HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Scalia on Obama: 'What ca...

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:15 PM

Scalia on Obama: 'What can he do to me?'

Source: Politico

Scalia on Obama: 'What can he do to me?'


Comments (135) By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 7/29/12 10:29 AM EDT
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday said he did not “view it as a threat” when President Barack Obama in April predicted his signature healthcare overhaul “will be upheld because it should be upheld” and that anything less would constitute “judicial activism” by the high court.

Scalia conceded in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday" that Obama’s forceful comments on a pending Supreme Court case were “unusual, but as I say I don’t criticize the president publicly. And he normally doesn’t criticize me.”

But when host Chris Wallace pressed, asking whether Scalia, who in June sided with a minority seeking to overturn the law, felt “any pressure as a result of that to vote a certain way,” Scalia laughed.

“No. What can he do to me? Or to any of us?” the justice responded. “We have life tenure. And we have it precisely so that we will not be influenced by politics, by threats from anybody.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/07/scalia-on-obama-what-can-he-do-to-me-130389.html

55 replies, 13239 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 55 replies Author Time Post
Reply Scalia on Obama: 'What can he do to me?' (Original post)
kpete Jul 2012 OP
sakabatou Jul 2012 #1
Roland99 Jul 2012 #40
sakabatou Jul 2012 #44
Panasonic Jul 2012 #2
AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #14
1monster Jul 2012 #15
cstanleytech Jul 2012 #16
1monster Jul 2012 #22
Dustlawyer Jul 2012 #38
1monster Jul 2012 #41
samsingh Jul 2012 #3
jberryhill Jul 2012 #28
awoke_in_2003 Jul 2012 #29
Occulus Jul 2012 #30
jberryhill Jul 2012 #31
samsingh Jul 2012 #43
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #46
PatrynXX Jul 2012 #4
savalez Jul 2012 #5
cstanleytech Jul 2012 #17
tularetom Jul 2012 #6
Enrique Jul 2012 #7
Bozita Jul 2012 #8
thesquanderer Jul 2012 #9
DRoseDARs Jul 2012 #10
Joe Bacon Jul 2012 #20
onenote Jul 2012 #53
progressivebydesign Jul 2012 #11
pennylane100 Jul 2012 #12
Botany Jul 2012 #13
cstanleytech Jul 2012 #18
crimson77 Jul 2012 #21
crimson77 Jul 2012 #23
wordpix Jul 2012 #52
The Wizard Jul 2012 #19
BE10sCoach Jul 2012 #24
Fozzledick Jul 2012 #25
Kablooie Jul 2012 #26
DRoseDARs Jul 2012 #32
Kablooie Jul 2012 #33
former9thward Jul 2012 #45
Kablooie Jul 2012 #47
former9thward Jul 2012 #48
SoapBox Jul 2012 #27
Firebrand Gary Jul 2012 #34
Fearless Jul 2012 #35
aquart Jul 2012 #36
former9thward Jul 2012 #50
aquart Jul 2012 #51
former9thward Jul 2012 #55
Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2012 #37
CarmanK Jul 2012 #39
CrispyQ Jul 2012 #42
Paladin Jul 2012 #49
Ter Jul 2012 #54

Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:18 PM

1. Where's my clue-by-four?

He's such a douchebag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sakabatou (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:59 AM

40. ha...that's a good one

never heard "clue-by-four" before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Roland99 (Reply #40)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:46 PM

44. It's a much more powerful weapon than the clue-bat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:19 PM

2. How about legislation forcing morons like Scalia a 10 year term.

 

His term is already up. Way past up.

He needs to go see the solitary confinenment and make himself comfortable there and stay there permanently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:37 PM

14. You mean a ratified constitutional amendment?

How are you going to rally enough states for that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Panasonic (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:38 PM

15. Only by Constitutional amendment. On that Scalia is correct. Supreme Court Justices

were given life time tenure to buffer them against the slings and arrows of outrageous politics.

However, since Scalia and his faithful henchman Thomas (among others) are already playing with outrageous politcis, perhaps they should be reminded that they can be impeached...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:46 PM

16. Can be sure but likely to be? Nope, I dont see it happening.

I mean heck Thomas wasnt impeached for his failure to report his wifes income.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:06 PM

22. Sigh. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1monster (Reply #15)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:05 AM

38. If they were given life tenure to buffer them against the slings and arrows of outrageous politics,

Then they should not be permitted speaking fees, travel costs etc., to speak in front of crooked, corpratists espousing the right to purchase our government!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #38)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:41 AM

41. Were lecture tours big in the late 18th Century? Doubt if the idea even occurred to the

framers of the the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:19 PM

3. life time tenure should go first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:58 AM

28. Uh, no, it is that way for the reason stated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:53 AM

29. Yep...

 

if you want better justices, elect better presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 02:02 AM

30. That reason is obviously no longer valid.

Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts are all as political as they come. They aren't merely influenced by politics- they're compromised. Or operatives. Or both.

Limit the SCOTUS to three Presidential terms and then bar them, by Amendment, from any other form of employment with the government at any level, right down to dog catcher. NO position in our government should have life tenure. None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 02:05 AM

31. I see, and for whom might they work after that?

Yes, those justices are overtly political. That would not be a first.

But the prospect of picking up a plum position post-service also causes problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #31)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:28 PM

43. the republicans and their interests. Companies that support republicans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:43 PM

46. To be reinstated every 4-8 years when the political situation changes

 

remember "what goes around . . . "

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:20 PM

4. the guys a joke

what threats. yes political pressure they give into that all the time...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:23 PM

5. Do you really think Scalia is "not be influenced by politics"?

I'm pretty sure I've heard him parrot a few RW talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:48 PM

17. No, not parroting. More like he is the dummy in a ventriloquist act and he has a hand shoved right

up inside his ass controlling what he says and does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:32 PM

6. Drones

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:35 PM

7. I ask the same thing every time I hear that ridiculous accusation

the RW is saying Obama is threatening the conservative judges. I say wtf can you possibly mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:37 PM

8. Fuck Fat Tony! ... n/m

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:41 PM

9. Send in the drones.

If that case ever gets to the Supreme Court, Scalia might be wise to declare unconstitutional a President's ability to unilaterally decide to send a drone after an American citizen. Otherwise, the answer to "what can he do to me" could be pretty deadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 09:43 PM

10. What can the President do to you? Constitutionally, nothing... except ask Congress to impeach you.

That in-and-of-itself is a long-shot, but your abuses of the bench certainly warrant in. The legal case can easily be made to have you removed. You should be grateful the bar had been set so high after Presidents Washington and Jefferson both attempted to have a USSC justice impeached.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:02 PM

20. OH there is something Obama CAN do.

Obama and the Congress can simply pay Scalia's salary, and then pay for nothing else. No clerks, no office supplies, not even toilet paper for Scalia to wipe his ass with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe Bacon (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 11:37 PM

53. Not Constitutionally

Leaving aside that the chances of what you suggest happening are absolutely zero, even if it did happen it wouldn't be Constitutional. Congress cannot pass a law that singles out one Justice out of nine for unequal treatment, particularly where the basis for doing so was designed either to muzzle Scalia's speech or to influence his judicial decisionmaking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:02 PM

11. WTH is a Supreme Court Justice doing on Fox "news" that is not a news channel in the least.

He is the most political of all of them, and he has the nerve to say that he's got a lifetime appointment so that he won't be interfered with by politics??? OMG the irony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:15 PM

12. So he is only worried about the legal consequences of being a complete douchbag.

Well, let us hope that is all he has to worry about. There are a lot of people out there just as evil as he is and because they do not own the courts, they may have to use their imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:28 PM

13. Scalia is 76

Kennedy is 76

Thomas is a very old 64

Roberts is 57 but he has health issues

*******

Scalia's fall is only a matter of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:49 PM

18. Hopefully that time will be when a democrat holds the whitehouse and or the dems

hold a true majority control over both the senate and congress when it happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:04 PM

21. Sotomayor has Diabetes, Clarence Thomas is Fit as a fiddle can you believe it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #13)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:06 PM

23. I know plenty of Italian who looks a hundres times worse then him

 

and they live til their 90's, Scalia doesn't exactly have the most hectic work scedule either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 09:33 PM

52. he's very fat, too, looks like he eats way too much animal fat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:56 PM

19. Nino The Fixer

as he was known in the Nixon White House is a political hack who never distinguished himself as a lawyer. When one SC justice has the power to stop an election recount to reach a political end that's as political as it gets. He belongs in an orange jump suit. Fux News isn't a political propaganda outlet. Yeah right. Possibly the most corrupt Supreme Court Justice in history. A scaffold and a head hood are appropriate for this scumbag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 11:10 PM

24. Scalia

Antonin Scalia is a piece of shit, enough said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:15 AM

25. Scalia sounds like an "enemy combatant" to me.

Perhaps Obama should give him a lesson in the powers of the "unitary executive" that he's already declared to be legal.

Personally, I'd be happy to let a Grand Jury examine the facts of his felonious abuse of judicial authority to tamper with a federal election by illegally obstructing the vote count in Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:25 AM

26. But he's right. He's immune from any kind of consequences from anyone.

He's completely free to be as big an asshole as he wants and remain totally untouchable by politics or the law.

That's the way it was set up and continues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #26)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 02:13 AM

32. You might want to brush up on your USC, your statement is misguided.

Article I, Section 3 of the USC grants Congress the power to impeach Judiciary and Executive branch officials. Article II, Section 4 lays out the guideline for what is considered impeachable offenses. This power has been brought to bear on both presidents and USSC justices. All we lack is a simple majority vote to impeach in the House and a super majority (2/3rds) vote to impeach in the Senate. He's not untouchable, but it's a high bar we're not likely to hurdle. However, speaking false assertions isn't helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 02:56 AM

33. You got me. I tend towards hyperbole I'm afraid.

High crimes and misdemeanors of course, if they can be defined, could lead to impeachment.
Committing a crime and I suppose mental incompetency, though I didn't see it mentioned, would lead to impeachment.

But it's nearly impossible to impeach him on his legal decisions unless they could be proven to be aiding and abetting an enemy. (A high crime, I'd assume.)

Maybe we could define the GOP as an enemy of the state and take it from there. Heh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 01:39 PM

45. Mental incompetency is not used for impeachment.

Justice William Douglas, a great civil liberties justice, became mentally incompetent near the end of his life. He wrote an opinion asserting trees could sue people. His fellow justices, liberal and conservative, decided to wait for him to die and they postponed cases where Douglas' vote might make the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #45)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:14 PM

47. That's strange.

I guess impeachment isn't really the correct way to deal with a justice who becomes mentally incompetent because it implies conscious outlawed behavior which is not this case.

I guess they could try to convince him to retire but it's strange there isn't any mechanism for replacing a mentally ill judge.
Maybe they thought that it is such a vaguely defined malady that it could be misused as a political move to unseat a judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #47)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:17 PM

48. The standard for impeachment is defined in the Constitution.

"High crimes and misdemeanors". Mental issues are not crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 12:43 AM

27. ...such an arrogant ass.

Nuts...just - plain - nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 02:56 AM

34. Judges have forgotten that they answer to the people. It's problematic and needs to be resolved. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 04:13 AM

35. If he were a Republican I would say federal investigation using tax dollars

To obstruct him from doing his job...

Since the president is a Democrat, I would assume we'll get Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to shine a light on his stupidity for the next twenty years or so. Maybe not as quick, but certainly more satisfying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 04:53 AM

36. Obama, no. John Roberts can make your life hell if he feels like it, Tony.

I'm hoping he does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #36)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:22 PM

50. I'm curious.

What do you think a Chief Justice can do to an Associate Justice to make their life "hell"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #50)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:43 PM

51. I would think this:

"If the Chief Justice votes with the majority in a case decided by the Supreme Court, he or she may choose to write the Court's opinion, or to assign the task to one of the Associate Justices."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #51)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:25 PM

55. I'm not sure why you consider that "hell".

Justices want to write opinions. They go into case law reference books that are studied by thousands of law students. The opinions are used by thousands of judges for precedent in their decisions. You don't go on the SC if you don't like to write or see your name in print. In practice opinions are divided pretty much evenly among the nine justices during the term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 05:49 AM

37. On the subject of hair dye....

 

[img][/img]

Pick a color dude! And do the roots before the next interview.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 07:52 AM

39. Scalia's brain is clouded by advancing dementia. He needs to retire !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 10:25 AM

42. Scalia is a shit stain on the Court & exudes some of the worst traits of humanity. -nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Jul 30, 2012, 08:21 PM

49. Remember When Supreme Court Justices Behaved Themselves In Public?

Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:00 AM

54. Well, he's technically right

 

They don't have to worry about pressure from anyone, they are there for life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread