HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The abject hypocrisy of A...

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:15 AM

The abject hypocrisy of Antonin Scalia ...

For incontrovertible proof one need look no farther than his disparate conclusions regarding two landmark cases decided by the court this week. In a sputtering, frothing-at-the-mouth dissent from the decision striking down three fourths of Arizona's anti-immigrant statute, Scalia railed that Arizona must be given all the deference accorded to a sovereign nation in any attempt to protect its border. Contrast that with his opinion ISSUED ON THE SAME DAY, wherein he held that Montana's century-old law prohibiting corporate contributions to political campaigns could not be allowed to stand.
So there you have it; if Fat Tony agrees with a state's position, then they must be viewed as a sovereign nation-state and accorded all the rights associated thereto. If, however, Scalia disagrees with a state's finding, then that state should be viewed as inconsequential, and will be afforded the back of his pudgy little hand.

It is hard to put into words how much I truly despise that smug, smirking, faux-intellectual hypocrite.

35 replies, 5141 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply The abject hypocrisy of Antonin Scalia ... (Original post)
11 Bravo Jun 2012 OP
madrchsod Jun 2012 #1
dark forest Jun 2012 #13
malaise Jun 2012 #2
spanone Jun 2012 #3
dark forest Jun 2012 #14
SunSeeker Jun 2012 #28
99Forever Jun 2012 #4
TahitiNut Jun 2012 #34
Animal Chin Jun 2012 #5
Raster Jun 2012 #7
Whiskeytide Jun 2012 #9
olegramps Jun 2012 #18
DearAbby Jun 2012 #6
66 dmhlt Jun 2012 #8
treestar Jun 2012 #10
leftyohiolib Jun 2012 #11
Baitball Blogger Jun 2012 #12
Alcibiades Jun 2012 #15
Baitball Blogger Jun 2012 #17
BlueMTexpat Jun 2012 #31
pa28 Jun 2012 #25
11 Bravo Jun 2012 #27
FreeBC Jun 2012 #16
ashling Jun 2012 #19
Shagman Jun 2012 #20
evilhime Jun 2012 #21
Spazito Jun 2012 #22
Smilo Jun 2012 #23
Blue Owl Jun 2012 #24
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #26
SunSeeker Jun 2012 #29
clang1 Jun 2012 #30
RainDog Jun 2012 #32
PA Democrat Jun 2012 #33
butterfly77 Jun 2012 #35

Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:42 AM

1. it`s not hypocrisy ...

his ruling in montana and arizona was paid for

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madrchsod (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:22 AM

13. How does

that make it not hypocrisy? Are the two mutually exclusive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:53 AM

2. +1,000

Rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:01 AM

3. he's an embarrassment to judges and human beings

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:23 AM

14. An interesting distinction

One that I have long felt was valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dark forest (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:30 PM

28. LOL I see you've spent some time in the courtroom. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:18 AM

4. A real piece of __________.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 08:00 AM

34. ... elephant dung.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:37 AM

5. Kangaroo Court

If I had justified a position in law school using Scalia's Arizona arguments (state historically excluding "freed slaves" from its borders, among others), I would undoubtedly be given an F.

Is there any doubt that Scalia would have had no objection to the "individual mandate" if it had passed in 1993 when it was proposed by Republicans (at the time the Constitutionality of the concept was not in question)? I think not. Scalia (and I fear this is true for the remaining 8 justices as well, save perhaps Kennedy) does not interpret the law; he finds an argument that supports his party's position.

It's a shame because the independence under which the founders intended the Supreme Court to operate is dead, and that makes the Court pretty worthless. All of the Justices should be ashamed of themselves for becoming part of a Court whose decisions are predictable along party lines with a margin of error of one judge. It's the lowest quality jurisprudence and as a lawyer, it saddend and sickens me that this is what has become of an institution I used to hold in such high regard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Animal Chin (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:44 AM

7. Welcome to DU, Kangaroo Cout!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Animal Chin (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:54 AM

9. I share your sentiments as a lawyer myself.

I think it has always been a political body to some extent, but this court has taken it to a new level. They don't really even try to hide their partisanship. I think the power of big $ has made them arrogant and brazen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Animal Chin (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:52 AM

18. Perhaps its time to amend the Constitution to strike down life time appointments.

It is my opinion that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned that the Supreme Court and Federal Courts appointees could be this corrupted by politics and it is past time to revisit these issues. Perhaps we should also look at expanding the Supreme Court from nine justices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:38 AM

6. I noticed that as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:49 AM

8. Scalia Is JUST LIKE Limbaugh ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:55 AM

10. He is so political

He talks in right wing political talking points, not legal ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:02 AM

11. he has tenure so he doesnt have to care. scotus is a monopoly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:04 AM

12. Oh my God. Scalia is a sovereigntist.

Why, oh, why don't people vet these things out BEFORE these asshats get on the bench.

State's rights is really a bad idea for a federal judge, because within states, the power is being chipped away by corrupt local government where feudal systems really are in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:29 AM

15. He only believes in states' rights when

they support the GOP agenda. If a state tries to institute a policy at odds with his preferred outcome, then it's the court that is suddenly sovereign and supreme.

Note also that the Montana ruling was a summary dismissal. A summary dismissal to find a 102 year-old law unconstitutional. Note, too, that immigration is and always has been (under our current constitution anyway) a federal matter, whereas the administration of elections has always been a perogative of the states.

No doubt the Montana case was summarily dismissed because Scalia and the other right-wing bretheren simply found the task of explaining why this pair of rulings contradicts the entire tradition of consitutional law in the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alcibiades (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:44 AM

17. Montana should have the right to decide campaign funding that involves state and local offices.

If Scalia were consistent, he would limit judgment to federal campaigns. (We'll have to deal with that in another way)

On the other hand, the issue of immigration is very much a federal issue because of the crossing border situation.

In simple terms, that's how I see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baitball Blogger (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 04:34 AM

31. I totally concur. Scalia was wrong on both counts as well as being a bought-and-paid-for hypocrite

I was born in MT and was raised there. I still have a lot of close family members there.

While we had a lot of Tea Party types even back in the sixties (primarily JBSers - and I'll never forget how such scumbags gloated and cheered when JFK was assassinated - precursors of the truly nasties who have now been "mainstreamed" and who hold WAY too much power today), there are still a lot of good people there. Most of them know a heck of a lot more about Constitutional law than Scalia does.

"Fat Tony" needs to go. Now.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alcibiades (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 04:46 PM

25. This is why you can never let a Republican drone on about states rights

or activist judges.

These people re-define hypocrisy and somehow they can't see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pa28 (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:39 PM

27. Oh, they can see it. They just hope that we can't.

That's why I will continue to point it out at every opportunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:30 AM

16. I think he craves attention

 

And we have no choice but to give it to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:56 AM

19. Sooner or later he is going to choke on his own hate

Heimlich anyone? Bueler? Bueler?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:03 AM

20. Impeach him before he rules again! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:15 AM

21. Thanks for putting into words

what I have been thinking for the last day or so . . . as they said this morning on Stephanie Miller (paraphrasing) . . . he goes home at night, drinks beer while shouting at MSNBC. And the media doesn't talk about this being partisan forget just wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:55 AM

22. Yep, abject hypocrisy is the best description...

blatant and disgusting hypocrisy in full view.

Recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 12:05 PM

23. Scalia

is a true scumbag - ethics and morality have no place in his, or Justice Thomas, way of ruling.

http://www.change.org/petitions/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-apologize-for-using-slavery-as-legal-precedent-for-arizona-immigration-laws

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 01:43 PM

24. Scalia is an absolute disgrace to democracy and justice

If this is how you serve your country, then you can eat shit and die, your honor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 05:11 PM

26. Confederate thinking

Seriously, that's exactly the sort of thinking cited by South Carolina in their articles of Secession. They declared their right to self-determination as an independent state with the exact same breath they blasted the federal government for allowing non-slave states to do the same.

Equal for me, but not for thee, in other words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:33 PM

29. Scalia has no legal philosophy.

He just has a right wing political philosophy and uses that to determine how he will rule on cases. Then he turns to one of his Ivy League law clerks to find him legal support for the conclusion he wants to make. And legal precedent is much like the Bible. You can find a quote to justify anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 02:33 AM

30. He is not hypocritical at all

 

he is good at what he does is all. Understand the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 04:35 AM

32. k&r n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 07:23 AM

33. He also did not respect the sovereignty of the state of Florida

when he and the other Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse overturned the Florida Supreme Court's ruling to recount ballots and appoint George W. Bush president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 11 Bravo (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 08:00 AM

35. K&R..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread