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

Intro: "Supreme Court Justices usually keep quiet about matters that might come before the court - or they recuse themselves. But Antonin Scalia thinks the rules don't apply to him."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks to a policy forum in Washington. (photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks to a policy forum in Washington. (photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP)



The Lawless Supreme Court Justice

By Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast

27 June 12

 

t has been widely assumed - including by yours truly - that calling Supreme Court justices "politicians in robes," as I did just last week counts as an insult. But as of Monday - almost surely before, but without any question as of Monday - Nino Scalia wants precisely to be thought of as a politician in a robe. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn from his churlish and self-aggrandizing and probably unethical tirade against President Obama's recently announced immigration policy. And while the court majority's ruling (from which Scalia of course dissented) represents a pretty solid victory for the Justice Department, the narrow win for the state of Arizona on the controversial "where are your papers" part of the law makes it quite possible that these very issues will come to the court again, after Scalia has taken his political position. Just as Zola famously said "J'Accuse!," I hope the liberal legal groups are already practicing saying "Recuse!"

The ruling itself wasn't half bad, for this court; it was one of those cases where Justice Kennedy woke up mostly on the right (that is, left) side of the bed. Justice Kennedy challenged the four key elements of the law: the one mentioned above, which requires that police officers seek to ascertain the status of people stopped under suspicion of commission of other crimes, even misdemeanors, if there's a "reasonable suspicion" the person may be an alien; one that forbids the "willful" failure to carry documents; one that makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek work; and one that allows police to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer believes the person has committed a crime that makes him liable to deportation.

The last three were tossed: superseded by federal law, said the majority. The first one, the most controversial, was upheld, but only because the provision isn't being enforced yet. The majority said that state courts will have to determine how the provision works in practice, and then we can see whether it works or doesn't. Until then, it doesn't conflict with federal law, but challenges to this provision can be brought after it goes into effect. They undoubtedly will, and one imagines it will circle back to the court eventually.

Scalia wrote the main dissent, which you can read at the above link. Why shouldn't Arizona enforce whatever immigration laws it wants, he asked, when the federal government won't enforce federal laws? This would be news to the roughly 1.2 million illegal aliens the Obama administration has deported, but that of course wasn't the number Scalia had in mind. He meant the group - he said it was up to 1.4 million, using a previously cited number much larger than the administration's 800,000 - that was the target of Obama's directive from two weeks ago. And so the dissent includes some fairly caustic language about that program.

It's one thing to throw that into a written dissent. It's another to stand up in public and say it, knowing as he must have how that was going to be taken. As a rule, Supreme Court justices don't comment much on current events (and if they do, they usually do so elliptically). As a rule, Supreme Court justices never comment on matters that they have reason to think might come before them.

But the rules aren't for Scalia. He refused to recuse himself back in 2004 in the case involving the secrecy of Dick Cheney's energy task force. He had, you'll recall, gone hunting with Cheney (emerging, as far as we know, unscarred). I'm not naive enough to think for a second that Scalia's personal loyalty to Cheney was purchased with a few rounds of duck ammo. After all, the case was the one in which Cheney asserted that he was in essence beyond the law's reach, which is fine with Scalia if you're a conservative, ducks or no ducks. And of course he and Clarence Thomas are somehow allowed to attend highly political gatherings put together by the Koch brothers too, without any consequences. Did they appear between 2008 and 2010, when the court was hearing Citizens United, a time period during which the Kochs had pretty clear interests before the court? We'll never know. At the time this was in the papers, in early 2011, the Koch organization and the Supreme Court simply refused to answer journalists' questions, and that was that.

And what if, someday, the Obama immigration directive comes before the court? Even conservative blogger Ed Morrissey flagged this as problematic. Some GOP members of Congress have threatened to sue the administration over this directive. If Obama is reelected, they almost surely will, and the case may well get to the Supremes. Imagine, Morrissey wrote, that Ruth Bader Ginsburg inserted support for Obama's directive into an opinion: "You can bet that conservatives would be screaming for a recusal if/when a challenge to it came before the Supreme Court, and we'd be right to do so."

Morrissey's hypothetical, while heuristically instructive, is irrelevant, because Ginsburg would not do such a thing. The Court's liberals are nicely old-fashioned that way. They believe in the small-r republican virtues (even, at times, when it's naive to do so). But for the conservatives, and for Scalia most of all, legal propriety is absurdly quaint. He doesn't answer to a nation. He answers to a cadre, a vanguard, of which he is a cherished member, which is about as likely to say no to him as the College of Cardinals is to the Pope, and to which all outside criticism is the chirping of crickets. The crickets will be chirping awfully loudly in the coming days, and I hope at least that this self-satisfied martinet gets an ear-splitting headache.

 

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

 
+133 # Barbara K 2012-06-27 07:49
Scalia needs to leave the once Supreme Court by any method possible. He is not fit for serving on the bench or to wear the robes he wears. Something, whether it be hate or health, is wrong with him. He needs to recuse himself from any immigration cases, and from any cases, for that matter.
 
 
+47 # Vardoz 2012-06-27 10:43
Good Freaking luck- I agree but that just won't happen unless we change this congress.
 
 
+13 # Third_stone 2012-06-29 10:56
He and Thomas both. Can we impeach on the grounds of mental illness? That might be the most fitting.
 
 
+118 # jamal49 2012-06-27 07:51
Impeach him.
 
 
+65 # Virginia 2012-06-27 09:35
That may not be so far from reality. Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary:

"A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." Rule 1.2 ABA Code of Judicial Conduct

“Promoting public confidence” requires acting in ways the public regards as indicating fairness and impartiality, not what Justice Scalia thinks is reasonable, and perhaps what would be considered appropriate based on an objective assessment of what is trustworthy conduct for a Supreme Court justice. Indeed, I think the issue here is how the public will feel about the conduct of this particular Justice, Antonin Scalia, based on his undeniable influence on the court.

We're seeing more of this Judicial misconduct at lower court levels with their financial affairs. See Judging De Minimis on www.deadlyclear.com.

But what I personally find hypocritical is that the Italian heritage was known for entering this country without papers and the stigma that it placed on future generations, including Scalia's, is an example of what our country has strived to eliminate - and here, in one wopping dissent, Scalia starts it up all over again.
 
 
+13 # AMLLLLL 2012-06-28 10:44
Was that a pun, the 'wopping' part?...I agree, Scalia, along with 'chief justice Thomas' need to step down as they display the behavior anathema to what we think of as dignified judicial comportment. Thomas should have recused himself on the healthcare law, since his wife campaigns against it.
 
 
+3 # Vardoz 2012-06-27 17:47
OK, who is going to do it? Are you. Do you have any ideas how this will be done?
 
 
-3 # bigkahuna671 2012-06-28 15:16
I recommend Henry II's solution for Thomas a'Becket. To paraphrase, "Will no one rid us of this POS?"
 
 
-157 # 4merlib 2012-06-27 07:53
Speaking of recuses, Elena Kagan had every reason in the world to recuse herself from the Obamacare case, but I suppose her boss asked her not to.
 
 
+104 # lotuslover 2012-06-27 09:12
Sorry 4merlib, at page 24 of the Opinion, it states, Justice Kagan took no part in the case or the opinion. You, however, took a cheap shot at her and at Obama with your totally wrong comment.
 
 
+25 # maddave 2012-06-27 16:15
Why in in Hell's name would she set the precedent of recusing herself? You forget: Supreme Court Justices aren't bound by the same tired old ethics that constrain real judges. Did Thomas, whose wife is a professional anri-Obamacare wonk---whose six-or-seven figure salary helps to soothe Thomas after a hard day at work---recuse himself?
. You know, it IS hard to sit there day-after-day, year-after-year ,,never asking a question. Never making a comment.
 
 
+99 # revhen 2012-06-27 08:07
Arrest me. I am guilty. I hold the Supreme Court in the utmost contempt.
 
 
+17 # maddave 2012-06-27 16:24
Yes, Sir. we all share your contempt, and this is a prime reason why we need to---indeed MUST---get out and both work & vote for Obama! JUst s sure as the sun will ride tomorrow, if Romney becomes presiden, he and jis judicial henchman Robert Bork will replace Judge Ginsburg with another Scalia-Thomas clone.

And do not fool yourself into thinking that your not voting or wasting your vote on some attractive-but- hopeless candidate is ANYTHING BUT half of one vote FOR Romney and an irrevocably stacked conservative court ...tht will stay stacked for the next quarter century! r
 
 
+121 # sig11440 2012-06-27 08:15
Even more appalling than Scalia's blatant expression of political bias is the fact that he cited, as precedent in support of Arizona's law, the practice by southern states during pre-civil war slave days of barring entry by free blacks. How can any American judge, at any level in the legal system, acknowledge in public an appreciation for a policy explicitly appropriate to the institution of slavery?
 
 
+16 # readerz 2012-06-27 12:10
Pre-civil war slavery was overturned, was it not, by a Constitutional Amendment? It would have to be, because all the repugnant 3/5 of a man in the Constitution would have to be changed. I worry about the Civil Rights Act which needs a stronger Constitutional Amendment, but is that all we've got? In any case, at least the Civil Rights Act should nullify any pre-civil-war discussion of free blacks, shouldn't it? I would hope so.
 
 
+84 # Robert B 2012-06-27 08:16
Scalia thinks there aren't any rules, except what he dictates from the bench. He reminds me a lot of Tom DeLay who famously said, "I AM the federal government!" John Roberts got all huffy and puffy when Obama criticized him in a speech to Congress, as if this were some big breach of etiquette. but Scalia has no problem attacking Obama. The Legislative branch has no trouble criticizing the Executive branch; the Executive branch has no trouble criticizing the Legislative branch; but it's "Off with your head!" if anyone dares to criticize the tin-pot dictators on the Supreme Court. Whether you agree or disagree with their decisions, I think it's plenty clear that the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to completely revise the laws of the nation. And if you don't like it, guys like Scalia are perfectly happy to give you a sharp stick in the eye.
 
 
+17 # readerz 2012-06-27 12:12
And I recall a documentary some time ago about off-shore "American" slavery (on U.S. territories, but not in the states) that Tom DeLay was practicing while in office. He in no way is the federal government.
 
 
+25 # X Dane 2012-06-27 14:52
Yeas readerz, that was in the Mariannis islands where the people are worked and treated as slaves. They even forced the women , who became pregnant, to have ABORTIONS!! Here in the states they are ready to jail both doctors and women, who are choosing abortions.

They don't want their slaves to be hampered by babies. The "family" counsel was involved in this disgrace. They are the worst hypocrites And Tom De Lay was VERY involved with this horrible enterprise
 
 
+18 # cy31b 2012-06-27 13:44
It was Justice Alito, not Roberts, who silently mouthed off against President Obama. Otherwise, you are right on.
 
 
+52 # Lisa Moskow 2012-06-27 08:19
Is it possible to impeach members of the Supreme Court?
 
 
+35 # JSRaleigh 2012-06-27 09:33
Quoting Lisa Moskow:
Is it possible to impeach members of the Supreme Court?


Possible, yes. Practical, no.

The House can impeach by a simple majority vote.

The impeachment is then tried in the Senate where a 2/3 majority is required for conviction & removal from office.

The Democrats don't have the numbers to impeach nor to convict.
 
 
+13 # readerz 2012-06-27 12:25
Often an old but rotten politician gets some sympathy votes from cronies. Impeachment involves a long hearing, and it eats up a lot of time.

But underlying this is the make-up of the Senate. Every state gets 2 Senators (and at least 3 Electors in the Electoral College), and there are several very small but rabidly right-wing states who use their Senators to defeat anything even slightly in favor of people who are not wealthy land-owners. The ten smallest states, (2010 census) populations added together, have less population than an average population state, but they have 20 Senators. Added to a few other conservatives (from 15 other conservative and usually rural states) and they can stop appointments and impeachments. Something has to change, folks, or we no longer have even the memory of a democracy.
 
 
+42 # George Baggett 2012-06-27 08:21
Anyone in favor of free high-fructose and GM food product lunches for members of the Supreme Court? They could put their mouths where their money is!
 
 
+7 # Vardoz 2012-06-27 17:49
Clarence Thomas used to work for Monsanto
 
 
+42 # SpyderJan 2012-06-27 08:26
I think I see the problem. Scalia's collar is so tight that his brain can't breathe.
 
 
+22 # AndreM5 2012-06-27 10:21
But somehow he can still puff through his vocal cords... sadly.
 
 
+66 # DaveM 2012-06-27 08:32
A Supreme Court justice is supposed to be, first and foremost, a Constitutional scholar. The Court deliberates in secret to remain separate from the other branches of government and to avoid any appearance of influence. In keeping with that, historically, Supreme Court Justices have generally not been public figures, keeping a very low profile as they go about their work.

Everyone has political preferences and it is inevitable that those will influence a Justice's decisions. This is all well and good--judges are human just like the rest of us. But political (or any other) grandstanding is an affront to the dignity and integrity of the Supreme Court.
 
 
+27 # JSRaleigh 2012-06-27 09:42
Quoting DaveM:
A Supreme Court justice is supposed to be, first and foremost, a Constitutional scholar.


For most of its history, the Supreme Court has been a dumping ground for partisan hacks. Occasionally such have risen to surprisingly high levels of statesmanship.

Since Nixon's nominations of Haynsworth and Carswell were rejected by the Senate, the far right has engaged in an aggressive campaign to block Democratic Presidents from making appointments and ensuring that GOP Presidents elevate only openly partisan right wing extremists.
 
 
+7 # Muzzi 2012-06-27 12:18
What can you expect? He was appointed by George W. Bush.
 
 
+8 # Vardoz 2012-06-27 17:51
Having these guys running our Supreme Court is a tragedy for our nation.
 
 
-160 # Big Bear 2012-06-27 08:37
HAHAHAHAHA! Hilarious! Scalia a politician?? You really are a biased, ignorant man. Scalia personifies the Constitution. You rag on HIM when Ginzberg roams the world telling other nations to find another Constitution? THERE is an activist judge!! You prove ny theory yet again that there is something void in the brain of a liberal slacker!! Michael Tomasky should change his name to Vladmir Trotsky!
 
 
+42 # Todd Williams 2012-06-27 09:43
Yea, you would not be laughing if liberals held the majority. You'd be calling them activist judges for every decision they made. Hypocrite!
 
 
-95 # Robt Eagle 2012-06-27 09:44
Big Bear, exactly correct, however the folks on this site have no interest in the truth. They only wish to have constant Rah Rah for the Democrats, and bash the Republicans. Reality and truth are not permissable on this site. Tomasky, the author of this article, down plays the primary ruling that upheld the essence of the Arizona law. Get caught doing something illegal and your alien status may be questioned, as per the Federal Law (and AZ state law). How can any one argue with that provision? The only folks who want the Obama BS are those who will benefit from being illegal and hiding in fear they may do something wrong, get caught, and be banished from the great USA. Do your paperwork and become legal!!! Surely, those who served honorably in our military should receive citizenship, but they too need to follow the rules to get there. Obama wants illegals to make it to the US and Holder doesn't want them to provide id so they can vote for Obama...sounds like a coorrupt third world leader, now doesn't it. Well Obama will certainly get his crown and be known as Emperor Obama if he gets re-elected. His policies are destroying the US, but who cares as long as they keep getting freebies for nothing! Obama MUST be voted out of the White House or America is doomed.
 
 
+15 # overanddone 2012-06-27 10:37
In fact the only part of the law upheld was already the law,checking legal status once someone is arrested is the law was the law will continue to be the law. The main thrust of the challenge was whether the federal government or the local government has jurisdiction
( on a side note I'll mention that Scalia is the dic in jurisdiction )The administration won its case. The balance of your rant suggest a man with a paper ass and not worthy of comment
 
 
+19 # readerz 2012-06-27 12:04
There is much less voter fraud on the left than on the right: the rich fly from state to state to vote at all their residences during an election, but the poor are lucky to have the paperwork to vote.

It isn't just Obama who had to find his long-form; states like New Jersey didn't used to provide that form, and now do, for about $50 per person (recorded in the Lexus Nexus system). And if you are a woman, you need your marriage license too. This is if you had to move (foreclosure, flood, wildfire, etc.). Good luck if your papers went up in smoke. I think the people of Fargo, North Dakota still do not have proper birth certificates because of the flood many years ago that wiped out all the birth certificates at their county seat.

As to illegals coming in: Explain why when hotels wanted workers during the Bush Administration, border guards were told to look the other way. There are many who work in restaurant kitchens, hotels, and on farms. I guess you don't eat lettuce, fruit, or ever visit anybody; you sit in your corner and eat your soup.
 
 
+24 # cy31b 2012-06-27 13:54
Despite your claim that Mr.Obama's policies are destroying America, the country seems to be doing quite well over the last four years. We have got out of Iraq, terminated bin Laden and Ghaddafi, passed affordable health care law, repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, saved the American auto industry,passed equal pay for women, and helped foreclosure victims. If that is destroying America, you need to brush up on the English language.
 
 
+16 # cy31b 2012-06-27 14:22
With all the good Mr.Obama has done nationally and on foreign affairs, tell us exactly what you think he has destroyed.
 
 
+8 # cy31b 2012-06-27 14:26
After Chief Justice Earl Warren the high court has gone downhill with increasing speeed.
 
 
+29 # doneasley 2012-06-27 14:47
Quoting Robt Eagle:
... like a coorrupt third world leader... Obama MUST be voted out of the White House or America is doomed.


Eagle, if Romney ascends to the WH and carries the Senate with him, America as we've known it is completely doomed. He has his Norquist marching orders, and will sign anything - however horrible - that comes across his desk. Romney is only a puppet who seeks the presidency only because it's another feather in his cap. As we've seen, he's turned his back on ALL of his core beliefs just to prove that he can be further to the right than his GOP opponents.

You and I both know that President Obama has been totally disrespected since he took office on DAY 1. The Senate Minority Leader, McConnell, even announced his intention NOT to cooperate with the administration, and when the president tried to reach across the aisle, he got just that - no cooperation. This total disrespect is shown in Scalia's unprecedented verbal attack on the president.

And you guys don't want to talk about the Bush/Cheney administration ("deficits don't matter") that added $5 Trillion to the National Debt, leaving America's economy the worst it's been since the 1930's. That's what "Emperor Obama's" policies are still trying to correct with ZERO HELP from the GOP.

Oh, by the way, AZ Governor Brewer and a few of her cronies own interests in AZ private prisons. Now let's think... how could we fill all those empty beds?
 
 
+8 # michelle 2012-06-27 18:59
I fear with a Romney victory this country moves from plutocracy to plut-tyranny. Far from owning the government, the one percent will be the government.
 
 
+52 # bmiluski 2012-06-27 09:49
Quoting Big Bear:
HAHAHAHAHA! Hilarious! Scalia a politician?? You really are a biased, ignorant man. Scalia personifies the Constitution. You rag on HIM when Ginzberg roams the world telling other nations to find another Constitution? THERE is an activist judge!! You prove ny theory yet again that there is something void in the brain of a liberal slacker!! Michael Tomasky should change his name to Vladmir Trotsky!


HOW MUCH DO YOU GET PAID TO POST DRECK LIKE THIS. DOES SOMEONE SEND IT TO YOU TO POST? OR DO YOU HAVE TO COME UP WITH IT YOURSELF?
 
 
+4 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-27 15:38
Who the heck is Vladimir Trotsky?
 
 
+2 # Muzzi 2012-06-28 21:58
I think he is playing at Wimbledon today.
 
 
+4 # Muzzi 2012-06-28 22:00
HA HA HA!!! Judge Roberts voted for the
Affordable Care Act today!
 
 
+84 # PMcVeigh@comcast.net 2012-06-27 08:39
Scalia, Alito, Thomas and, for all intents and purposes, Roberts as well are conservative ideologues who have chosen to align themselves with the far right wing lunatic fringe....on a wide range of issues, including health care, immigration, the death penalty, gun control, separation of church and state, reproductive rights for women....and the list goes on. Shame on them.
 
 
+58 # giraffee2012 2012-06-27 08:40
Where's Issa when this crime is so obvious. Issa's quest to get the DOJ so the GOP can continue implementing voter suppression is obvious since under "W" there were 3 to "under President Obama" - there is (maybe) one.

The RATS are giving our democracy to the world's money holders - and there will be no one to rescue the world when the USA is sold out.

Out with Scalia and other RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia)

Hey Issa, the process begins in the HOUSE -- you are in violation of YOUR OATH to uphold the U.S. constitution.

Anyone interested in Issa's past? Google him to see his "Rap sheet"
 
 
+17 # marind 2012-06-27 10:21
The RATS!! Damn I wish I'd thought of that. Spot on.
 
 
+19 # lexy677 2012-06-27 10:58
Can't we in California find someone to run against him AND defeat this guy Issa?. I am ready to contribute to any anti-Issa campaign. He colluded with criminals in driving Governor Davis out of Office and practically foisted that ignorant ex-weight lifter and "gym rat", schwarzeneger on California and practically destroyed the State.
 
 
+54 # deejaycee 2012-06-27 08:40
It is my fervent hope that even the conservatives criticize Scalia's outrageous rant. He crossed the line in a giant leap and bound and ought to be ostracized from all lawyer organizations that he might belong to. Next to impeachment, branding him as a incompetent jurist would at least shame him. That is, if he has any shame.
 
 
+62 # Robert B 2012-06-27 08:41
You call Scalia a "martinet." My dictionary defines it as "One who demands absolute adherence to forms and rules." What rules does Scalia feel he needs to adhere to? In the recent strip search case, he overruled the 4th Amendment. I think fascist dictator is a lot closer to the truth.
 
 
+21 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-27 09:30
Yes. The purpose of the law is to ensure the people get screwed over by the oligarchy in a predictable and consistent manner, but Scalia violates the fundamental principle of such conservatism by making it all up as he goes.
 
 
+8 # lexy677 2012-06-27 11:01
Scalia is a crook foisted on us by the Mafia who had the "goods" on Reagan or his chief of staff. He is a criminal. The "godfather" got him his job.
 
 
+7 # Gevurah 2012-06-27 12:24
Would love to research this further. Got any leads? This is a straight request.

BTW - the apple doesn't fall from the tree.
At least one of the nine children he put into his wife, Catholic-style, is just as reactionary as his dear old dad. When he was supposed to be representing the people, in his job at the Labor Department, he did exactly the opposite.
 
 
+8 # Vardoz 2012-06-27 17:53
They are part if the corporate coup to crush our Democracy, rights and freedoms.
 
 
+34 # Street Level 2012-06-27 08:43
The overreach of the "Holier than thou". We can only hope that their reach extends far enough to bite them in the ass.
 
 
+6 # bmiluski 2012-06-27 10:26
Quoting Street Level:
The overreach of the "Holier than thou". We can only hope that their reach extends far enough to bite them in the ass.


uNFORTUNATELY BY THE TIME THAT HAPPENS OUR COUNTRY WILL BE IN A LOT OF TROUBLE.
 
 
-51 # Tacitus 2012-06-27 08:49
A "lawless" justice? Inconsequential compared to the lawless POTUS we have now.
 
 
+6 # motamanx 2012-06-28 07:29
Tac: What a very short memory you have, when speaking about lawless administrations . Do illegal wars, torture, deregulation, and allowing 9/11 to happen jog your memory at all?
 
 
+7 # cordleycoit 2012-06-27 08:53
Well here we are with a justice practicing up for his one way vote. At least they stay bought off.
 
 
+23 # Todd Williams 2012-06-27 08:53
I would find it very interesting and very informative, if a group of dedicated people would shadow these 5 conservative justices to see where they went, whom they met with and what organizations they addressed. The shadowers could take shifts watching the 5 Right Wingers and issue daily updates as to what these justices are doing. It's not against the law to my knowledege. No interference or protests or violence, just observation and reporting.
 
 
+15 # readerz 2012-06-27 12:32
People have noticed that Clarence Thomas has been getting rich through his wife who is openly involved in an organization that pays her to defeat the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare).

There are investigative reporters doing this work, but there needs to be much more. I think these oligarchs deserve the same public scrutiny that they have been craving.
 
 
-11 # 4merlib 2012-06-28 12:00
A perfect example how "Progressives" live by two standards. If this were an issue of "shadowing" leftists or Islamicists, there would be universal howling and gnashing of teeth about "Facism" and "Right Wing Thuggery." As it is, anything that helps the cause is fair.
 
 
+2 # Todd Williams 2012-06-29 03:50
When these right wing justices appear at conservative events and meet with far right wing supporters, the public has a right to know. After all, aren't these justices supposed to be politically neutral?
 
 
+20 # mjc 2012-06-27 09:30
It is obvious from his many very partisan arguments that he does not believe there are any of his colleagues who are as smart as he is and that the American people are pretty dumb.
 
 
+25 # Shorey13 2012-06-27 09:39
Of course he should be impeached. But don't hold your breath. The Supremes don't even have to adhere to minimal ethical standards. They are, quite literally, a law unto themselves. For life. Until and unless we re-write the Constitution to change this, the Rule of Law is a sick joke.
 
 
+5 # readerz 2012-06-27 12:36
There are several areas that need re-writing, since this country is much bigger and more easy to manipulate. I worry though that the "scholars" who would do the re-writing would be right-wingers. If not for that, I would redraw state lines every 25 years (or, if keeping the states, reduce the numbers of Senators for the states that have a low population, and increase them for the largest states). I would abolish the Electoral College. I would require that re-districting not be done in a Partisan manner, or gerrymandered, but by a non-Partisan committee. That's for starters.
 
 
-4 # Okieangels 2012-06-27 10:10
I don't get it. Justice Ginsburg is one of the best justices in history...and she's a friend of Scalia???
 
 
+8 # Gevurah 2012-06-27 12:25
Exactly what I always wondered! How could Ginsberg bear to spend a minute of personal time wih a monster whois vowed to destroy everything she holds dear???!!!
 
 
0 # Okieangels 2012-06-27 14:57
Maybe she's hoping he'll one day be civilized...
 
 
+3 # Robert B 2012-06-28 07:59
Well, Ronald Reagan was good buddies with Tip O'Neill. Barry Goldwater had the greatest admiration for JFK. Some people really are bipartisan. But it's getting rarer.
 
 
+26 # X Dane 2012-06-27 10:36
The RATS, so aptly named are all ideologues, but Scalia and his puppet Thomas are the worst. Thomas have committed acts that you and I would be jailed or at least heavily fined for.

For 7 years he did not report his wife's earnings, several hundred thousands, and of course they did not pay the taxes.
As usual the well to do get away with crimes the rest of us will be punished for.

His wife also is heavily involved with the T party, and Thomas has publicly said that the two of them are in total agreement on all things. Can you say, CONFLICT OF INTEREST?? And he will NOT recuse himself, Neither will Scalia.

Scalia's involvement with Cheney is too murky for words, and he is offending the president. There is no doubt in my mind, that he and Thomas are doing the bidding of the Koch brothers. They don't even care that it is known, that they attend the Koch's secret gatherings. The two of them will do all they can to defeat Obama......as ordered.

These two creeps consider themselves above the law. Unfortunately the house initiate impeachment proceedings. So as long as the republicans are the majority it will NOT happen. One more IMPORTANT reason to take the house back.
 
 
+30 # Vardoz 2012-06-27 10:42
Citizens United along with this corrupt Supreme Court, the corporate owned congress and Romney will suck the economic marrow out of our bones. They will as they already are deregulate everything, destroy our entitlements as they enrich the top, themselves and corporations.

Right now a slew of banks that have just been down graded by Moodys are poised for another bailout during a Depression as CEO are making more than ever.

If Romney wins and the GOP congress remains in control we will have a depression that will make the last big one look good. This congress is already breaking down protections for the environment to favor oil companies, chemical companies and much more. They are all about corporate anarchy - And Romney will adopt the Rayan plan to defund Medicare, Social security, college loans and health care. This nation will sink like a stone! If there was ever a time to participate in voting and to fight for our lives the time is now. Not voting for Obama will be something we will all deeply regret. The thing to do is get rid of this freaking GOP congress and ignore attack ads against Democrats because what the GOP REALLY wants is a coporate coup!!!!

And don't forget Boehner's famous quote "NO JOBS SO BE IT."
 
 
+14 # readerz 2012-06-27 12:42
It almost seems as though they want a civil war so that the police departments can try out their new tanks, grenades, and drones. More likely that there will be people starving, possible concentration camps, and crime of poor against poor for the few scraps left.

It's not like America can handle poverty. We no longer have looms in our attics, and most don't have vegetable gardens out back. And forget grandmother as midwife or the local barber to saw off your toes if you get gangrene. I am very worried about this country, and I hope that every person who can vote Democratic does.
 
 
+6 # Vardoz 2012-06-27 18:01
It is a very frightening situation. People all over the nation are afraid of what is to come. I see what this congress is doing and it is unbelievable. They are shameless sellouts, completely and utterly corrupt, willing to sacridice all of us, our children, our lives and our ability to prosper just to enrich themselves and the ruthless, murderous corproations they are owned by! They depend on our apathy. They are so bold and they are at war with the 99% aand Obama. They want to make sure we are poor and owned. It is a nightmare!
 
 
+1 # Cassandra2012 2012-07-03 13:34
Yes, so then they could declare martial law and justify sending off protestors to Guantanamo or orifutabke 'camps' in the hinterland... .
 
 
+24 # Vardoz 2012-06-27 10:48
Just because they are Supreme Court judges doesn't mean they have a degree in mental health. Also these judges got in because Bush stole not one but 2 elections.

What is happening is a well planned war against the people of our nation and our president.
 
 
+16 # angelfish 2012-06-27 11:48
Sadly, Scalia is NOT the exception on the Court, he is the RULE! He and his Co-Conspirators are TOXIC to EVERYTHING America has stood for over the Two Hundred and Thirty Six (236) years since her Birth! They are Liars and Sycophants who haven't a Clue as to what it means to be a Patriot! As we near the Anniversary of our Founding it is imperative to remember that especially NOW, our Vote is a valuable commodity and should not be given lightly. In view of previous PITIFUL appointments to the SCOTUS, keep that thought in mind when casting it in November and Never, EVER Vote ReTHUGlican! The People, UNITED, will NEVER be defeated!
 
 
+24 # readerz 2012-06-27 11:51
A petition has been going around about Clarence Thomas, whose wife has received $1.6 million to DEFEAT the Affordable Health Care Act (also known as Obamacare). The petition asks him to recuse himself. He is another Justice that doesn't seem to think the law applies to him.
 
 
+2 # Robert B 2012-06-28 08:07
Clarence Thomas is there for one reason only: to replace Thurgood Marshall with a right-wing black. I don't think he has asked a question in court since he was confirmed. He is basically a dummy on Scalia's knee, giving Scalia two votes. I happened upon a magazine published by blacks for blacks a couple of years after Thomas was confirmed which had on its cover an illustration of Clarence Thomas as a LAWN JOCKEY! Black hostility to Thomas is perhaps more severe than it is among Southern whites.
 
 
+6 # DHa7763100 2012-06-27 12:19
I haven't read all the posts, but do the justices have to show medical records to anybody? Maybe this fool has Alzheimers and we could get him out on health reasons. This guy should resign. Period.
 
 
+2 # LegendBert 2012-06-27 13:33
Scalia is the head of the Supreme Court Jesters. He doesn't get that he is supposed to judge Constitutionali ty independent of his political opinions.
 
 
+3 # wleming 2012-06-27 15:30
roberts, thomas, scalia
rule supreme
they are to jurisprudence
what filth is to cream
they pollute the air we breath
and rule for the one per cent
and when thomas was being "confirmed"
it was biden who did relent
there were women waiting to testify
as did anita hill
instead we look upon
the offal on the hill
 
 
-1 # dovelane1 2012-06-28 01:17
There might be a song in this. Are you a songwriter, or do you know someone who is. I'd volunteer if I had a way of getting a final product to you.
 
 
+2 # 4merlib 2012-06-28 16:31
You might try "We Don't Need No Education," or maybe "My Boy Lollipop," both good melodies to fit these lyrics.
 
 
+2 # m... 2012-06-27 17:54
If a 'Justice' Scalia decides to enter the Public Debate as he seems to have done with his recent pronouncements about States feeling helpless against the evils of illegal immigration, then why isn't Obama/ Democrats engaging him all the way into a National Debate over what appears to me to be a rather extremely Activist Pro-Global Corporate series of Decisions on the part of the Robert's Court..?
Where does it say in the Constitution that Money=Speech..? Or Corporations are Persons.., especially in this era of gigantic GLOBAL Corporations owned at least partially by many Non-American Shareholders..?
States, in my opinion are also (supposedly) forms of expressions of WE THE PEOPLE. And therefore, if 'WE the PEOPLE' as Represented by the Formulation of 'The State' feel helpless against the evils of illegal immigration.., then why, since the Citizen's United Decision, wouldn't Scalia also feel the same way about 'WE THE PEOPLE' feeling helpless against the evils of FOREIGN/NON-CIT IZEN-WEALTHY-GL OBAL-CORPORATE- MAJOR-SHAREHOLD ERS having the ability -- Thanks to the Citizens United Decision -- to have untold amounts of '''MONEY=SPEECH ''' INFLUENCE over OUR/WE THE PEOPLE/LOCAL/ST ATES/ and FEDERAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING/ELE CTIONS..,PUBLIC DEBATES and LEGISLATIVE OUTCOMES in general..?
It seems very contradictory to me.
Anyone care to point out where I might be wrong or off track with my reasoning over this..?
 
 
+3 # norjer2@yahoo.com 2012-06-27 18:43
Of the five Republicans snakes, I can't decide which is the most dangerous snake. Scalia or Thomas with Roberts running not far behind.
 
 
+11 # mdhome 2012-06-27 19:17
Scalia and Thomas should be impeached, no question.
 
 
+1 # dovelane1 2012-06-28 01:32
I suspect the RATS have been led to believe, or have chosen to believe, they do what they do for the "good of the country." I don't see how else they could rationalize their activist priorities.

In reality, and in all likelihood, I'm guessing the RATS are doing this to boost their egos. Bush the Second picked them, so they must be connected to him and his idealogies in some nefarious way.

What an ego trip, to find oneself appointed as a supreme court justice. It's gone to their heads. Now they think they are "SOMEONE," and of course they have to prove it, proving only that their self-image was mediocre to begin with.

Why else would Scalia and the rest want to support the corporations having this kind of power over others. Why else would he, and they, want to use their positions to glorify their opinions.
 
 
-7 # Jameswhadley 2012-06-28 18:46
Hey! I know that Scalia teaches in France in the summer, in Marseilles. France does not have a death penalty, and will not extradite persons to countries that do. The Euro is declining in value vs the dollar, and Air France fares must be dropping.
 
 
-3 # 4merlib 2012-06-28 19:24
One good thing about your post - it voices what a lot of folks who think- er, feel - like you would like to do or see happen. That's the only good thing about it. Sick, very sick.
 
 
-6 # Jameswhadley 2012-06-29 07:48
It seems you don't like France. Perhaps that is your reason 4 being a 4mer. It must have been during that period when the Congressional cafeteria changed the fries from French to "Freedom."
C'est pour tu - tant pis. (Merde,I almost used "vous;" quel dommage.)
 
 
+2 # 4merlib 2012-06-29 08:47
Had you written "pour toi," I would have had some respect for you. As it is, you pretty much exposed yourself as a poseur!
 

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