Scalia scolds 20-year-old student: ‘That’s a nasty, impolite question.’
Scalia scolds 20-year-old student: ‘That’s a nasty, impolite question.’
Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke to a crowd of 750 people in West Palm Beach, FL. The talk turned hostile, when Scalia took offense at a simple question by 20-year-old Florida Atlantic University political science major Sarah Jeck:
The book promotion led Florida Atlantic University student Sarah Jeck to ask Scalia if the Supreme Court’s opposition to having its proceedings televised was “vitiated” by, among other things, “Supreme Court justices going out on book tours.”
Her question drew laughter and applause from the crowd of about 730, but Scalia wasn’t amused.
“That’s a nasty, impolite question,” Scalia said before moving on to another query.
Scalia later returned to Jeck’s question, however, and said that because “most people will only see 30-second takeouts,” it wouldn’t give a true impression of the Supreme Court and would lead to “miseducation.” Scalia has been aggressively hitting the media circuit to promote his book in recent months. (HT: BLT)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh, the irony.
¶ AIO
February 4th, 2009 at 1:53 pmSounds like a good question to me, to a nasty, impolite, and ruthlessly partisan jurist. Thank you, Sarah, for standing up.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:54 pmSomebody’s just a little testy, ’cause he thought there would be a lot more $$$ in this SCOTUS gig.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pmJust think, we could have montages on “The Daily Show” of Justice Clarence Thomas’s many eloquent silences.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pmScalia has repeated demonstrated that he isn’t impartial and fair on issues before him. However, he’s still working under the bush belief that he’s so important that no one should be allowed to question his judgement.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pmThat’s okay, Justice Scalia is a nasty, impolite man.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:00 pmJustice Scalia is a dick.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:01 pmwonder how the supreme court will rule on the whether FCS is humane or not.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:02 pmThat’s not an impolite question. An impolite question would be, “How did a miserable fat fck like you get to be on the Supreme Court?”
February 4th, 2009 at 2:02 pm.
Dear Mr. Scalia,
How does that gesture go again?
.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:03 pmword of the day:
vi?ti?ate
? ?/?v??i?e?t/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vish-ee-eyt] Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -at?ed, -at?ing.
1. to impair the quality of; make faulty; spoil.
2. to impair or weaken the effectiveness of.
3. to debase; corrupt; pervert.
4. to make legally defective or invalid; invalidate: to vitiate a claim.
thank you, sarah jeck!
February 4th, 2009 at 2:05 pmwell that sucks… ?????
February 4th, 2009 at 2:05 pmsorry
Scalila is a nasty and impolite person.
I’m wondering about the appropriateness of a Supreme Court Justice writing a book while still in office. That doesn’t seem quite right to me. It would be like a President writing a book while still in office.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:11 pmScalia without a scale..!
February 4th, 2009 at 2:12 pmSounds like a reasonable question – it’s not like today’s SCOTUS is full of wilting flowers who can only function behind closed doors. It only drew laughter because of the irony of it being asked at a book tour.
.
Scalia later returned to Jeck’s question, however, and said that because “most people will only see 30-second takeouts,” it wouldn’t give a true impression of the Supreme Court and would lead to “miseducation.”
(laughter at the irony of TP chopping that quote into little bits)
Welcome to the world, Scalia. That’s how a lot of people get a lot of news. It’s still better than nothing, which is what most people are getting anyways.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pmThis contemptuous scumbag has a lifelong gig as a SCOTUS judge. As the years pass and the many varied crimes of the Bush Administration unfold like poor origami on a humid day, a light will be shown on this hyper partisan jurist. Impeachment may even make it onto someone’s table for this hack. His man crush on Keifer Sutherland’s “24″ character and his perverse notions on the legality of torture prove that Scalia deserves dis-barment from practicing law and to be relieved of all his SCOTUS duties. He is an un-American neocon and deserves the same fate that justice should hold for Bill Krystol, Dick Cheney, Norman Podhertz and the rest of the neocon cabal. That this man represents the epitome of American Law is repugnant.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pmYou and Dick should spend more time together duck hunting, Antwwwon… he’s not doing much these days, and it doesn’t seem like you’ve got a lot going on either…
February 4th, 2009 at 2:14 pmMy my did we hit a nerve and that book might not sell. No wonder Tony and Dick as such good friends they act just alike and both are crazy. Now will Obama have another Justice to replace sooner rather then later?
February 4th, 2009 at 2:14 pmAm I the only one who thinks of Grisham’s “The Pelican Brief” whenever I hear from Scalia and his ilk?
I know, seems hypocritical for me to say then and sign off with…
PEACE
February 4th, 2009 at 2:17 pmThe blindfold [neutrality] of the scales of justice has become a farce.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:18 pmJust another right wing loon with thin skin. There is no questioning or prying with these guys. They are so affraid of their facade breaking down because their beliefs are not based on reality.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:18 pmREpublicans love to dish it out, but they can’t take it…
February 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pmTwo words for Big Tony: Vafanculo, paisan!
February 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pmWent to Amazon to read reviews on the book. This reviewer is spot-on. An entertaining read if you have a minute:
February 4th, 2009 at 2:22 pmhttp://www.amazon.com/review/product/0314184716/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt_sr_1?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar
If that’s nasty & impolite, then I wonder how Scalia handles those heated SCOTUS arguments?
http://punditmom1.blogspot.com
February 4th, 2009 at 2:22 pmmy Italian college classmate belongs to the same country club as Scalia — she said he is such a d#ck…and that is a harsh statement from her because she always tries to find one nice thing to say about another Italian!
February 4th, 2009 at 2:24 pmThere is almost NO chance to remedy the Opus Dei SCROTUS–the FIVE phuquing mackerel-snappers are all young and dumb and full of shit.
Ginsberg’s sick, Stevens is old and Souter FUUKING HATES it.
thet’s the ‘liberal’ wing of the Court.
With luck, Robert’s fainting spell was an early sign of alzheimers, and Alito will stroke out, too. Maybe Unca Thomas will drown in a bathtub.
That’s our ONLY chance, and it’s slim…
Not ecause the justices are healthy, but because Our Prez.O doesn’t have the political capital to put liberal justices on the bench…
February 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pmScalia is just another neocon buffon masquarading as an educated man.
When Scalia quoted “24″ as part of his reasoning in making SCOTUS decision, I lost what little respect I had for him.
Scalia lets his Republican ideology completely dominate his understanding of the Rule of Law. He should be impeached and removed from his office for just being a stupid, ignorant, self-serving dickhead.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:27 pmmaybe we should do a cross section on him to see just how thin his pampered skin really is
———————————————
February 4th, 2009 at 2:31 pm‘ere – Atlanta’s Progressive Jazz
(yes that’s me on the piano)
Find us at ReverbNation.com/ere
———————————————
Anonymouse; You beat me to the punch. :-)
February 4th, 2009 at 2:32 pmNino knows nasty.
Seriously though, the SCOTUS streams its oral arguments online. The audio feed can be and often is broken down into sound bites as is the written transcript in wire service accounts. Presumably Nino doesn’t mind being heard. He just doesn’t want to be seen.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:37 pmDid Scalia ask Rush’s permission to come to Florida?? He may be out of bounds on this one and have to apologize on Rushbo’s show….
Maybe Rushbo was to busy trying to get Joe the Economic Advisor his talking points and let Scalia slip thru…Ohhh….bad timing….
February 4th, 2009 at 2:38 pmOf course, Scalia is known for his total humility and civility in all situations.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pmNice comb-over d o u c h e b a g.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:49 pmSilly fascist Justices and thier penchants for secrecy and hypocrasy.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:50 pmAnd we don’t want to have to look at him, so it’s OK…
February 4th, 2009 at 2:51 pmI think that if Scalia (or any other justice) wants to write books, go on promotional tours, etc. that they should do so only after having vacated their seat on the Court.
The day that Scalia leaves the court will be a day to celebrate. Let’s hope that day comes sooner rather than later. The quality of justice in America will dramatically improve once this oligarch is off the bench.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:01 pmScalia is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pmActually, I am sure that like most government procedure that is televised, SCOTUS proceedings would be broadcast on C-Span in its entirety. Of course the news and talking heads would edit pieces…that’s how it works in the 21st (and preceeding) century. It always seems odd that the cons and neo-cons who profess to hate government so much are so secretive when it comes to their work while holding office.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pmSupreme Court Notes:
1) Scalia is guilty of two felonies under Federal Civil Right Laws. One day he was giving a speech. He and his associates forgot their sign that says “No Recording” (to keep the ticket prices high?), and someone recorded it as would apparently be allowed due to there being no sign that says not to. Scalia then apparently asked/convinced/ordered a federal official, some policeman of some kind, to:
a) stop the person who had the recording (but since no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing existed, this stop itself is a violation of the law), then
b) demand the recording device (definitely assault and robbery under color of law), and finally
c) destroy the recording (destruction of private property, when done illegally as a federal police act- is a felony under civil right law).
He was allowed to ask for the recording, but not to use the threat of lethal violence from a federal police officer.
When he spoke to the cop about it, he committed the felony: conspiring to assault and rob a citizen.
2) Roberts is guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Bribery. He once sat on a SUPER politically-critical case, where the Bush people wanted to establish the ability to seize people with NO due process whatsoever, and be able to commit crimes against humanity and/or war crimes of that nature with impunity. It was controversial. A loss would be a HUGE setback in the Bush Cheney effort to implement their class war steal 5 trillion, with dishonest “supply side” lies), divert attention from their criminal negligence in 2001 leading to 11Sept01 (= no terrorism meetings, no response whatsoever to the warnings), and their negligence fraud and murder of federal officials (fraud against the U.S. in the justification of the war, criminal negligence again in allowing the ammunition and terrorist-friendly explosives to be completely looted from Iraq: both lead to murder charges). The bribe and conspiracy consist of, while pondering the case he was offered the Nobel Prize for Federal Judges, a nomination to the supreme court. It was in fact a bribe, he accepted it, and paid them back what was owed, and now is The Right Wing chief Justice/Criminal.
He therefore now displaces John Mitchell, as the person with the largest dynamic range of legal status: Felon + Chief Justice. (Mitchel was merely felon + Attorney General, but he had actually been convicted, not simply accused, of course)
Nostalgia Section
February 4th, 2009 at 3:57 pmRehnquist was the War Criminal’s THIRD choice for a justice (Clement Haynesworth, G. Harold Carswell), and frequently generated dissembling, incoherent opinions due to brain damage from excessive drug use, but otherwise ably distorted our system in favor of the class war, the war against democracy, and of course right wing demagoguery. For example, in the case where an anonymous “tip” came to the police, about three people who may have had guns at a bus stop, could the police stop and search them just from the anonymous tip– Rehnquist said a “citizen is perfectly within their rights to walk away and ignore the officer”. Sure. Argue? =handcuffs. Give them ore trouble: =arrested, all property seized (car kidnapped by the ripoff towing company), and of course, little evidence in the citizens favor every survives police custody. So could the person who made the Scalia recording take Rehnquist’s advice? No: arrest, detention, injury, etc.
Not A Good Plan, Your deranged Honor Chief Justice Rehnquist)
I bet he’s on target to sell a coupla hundred copies nationwide :)~
February 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pmI’d like to see Scalia and Cheney go on hunting trip, get drunk, and shoot one another in the face.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:30 pmSarah Jeck, your question was relevant, intellectually sound, and delivered in an appropriately clinical and analytical way.
Scalia, your response was pompous, arrogant, thin-skinned, and delivered in a snarky manner not befitting your office.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:39 pmSomeone needs to inform Lord Scalia that when he’s on a book tour, he’s just another celebrity.
February 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pmThis arrogant bozo is 1 of 5 reasons i.e. votes that foisted Chimpy W. Bush on us in 2000. He should never be forgiven for that tragedy.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:01 pmHe’s a greasy little barstid, ain’t he? Looks like he ought to be running a waste collection business in da Bronx – and his morals are the same.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:11 pmJustice Scalia, having been appointed to the Supreme Court by Reagan, shares the same values, ethics, and sense of entitlement as the rest of the far right of the GOP in that he regards everything he does as above reproach. Therefore, in his mind, it is impertinent for a common college student to question his decisions and motivations.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:14 pmShe was rude and an arrogant jackass. I don’t care if you disagree with a justice, these forums are for the edification of serious minded people, not a self promotion opportunity for a sniveling jagoff college kid. Hate is an ugly thing, even on the left.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:20 pmIf the GOP can have “Joe the Plummer”, the the left wingers can certainly be justified in reveling in the sudden celebrity of “Sarah the Student”.
Personally, I would love to see the two debate critical issues. She would kick his butt (crack).
February 4th, 2009 at 6:22 pmScalia later returned to Jeck’s question, however, and said that because “most people will only see 30-second takeouts,” it wouldn’t give a true impression of the Supreme Court and would lead to “miseducation.”
Do you mean like the miseducation you and your brethren did in trying to convince the public that you had the constitutional authority to intervene in a state election case before it had gone through the lower courts, and then claim it wasn’t a precedent?
February 4th, 2009 at 6:40 pmPeople should either protest or boycott any event that these brain dead neo cons attend.
No one should buy their books or give them a second look.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:32 pmIT IS OUR ONLY WAY OF MAKING THEM AWARE OF OUR DISPLEASURE.
drew3rd Says:
“…these forums are for the edification of serious minded people, not a self promotion opportunity for a sniveling jagoff college kid.”
No, these forums are for authors to discuss their work and promote it to the public. This was NOT a session of the SCOTUS. Ir was a book tour. This student asked him a question, admittedly a tricky one, and Fat Tony rudely and crudely chewed her head off. Pretty shabby performance for a man who is supposed to be among the most intellectually capable in the nation. As far as “hate” is concerned, attacking her as a “sniveling jagoff” puts the hate right on you, pal.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:03 pmmarlow, you have disarmed me completely. Such a razors edge your mind is. Grow up! She was rude and a jagoff college kid. Have some self respect when in the company of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. They are a special breed compared to the brainless wonders that populate the house and senate. If she wants to rag a congressman or senator, be my guest. Justices are not as available so take the time given to enjoy a look at someone you will never get the opportunity to see again. Instead, she decides to be a partisan hack when she could have learned a great deal. Some people GET IT, obviously, you don’t!
February 4th, 2009 at 10:02 pmScumdog Millionaire Scalia should have been impeached and removed from the Supreme Court a long, long time ago, but especially after unconstitutionally interfering in the Florida recount and handing the White House to two of the sorriest Republican jerks in American history.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:11 pmdrew3rd Says:
February 4th, 2009 at 11:04 pmWhat a laugh you are, Tory. We don’t live under a king anymore; get used to it. Maybe you expect your kids to learn to submit unquestioningly to authority in college; most of us expect our children to learn to think critically and develop the rhetorical skills to call out a bullshitter no matter how important he thinks he is. If your jagoff partisan hack of a jurist can’t handle the questions of a college student with a little grace and wit, then he shouldn’t allow questions in the first place.
I wouldn’t buy or read anything written by this nasty piece of work. This partisan Cheney loving neocon. He lacks objectivity and he lacks integrity. He has a mean mouth and a terrible disposition. He is a pontificating old poop.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:14 amScalia doesn’t want cameras in his court recording his anti-Constitution antidemocratic anti-American misdeeds, but he loves those cameras at his book signings with all that West Palm Beach old money fawning over his every word. Doubtless these shareholders really appreciate Scalia giving corporations like Exxon Mobil a break and screwing the people of Alaska decades after the Exxon Valdez oil spill destroyed the local economy and wiped out thousands of Americans financially, hard-working Americans who only got a few thousand dollars in compensation as a result of Scalia and his colleagues thinly veiled corporate protectionism disguised as an impartial decision, which was totally lacking in anything resembling justice. Antonin Scalia is quite obviously a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America.
Heads up to my peeps at my Al mamata FAU (Florida Atlantic University) for embarrassing and exposing this justice of the Supreme Court who badly needs to be publicly exposed and embarrassed at every opportunity.
Florida Student Asks Scalia a Question — and Gets Scolded
U.S. Supreme Court justice shows confidence, combativeness at West Palm Beach forum
February 5th, 2009 at 12:24 amTake a tip from you hunting (drinking) buddy Dick Cheney and go fukc yourself.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:38 amThank god, Dick never blasted you with his shotgun while on your drunken field trips. Having a Supreme like you Mr. Scalia is a major reason for voting Obama….the fear of getting more dipshits like you on the court helped defeat the bimbo and the oldest frat boy in America.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:51 amnanlichi Says:
That’s not an impolite question. An impolite question would be, “How did a miserable fat fck like you get to be on the Supreme Court?”
And the answer, of course, is BUSHCO!!
February 5th, 2009 at 12:51 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Scalila is a nasty and impolite person.
I’m wondering about the appropriateness of a Supreme Court Justice writing a book while still in office. That doesn’t seem quite right to me. It would be like a President writing a book while still in office.
B-b-but THAT would be a conflict of interests! And we all know that the repugs NEVER engage in activities which could possibly construed as “conflict of interest.”
February 5th, 2009 at 12:55 amspencers mom Says:
Am I the only one who thinks of Grisham’s “The Pelican Brief” whenever I hear from Scalia and his ilk?
I also think of “The Firm” and “The Runaway Jury.”
February 5th, 2009 at 12:59 amcontinuum Says:
Scalia lets his Republican ideology completely dominate his understanding of the Rule of Law. He should be impeached and removed from his office for just being a stupid, ignorant, self-serving dickhead.
Perhaps even more dangerous than his Repug ideology are his egomania and situation ethics. And ANY situation involving large numbers of repugs HAS no ethics.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:04 amlabman57 Says:
Justice Scalia, having been appointed to the Supreme Court by Reagan, shares the same values, ethics, and sense of entitlement as the rest of the far right of the GOP in that he regards everything he does as above reproach. In that case, perhaps we should call him Pope Scalia instead of Lord Scalia.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:14 amScalia is a conservative who studies the US Constitution hermenutically. Unfortunately there are interpretations, and interpretations of interpretations.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:48 pm