Scalia Pwned by Fordham U students and he's PISSED!

[XOKCowboy]

This is too good. We all know Scalia's public position about privacy laws (he hates them) and he was a staunch supporter of Bush's illegal data collection. Like all good Republicans though it's just OUR privacy he doesn't mind compromising. When it comes to his privacy that's a whole different matter.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/6/721853/-Scalia-Owned-by-Students,-Flips-Out!

Here's where it gets really, really interesting: a Fordham University law professor, apparently unimpressed by Scalia's heaping piles of bullshit, decided that he'd take it directly to the old bastard. Hilarity ensued.

Every year, Fordham University Professor Joel Reidenberg teaches a class on Information Privacy Law. As a demonstration of the widespread availability of information on the Web, he usually asks his students to use free, publicly available tools to find out everything they can about him and compile a fact sheet.

But this year, Reidenberg decided to do something different, and give his students a new challenge:

This year, after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made public comments that seemingly may have questioned the need for more protection of private information, Reidenberg assigned the same project. Except this time Scalia was the subject, the prof explains to the ABA Journal in a telephone interview.

His class turned in a 15-page dossier that included not only Scalia's home address, home phone number and home value, but his food and movie preferences, his wife's personal e-mail address and photos of his grandchildren, reports Above the Law.

And, as Scalia himself made clear in a statement to Above the Law, he isn't happy about the invasion of his privacy.

Like all good Republicans Scalia just blames the messenger and fails to get the point. The dossier collected was never published on the internet or distributed outside the classroom but it still incensed Scalia that they would invade his privacy. WhaddaDick!

[fascisthunter]

1. "...he isn't happy about the invasion of his privacy"

f'n boohoo.... get line asshole!

[peace frog]

6. Shoe's on the other foot, pal

Not fitting too well, is it. WELCOME TO OUR WORLD.

[krispos42]

50. But we have to watch him! Cuz... um... nine-eleven! Terrorism!

He's endangering American lives! Smoking guns! Mushroom clouds! Imagine a Justice in the hands of a terrorist! Pre-9/11 thinking! Support the troops!



:crazy:

[XOKCowboy]

55. Wow you could have worked in the Bush White House!!

Karl couldn't have said it better!

[krispos42]

56. It would have paid better, too....

Ah, well, lost opportunities... :-)

[ashling]

71. 9-11 changed everything else

maybe we need to change the numer of Justices on the Supreme Court from 9 - 11. You know, to help compensate for the InJustices on the Court

[SemperEadem]

125. Ha!

"...he isn't happy about the invasion of his privacy"

Neither are the rest of us...

[lazyriver]

2. First requirement to be a republican/conservative:

You must be a hypocrite.

[Terran]

20. or a clueless idiot. n/t

[bertman]

64. Scalia is neither clueless or an idiot. He is an elitist who thinks that he should be in

charge and we need to sit down and shut the fuck up. He's exceedingly smart and knows exactly what he's doing.

Now, some of the other folks in the party, well, yeah. Clueless idiots.

[XOKCowboy]

65. Yes this is pure hypocrisy

What kills me is that we've been hearing and will hear a lot more about "activist judges" from the RW and this asshat defines an "activist judge". :shrug:

[Terran]

98. I guess I meant he's sort of a moral idiot

He has the morals of a bloated oligarch, the type that usually ends up getting torn apart by an angry mob.

[bertman]

116. I believe that a thorough reading of historical records will show that many more angry

serfs were torn apart by bloated oligarchs than the other way around. Sad to say.

(Not to infer that starting a new trend would be a bad thing.)

[SlingBlade]

120. Yep, Never under estimate them, Never.

[Stellabella]

63. Absolutely.

Then you have to accuse the left of the same thing you are doing. And act all self-righteous about it.

[Enthusiast]

86. +1, Lazyriver. nt

[Echo In Light]

3. K&R

[Blue For You]

4. Home phone is 555-JERK

;-)

[Hannah Bell]

5. love it. now if we could just get his family's medical & credit records, we could auction them off

since scalia thinks it's ok for the proles.

[Mist]

7. Oooh! Fun! Now if one of those students would, I don't know, accidentally post the info

online...

[XOKCowboy]

9. Maybe some entrepreneurial sort will dig up those records...

and post them on the internet. That'd show the bastard how we feel about his imperial presidency rulings.

[ContinentalOp]

38. Or sell the info!

I would pay. Not for the info but just for the principle of it.

[L0oniX]

30. Would you settle for a piece of toast with Scalia's face on it?

[MurrayDelph]

130. That's not what I want them to mean

when they finally get to say "Scalia is toast"!

[Occulus]

68. Do it for charity or something.

Perhaps send the money to the Electronic Frontier Foundation?

"You're a terrible man, Silk."
"Oh, I know."

:evilgrin:

[XOKCowboy]

74. I wish they'd do the same to Cheney..

Now that'd be sweet!

[Gregorian]

8. Scalia's reply sounds more like something you'd see on FR than a SC justice.

That isn't what one would expect from the highest, most honored, court in the land.

Pathetic. Inexcusable.

[Kitty Herder]

53. Well, that's Scalia for ya.

It's a pity he's not the one retiring.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Relax, Antonin! It's no big deal if you have nothing to hide. Right?

[XOKCowboy]

12. In his own words...

"I don't find that particularly offensive," he said. "I don't find it a secret what I buy, unless it's shameful."

[tularetom]

11. I'd like to have seen his fat head turn color when he found out about it

Bet it was even redder than this::mad: Maybe he'll stroke out over it.

Hoist by his own petard (WTF is a petard anyhow)

[Sinistrous]

16. A petard is an explosive device

that was suspended ("hoist") on an A-frame against the gates of castles to breach them.

"Hoist on one's own petard.": Imagine placing an explosive device against a wall or gate, sitting on it and having it explode.

[RaleighNCDUer]

121. It is also medieval slang for a fart -

so 'hoist by his own petard' would be cutting a fart so massive it lifts you out of your chair.

[Sinistrous]

127. That is a bit of a reach.

"Petard" also refers to some types of fireworks, which, of course, pop when set off.

[louis-t]

128. You've been reading Chaucer again....

haven't you? :silly:

[tularetom]

19. Thanks. I've wondered about this my whole life

Well ever since I first heard the phrase anyway.:thumbsup:

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

29. I was asked about petard yesterday and looked it up

it comes from a french word meaning "to break wind", or you know, fart.
I thought that interesting.

[laundry_queen]

82. I always thought that saying

had something to do with that. lol. I know french and I knew the meaning. lmbo. I'm glad to know what it really means now.

[gratuitous]

13. You invited the camel inside the tent, Mr. Scalia

Your complaints about the smell of camel dung aren't going to be heard. And if you cast another execrable vote along the lines of Bush v. Gore, expect more and worse to happen to the country. It's possible that you will get splattered with that, too.

Be careful of the words you write
Make sure they're soft and sweet
You never know when you say goodnight
Which ones you'll have to eat remove from your ass

[XOKCowboy]

18. Schadenfreude is fun sometimes....

Like the diarist said Karma's a bitch.

[WheelWalker]

33. Karma Patrol. Rambo Division.

Stoned Squad.

[Vidar]

14. K&R.

[Cha]

15. It's a disgrace on America that an

old shit like that is on the Supreme Court but I guess he's the highest example of the Peter Principle.

[AnneD]

23. No...that honour goes to Clarence Thomas

hands down :rofl:

[AlbertCat]

46. ***

[Lex]

17. They think the law is for everyone else & they are exempt from it.

"They" being Republicans.

[mayahbird]

105. They not only think it

They are living it right now. No one in the Bush admin is being held for the laws they broke. Why would they not think they are above the law. Well, except the soldiers that are in jail for obeying the orders they were given.

[hvn_nbr_2]

21. The poll at the end of the article in the link is hilarious. nt

[jgraz]

22. His *food* preferences? I want to know.

My guess: Kentucky Fried Kittens.

Whatever it is, I hope it's really really unhealthy and lifespan-shortening.

[SidDithers]

49. Kentucky Fried Kittens!!!...

now that was damn funny :applause:

Sid

[bulloney]

88. Extra crispy or hot 'n spicy?

[Hepburn]

99. With Ranch Dressing for dipping...

...right? :hi:

[Canuckistanian]

24. Scalia should call the authorities and....

...Oh, that's right, there's no law against it.

What a shame.

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. kick for its brilliance

[MasonJar]

26. As the comment indicates, Scalia will not get the point. He's just too dense and

too emblazoned with his own ideology.

[SpiralHawk]

27. Scalia is a typical Republicon Hypocrite

And verily I say unto thee, Republicons are truly the Latter Day Pharisees

[grahamhgreen]

28. LInk to info??? let's give him a call!

[barbtries]

31. typical rightwinger

total fucking hypocrite.

[sonias]

32. Fordham University law students get an A+

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

:kick:

Sonia

[proud patriot]

34. LOL

:rofl: what a cool assignment

[Left Coast2020]

60. How wonderfuly creative. Brilliant.

Almost sounds like I'm writing a movie review destined to win an Oscar. THe assignment should win an Oscar.

[lovuian]

35. Awesome

give him his own medicine

[Arugula Latte]

36. So, so typical. Nobody else matters except these rightwing asshats. nt

[annabanana]

37. Three Cheers for Professor Reidenberg!!!!!. . hip hip

HOORAY!

[tbyg52]

39. Given his views on *other* people's privacy

I think the whole 15 pages ought to be posted on the internet, right now. Sort of like outing anti-gay fundie gay hypocrites.

[nikto]

40. Maybe child-abuse offenses will be uncovered and we can lock him up...

...in a very small cell with a very BIG gang member.

[Jazzgirl]

41. I voted that Scalia routinely had sexual intercouse

with sheep. :evilgrin:

[Raster]

54. Only Opus Dei sheep. Shepherd guarding his flock and all that.

[northofdenali]

42. Whatever Scalia gets, he deserves.

In a way, I hope there is a God - and that I'll be there when Scalia has to face Him.

“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.” - Antonin Scalia

[demwing]

72. I've seen that quote attributed to Fat Tony before

But I just can't believe it. It seems too fucking ignorant to come from such a evil genius.

Can anyone verify the source?

[ProudDad]

78. It's close

Correction: see the following follow up re: this Scalia attributed quote:
Barry Miller: Widely published Scalia quote re: “innocence” is inaccurate. We have to agree. Scalia didn’t really ever say: “Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.”

What Scalia did say was:
“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”

The bottom line being the disgusting SCOTUS decision that resulted in the execution of a probably innocent man in Texas -- they determined that discovering evidence of innocence did not deserve a new trial -- that innocence is NOT a defense against State Murder...

The FUCKS...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

103. *gasp*

at a loss for words...

jeezus h christ, that's evil.

[snake in the grass]

80. After reading your post...

...I googled the quote and the first hit was this Freeper thread. It's a pretty long tract of Scalia's gibberish. One individual wrote: "Justice Scalia demonstrates why his is among the finest legal minds in our country.".

Here's the link for those who dare to go there:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/696464/posts

Freepers always amaze me. They speak of their love of freedom, even going so far as to incorporate the word into their designator. In truth, however, they hate freedom when it's afforded to all individuals and not just to ignorant rectums like themselves. I so agree with Janeane Garofalo that liberals really are the better people. I know that sounds cut and dry and I'm aware that the borders are fluid between the two groups. However, Freeper-types have more of humanity's bad traits than not.

[Raksha]

123. Did he really say that?

Re “Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.” - Antonin Scalia

That's an actual quote from him, and not urban legend?

If so, he's the obvious person to test that principle on. Can anyone think of a capital crime to charge him with?

[northofdenali]

136. According to several Web sources, the quote is accurate.

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/mere_factual_innocence_is_no_reason_not_to_carry/186036.html

even unto the FR, our nemesis:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/696464/posts

To: Caleb1411
I keep seeing this Scalia "quote" all over the net. Can someone tell me if it's bogus netrumor or if not, what the source is? It seems kind of incredible so I figured the Dems made it up.
"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
27 posted on Friday, June 07, 2002 2:38:33 PM by bloggerjohn
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: bloggerjohn
It's not in an opinion. He said it in a speech. And yes, he did say it, and the context doesn't change it.
He meant that if someone is provably factually innocent, then the governor should pardon him, or otherwise take care of it, but there is no procedural mechanism in federal law to stop states from killing innocent people.

It was not Antonin's greatest moment.

As to privacy, he wrote the "thermal imaging" case, which forbids police from using infra-red to scan you in your home. I think that is a big privacy issue, but he couldn't bring himself to agree with the previous justices who had written on it, so he made his own law on it.

Here it is: Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27 (2001)

and another:

http://www.metafilter.com/55625/O-Florida

And the Supreme Court agrees with him. After all, as Scalia so vibrantly put it:

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." (Herrera v. Collins 506 US 390 1993)

If you can tolerate legal-speak, Cornell University has the actual decision at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-7328.ZS.html

[JNelson6563]

43. Absolutely fabulous.

Arrogant asshole.

[santamargarita]

44. What, no credit report and passport data

This old bastard should retire, so President Obama can replace him

[safeinOhio]

133. All of a sudden he

has all kinds of new credit card accounts opened. Yuck, Yuck.

[BlooInBloo]

45. hahahaha!

[sellitman]

47. If Scalia did nothing wrong then he has nothing to worry about.

:kick:

[The Doctor.]

51. Bwhaaahahahahaaaa!

K+R

[tomm2thumbs]

48. priceless!!!!!!!! give that teacher tenure and all his students A's

the best sermon is a good example - maybe he'll think a little now

[Time for change]

52. GET OVER IT Scalia, you worthless piece of crap

[opihimoimoi]

69. K&R :o)

[jonestonesusa]

57. I like it! Thanks for the post.

Turnabout is fair play, Mr. Scalia.

What happened to "I don't mind surveillance, because I have nothing to hide?"

:shrug:

[XOKCowboy]

62. You're welcome. I've never had a post get 96 recs before. Must have struck a nerve.

It seems I'm not the only one who appreciates the irony. :)

[MadMaddie]

58. Scalia has never had to experience the results of any of his

rulings. Good he can whine all he wants....:popcorn:

[nevergiveup]

59. Poor Tony

:-(

[peacetalksforall]

61. I have a fantasy. If Scalia approves of what I call the Poindexter database - the database that

belongs to Republicans to ruin and blackmail Democrats in high places and their enemies at all levels - I would like to see someone like Larry Flynt host a database for the little people. We don't have to know what's in it. But he is one guy I would trust to operate one. What we would get would be ratings.

Flynt and a panel would decide the level of hypocrisy of Scalia or Craig type people and announce their number. The number would be announced when the Scalia types draw attention to themselves by something they say, do, write, attend, or when they critique someone, some entity, some policy or position by saying something outrageous or un-American according to our version of being an American.

The Republicans came up with a no-fly list which means you can't fly if you're on it. And if you are on it you don't even know what you did to get on it.

We can use the Flynt Panel number in response to a Scalia like attempt to be pompously hypocritical. Flynt would announce the number based on data already in the database adjusted by the rating given the incident that caused a new number to be released. We get to shout it, and the Scalia type won't know why they have that number. All they will know is when it goes up or down. A form of potential behavior control. ;o)

Note: It is pathetic that we don't have a Supreme Court Justice that we can respect more than we do him. Possible Illuminati, 2000 Election, hate spewer, right wing facilitator and enabler and an embarassment as well as repulsive. He destroys what we were taught when we were young about the important role of the Chief Justice. We were let down.We were cheated.

[seafan]

66. Bush, 2005: 'I don't want you reading my personal stuff.'

Bush, 2005: 'I don't want you reading my personal stuff.'




And this Constitution-violating, murdering war criminal still walks free.




Neither does Scalia, apparently.


http://www.wnyc.org/blog/lehrer/archives/archive/Scalia,%20Antonin-thumb.jpg

And this criminal made the first one possible.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

75. In this photo

he looks like an entrenched Sicilian pimp. No offense to Sicily.

[Vattel]

67. Scalia was a staunch supporter of Bush's illegal data collection? Link?

[Vattel]

104. Made that one up, then?

[progressoid]

70. Best post I've read today!

edit: maybe the second best. ;)

[Liberal_in_LA]

73. sweet! K&R

[Rex]

76. He has kids and a wife? Really?

I thought they would find out he was a Lizard Man out to steal the souls of the innocent. Imagine my surprise!

[chill_wind]

77. Hahaha! Smoke THAT "Your Honor".Too good! :-)

GOOD for them! That's beautiful. K & R.

[AllTooEasy]

79. the cowards should publish it.

After all, it's via public records. Atleast someone should let it "slip out".

[Norrin Radd]

81. kr

[wial]

83. even their supreme court justices

are reeking morons.

[Enthusiast]

84. K&R, LMAO! nt

[The Wizard]

85. He'd really be pissed off if

he was impeached.

[agentS]

Will he stay on the bench for another 8 years (running out the clock)?

Stay tuned...

But I betcha that Obama has already lined up a person to take that seat on the bench. Knowing our president, it's someone who has an understanding of "actions have consequences".

[shadowknows69]

87. Freaking beautiful

Suck it Scalia!

[Algorem]

89. this means clarence thomas is also pissed

[Zywiec]

90. K&R - My favorite post of the day! n/t

[rasputin1952]

91. It is ALWAYS like that...

I was out w/the dogs last week when a cop pulled up to question me why they were not leashed etc. I got a ticket...whether I deserve said ticket is not the issue...what happened that pissed me off, is that he did a background check on me while he was writing out the ticket. It took a few minutes, and nothing came back, but the idea that this guy could do a background check on me when I did nothing overtly criminal pretty well ticked me off. I asked him if I could do a background check on him, and he looked "astonished". I calmly stated that for all I knew, he abused animals in the past, had financial troubles, was in rehab for drug/alcohol abuse, was under investigation for abusing "suspects" and the like. He was not amused...and began a somewhat "enhanced" defense. I asked him how he thought I felt, being subject to such things because I let my dogs out to pee...he drove away pissed...:evilgrin:

FWIW, I got his name from his name tag, and badge #...did a check on the net...let's just say, I found some "interesting" things. Nothing that would preclude him from being a cop...but he was not "pristine" either.

on edit: My father graduated from Fordham Law School in 1938. What the Law Prof did does not surprise me...:D

[Locrian]

93. it IS always like that

The ones in power love the ability to be able to know everything about you. But god forbid that YOU use it to look at them.

The information really is power. Power over you that you dont have over them. And when they get a taste of it, they go nuts because suddenly you became more "equal".

Yeah. Equality. Who would want THAT?! (sarcasm)

[rasputin1952]

94. I used to laugh at the "I don't have anything to hide" folks...

we had one here when the Patriot Act came under scrutiny. Naturally, i had to look, he had plenty to "hide". From a quick search via Google and the local/state law enforcement:

2 DWI's

3 Domestic Assaults

1 Theft

1 Shoplifting

Posted at Free Republic...:evilgrin:

And the kicker...he had been arrested for bestiality, but the charges were dropped.

I mentioned these to him the next time I saw him, (but kept everything else confidential from the public)...and he looked like I just ripped his soul out and stomped all over it.

We ALL have things we'd rather not be known...Scalia should be exposed for the fraud he is. When we have a judge in the highest court in the land, I want to know if he ever bounced checks, had a misdemeanor or felony in his past, was under investigation for a crime or anything else that may be, at least from my POV, that would make him less than worthy of said office.

I recall a friend i had in the NYPD, a lieutenant, that said the "line between a cop and a criminal is razor thin...both, in order to be good at what they do, have to think like the other."

[BlancheSplanchnik]

108. Awesome! Love your quick thinking!

They are SUCH 3rd grade bullies. Operating on exactly the same premise: We get to stomp on anyone we want, and you can't do a thing about it!

HA!

[Richard Steele]

92. Scalia should suck a candy bar out of my ass and choke on it.

But, until that happens, I'm pretty content with THIS. K&R

[iamjoy]

95. I Think He Has Drugs

I think Scalia has drugs. Let's strip search him to find them. We'll start with outer garments and if we don't have anything, check his underwear because by God, if we've looked every where else, the drugs must be in his underpants. Oh, let's search Breyer too, because you just never know what some folks will stick in their underwear - and it isn't a big deal really, people change at the gym all the time

I know for those of you not familiar with Redding vs Safford, this comes across as :puke: Those of you familiar with the case may already be a little sick.

[cbc5g]

96. He's a RW parasite pretending to be a judge

[happygoluckytoyou]

97. ANY CHANCE WE COULD GET THE REPORT POSTED.... i always like a good read

[Hepburn]

100. Response from the asshole...er...Scalia:

"It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any."

http://nestmannblog.sovereignsociety.com/2009/05/scalia-you-have-no-right-to-privacyand-neither-do-i.html

What a fucking mega pompous POS...and that is one of his good points. Scalia gets nailed on one of his "principles" of law ... and the guy who used the principle to nail him showed poor judgment? GMAFB...!!! Who in the hell made the rulings that resulted in this??? Duh...

[adamuu]

101. brilliant! n/t

[saltpoint]

102. Democracy at work! Can we get an 'Amen' from Brother Tony?

Hello?

Brother Tony?

Where'd Brother Tony go to?

[dgibby]

122. No doubt he's in the dungeon of the Opus De Safe House, flogging himself.

[saltpoint]

137. Hi dgibby. Scalia does seem to have quite a short fuse.

This is one occasion that I'm going to remember for a while.

When the tables turn on these rightwing bullies they simply can't handle it.

[suede1]

106. So many hypocrites, so little time. Hope they don't stop with Scalia.

[happygoluckytoyou]

107. MAYBE SOME OTHER PROFESSOR COULD DO THIS FOR THE OTHER CONSERVATIVE JUDGES... WORTH THE THOUGHT !!!

is there any chance we could get a look at the 15 page report---- my interest runs high

[smoogatz]

109. Give that professor a raise.

Well played, sir.

[montanto]

110. Ha ha!!

[liberal N proud]

111. I love it when fascist have to taste their own medicine and don't like it

:rofl:

[mayahbird]

112. I would like to see them do that to all the "WONDERFUL" Senators

that think that the Bush and Cheney plans were so great and still back them.

[redqueen]

113. Excellent.

I need to thank that professor.

[proReality]

114. I love that he got a taste ot it, BUT...

Let's hope that freedom of the internet issues never go before the S.C. while he's still sitting.

[JPZenger]

115. Same thing happened to Bork - video rentals

The same thing happened to failed Supreme Court nominee Bork in the 1980s. He said there was no right to privacy. So a reporter (I believe Washington Monthly) went to the video rental store near his house and asked for copies of his video rentals, and then published it.

Congress very quickly passed a new law stating that video rental records were private - I guess some of them of were afraid of what might be released (especially the guys from Utah).

[WoodyD]

117. PWNED!

The wingnuts always equate privacy with "having something to hide." It never seems to occur to them that the simplest, most innocent facts about our lives -- what we're reading, what movies we watch, what we had for dinner last night -- are just none of anyone's business.

[Dangerously Amused]

118. Ahahahahaha!!!! Suck on it Scalia, you pretentious and ignorant POS!

[newtothegame]

119. Wow, talk about a misleading headline...

While this is hilarious, and the shit deserves everything he gets, it looks like he really doesn't give two shits. However, the article talks about all the OUTRAGE, and being PISSED OFF, and FLIPPING OUT!!! I realize this is what we WANT to happen, but that doesn't make it fact folks.

[friedgreentomatoes]

124. Is he gonna retire anytime soon? n/t

[femrap]

126. A huge K & R

for this. Scalia...what a lizard, porn freak, sheep fucker, and just a basic turd and waste of human flesh.

I loved this!

Go Fordham Law Students and Professor! :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[Fleshdancer]

129. The stupidity. It BURNS.

WHY do so many people have to be a victim of something to finally understand how serious the situation is?

It doesn't require many brain cells to know that invasions of all type SUCKS! How is this not common sense? I don't have to have my home invaded, my privacy invaded, my country invaded, or my body invaded to know that I DON'T want it to happen. This is not an abstract concept.

:banghead:

[aquart]

131. Next year, do Roberts.

[girl_interrupted]

132. This is my sister's school...I am so proud!

WTG Professor Reidenberg!

[aquart]

135. And so you should be.

[XOKCowboy]

140. No Cheney!!

Maybe we can find out where his secret lair is!

[LiberalLovinLug]

134. One that flew over the Cuckoo's head

Apologies to Sydney Lassick, but not only does Scalia look like Sydney but he reminds me of his character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Irrationally flying off the handle when things don't go his way.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

141. Heh...

[Ilsa]

138. This is from the ABA Journal: "...the class didn't intend to offend Scalia..."

He views the dossier-gathering about a public figure as a legitimate classroom exercise intended to spark discussion about privacy law, and says he and the class didn't intend to offend Scalia. :rofl:

snip

"When there are so few privacy protections for secondary use of personal information, that information can be used in many troubling ways," he writes in an e-mail to the ABA Journal. "A class assignment that illustrates this point is not one of them. Indeed, the very fact that Justice Scalia found it objectionable and felt compelled to comment underscores the value and legitimacy of the exercise."

snip

http://www.abajournal.com/news/fordham_law_class_collects_scalia_info_justice_is_steamed

[Gabi Hayes]

139. anybody have access to the data bases mentioned in this comment at the link?

....if anybody accessed the subscription data bases that charge for personal data, they could have collected a lot more, including his SSN, the state in which he resided when it was issued, every address he has lived at in the last 30 years, the identity of every person who lived at any of those addresses with him, all the same information about each of those people, and a host of other handy little facts (completely adequate, actually, for any criminal looking to steal his identity). Much of this information can only be in these databases because it was sold or otherwise made available by agencies of the federal or state government. If Justice Scalia would like to be able to rule on privacy issues on an informed basis, he should ask to see a test run on him in the public records databases that Lexis/Nexis, Westlaw or Loislaw market to attorneys.