A Scalia Court

[PhiPsiRuss]

Senator Reid (D - Nevada) said (on Meet the Press) that if Antonin Scalia can overcome his ethics issues, Sen. Reid would support Scalia as Chief Justice.

Interesting.

[valkyrie]

EW.

[greeklawgirl]

Ummmm, NO.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
Senator Reid (D - Nevada) said (on Meet the Press) that if Antonin Scalia can overcome his ethics issues

Isn't that a pretty big IF though?

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
Isn't that a pretty big IF though?

It just might be. What surprised me was to hear Sen. Reid heap praise on Scalia for having a brilliant judicial mind. Reid did qualify his statement by saying that he often disagrees with Scalia, but that he has total respect for Scalia's writings.

He also went on to say how Clarence Thomas would be totally unaceptable because Thomas has been a less than brilliant Justice.

I don't have the text of the interview, but I think that many would be surprised to the degree with which Reid praised Scalia. And many would be surprised to the degree with which Reid trashed Thomas.

If Reid's behavior behind the scenes is consistent with his public statements, then I have total respect for him because he is classically liberal.

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

My guess is it would ost likely be either a Stevens court or an O'Connor court. My guess is either of those justices are likely to try and stick out a Bush presidency to limit his chances of appointing anymore Scalias or Rehnquists to the bench. And both have written some good opinions on cases I have read. But then again, so have Souter and Kennedy.

[valkyrie]

It says nothing in the Constitution about Scalia being Chief Justice. Enough said.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by valkyrie
It says nothing in the Constitution about Scalia being Chief Justice. Enough said.

BWAHAHA. If Scalia became CJ I'd like him to do it RIGHT NOW because then when I'm in law school they can eliminate lots of pesky classes like Evidence and we won't have to bother learning about Miranda rights or anything.

Here's a CNN article about it

[OtterXO]

Originally posted by valkyrie
It says nothing in the Constitution about Scalia being Chief Justice. Enough said.

hhaahahahahaha....omg i just laughed out loud at that! Yes, if we are strictly adhering to the text of the constitution, no Scalia...and if people don't like it they should use the benefits of the legislature to pass a law which would allow Scalia to be chief justice...haha

[kddani]

No doubt that Scalia has a brilliant mind when it comes to the law. He wouldn't have made it to where he is without it.

However, he uses his brilliance to twist the constitution and previous decisions to contort to his own personal beliefs, which is what a justice is NOT supposed to do. Yes, they all do it in some way, because it's impossible not to. But his is excessive, and obvious. For instance, his dissent in the case overruling the Texas anti-sodomy laws actually made me laugh out loud at how biased and twisted it was.

I don't know if i've ever read anything of his that was neutral and objective.

[GeekyPenguin]

"The dissent confidently asserts that the purpose of restricting nudity in public places in general is to protect nonconsenting parties from offense; and argues that since only consenting, admission-paying patrons see respondents dance, that purpose cannot apply and the only remaining purpose must relate to the communicative elements of the performance. Perhaps the dissenters believe that "offense to others" ought to be the only reason for restricting nudity in public places generally, but there is no basis for thinking that our society has ever shared that Thoreauvian "you-may-do-what-you-like-so-long-as-it-does-not-injure-someone-else" beau ideal -- much less for thinking that it was written into the Constitution. The purpose of Indiana's nudity law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into the Hoosier Dome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd. Our society prohibits, and all human societies have prohibited, certain activities not because they harm others but because they are considered immoral. In American society, such prohibitions have included, for example, sadomasochism, cockfighting, bestiality, suicide, drug use, prostitution, and sodomy. While there may be great diversity of view on whether various of these prohibitions should exist (though I have found few ready to abandon, in principle, all of them), there is no doubt that, absent specific constitutional protection for the conduct involved, the Constitution does not prohibit them simply because they regulate "morality." The purpose of the Indiana statute, as both its text and the manner of its enforcement demonstrate, is to enforce the traditional moral belief that people should not expose their private parts indiscriminately, regardless of whether those who see them are disedified. Since that is so, the dissent has no basis for positing that, where only thoroughly edified adults are present, the purpose must be repression of communication."

This is my favorite Scalia passage. Name that case!

[kddani]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
"The dissent confidently asserts that the purpose of restricting nudity in public places in general is to protect nonconsenting parties from offense; and argues that since only consenting, admission-paying patrons see respondents dance, that purpose cannot apply and the only remaining purpose must relate to the communicative elements of the performance. Perhaps the dissenters believe that "offense to others" ought to be the only reason for restricting nudity in public places generally, but there is no basis for thinking that our society has ever shared that Thoreauvian "you-may-do-what-you-like-so-long-as-it-does-not-injure-someone-else" beau ideal -- much less for thinking that it was written into the Constitution. The purpose of Indiana's nudity law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into the Hoosier Dome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd. Our society prohibits, and all human societies have prohibited, certain activities not because they harm others but because they are considered immoral. In American society, such prohibitions have included, for example, sadomasochism, cockfighting, bestiality, suicide, drug use, prostitution, and sodomy. While there may be great diversity of view on whether various of these prohibitions should exist (though I have found few ready to abandon, in principle, all of them), there is no doubt that, absent specific constitutional protection for the conduct involved, the Constitution does not prohibit them simply because they regulate "morality." The purpose of the Indiana statute, as both its text and the manner of its enforcement demonstrate, is to enforce the traditional moral belief that people should not expose their private parts indiscriminately, regardless of whether those who see them are disedified. Since that is so, the dissent has no basis for positing that, where only thoroughly edified adults are present, the purpose must be repression of communication."

This is my favorite Scalia passage. Name that case!

That would be Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991)

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by kddani
That would be Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991)

I think Rehnquist is even better in that case.

[ZTAngel]

Originally posted by valkyrie
It says nothing in the Constitution about Scalia being Chief Justice. Enough said.

<snicker>

It would be nice to see John Paul Stevens as Chief Justice but I doubt since he's probably going to retire in the next few years (but hopefully not before Bush's presidency is over!).

[KSig RC]

this seemed oddly appropriate