Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Rude Pundit: Antonin Scalia Now Thinks Parts of the Constitution Are Anachronisms ...
(Just the Ones That Bug Him)The Rude Pundit was reading the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Canning (also known as the "Sure, Congress, go ahead and be dicks to the President about recess appointments" case) because that's what he does rather than listen to what every blathering idiot with a blog says. He was well into Judge Antonin "Eyebrows of Eternal Condemnation" Scalia's concurrence with the majority when he came across something that made him think, "What the fuck did I just read from Tony Originalist?"
Discussing the issue of adjournments and recess appointments, Scalia discussed the clause of the Constitution that allows them, in Article II, section 2, and he was getting deep into the self-created weeds of the meaning of the word "recess" when he wrote, "The rise of intra-session adjournments has occurred in tandem with the development of modern forms of communication and transportation that mean the Senate 'is always available' to consider nominations, even when its Members are temporarily dispersed for an intra-session break." Now, it's one thing to say that constitutional protections extend to modern technology, as in the smart phone case, but it's quite another to say that the Constitution is trumped by technology.
Scalia went to say that "The Recess Appointments Clause therefore is, or rather, should be, an anachronism," and then he quoted Justice Kagan with essentially an historic relic, something whose original purpose has disappeared," adding his own, "The need it was designed to fill no longer exists, and its only remaining use is the ignoble one of enabling the President to circumvent the Senates role in the appointment process."
Now, Scalia believes that the clause means that appointments can only be made for positions that become open during a recess, which the majority of justices do not. He would curtail it much further than the five justices in the main opinion. So he said, "That does not justify 'read(ing) it out of the Constitution and, contra the majority, I would not do so; but neither would I distort the Clauses original meaning, as the majority does, to ensure a prominent role for the recess-appointment power in an era when its influence is far more pernicious than beneficial."
But, still, Scalia, who wants to cast the bones of James Madison to divine the meaning of the Constitution, said, really, that a part of the document is "an anachronism," a "relic," rendered so by changes in technology, culture, and society.
The vast, complete, almost mindboggling hypocrisy of Scalia here is something he would snort at apathetically because he is just a pathetic tool of the right, a bully and a cockknob, a symbol of the intersection between knowing corruption of the law and the bloated, ever-expanding demands of a conservative, corporate state. On the other hand, what the Rude Pundit thought upon reading that section was "Hey, fucko, if technology renders the Recess Appointments Clause a relic, why don't advances in weaponry affect the Second Amendment? Why isn't that a fuckin' anachronism, a musket-based law forced into an AR-15 world?" All through his majority opinion in the Heller decision in 2008, Scalia fist fucks the language of the Second Amendment to force it to still be valid.
Interestingly, later in his concurrence in Canning, Scalia says what could, with little change, refer to the Second Amendment: "It is inconceivable that the Framers would have left the circumstances in which the President could exercise such a significant and potentially dangerous power so utterly indeterminate."
Yeah, it's inconceivable that the Framers would have wanted a 50-round magazine and a fuckin' arsenal in every home, too. It's pretty clear who the relic and anachronism is around the Supreme Court.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/antonin-scalia-now-thinks-parts-of.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 919 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (25)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Rude Pundit: Antonin Scalia Now Thinks Parts of the Constitution Are Anachronisms ... (Original Post)
meegbear
Jun 2014
OP
Yes, why isn't the 2nd considered a musket-based law forced into an AR-15 world?
Electric Monk
Jun 2014
#5
Alex P Notkeaton
(309 posts)1. Recs without a Kick. Again.
Tsk!
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)2. Exactly right
n2doc
(47,953 posts)3. Fat Tony is just like the others, he interprets things to suit his RW masters
The constitution has nothing to do with it.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)4. K&R
"It's pretty clear who the relic and anachronism is around the Supreme Court."
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)5. Yes, why isn't the 2nd considered a musket-based law forced into an AR-15 world?