Scalia: Court’s Decision Restoring Habeas ‘Will Almost Certainly Cause More Americans To Be Killed’
Scalia: Court’s Decision Restoring Habeas ‘Will Almost Certainly Cause More Americans To Be Killed’
In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court ruled that habeas corpus protections apply to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. “We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. The decision was a “a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies,” SCOTUS Blog noted.
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, however, is outraged. In his dissenting opinion, he devoted an entire section to “a description of the disastrous consequences of what the Court has done today,” a procedure “contrary to my usual practice,” he admitted. Scalia adopted extreme rhetoric about the impacts of the decision, calling it a “self-invited…incursion into military affairs” that would “almost certainly” kill Americans. Some lowlights:
– “America is at war with radical Islamists. … Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
– “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”
– “Today the Court warps our Constitution.”
– “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
It is unlikely that the Supreme Court’s decision will have the impacts that Scalia claims. As Kennedy explained, “Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law.” Discussing the restoration of habeas at Guantanamo last year, Colin Powell noted:
The concern was, well, then they’ll have access to lawyers, then they’ll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system.
But as a cheerleader for the administration’s terrorism policies, Scalia’s rhetoric isn’t surprising. It is “absurd” to say that you “can’t stick something under the fingernails,” or “smack [a detainee] in the face,” he said in February. “No. To the contrary,” Scalia said when asked whether torture violates the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I truly despise that f*n doucchebag.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:38 pm.
R E M E M B E R:
THEY(sic) HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS…
And so they legislate away those very FREEDOMS… (MCA of 2006)
.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:39 pmHey Scalia! I thought the court was not supposed to deal with hypotheticals?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:39 pmDid Scalia meet with Jack Bauer to confirm this?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:40 pmNote that Scalia fails to explain WHY the decision would lead to the conclusions he draws. Where did this bozo get his law degree? A cereal box? What an utter waste of genetic material he is.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:40 pm.
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again, unless Scalia proves me wrong, he’s a Fascist supporter and advocate.
.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:41 pmOoooooo….I am sooooo scared.
Maybe now that we have had these guys locked up for 6 years and as the CIA has said 70%-90% are innocent, just maybe they are a bit angry over this and they just might want to take the head of old fat ass Scalia for revenge.
We are great at making terrorist. But on defeating them, not so much.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pmModern Conservatism: Give Me Liberty or Give me … waaaaaah I’m vewi wewi Scaaaaaared President Bush - pwotect me.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pmLusmu,
June 12th, 2008 at 2:43 pmScalia uses his secret decoder ring…
To call Scalia a disgrace is to insult disgraces everywhere.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:43 pmWay to go, all you morons who voted for Bush. Congratulations on screwing up the court for years to come.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:43 pmMy Box of Corn Pops has more legal acumen than this slime.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:44 pmAs Five Deferment Dick would say, “So?”
June 12th, 2008 at 2:46 pmThis man needs to be impeached.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:46 pm“It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”
What a lame legal argument for the highest court in the land - if we set the speed limit to 5 mph we certainly can save thousands of lives per year - raising it would certainly cause more Americans to be killed! Shriek!
June 12th, 2008 at 2:47 pmI bet, starting tomorrow, those home schooled kids will begin their hiding-under-the-desk drills in earnest.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:47 pmWhy does this fascist motherfcuker hate America?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pmScalia has been described over the years by some as a great legal scholar. Read his dissenting opinion on this, is all I say.
Time to tell Dear Anton, as he told all of us on 60 Minutes- Get Over It. The under-the-chin gesture & “Vaffanculo” is also appropriate in this case…
June 12th, 2008 at 2:49 pmSeems to me that harboring bitter resentment from the rest of the world for unlawfully detaining innocents, and serving up accurate propagaganda to al-qaeda recruiters would lead to more American deaths. NOT the reverse.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:50 pmWhy I think Scalia should retire out of pure principal!America does not need you Scalia.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:51 pmFor those who don’t speak delusionish, allow me to translate Scalia’s comments to reality: “Today’s Supreme Court decision will keep us safer and uphold the rule of law.”
June 12th, 2008 at 2:51 pmScalia is a Scab on democracy.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:53 pmAnd this from the guy who prides and touts himself as a great thinker.
by his argument, giving habeas corpus to the PRISONERS” will cause more AMericans to die.
Just how will the PRISONERS kill more folks? - they are already prisoners. I doubt the radicals aren’t attacking us now for fear of bad treatment at GITMO, as he seems to be implying.
Hey, Scalia - they are willing to blow themselves up. Why would they be afraid of GITMO?
Typical of the neo-cons when they try to use fear as a tactic - when you shine the light of reason on their arguments, it evaporates into the ether.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:54 pmWhat a DICK!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 2:55 pmScalia is 72 and obviously suffering from age-onset dementia.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:56 pmIt absolutely boggles my mind that this lunatic managed to get on the bench in the first place. Most of his drivel is such obvious nonsense that it requires no comment from me.
However, I find it interesting that Scalia violates his own government’s guidelines by conflating terrorists to Islam when he says “America is at war with radical Islamists”. I thought using these terms to describe the terrorists just emboldened them, glorified them, and gave them credibility? Apparently Scalia sees nothing wrong with this, even though it will “certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”
Wanna explain that one, Antonin?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pmAmerica has gone through worse than this fake ‘War on Terror’. Our way of government has survived the cold war and a few other major wars and police actions. For thinking people to suggest we change our ‘laws of the land’ because W couldn’t prevent 19 Saudi’s from slamming planes in to our buildings (after they were warned the attack was coming) is insulting to those who have fought those battles.
Scalia is a scared man. He likes to torture others probably due to a lack of self respect and confidence within himself.
This is a good day for the Consitution.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pmOther things guaranteed to get more Americans killed:
The continuing Iraq Occupation
The failure of bush to complete the mission in Afghanistan
The failure of FEMA to prepare for hurricanes
The failure of the Corp of Engineers to fix the levees in NOLA
The failure of Bush to protect our ports
The failure of bush to regulate big pharma
the failure of bush to provide heath ins to everyone
the failure of Congress to impeach bush
What did I miss?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pmTo Scalia, Habeous Corpus is an inconvenience. Does the thought cross his mind that we are supposed to be better than the terrorists? His view of allowing torture to save lives is absurd. If anything, troops captured will be more likely to be tortured because if this administration is condoning such acts, why should they do differently?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pmWith great effort, I left the caps off and didn’t use the bold.
Will there be a cry of outrage against this “activist judge”? If ever there is an example of a judge inserting himself into policy, this is it. His job, as a Justice, is to insure that the Constitution is being applied to situations, not to pontificate on any possible or imagined consequences. I’m sure that Americans were killed when slavery was abolished. I’m sure that Americans were killed when women’s right to vote was acknowledged. I’m sure that Americans were killed when misogyny laws were ruled unconstitutional.
Scalia is using the dissenting opinion option of his office to advance a political and personal agenda. Impeachment is in order. However, it’s going to take a Democratic super majority of Congress to remove him from office. Let’s git-r-dun as the saying goes.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pmOnce again, Scalia proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that his appointment to the highest court in the land will certainly cause more of the Constitution to be shredded.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pm.
What’s next,
Will Scalia defend Hitler’s private court system?
.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pmRepublicans are such sissies
June 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pmRemind me again how this punk ass got on the SCOTUS?
June 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pmScalia is a disgrace to the Supreme Court.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pmThere are those who use the laws of the land to guide their decisions….
And there are those who use the laws of the land as a hammer to try and beat any dissenting opinions into the dust….
Any guesses which one Scalia is?
June 12th, 2008 at 3:00 pmNo, Scalia is correct. This WILL lead to more Americans getting killed. It’s just one more incentive for BushCo to launch their final Vision for America: WAR WITH IRAN. That and in order to prove that we needed to keep things this way, to violate our own laws and constitution, a false flag attack will most likely occur.
Scalia is correct, just not in the way it appears.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:00 pmMcWars,
June 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pm… Scablia… ?
We must impeach 4 members of the supreme court who actively attempt to destroy our constitution. Our court cannot be for sale, bought or paid for. 4 members clearly are to vote against habeas corpus.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:02 pmYOU are desperate.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:04 pmI would prefer to see Scalia impeached and removed then Bush at this point. I’ve never seen a SCJ who lies as much as he does. He said in an interview that Gore filed the first lawsuit in Florida, when in reality it was Bush who first took the Florida recount to court.
He is a pathological liar.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:04 pmrocks911 Says:
Remind me again how this punk ass got on the SCOTUS?
Reagan appointed him. You gotta give reagan his due, he sure knew his facist scum. It was only later on, when his dementia was really kicking in that he goofed and appointed a conservative with half a conscience, Kennedy.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:04 pmScalia: supreme asswhole!
June 12th, 2008 at 3:05 pm#28, Bobwurst, you missed:
The failure of Congress to close the Enron loophole.
The failure of Congress to regulate the mortgate insanity.
The insane desire of the Administration to start a 3rd war.
The failure of the Administration to plan for our occupation of Iraq.
The push by the Administration for abstenence-only sex ed.
The Administration’s determination to ignore the reality of Aids and how it Should be treated.
The Administration’s blatently illegal awarding of contracts to politically connected cronies.
The failure of Congress to Impeach Pelosi and Cheney First!
Now what did I miss?
Impeach Pelosi, Cheney and Bush and Save the Constitution!
June 12th, 2008 at 3:05 pm69 Says:
Democrats are such hypocrites..
Care to offer some context 69?
June 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pmMax, YES!!
June 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pm.
Now we can’t have fair and impartial Justice, can we…?
[/snark]
.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pmWe can only hope that he goes on another hunting trip with his BFF Dick Cheney very soon. Drink up Dick!
June 12th, 2008 at 3:07 pmWhere in the Constitution is propaganda detailed among the duties of the Judiciary?
June 12th, 2008 at 3:09 pm69 Says:
Democrats are such hypocrites..
Johnboy and Larry Craig take hypocrisy to a whole new level –one wanker at the end of 6, another at 9.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pm69,
It would take you 2 promtions to be an idiot.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:11 pmBobwurst,
Don’t engage TROLLS. They will hang around for the undue attention you’re affording them. Far too often these threads become cluttered with posters encouraging TROLLS to respond…
It then becomes like a shouting match with Bildo O’Liely:
“You shut up…”
“No, you shut up…”
“No, you shut up…”
… and so it goes for 30 posts…
UGH!!!!!!!
.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:12 pm69 is proof that republicans can’t get beyond circular logic. He even subconsciously expresses it in his screen name.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:13 pmsorry Max 1. I’m done with it.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:14 pmcaption contest:
Justice Antonin Scalia inspects this years graduating class from Regents University.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:17 pmScalia, “mmm, I’d like to show him my prima facia. Mmmm, this one needs a good slap across his face. Allright, hands up..who’s signing up for my graduate class “”24″ the bestest show on tv”? Anyone? Jeez, yous panty wastes wouldn’t stand five minutes with electrodes on your groins standing in my bath tub! Hands up, who wants to come by my house?”
Scalia’s argument boils down to: there was no reason to give up our Constitution in every previous war, including the Civil War, the Second World War and the Cold War, but NOW we have to ditch this country’s founding document because some people are afraid of a few thousand terrorists.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:17 pmEvil personified.
Pure evil.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:19 pmConservative Justice Antonin Scalia, however, is outraged.
Excellent. Nothing more satisfying than an outraged conservative blowhard.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:20 pmSo 9/11 could have been prevented if it weren’t for basic human rights?
June 12th, 2008 at 3:20 pmBobwurst,
I usually just flag ‘em… WITH A REASON… and move on. I have, on occasion, been enticed by a few select TROLLS to respond to them, however that results in… UGH!!! 30 more posts.
A far different approach is to USE the TROLLS as an example… Delay style, “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, unless 69 proves me wrong, IT’s a TROLL.”
LOL
June 12th, 2008 at 3:20 pmI hear that unAmerican, Constitution-shredding, jackbooted thug Scalia worships Mussolini…
June 12th, 2008 at 3:25 pm“CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE” IS AN OXYMORON.
Antonin Scalia is just a MORON.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:26 pm.
Q U E S T I O N:
Since the Habeas Corpus denial for “detainees” was contained within the MCA of 2006, and the simplistic wording contained within the MCA of 2006 made Americans subject to the same UNCONSTITUTIONAL subjection by our Congress, does this mean I get one of my FREEDOMS to be an American, back?
.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:26 pm– “America is at war with radical Islamists. … Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
– “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”
For all the right’s accusations of “judicial activism” whenever a decision doesn’t go their way, this is a classic example of attempted judicial activism in practice. Here, Scalia isn’t talking at all about the constitutionality of the majority’s opinion but rather at the undesirable outcome which is precisely the definition of judicial activism.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 12th, 2008 at 3:28 pmrocks911 Says
June 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Remind me again how this punk ass got on the SCOTUS?
_______________________________________________
Appointed by Reagan in 1986 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate 98 - 0 (Goldwater and Garn were both absent). So how did Scalia skate through with both conservatives and liberals voting to confirm him? Some say that he was under the radar, because at the time, Rehnquist was being promoted to Chief Justice (in fact, it was his Associate Justice seat that Scalia was filling), and all the political wrangling was going in that direction.
We must be more diligent in the future.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:31 pmYet another example of why we cannot allow McCain to be our next President. Mussolini Scalia is McCain’s favorite Justice. We will have even more fascist Scalia’s if McCain has his way.
This man’s job is to uphold the Constitution, yet what he’s basically arguing is that the Constitution means nothing in America. He’s arguing people don’t have any innate rights as American citizens. He’s arguing that the President is essentially a monarch who can wave his hand and ignore laws whenever he wants.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:33 pmDo you agree or disagree with Scalia’s dissenting opinion that Restoring Habeas ‘Will Almost Certainly Cause More Americans To Be Killed’?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2642
.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:35 pmBoy that 69 sure is a sharp cookie, uh.
Way to go there kid, you’ll show us whose stupid, uh.
This is what happens when mom is out of the house and the 12 year old grabs the computer.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:35 pmScalia adopted extreme rhetoric about the impacts of the decision, -”Today the Court warps our Constitution.”
– “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.”
What Scalia is saying that the US Government can treat terrorists the same as the Nazi’s treated traitors to the party. Is this what he really wants? OMG I hope not. Because that is exactly what they are doing.
Without Habeus Corpus none of our Freedoms would matter. If our government could seize anyone and detain them without a trail or even put them to death. What would having Freedom of the Press, or Speech, or your right to protest matter? They wouldn’t because most people would think twice before excercising any of those rights for fear of unlawful detainment.
Scalia is so wrong, the court didn’t warp the Constitution, they gave us back the cornerstone of our Constitution. As Thomas Macaulay, in his History of England, described the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 as “the most stringent curb that ever legislation imposed on tyranny.” You can say that again, and tyranny is just what we have been living under.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:37 pm“Today the Court warps our Constitution.”
Yes it does warp the Constitution, back to where it should be after having habeas corpus torn from its pages.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm“Scalia: Court’s Decision Restoring Habeas ‘Will Almost Certainly Cause More Americans To Be Killed’”
Has a slight ring of truth. It is a possibility that someone that tortured could get the death penalty if it is found someone died from torture. Giving these detainees risks these people that did torture to exposure in a court of law.
Hiding the truth would protect those Americans from death.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:39 pmBy lethal injection.
refreshing to see someone in this country has some sense. i havent read the justices opinion yet but what id guess they are basically saying is this: come back and talk to us when we’re in a REAL war. the war on terror is a fraud and an illusion and i have yet to find ANYONE who can offer a cognizable defintion of “victory” that couldnt be used and exploited by the executive to grant himself unlimited power.
i dont care how honest you beleive george bush to be, unless you have a magic crystal ball that gan gurantee that every future president will be MORE HONEST than bush, you dont want to hang this kind of power to anyone who may be in his position in the future.
if you accept the very premise “we’re at war with terrror” then you have esentially surrendered to the comcept of an eternal, unwinnable war, because there will ALWAYS be people out there plotting against us and there will ALWAYS be some way for them to kill small groups of us.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:41 pmShould have been:
Giving these detainees rights promised Constitutionally risks these people that did torture to exposure in a court of law.
Should have proofread.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:42 pm>What Scalia is saying that the US Government can treat >terrorists
dont forget the ACCUSED part…we dont know who or what alot of them really are. I’m never, ever going to take people at thier word who insisted over and over that they knew where Saddams WMD were..
June 12th, 2008 at 3:44 pmtee-hee.
these bullies don’t win every time,
but every time they lose, they remember the immortal words of FDR: “The only thing we have to fear . . .”
Wait, wait, that’s not it — If it weren’t for Threat-o-Fear, they’d have no words at all.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:45 pmSo, has Justice Scalia redefined the law of actual causation (i.e. but for fact x, result y would not have occurred)? Does this mean that if a mass tort lawyer states that power lines “almost certainly” caused a cancer cluster, it becomes a legally established fact?
So, I will say human activity “almost certainly” is a major contributing factor in climate change. Who can argue with it now?
June 12th, 2008 at 3:49 pm“Scalia: Court’s Decision Restoring Habeas ‘Will Almost Certainly Cause More Americans To Be Killed’”
Americans were already killed to make Habeas the law of the land, Scalia just wants to piss on their previous sacrifice because he is a cowardly traitor to America.
Other than that, I have no strong feelings either way about this.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:56 pmThe nation will live to regret the day congress approved Scalias nomination to the Supreme Court
Amazing how thousands of American rapists, child-molesters, murderers and terrorists have been treated like royalties in comparison to the hundreds probably thousands of completely innocent “suspected terrorists” the US has kidnapped, tortured and locked up indefinitely in the war on terror
June 12th, 2008 at 4:02 pmCan Supreme Court Justices be impeached? If so, once Obama takes office I think we need to look into impeaching Scalia. He is so partisan it is ridiculous. I thought that the SCOTUS was supposed to rule according to the law, not according to political positions. Scalia is the ultimate “activist judge”, he rules on law based on political and religious reasons, not based on law.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pmIt will make it harder to indefinately detain innocent people.
Is ‘habeas corpus’ Latin for ‘Get out of Jail Free’? Is restoration of habeas the proverbial green light terrorists have been waiting for? They’re all just waiting until they can challenge their detention in court? Don’t you have to live beyond your suiside mission in order to challenge your detention in court?
How does one arrive at such an illogical conclusion, and more importantly, how does that one not only end up on the Supreme Court, but stay there? Can those guys be impeached by reason of insanity?
June 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pmWouldn’t Justice Scalia make a great mafia lawyer?
Oh, that’s right, he already is.
He’s a mob lawyer to the Bush mob in the White House, a mob lawyer who consistently defends the indefensible (that which is blatantly unconstitutional) and tries to hide the crimes committed by his mob bosses. Heckuva job, Antonin, heckuva job.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pmCan we start with him?!?!?
June 12th, 2008 at 4:17 pmI’m playing with a new computer so I haven’t read the the thread. I apologize if I’m redundant.
What a disgusting display of fear mongering. What a pouting, childlike, embarrassment to the Bench. Why is it that every time I hear the name Scalia I think of him whispering to a six year old, “if you tell, I’ll send away your Mommy and Daddy”?
Utterly detestable.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:17 pmThis man isn’t an objective jurist, he’s a shameless political hack! His arguments are legal, they’re POLITICAL! He’s a disgrace to the legal profession and our Supreme Court. How are American’s supposed to trust the legal judements of such a blantantly biased egomaniac? This man is severely flawed. Why is he shooting off his mouth? Supreme Court Justices aren’t supposed to do this. They aren’t supposed to be political. What the hell is going on in this country?
June 12th, 2008 at 4:24 pmThere is one small detail I would like to focus on: Scalia’s opinion doesn’t matter in this case!
June 12th, 2008 at 4:25 pmScatlia needs to go on a diet! His beliefs are so hard-core and he is so undignified. What a gross man!
June 12th, 2008 at 4:28 pmScalia hasn’t even bothered to make a case based on the Constitution or law. Rather, he has applied a purely political argument and is thus legislating from the bench. So much for strict construction and original intent. The 4 dissenting Justices showed that they don’t know the meaning of the terms. That, however, was never in doubt.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pmDoes anyone else think that Scalia’s warning of dire consequences to the courts restoration of a 400 year law is ominous ?
June 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pmIs there a fire extinguisher in the Reichtag ?
Again, go back to his 60 Minutes interview. The guy has no sense about the real-world applications to his utterly outrageous decisions…to him it’s all an academic exercise. And how the H E double toothpicks would he know what the implications of this decision will be? The implication to me is clear…the United States will be once again perceived as adhering to the rule of law…not arbitrary arrest and detention…for the rest of your life. Let’s see how he would feel being put in Guantanamo…his chicken ass would be all over habeas.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:38 pmBOO!
Scared?
Good. Vote Republican!
(Geez, where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, September 12th 2001 onward)
June 12th, 2008 at 4:43 pmAh, da turrerests is winnin! How many turrerests are now on da Supreem Cort?
June 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pmI find it hilarious that the Repugs are using the fear of “Activist Judges” against the Dems. This wanker is a perfect example of that definition, in spades.
And to so blatantly say that his vote was based on politics and not the Rule of Law is VERY telling. Might just get his pudgy arse in a sling!
June 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pm‘I have seen the terrorists, and they are me.’ -A. Scalia
June 12th, 2008 at 4:48 pmHow old is Scalia and how long must we endure him? I know Roberts is in his early 50s, so we’re screwed with him. Alito young(ish), too. Clarence - the Angel of Death - is nearing 70 maybe? How about a big vat of creme brulee for the lot of them?
June 12th, 2008 at 4:48 pmDon’t get too excited yet. Here’s what bush had to say about it.
It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented,” Bush said. “And that dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security.”
Bush said his administration will study the ruling. “We’ll do this with this in mind — to determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate so we can safely say to the American people, ‘We’re doing everything we can to protect you.’”
Additional Legislation! Can you say c-i-r-c-u-m-v-e-n-t?
June 12th, 2008 at 4:54 pmAnd of course Fox news will repeat what he said to scare everyone of their loyal viewers.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:55 pmThis republic-thug, neocon-vict Scalia will be around long after Bush-wad and his crime family are gone. With his penchant for relying upon television for justification of his legal positions (Jack Bauer, 24 and torture), and lack of adherence to the US Constitution, we have sufficient reason to begin impeaching and removing this poor excuse of human being from the bench.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:12 pm#82 Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Can Supreme Court Justices be impeached?
Here is your answer: Yes
Under the Constitution they can be removed from the Court only by first being impeached (accused) by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. There is no precise standard for determining whether a justice has committed an impeachable offense, though the consensus is that removal should be for criminal or ethical lapses, not for partisan political reasons. No justice has ever been removed through this process, and only one justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached. In 1805 Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in the House by his political enemies, but the Senate failed to convict when it became apparent that Chase’s opponents were after him not because he had committed any wrongdoing but because they disagreed with his decisions. The possibility of impeachment may have been a factor in the resignation of Justice Abe Fortas, who left the Court in 1969 after allegations surfaced that he had accepted a questionable fee from a private foundation. Some conservative groups rallied for the removal of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1960s, but their efforts failed.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:25 pmwho appointed this freak to the supreme court anyway?
June 12th, 2008 at 5:27 pmninique Says
June 12th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
who appointed this freak to the supreme court anyway?
_____________________________________________
Ronald Reagan, in 1986. And he was confirmed by the Senate, 98-0 — so we’re all pretty much to blame.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:29 pmI vote that we impeach Justice Scalia due to the fact that he obviously does not fully understand the judicial system. Let’s just say he’s incompetent!
June 12th, 2008 at 5:29 pmwell, that explains a bit now, eh molly?
June 12th, 2008 at 5:30 pmboy, what a mistake that was!
June 12th, 2008 at 5:30 pmyou know, this might be silly but, this whole corrupt court judge thing reminds me of Harry Potter and the order of the phoenix when Dolores Umbridge gained power of the Ministry of Magic and Harry was on trial. Scalia reminds me of Umbridge!
June 12th, 2008 at 5:40 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
Ronald Reagan, in 1986. And he was confirmed by the Senate, 98-0 — so we’re all pretty much to blame.
What? No, sorry, but I’m not at all to blame. I didn’t vote for Reagan and both my senators were Republicans. I might have voted for Mark Hatfield, if I’d been in Oregon when he’d run for that term, but I never would have voted for Bob Packwood. So, no, I take no blame at all for Scalia.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:43 pmScalia, Roberts, Alito, = Fascist Pigs.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:52 pmfat tony is a frickin babboon - that monkey is a disgrace to have on SCOTUS.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:57 pm.
Fat Tony
June 12th, 2008 at 6:06 pm“I haven’t cried like this since I paid to see Godfather III.”
Run, Scalia run ! You could be an American who is killed by today’s court decision ! Run Scalia ! Run to another country ! And . Stay . There
June 12th, 2008 at 6:08 pmScalia, Roberts, Alito, = Fascist Pigs.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
and the reason to leave Thomas off that list….other than he’d hafta have it explained to him?
June 12th, 2008 at 6:13 pmtokin librul Says:
——————————————————————————–
Scalia, Roberts, Alito, = Fascist Pigs.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
and the reason to leave Thomas off that list….other than he’d hafta have it explained to him?
I just forgot that useless pig.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:16 pmThey’re setting up the contrast explicitly between security and liberty.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:17 pmThe biggest difference to ‘em is that there’s a lot more money and power to be had in security than in liberty.
This won’t change, no matter the figure-head on the new regime.
Scalia should just “get over it” (what he recently advised America should do concerning the 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore).
P.S. wouldn’t it be nice to have Hillary taking on this bozo at the Supreme Court.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:52 pmCan Scalia be impeached for this decision? If so, let’s do it.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:03 pmGod, I loves me some good ol’ conservative values. Mmm, mmm, mmm.
What a total fu(kwit. Talk about the need for impeachment (his). This guy exemplifies it.
Come join the fun and tell us why YOU are voting Republican.)
June 12th, 2008 at 7:17 pmScalia is 72 and obviously suffering from the “I’m getting old; I’m going to die soon; Damn that scares the hell outta me.” syndrome. Typical angry and scared old men like this should not be in power …
June 12th, 2008 at 7:54 pmScalia is pure scum!!
He has the fascist blood of Mussolini coursing through his Sicko Sicilian veins!
Scumbag supreme!!
June 12th, 2008 at 8:07 pmListening to Scalia “will almost certainly cause more brain cells to be killed”…
June 12th, 2008 at 8:10 pmOn Countdown KO just named Scumbag Scalia WORST PERSON IN THE WOOORRRLLDDDD!!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 8:46 pmKO’s Special Comments are rippin’ McOld a new one!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 8:58 pmI’m sure that Justice Scalia won’t mind it when such tactics are used to secure his confession on corruption charges surrounding his decision to appoint George W. Bush to the office of President of the United States of America. We’ll undoubtedly be forced to listen to the whinging and whining of neocons about how this was such a terrible thing too and about how it could be done to good ole’ Justice Scalia. They won’t even understand the irony of it all.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:14 pm“RUCerious Says:
Way to go, all you morons who voted for Bush. Congratulations on screwing up the court for years to come.”
RUC,
Nah, we just send these scumbaggs some Ann Coulter (Ha Remember that Cnut?) Creme Brulee. MMM, Yummy.
“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
June 12th, 2008 at 10:29 pm“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
“IMPEACH THE TREASONOUS 4″
pmavrk Says:
June 12th, 2008 at 10:32 pmYet another case where the liberal justices of the supreme court aid and abet the enemy.
LIVE FREE OR DIE, Coward. Chimpy aided and abetted the enemy by ignoring warning after warning after warning. Morons like Fat Tony and yourself are Osama’s wet dream. Killing the country while he watches from a cave. Pathetic. Run from freedom and the rule of law; it’s about what I’d expect of you.
While I AGREE with today’s majority opinion that “all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises ‘absolute and indefinite’ control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court,” I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, “as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield].”
June 12th, 2008 at 10:36 pmkasinca Says:
tokin librul Says:
——————————————————————————–
Scalia, Roberts, Alito, = Fascist Pigs.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
and the reason to leave Thomas off that list….other than he’d hafta have it explained to him?
I just forgot that useless pig.
Hmmmm,
Roberts
Alito
Scalia
Thomas
RATS
June 12th, 2008 at 10:37 pm“IMPEACH RATS?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:38 pm“IMPEACH RATS?
“IMPEACH RATS?
“IMPEACH RATS?
What the hell did habeas corpus have to do with the terrorist attacks on 911? Was 911 carried out as a reason to do away with habeas corpus? Are all neo-conservatives moron fascists?
June 12th, 2008 at 10:48 pm…and I sincerely hope Scalia will be the first one to!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:08 pm…the second one, Chenney, followed by Bush, Perle, Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld… and the list of War criminals goes on!
June 12th, 2008 at 11:09 pmHey,
Didn’t Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the democrat icon, do something similiar to suspending habeas corpus for the enemy during the second world war? If I remember from history he established curfews for Japanese Americans to which the supreme court agreed.
He also signed “Presidential Order 9066″ which removed the enemy from military zones.
What happened to the democrats? When did you folks become so fricken wimpy and stupid when it comes to national security? Was it during the 60’s when your liberal hippie parents started taking drugs and turning to communist perversions?
June 13th, 2008 at 1:49 pmjohnsom Says:
————————————————————-
The mistake we made was taking them to prison in the first place.
—
June 14th, 2008 at 11:31 amWhat would you have preferred to do?
Underlying Scalia’s dissent is that he does not trust the lower courts to prosecute the detainees and punish them accordingly. The ruling doesn’t free the detainees – it allows prosecution to proceed. He is assuming that there must not be enough evidence to convict them. Which begs the question, why are they being held in the first place then.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:15 amWhat I have trouble resolving is that Scalia says people will die, but the Roberts opinion talks about how generous the process is for determining whether a person is an enemy combatant.
The biggest problem I have with Scalia is his discussion of being “at war” with Islamic extremists since 1983 and then referring to “the enemy” as if it were a monolith. In addition to being more like a misleading campaign speech, it seems outside the proper scope of judicial assessment, like “judicial activism.”
The reason the Right keeps using al Qaeda as an inaccurate shorthand for “extremists” is because al Qaeda has been the one group that has been willking to hit the US in the US. Not Hamas, not Hebollah, not the Sadrists, etc. If the Sadrists attack us ONLY because we are in Iraq, there’s less basis for the “they will follow you home” nonsense.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:46 pm