Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why did not Scalia attend the new Chief coronation? Can he be

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:53 AM
Original message
Why did not Scalia attend the new Chief coronation? Can he be
any more transparent? Even the SCOTUS is turning into a freaking soap opera.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Zen Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Scalia is soooo in a snit. Being chief justice was his wet dream.
And I think he would have had it -- except for Bush's 40% approval rating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. What was his official excuse?
Did he have to like wash his hair?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zen Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. He had a previous "speaking engagement."
How transparent can it be??? It's been known for a while that the vote would be this Thursday -- and swearing in the same day. Everyone was there except Scalia. For the swearing in of the Chief Justice, you'd think he could postpone his "speaking engagement."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. I hadn't heard. What's the rumor? He's angry he's not Chief Justice?
I wonder if he understands now the difference between being hired help and being one of them. He rigs an election for Bush, Bush passes him over. No loyalty for the help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wanpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. that's the one shining star in this whole scotus thing. Scalia made
shrub president. shrubster repays him by overlooking him for cj. how ironic, yet typical for this misadministration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. As soon as I heard Shrub named Roberts, I knew Scalia would
be really pissed! He has been a Pub supporter for a long time and I'm sure his close friendship with Cheney make him think he was a shoe-in for the job.

I think it's pretty funny that he decided to stay away from the swearing in though. What a great way to start of the relationship with the new guy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. nah-too afraid his erection would be noticeable under the robe n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. He also hid Cheney's Energy Papers. Another huge 'favor'..he's GOT to be
pissed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Hey, maybe Delay's case or Fitzgerald's investigation will make it
to SCOTUS. Wonder how Scalia's two votes will go, then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dhinojosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. Would it be cool, that he votes liberal in every issue from now on just...
to get back at Roberts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV Whino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Dream on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ms liberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
11. I hope he's so pissed he never gets over it...
I hope it knaws at him every day of his miserable life.

This is the man who called the Bill of Rights "an afterthought".

This is the man who considered * more deserving of equal treatment than either Al Gore or We the People.

This is the man who violated the Constitution for partisan politics.

I have nothing but disgust and contempt for him, and I wish for him all the misery his decisions have given all of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
12. On what grounds did the other justices get bypassed anyway?
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 12:30 PM by rocknation
Obviously neither seniority NOR tenure have anything to do with it. What extra powers would he have? Are the other justices ready to sabotage him?

:shrug:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoilinfor2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I was wondering that too.
I always thought seniority trumped, but I guess that's not the case. I wonder why others were chosen for that honor in the past. Guess I'll try googling it, but if anyone knows, please educate me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. There's no strong history of Chief Justices being chosen from the SC
I don't have the link handy to share the number of Chief's selected from within but it's small. Most Chief Justices in our history have been chosen from outside the SCOTUS. So, traditionally, it hasn't been a "promotion".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. The Chief gets to pick the agenda in many ways. His clerks prepare
the briefs, so he puts his bias into the case before it is even studied by others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
14. Could you blame Fat Tony for being pissed?
He (like many of us) probably assumed the Chief Justice gig was his after Rehnquist kicked the bucket. If I had served these thugs for 20 years and got snubbed like that, I'd be pissed too.

I don't think this will cause Fat Tony to convert to Liberalism though. It would be easier to sell air conditioning to penguins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
17. I predict some really nasty concurring decisions wherein
he'll tell Roberts how he got the right answer but his reasoning is abjectly wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
category5 Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
18. If Bush nominates Scalia for CJ, then there would be THREE
hearings...

1. Replace O'Connor
2. Replace Scalia
3. Scalia for CJ

Bush has enough trouble with 2 hearings. He bypassed Scalia to
avoid the third hearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Exactly, plus it was faster.
The hearing for Roberts were already on the calendar. It was an easy thing to convert them to a CJ hearing. So he already has Roberts as CJ, instead of two hearings to go and a crippled court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
category5 Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. personally I am glad Scalia is NOT the CJ....Roberts seems less extreme
but then Soutar turned to be a surprise, so what do I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. I don't think Jr, made the mistake that Sr. did.
41 wanted to be liked and would capitulate to us when the pressure was put on him. 43 doesn't have any give to him, and would rather be defeated fighting than to compromise. He is an absolutist and made sure of his pick befor nominating him. Roberts won't be a Souter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ReadTomPaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Bingo.
He's the anti-Souter.. He's more conservative than he appears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poiuyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
24. Were all the other Justices there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
25. He was having fuzzy-headed monkey sex. He's in a snit too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little-Jen Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
26. Wouldn't it be funny if Scalia is so pissed
that he retires? Personally, I thought Bush was gonna pick Thomas for CJ, and when he chose Roberts it surprised me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC