You are here: Home » General » More thoughts on the decline of Antonin Scalia
Take me out of the ball game.
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Good article, Paul. Its the way I feel. I wonder if his personal realtionships with the other judges, especially Ginzburg, have deteriorated as he gets angrier and angrier and crazier and crazier. (Douglas was always despised by everyone on the court, especially law clerks and secretaries, since he was a mean SOB in addition to being a preening egotist but I had the impression that Scalia was actually well liked because of his wit and sense of humour. I would imagine that is changing).)
Was Douglas hated even in the 40s? IIRC, FDR even considered making him his running mate in 1944.
He may not have been hated by his fellow justices or by politicians then but he was hated by law clerks and secretaries. I was in law school when he died and there was a big assembly to honor him (his reputation at the time was this fearless liberal warrior despite the cracks in that image that were appearing). Several of his former law clerks spoke and they stunned all of us by relating the stories of his behavior – screaming at secretaries, having law clerks work all night on briefs without a word of thanks, tantrums over the most minor things. This was supposed to be a tribute to his life but we all left thinking he was a horrible jerk.
With Liberals, reason is despised, logic is disdained and the Constitution is loathed. Scalia made a comment that is common sense to anyone with a brain. Sorry, that leaves you liberals in the dark
You left wing idiots are lost in a world of perversion of what this great nation once was. Becoming wise they become fools and your lack of wisdom is so obvious to the normal American. Your eyes are so lofty and you laugh at us lollards but it will be your demise.
Your eyes are so lofty
This phrase does not mean whatever you think it means.
and you laugh at us lollards
While it is true we laugh at you, once again, this phrase does not mean what you think it means.
but it will be your demise.
Truly I tremble at your mighty intellect.
I hadn’t realized the right thought the difference between consubtantiation and transubstantiation so important.
One can afford to have a sense of humor when one thinks that one is winning (see Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner, Nino’s reaction to). Things are much different when you see the tide receding and you find that you can’t do anything about it.
Today, as a self-employed junk-insured cancer patient, I cling to this fact like a chemo-filled life raft: My wife’s spoiled nephew, who Tony sounds increasingly like, only tantrums when he’s about to be sent to bed for real.
If the Salon articles are going to be a semi-regular thing: congrats. That site could use a shot in the arm of intellectual rigor. (And a design overhaul, but I don’t think you can help with that).
It appears that state’s rights are more valuable in Arizona than they are in Montana. Nino apparently got the unabridged Constitution where that specified.
The one with the word “suckers” in it.
(That joke is never getting old.)
Yeah, that was particularly rich, the difference between states’ enhancements to federal restrictions affecting undocumented workers vs coal and gas extractors. It’s right there in the Constitution (on the back, near the bottom, behind the map to the Masonic treasure, only visible through the glasses Ben Franklin made to the purpose).
If I didn’t need air, water or a functioning political system I’d be laughing myself sick.
As I noted in the other thread, Scalia is fine with states ignoring the other two branches, but they must show total deference to any Supreme Court opinion in which he voted with the majority. it’s the difference between liberty and license.
States’ rights only exist when they support political outcomes Scalia likes. He cares not one wit for the law or precedent as long as he gets his way.
Apparently you have never thought to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. Why don’t you move near the border of AZ and Mexico. Let the illegals camp out on your property and take your children’s jobs from them, etc. Before you open your big mouth and make stupid insane comments against another person try thinking about being in their shoes. I find you stupid and offensive!
Says someone with an IP address out of Logan, Utah.
The pseudonym was rather apt, however. The only way to improve upon that would be to simply go “Sniveling Coward.”
I find you stupid and offensive!
I am pleased to hear it, as I would hate to think someone as nasty as you respected me.
Truly amazing — you guardians of the law sound like spoiled brats ……. everything is fine as long as it goes your way ……. and obviously your way is to modify/change/assert that the constitution must be a “living document” … what a bunch of hypocritical whiners the lot of you are …. apparently if you decide it’s OK then that’s what we go with but if someone decides otherwise they are – ?what? senile, cranky, etc. ….. I’m not impressed by the use of dictionaries to get your messages across … obfuscation is apparently something that you use to ?what? impress readers of your apparent juvenile state of mind? Really – do you think other than a few admirers care what you think ….???
Well said. The Constitution is not in need of revision, the common sense in this document is timeless.
It’s amendment free!
They really like to make it all about insulting the writer of the piece while sucking Nino off
the common sense in this document is timeless.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Yep, timeless common sense.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
In light of the fact that, per the linked article, Scalia seems to be getting loopier as he gets older, it’s worth noting that a full third of the Court (Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg) is going to turn 80 during the next Presidential term. That’s no guarantee of even a single vacancy, of course, but that’s a lot of years to be carrying around.
Our one hope now is that his increasing uncontrolled rage will trigger an aneurism.
Wishing someone to die? You are repulsive. Thanks heaven for people who can stand up to our wacko President.
You need to take a breath yourself or you’ll be the one suffering a burst vessel.
Hey Dick, why do you always resort to adolescent drivel? Try a well reasoned response. Sit on your hands.
I mentioned this somewhere else, but it looks more and more as if Scalia is burdened with a few too many plaques in the glia. I suppose it’s too late for Vitamin D and turmeric to help.
…a passage written by a man who obviously no longer cares that he sounds increasingly like a right-wing talk radio host rather than a justice of the Supreme Court…
Sounds to me more and more like Grandpa Simpson. In fact, I bet the writers are working on it already.
Rather than Updike, Scalia should heed Roger Angell. After watching Willie Mays pick up a bouncer to the outfield for the Mets in his last season and flip the ball to another outfielder to throw back into second, Angell wrote “Heroes should depart.”
I remember the Mets had “Goodbye to Willie Day” before he announced his retirement.
I was never much of a fan of Updike’s novels, but damn if that wasn’t an excellent baseball article.
Paul, you are a liberal piece of shit. You’re just jealous that you are only one tenth as smart as Scalia. Eat shit and die asshole
Sadly, this comment is more substantive and carefully reasoned than most of Scalia’s dissent in Arizona v. U.S.
Why is there so much offensive language and opinions regarding Scalia’s disent?
His disent opinion is simply based on how the Constitution is to be applied.
We are a Nation of Laws, are we not? And if there are laws on the books that a President is not “protecting” as he “swore an oath” at the start of his presidency…I think that gives rise to a majority of people in this country something to get upset about and want to make statements.
Scalia was charged with ruling on a State Law that gave them authority to enforce Federal Law…and Obama and his administration are failing to support and/or enforce. (Like many OTHER laws this President doesn’t like)
“President Barack H. Obama announced today a bold new plan to hire tens of thousands of employees across all federal agencies in order to more completely enforce federal statutes against all offenders. The agencies expected to benefit from expansion include everything from the FBI and ICE to OSHA and the EPA. Mr. Obama also announced a plan to vastly expand the nation’s court system, constructing dozens of new courthouses across the nation and appointing judges to the newly created posts. “No longer will undocumented aliens or polluting employers be able to flout our nation’s laws,” said Mr. Obama in a Rose Garden press conference. “The time for big government in now.”
Republican leaders stated their intention to vigorously back the plan.”
Indeed, with your sage advice I will start moving a law to tar and feather anyone who litters in Indiana. It is already against the law, yet I see litter! Obviously Obama has chosen not to enforce this law, and according to Scalia it is completely within the State’s rights to enforce the Laws of the United States on a local basis when the Federal government fails.
For a perfect illustration of “intemperate jeremiad”, reread your article, Mr. Campos.
Scalia laid out facts, and instead of refuting them, you went on an ad hominem tirade.
Scalia laid out facts
“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached.”
Your spectacular hatred fortifies your opponents with all the entitlemet they need in this ideological war on liberal degeneracy. Truly epic. I only pray you continue in such vile derision that you may further justify the consequences coming against your reprobate species.
See, JenBob? That’s a troll who shows some effort. If you got yourself a thesaurus, you could do as well as this. Substance-free, but lots of big words.
Pity that today’s new crop of lawyers (and journalists) are educated by professorial political hacks. Scalia considers real law rather than wishful thinking.
These diatribes against Justice Scalia simply reflect the insensitive, inaccurate & closed mindedness of those who disagree with him. He is right on constitutionally I suspect that those who most voiciferously disagree with Scalia are far left-wing ultra-liberals who read the constitution they way they want to read it & not the way its authors intended. Scalia may be in the minority on this issue, but he is right.
reflect the insensitive, inaccurate & closed mindedness of those who disagree with him.
Can you rewrite this so you can understand exactly what you’re saying?
Also, you should read Paul’s new blog post! Maybe it will clear up for you how the argument that Arizona is a “sovereign state” doesn’t make sense (assuming you currently assume that Arizona is indeed it’s own nation, which I assure you isn’t true).
I don’t think you’re seriously trying to parse that. Clearly, your mindedness is not only insensitive and inaccurate, but closed as well.
[...] On the Lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com, a commenter identified as “DrDick” wrote: “Our one hope now is that his increasing uncontrolled rage will trigger an aneurism (sic).” [...]
It appears obvious that the anger most of the respondents to this website criticize is microbially diminutive in comparison to the vituperation and whining vitriol of the progressive mindset.
It might be more productive for a political philosophy in the throes of its self-inflicted demise for you bandy-legged BObaggers to save your efforts and forward your pesos to your deity’s campaign. I hear he’s running a little short of change and hope too for that matter. Open your eyes, enjoy your dusk and the imminent darkness.
We remain fortunate enough in America to have a few men such as Scalia! Pound for pound, he’s worth a great deal more than any liberal I’ve ever met or heard of.
My very best regards to all,
Yes for example there was such reasoned responses as
“Thanks heaven for people who can stand up to our wacko President.”
“Paul, you are a liberal piece of shit. You’re just jealous that you are only one tenth as smart as Scalia. Eat shit and die asshole”
I swear I was about to engage in the same speculation…
Is this the lollards guy too? Because that was awesome.
This is a very special breed of troll right here my friends.
Shorter Troll Army
“Nino Scalia is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life. “
Are we sure they’re not just his bazillion kids?
His very feces are an untrammeled delight!
I read some where that good will be evil spoken of. That is very much the case with the critisizm of Judge Scalia. Here is a man willing to stand up for the rule of law in this country. For the white house to say they will ignore the ruling now that is contempt of court. If a republican President did the things that this president against this country, the liberals would be screaming lond & loud. What hipocricy
For the white house to say they will ignore the ruling now that is contempt of court.
Yea, why won’t Obama follow a dissenting opinion? Answer that, libtards!
Scalia has issued his dissent; now let him enforce it!
Do all of these trolls get their miseducation at the same place, or is it all one troll?
So many similar spelling and punctuation failures…
[...] On the Lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com, a commenter identified only as “DrDick” wrote: “Our one hope now is that his increasing uncontrolled rage will trigger an aneurism (sic).” [...]
In the majority of outcomes, the more power to States and less power to Fed. Government, I’m all for it.
Then you obviously are completely ignorant of US history and have never actually read the Constitution.
Translation: “I love Jim Crow!”
Judging by your surname (Campos) it’s no wonder you side with the wetbacks.
No racism there, no sir. Ctrawl back under your rock, shit slime.
I would like to see Arizona refuse to enforce ANY federal laws from today foreward.
Just imagine, a bank silent alarm…sorry can’t respond as bankrobbery is a fed. crime…please call the FBI..
There are any number of fed. crimes that the states enforce, STOP NOW!
When someone threatens Oblowjob style treason, just say sorry call the feds, can’t help you.
I’m sure that would make all Arizonans much happier.
Mr Campos please keep dumoing your drivel on your students. Out here in the REAL world your ideas are not of ANY value.
oops sorry “dumping”
I think Scalia is probably the most brilliant Jurist on the court. His approach to the law is refreshingly simple and lacks the convoluted self serving “interpretations” evident in so many other jurists opinions. Scalia believes the Law is for the “people” and not the sole provenance of Lawyers and Legislators. Who can argue with that?
On this decision, I think the point is quite clear. If the federal government does not act to enforce the laws on the books, and decides to use “discretion” when enforcing the law, why shouldn’t the states be allowed to enforce FEDERAL LAWS that the Federal government fails to enforce? What gives the federal government the luxury of ignoring its own laws? What gives the Federal government the right to restrain the states from enforcing Federal laws that the Federal government is REQUIRED to enforce? These are good questions and I for one am glad we have a Justice like Scalia who knows darn well when he sees a pig wearing lipstick.
His approach to the law is refreshingly simple and lacks the convoluted self serving “interpretations” evident in so many other jurists opinions
This is true – it boils down to “If Nino likes the outcome, then it’s constitutional. If he doesn’t, then it ain’t.”
Nope, no need for any fancy booklarnin’ to come up with those down-home interpretations, that’s for sure!
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Subscribe via RSS Feed
Paul Campos, Above the Law 2011 Lawyer of the Year
Erik Loomis, HNN Cliopatria 2011 Best Series of Posts
Who are we?
For administrative, advertising, or other inquiries, please e-mail here.
Switch to our mobile site