
 
 
+22 # tadn54 2012-07-30 12:59
What's the point in having three branches of checks and balances if the Supreme Idiots have the ultimate say, and no one can veto or overturn their decision?

Scalia the Nauseating and Thomas the Lecherous should both be impeached...... ...........good riddance.
 
 
+8 # Thinking allowed 2012-07-30 13:02
Those who have posted that the Supreme Court should have term limits are not thinking straight. If we had had them, we would not have the oldest Democratic-lean ing justices. William O. Douglas had a tenure of 36 years, 209 days. He was nominated by President Roosevelt in 1939 and served until his retirement in November, 1975.
 
 
+14 # Gord84 2012-07-30 13:03
Scalia betrayed the trust given to him as a Supreme Court Judge
 
 
+9 # FLAK88 2012-07-30 13:07
If I were the President, I would have thrown his fat arse in prison long ago. (Thomas would have already been there, warming up the spare bunk !)
 
 
+8 # amye 2012-07-30 13:13
This Supreme Court Judge is breaking all the rules for his position! He is a mean, old, cantankerous man! No wonder his wife doesn't want him around the house when he retires! That says it all! Why would she stay with him is beyond me, but he makes really good money and benefits! Women still don't get that with the exception of Yahoo's new pretty, young, prego CEO!!
 
 
+14 # Hot Doggie 2012-07-30 13:25
U.S. Constitution, Art.III, sec.1, "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their Offices during GOOD BEHAVIOR..." (emphasis mine) WTP must now determine what the definition of "good behavior is. Scalia, I believe, will be found wanting regarding the 2nd Amend.
 
 
+15 # video4315 2012-07-30 13:32
What can you do to me? Hmmmm....we can elect a president, a congressman, and a senator, but we are stuck with a Supreme Court judge until death or he or she retires, unless there were grounds for impeachment. I wonder if those who crafted the Constitution ever envisioned Thomas and Scalia.
 
 
+17 # dfvboulder 2012-07-30 13:38
So a penalty can never be a tax? Funny, then what are the interest and penalties collected for late filing?

Scalia is an arrogan creep. He should go hunting with Cheney some more.
 
 
+17 # ericlipps 2012-07-30 13:39
For all his preening about his knowledge of the constitution, Justice Scalia apparently dopesn't know that he and his colleagues don't have absoluely guaranteed life tenure.

Impeachment is a possibility: the Constitution states that federal Justices of the Supreme Courtserve "during good behavior." And if any modern Justice ever deserved impeachment, Scalia's the man.
 
 
+11 # fhunter 2012-07-30 13:40
Scalia compared forcing people to eat broccoli to forcing people to carry life insurance. This just proves that Scalia is unique having "GREEN MATTER" in his brain, instead of "GRAY MATTER" and "WHITE MATTER" like everybody else.
 
 
+2 # nancyw 2012-07-30 13:43
You all must read Jubilee Day by Michael Sky. A MUST READ for these times!!!
 
 
+10 # ghw 2012-07-30 13:46
Unbelievable! but this demonstrates the power/entitleme nt that the gang of five on the court take as their due somehow. How to interpret the constitution from the perspective of the framers is beyond reason - it must be a joke. Just Scalia pushing some buttons.
 
 
+8 # conniejo 2012-07-30 14:15
I derive the tiniest bit of comfort knowing how history will treat this court. That thought apparently occurred to Roberts given his decision on the AFA. Despite that awakening, I doubt that Roberts ever can do enough to make up for the Bush coup d'etat and the "Citizen's United" blasphemy in the eyes of history. Scalia apparently is a "live for today" kind of guy who couldn't give a flying F about his place in history. The court, after all, doesn't carry his name. It also suggests to me that he doesn't believe in the hereafter. If he did, he'd be thinking about the dues he eventually will have to pay.
 
 
+17 # ghostperson 2012-07-30 14:40
What can Obama do? If he had a mind, he could do what Nixon did and secuester funding. He could have the Department of Justice and IRS investigate why Nino the Terrible and Clarence the Lesser spend so much time at exclusive, expensive retreats sponsored by the Kochs. Assert available criminal charges against the latter for falsifying mandatory financial disclosures to the government omitting nearly $700,000 in spousal income; investigate the former's ruling in the Halliburton case that was pending when Scalia went hunting with Cheney. After all the GOP spent $40 million investigating Clinton's crotch. At least the suggested areas related in a direct way to propriety of official job performance. Scalia is Bork. There is a reason he wasn't selected chief justice.
Obama could also push for legislation limiting terms on the supreme court especially in light of Citizens United. The terms would be prospective to anyone on the high court. The Federalist Society agenda is pro-business, anti-minority and pro-states' rights to the exclusion of everything else. The stated plan has been to put young(ish) right wing ideologues on the court so they can impose their ideology upon the country for 30-40 years. Alito fits the mold. Roberts guided Bush through the S. Ct. maze in 2000. He was rewarded for his efforts. There is no provision in the Constituion providing for life tenure. That can be changed and in light of what has occured in Citizens United, should be.
 
 
-26 # indian weaver 2012-07-30 17:20
Obama is a cowardly little boy. He is useless, and worse, a sold out whore. Obama is clueless, bought by the big boys to be the front man for crimes against humanity, including us The People of America. Obama has a big mouth full of bulls...t.
 
 
+13 # CL38 2012-07-30 19:42
Obama has disappointed in major ways, but he's a he's a much saner choice than putting another 1% clone in the highest office...
...or allowing the 1% to continue an all-out assault on everyone's rights but theirs.
 
 
-11 # John Locke 2012-07-31 07:46
indian weaver You took the words right out of my mouth, I could not agree more!!!!
 
 
0 # noitall 2012-08-07 10:03
Sounds like he has all the qualities required in a modern American president.
 
 
0 # rayb-baby 2012-07-31 13:34
I agree with you, except that justices tenure is in the Constitution.

"Supreme Court justices serve "during good behavior," which means "for life" or until they choose to resign or retire, as long as they don't commit an impeachable offense (bad behavior)"


Article III, Section 1

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
 
 
+4 # jerryball 2012-08-01 13:23
Bravo on nailing those two "slacker" justices, Scalia and Thomas.
 
 
+18 # NAVYVET 2012-07-30 15:07
I've been ready to impeach Scalia since 2000. Anybody agree?

And Roberts is INFINITELY more dangerous and metaphysically Fascist that either loudmouth Ol' Scaly or his clunky echoing henchman, Mr. Nepotism Thomas. Roberts is subtle, quiet, sneaky, and while those other two preen publicly over their connections to Opus Dei, wanna bet that Roberts doesn't have tentacles to that ultra-inquitori al Star Chamber, too? He knows that "satan" was a Hebrew word meaning "strict constructionist , cold-hearted lawyer" (this is true). He's read Machiavelli's THE PRINCE and swallowed that poison into his lowest bowels, to be regurgitated at will. The other two may have read it, but it didn't register. They probably weren't bright enough, and we know Scalia never read a damn thing written after 1781.

It's the bright, sleek, up to date Satans we must be on guard against. Not the Screwtapes.
 
 
+3 # fhunter 2012-07-30 15:37
fhunter 2012-07-30 13:40
Scalia compared forcing people to eat broccoli to forcing people to carry life insurance. This just proves that Scalia is unique having "GREEN MATTER" [from BROCCOLI] in his brain, instead of "GRAY MATTER" and "WHITE MATTER" like everybody else.
 
 
+9 # Urbancurmudgeon 2012-07-30 15:50
Scalia's right about the life tenure and it's for a good reason, the one he states. But even with life tenure the justices are at risk, in the case of Scalia and especially Thomas for not recusing themselves from cases that they have a personal interest in. When these guys show up at Republican fund raisers they are no longer fair judges but party hacks and when they hear cases as tye have about subjects that have been shadowed by their personal lives, they are asking for ethics charges to be brought against them. Now if ric Holder has the stones to make the move, they will be on very tenuous ground.
 
 
+9 # GeorgePenman 2012-07-30 16:27
It was bad enough that the Supreme Court ruled the Corporation is a person with all the rights that implies, it was worse when it ruled that the only purpose of the Corporation is profit, and Citizens United almost certainly will destroy US governance as we know it to allow virtually unlimited amounts of money to buy elections. Lawrence Lessig has made the case in his book, "Republic, Lost" that money in politics is corrupting. . . and so it is.

http://www.seconnecticut.com/supreme_court.htm
 
 
+6 # Scott479 2012-07-30 16:40
Scalia-an over easy steaming pile who needs to be made an example of what not to be, by something other than his own words.
 
 
+5 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2012-07-30 17:06
I find it interesting that recently while a supreme court justice was visiting another country, she was asked:"would you recommend the U.S. Constitution as a model for a new country?" Her reply: "No. The Canadian system is preferable." Recently, the average household income in Canada, a Socialistic country surpassed that of the United States. Cnanadians: "take that you capitalists."
 
 
+7 # theshift33 2012-07-30 17:20
"What can Obama do to me". Oh, I don't know. He can HR1540 you. He holds the red pen and with the bar having dropped
lower and lower these past years to meet it's threshold, I'd say in the big picture you, Mr. Testy Toot your own Horn are a gnat. Put that in your piehole and smoke it.
 
 
+6 # fliteshare 2012-07-30 18:23
Mr Scalia should read up on the NDAA that just recently got passed.
 
 
+9 # tm7devils 2012-07-30 19:31
I know exactly how his wife feels...I don't want him around OUR (court)house either!!!
We need term limits on justices.
The Pres is limited to 4/8 years; senators - 6 yrs; and, representatives - 2 yrs...why should justices(the third leg) get life tenure?
I say 8 yrs, like the Pres, and must be atheist or agnostic - to make sure religion is not part of the decision making process - otherwise you have to live with what you got - and sniveling and complaining won't change the game.
 
 
+3 # sapereaudeprime 2012-07-31 14:11
If Scalia were deported back to Italy, they'd turn him into prosciutto, like any other porker.
 
 
+3 # charsjcca 2012-07-31 15:39
What Scalia has forgotten is that the people, via our elected representatives , have the power to ABLOISH the Court and have the executive branch lock the building have sell it at an auction.
 
 
+3 # Stephen 2012-08-01 08:55
One thing Scalia has succeeded in doing is to raise the question of lifetime tenure for SCOTUS judges, and their ability to time their retirement to ensure continuity of their efforts in their replacement.
Scalia apparently thinks he is the most important person in Government, an appointed King, the final authority on all things, answerable to no-one but his own super-sized ego.
He has single-handedly caused serious doubt about the legitimacy and viability of the Supreme Court in a modern democracy.
After Citizen's United, he should have been tarred and feathered and chased through the streets. Instead this outrage has carried him to new levels of braggadocio.
 
 
0 # mdimbi 2012-08-02 22:56
re: penalty cant be a tax: please visit sunny california where corporate interests boondoggled enough voters that what we used to refer to as "fees" or "penalties" for fouling the air and water are now referred to as "taxes" and cannot be collected without a 2/3 vote of the legislature. too busy to check out what's going on in da states, mr. scalia?
 
 
0 # noitall 2012-08-07 10:07
Is it just me or are life time appointments for SC justices JUST not a good idea in this American culture where nothing is sacred and everything is for sale and don't give a sucker an even break?!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN