Justice Scalia Tells Law Students ‘Perhaps You Should Revolt’ If Taxes Become Too High

[n2doc]

Source: Think Progress

During an event at the University of Tennessee’s law school on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia suggested to the capacity crowd that perhaps they should revolt against the U.S government if their taxes ever get too high.

During a question and answer part of the event, a student asked Scalia about the constitutionality of a federal income tax. Scalia assured the questioner that the tax was in fact permissible by the constitution, but added that if it ever became too high, “perhaps you should revolt.”

The remark, first reported by the Knoxville News Sentinel, has become a common rhetorical flourish for conservatives nationwide during the Obama presidency.

A state Tea Party chairman in Mississippi called for armed rebellion ahead of Obama’s reelection in 2012, and a Texas Judge told a local news station that he was prepared to join a “civil war” if Obama agreed to sign away U.S sovereignty to the United Nations. Michele Bachmann found herself in hot water in 2009, shortly after Obama took office, for calling upon a violent uprising against Obama, and faced accusations of using treasonous language.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/19/3428747/scalia-taxes-revolt/

[tabasco]

1. Storm the Supreme Court first, motherfuckers

and put criminal Fat Tony in jail first.

[billhicks76]

22. No Doubt

The rethuglicans will get their revolt if Jeb Bush becomes president. Scalia belongs in jail.

[Tom Ripley]

24. +1000

[NYtoBush-Drop Dead]

41. tar and feather

the fat bastard and drag him thru the streetS!

[Initech]

2. Can we please declare him mentally unfit to serve now?

[Stuart G]

3. Something about "treason"

This is so awful. No words to explain...A justice of the Supreme Court talking this way...

[Initech]

4. Yeah seriously how is that not treason?

[onenote]

8. Because the Constitution defines treason specifically

And someone suggesting that if taxes get too high people should "revolt" doesn't come close to meeting the definition. Anymore than it was treason when many of us, in protesting the Vietnam war, carried signs (and sang a certain Beatles' song) about a "revolution."

[Stuart G]

21. In responce to this post..my heading is wrong...(I should not have used "treason" )

Thank You ...onenote for your opinions on this..
.I think you are correct..

I've been wrong on a lot of them...ain't the first, won't be the last....
Stuart G

[brush]

42. It's more accurately called sedition.

And what he said is clearly that — something a SCOTUS justice should know very well to steer clear of.

Is there a way to impeach his ass — and his bootlicker Thomas as well?

[onenote]

46. How many prosecutions for sedition are there?

Hardly any. Why? Because statements like the one Scalia made (or like the ones I made and thousands like me made while protesting the Vietnam war and calling for a revolution) aren't actionable. Not even close. As I've pointed, out Justice William O. Douglas wrote a book in which he made the statement that "where grievances pile high and most of the elected spokesmen represent the Establishment, violence may be the only effective response."

Repubs led by Gerald Ford wanted to impeach Douglas over that statement (and other trumped up crap). Thinking people realized it wasn't actionable.

[brush]

47. Perhaps, but it's still sedition — and from a Supreme Court justice

Not good. It's about time for him to retire to the old racists home.

[onenote]

48. It is no more sedition as that term is understood in US law

than the statement I quoted from Douglas, or the statements thousands of us made during the Vietnam War, or quite a few statements made by DUers in this thread.

You want to believe its sedition because it is Scalia. Just like the repubs wanted to believe that what Douglas said was seditious because it was made by Douglas. But neither statement was seditious as a matter of law and repeatedly claiming otherwise (at least as to Scalia while ignoring other statements that are no more or less "seditious" won't change the law. Speech alone hardly ever can amount to sedition. It needs to be accompanied by some sort of act or otherwise has to actually incite.

And if you can find a case that says that the law of sedition applies differently to a Supreme Court justice than to a member of DU, i'd be interested in seeing it.

[brush]

54. You have a point . . .

it may not be actionable but to me it stills fits the dictionary definition of sedition, as does Douglas'.

As a citizen I certainly feel a judge from the highest court should be more careful as to what comes out of his mouth — this incendiary statement as well as his racist remark about "racial entitlements".

[Scairp]

50. I was thinking exactly the same thing

This isn't what you should hear from a member of the Supreme Court. He is advocating open revolt against our government and if an ordinary citizen had said this I think they would be getting a visit from the FBI. He is bonkers. And exactly is how high is "too high" for federal taxes, at which point it would be ok for anyone to take up arms against the government? Scalia belongs in a rubber room not the highest court in the land. Freak.

[former9thward]

52. No, an ordinary citizen would not be getting a visit from the FBI

One, it is not illegal. Two, you can find thousands of similar comments on the internet everyday. Three, it was a sarcastic remark.

[Scairp]

71. Ok how about a Supreme Court justice?

It seems many others agree with me that he is suggesting sedition, encouraging it even. I still don't know how high is "too high" for federal taxes in which citizens should then begin to "revolt", whatever that means. The point is he's crazy and has no business running traffic court let alone the highest in the land. He should be committed asap.

[former9thward]

73. "many others agree with me that he is suggesting sedition, encouraging it even."

Yes many, like you, don't know the law. I don't say someone is "crazy" simply because I disagree with them politically. That is juvenile.

[Scairp]

74. What is your problem?

Are you seeking out certain people to dump on, trying to make them feel stupid? I never claimed to be an attorney and why you keep defending this wacko's comments is a mystery to me. His statements cross the line from merely "political" to incitement, attempting to stir up open revolt against the federal government. What if some fringe group takes his statements to heart and goes into action? He's a bomb thrower with heft and that makes him very dangerous. He is also crazy and I really don't give a shit what you think is juvenile, he is mentally unbalanced IMO, and it has nothing to do with his politics, which happen to also be unbalanced. So you can cease busting my chops now.

[former9thward]

77. If you don't like to see people disagreeing you on with some point on a discussion board ....

use the ignore feature. That is what it is there for.

[Scairp]

80. You have a nice rock somewhere, right?

Crawl back under it. And take Scalia with you, you two are such buddies.

[MissMillie]

51. dumb turd

Taxes are at a 60 year LOW!!!!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

6. Lawyers are already revolting.

[Swede Atlanta]

7. He should resign now....

A sitting Justice needs to give great deference to the political process.

This goon and I mean goon in the mold of the Italian mafia is a disgrace. I would say the same if he was in the mold of the KKK, etc. so this is NOT a racial attack but rather a recognition that he is behaving much like others that share his ethnicity.

A judge or, especially a Justice, is to refrain from engaging in speech or actions that are intended to be political or may have the appearance of being political. We know after Bush v. Gore that many on the current Court have little respect for this precedent or this mandate.

One cannot have an independent judiciary if the members engage in public, political speech.

Both Scalia and Thomas should resign or be removed for cause. Unfortunately we will likely have to wait until age does its work and they are no longer able to serve.

[onenote]

14. Nonsense

Becoming a Supreme Court justice does not mean sacrificing one's right to have and express opinions on matters of public policy. William O. Douglas, one of the greatest justices in history, made no secret of his opposition to the Vietnam War. As far back as the 1950s he publicly argued that the US should recognize the People's Republic of China. There were those that attacked Douglas for speaking out. I would hate to think that anyone at DU would have been among that crowd.

[Botany]

9. Why does he still have a job?

Urging treason and law breaking to future officers of the court.
The man acts like he is above the law. We and the world are still
dealing w/ the results of bush v Gore and yet he still keeps going
on and on. @ 78 we can always hope that his days as a judge are
numbered.

[colsohlibgal]

10. Scalia Does Not Belong On The Supreme Court

Nor does Clarence Thomas.

In the issue of "The Nation" I just got in the mail they highlighted up front the famous 1971 Lewis Powell memo and his recipe for turning the US hard right to a plutocracy. Powell specifically names the Supreme Court as an instrument that may be key in that regard. Unfortunately he was correct.

It's going to be quite hard to get it all turned around back to an actual democracy that serves the populist majority.

[YOHABLO]

11. We really need to take the house and senate .. and the pres. then start impeachment proceedings

[exboyfil]

12. Keep rolling Scalia

and you will be mentioned with Taney and McReynolds in 50 years. What a legacy.

[warrant46]

28. Ah yes Great Libertarian Taney

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney,

Who wrote the majority opinion On March 6, 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court issued it’s controversial decision on Scott v. Sandford

“In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument...They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

A Chief Justice whose Name will live Forever in Infamy

[Dawson Leery]

13. A few jackals training on monkey bars in Afghanistan are no where

near the threat to us as Scalia and his militia skinheads.

[Tom Ripley]

25. +1000

[Brigid]

15. Sedition, not treason.

Sedition:
1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3. rebellious disorder.

Treason:
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

dictionary. com

Still, Fat Tony needs to go.

[onenote]

17. Neither sedition nor treason under US law.

Which is different than the dictionary.

I disagree sharply with virtually every decision Scalia makes, but that doesn't mean he's guilty of treason, sedition, or a crime that would likely create sufficient call for his impeachment.

[brush]

43. Look up the word sedition.

This is from Mirriam Webster:

" the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government."

Scalia's statement, “perhaps you should revolt”, was clearly that.

[onenote]

45. You realize that statutes in the US are not construed by looking at Mirriam Webster.

They're construed in light of something called the Constitution and First Amendment. A prosecutor would be laughed out of his or her job if they showed up in court charging someone with treason or sedition by citing the dictionary. The very first reply in this thread call on people to "storm the Supreme Court." I assume you want that person charged with sedition, too?

[brush]

55. I don't want that person charged . . .

but he/she doesn't sit on the bench of the Supreme Court.

The country deserves more circumspect language from a SCOTUS justice.

[onenote]

57. I'm guessing you either don't think much of, or don't know much about, William O. Douglas

One of the great progressive justices to sit on the Supreme Court, but anything but circumspect in his language.

[brush]

61. Just sayin', SCOTUS justices, left or right leaning . . .

shouldn't be advocating insurrection.

And who doesn't know of Douglas?

[wolfie001]

16. I'm sure this unflushed turd........

.....never approved of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Typical far RW hypocrite.

[Wolf Frankula]

18. And Stop Paying Scalia's salary

Hey fat Tony, you ARE subject to the laws of the United States. You have committed sedition many times, beginning in 2000 when you usurped the power of the House of Representatives.

Why has Scalia not been hanged?

Wolf

[SwankyXomb]

32. How about we have October's Red Mass

written by George RR Martin?

[joe_stampingbull]

19. senile dementia?

A creep like this would uphold the Dred Scott decision.

[olddad56]

29. dementia or just in the Koch Brothers pocket.

[OnyxCollie]

20. Is Fat Tony going to volunteer to be first against the wall when the revolution comes?

[randr]

23. After all Scalia dismantled the Democratic system we had in place

Now if a person desires changes to the laws instead of running for office they must buy a few legislators to do their bidding. The only recourse left the average citizen is rebellion and Tony the goon is fine with that.

[allan01]

26. taxes are the lowest in years sir

more like sedataion than treason.

[grahamhgreen]

27. How bout we start by not paying his salary!

[SoapBox]

30. He loves to hate America and Americans.

Why can't we talk about tossing Krazy Tony out of work like he talks of revolt!

[lonestarnot]

31. Yeah never tell them that inherited wealth is sucking them dry. Tax the rich. He's such a pig.

He's just jealous of the super richie rich who can live like a king and invest the rest and continue to grow more wealth than the united states economy sucking us into slavery of the oligarchy. Sharpen the guillotines.

[TheDebbieDee]

33. Scalia should be Pelican Briefed!

[onenote]

34. Some people would claim that you just made a threat against the life of a Supreme Court justice

They would be wrong, of course. But it's worth keeping in mind that overreacting to speech is something that can, and is, done on both sides on occasion.

[DeSwiss]

35. K&R

[tofuandbeer]

40. :D

[bearssoapbox]

36. I'm sure that Scumlia stays well infromed to make his decisions.

[grahamhgreen]

37. Treason/Insurrection/Sedition/Advocacy

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
___________________

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2383

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

____________________

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2384

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

_____________________

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2385

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

[former9thward]

53. Good thing the U.S. did not take your position during the Vietnam War.

Some of us would still be in prison. When Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam and and had her picture taken on an anti-aircraft gun should she have been jailed?

[grahamhgreen]

58. ->

[former9thward]

59. A non answer to my question.

Should she have been tried for sedition or treason? Your jail photo is for a misdemeanor coming from a protest Nice try...

[grahamhgreen]

68. OK, I like direct answers:

Not for a photo.

Did she advocate the violent overthrow of the govt?

[former9thward]

70. You like direct answers but you don't like giving them.

To answer your question -- I have no idea what her views were or his -- do you? But it is irrelevant because that is not why he was shot.

[onenote]

60. A blatantly misleading response, imo.

The photo you posted was taken of Fonda after she was arrested at the Cleveland airport for allegedly smuggling drugs. It turns out the "drugs" were all perfectly legit virtamins and the charges were dismissed. Was she singled out because of her activism? Probably. But was she charged with a crime arising out of that activism? No.

By the way, the mug shot you posted is from November 1970. Fonda visited Hanoi in July 1972.

You should delete your response.

[grahamhgreen]

67. I forgot. They just killed us:

[IronGate]

64. What does this particular mugshot of Jane Fonda have to do with sedition?

This was taken after she was arrested at the Cleveland airport for smuggling drugs, which turned out to be legal vitamins, hence the dismissal of the charges.

Kind of misleading don'tcha think?

[grahamhgreen]

66. Not sedition

Advocacy by a supreme court justice, hardly ignorant of the law:

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2385

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States

[onenote]

75. And you supported Gerald Ford's efforts to oust William O. Douglas, I suppose.

And were among those screaming obscenities at me as I marched against the war in Vietnam because we were advocating revolution.

And what does the Fonda photo have to do with advocating the overthrow of the US, given that it was from a bust (later dismissed) for "smuggling" drugs that turned out to be vitamins?

Finally, if it wasn't for your misleading use of the Fonda mug shot I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just weren't familiar that the Smith Act (that's the statutory provision you cite in your post) has been the subject of judicial interpretations dating back to the 1950s that have had the effect of limiting its application so severely that it is all but a nullity. Specifically, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the advocacy provision only applies if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. Speech that amounts to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time is protected by the First Amendment. And what Douglas and Scalia have in common with their comments about revolution, is that they both fail to meet the imminent lawless action test. But I'm guessing you did know that the statute you cite is inapplicable, but like your debunked reliance on the Fonda mugshot, you decided to rely on it anyway.

[grahamhgreen]

79. The original question intimated that that Vietnam protesters were not jailed, therefore Scalia

should suffer no consequences for his advocating the violent overthrow of the govt, some might argue, in direct support of armed militia groups on the Bundy ranch, well, Vietnam protesters were jailed, by the thousands, persecuted and hounded, spied on by the govt, remember? Many feel that Scalia, a man hardly ignorant of the law, a Supreme Court Justice with a high degree of responsibility required in his thoughts deeds and actions, should be under more scrutiny, not less, than the average American.

That's all

[onenote]

81. The original question intimated that protesters weren't jailed for their speech.

I was in DC during the MayDay demonstrations. And protesters weren't charged with sedition, treason, or advocating the overthrow of the US (even though the express purpose of the demonstrations was to shut down the government). They were charged with disorderly conduct, unlawful assembly, obstructing federal employees, resisting arrest and other conduct-related, not speech-related offenses. And in truth, thousands were arrested simply for standing around. They didn't have to have uttered a single word. Virtually all of those charges were dismissed and a large number of people who were arrested brought civil litigation for infringement of their constitutional rights and the case was settled with payments to those plaintiffs.

But they weren't charged with a crime based on what they were saying; they were charged based on what they were doing (or not doing as it turned out).

[grahamhgreen]

82. I'll take that. Let's arrest him for 'fighting words', and then let him off in court.

Let's face it, most protesters are arrested for nothing.

[DallasNE]

38. What Does Scalia Mean By "Revolt"

Is he talking about armed rebellion as occurred in Nevada with snipers in the ready if things didn't go their way? Or is he just talking about throwing tea into Boston Harbor. The problem with imprecise language like Scalia used here is that people can read into it what they want with the end result being another Waco or Oklahoma City disaster.

[blkmusclmachine]

39. Yay, Citizens United I/II !!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

44. What if they start getting the right to vote and have it count taken away?

"Sit down and shut the fuck up" would be Judge Pigboy's answer.

[yurbud]

49. did he say what number he had in mind? How about the 91% on the wealthiest in effect during

the EISENHOWER administration?

We are unlikely to go that high again, so what's his number?

[bvf]

63. Sorry I missed your post before replying to the OP.

I wondered exactly the same thing, with the Eisenhower administration firmly in mind

[Orsino]

56. He didn't suggest voting, did he?

That'll be phased out soon, anyway.

[yurbud]

65. especially since he's hard at work on phasing it out.

[Orsino]

78. To be fair, this was a serious occasion...

...and perhaps Scalia knew he couldn't say the word "vote" without giggling.

[bvf]

62. The revolution has already happened, because

the 1% has been following this advice for decades.

Of course, if you're among them, you know you don't need no stinkin' guns to revolt. All it takes is obscene amounts of money.

Someone should have followed up with the question asking Scalia what number he personally would put as "too high."

He really sent the dick-o-meter needle through the glass with this one. I'm sure it's not the first time, either.

[KamaAina]

69. Didn't he take an oath of office like the President does?

You know, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect it from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?!

[lunasun]

72. His $$220,000+ a year if he was impeached would help a little

[TygrBright]

76. Scalia should know. He's been revolting all along. n/t