his ruling in montana and arizona was paid for

that make it not hypocrisy? Are the two mutually exclusive?

Rec

One that I have long felt was valid.

If I had justified a position in law school using Scalia's Arizona arguments (state historically excluding "freed slaves" from its borders, among others), I would undoubtedly be given an F.

Is there any doubt that Scalia would have had no objection to the "individual mandate" if it had passed in 1993 when it was proposed by Republicans (at the time the Constitutionality of the concept was not in question)? I think not. Scalia (and I fear this is true for the remaining 8 justices as well, save perhaps Kennedy) does not interpret the law; he finds an argument that supports his party's position.

It's a shame because the independence under which the founders intended the Supreme Court to operate is dead, and that makes the Court pretty worthless. All of the Justices should be ashamed of themselves for becoming part of a Court whose decisions are predictable along party lines with a margin of error of one judge. It's the lowest quality jurisprudence and as a lawyer, it saddend and sickens me that this is what has become of an institution I used to hold in such high regard.

I think it has always been a political body to some extent, but this court has taken it to a new level. They don't really even try to hide their partisanship. I think the power of big $ has made them arrogant and brazen.

It is my opinion that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned that the Supreme Court and Federal Courts appointees could be this corrupted by politics and it is past time to revisit these issues. Perhaps we should also look at expanding the Supreme Court from nine justices.

They BOTH love to trash our Constitution
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-scalia-and-limbaugh-20120625,0,458552.story

He talks in right wing political talking points, not legal ones.

Why, oh, why don't people vet these things out BEFORE these asshats get on the bench.

State's rights is really a bad idea for a federal judge, because within states, the power is being chipped away by corrupt local government where feudal systems really are in place.

they support the GOP agenda. If a state tries to institute a policy at odds with his preferred outcome, then it's the court that is suddenly sovereign and supreme.

Note also that the Montana ruling was a summary dismissal. A summary dismissal to find a 102 year-old law unconstitutional. Note, too, that immigration is and always has been (under our current constitution anyway) a federal matter, whereas the administration of elections has always been a perogative of the states.

No doubt the Montana case was summarily dismissed because Scalia and the other right-wing bretheren simply found the task of explaining why this pair of rulings contradicts the entire tradition of consitutional law in the United States.

If Scalia were consistent, he would limit judgment to federal campaigns. (We'll have to deal with that in another way)

On the other hand, the issue of immigration is very much a federal issue because of the crossing border situation.

In simple terms, that's how I see it.

I was born in MT and was raised there. I still have a lot of close family members there.

While we had a lot of Tea Party types even back in the sixties (primarily JBSers - and I'll never forget how such scumbags gloated and cheered when JFK was assassinated - precursors of the truly nasties who have now been "mainstreamed" and who hold WAY too much power today), there are still a lot of good people there. Most of them know a heck of a lot more about Constitutional law than Scalia does.

"Fat Tony" needs to go. Now.

or activist judges.

These people re-define hypocrisy and somehow they can't see it.

That's why I will continue to point it out at every opportunity.

And we have no choice but to give it to him.

Heimlich anyone? Bueler? Bueler?

what I have been thinking for the last day or so . . . as they said this morning on Stephanie Miller (paraphrasing) . . . he goes home at night, drinks beer while shouting at MSNBC. And the media doesn't talk about this being partisan forget just wrong.

blatant and disgusting hypocrisy in full view.

Recommended.

is a true scumbag - ethics and morality have no place in his, or Justice Thomas, way of ruling.

http://www.change.org/petitions/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-apologize-for-using-slavery-as-legal-precedent-for-arizona-immigration-laws

If this is how you serve your country, then you can eat shit and die, your honor.

Seriously, that's exactly the sort of thinking cited by South Carolina in their articles of Secession. They declared their right to self-determination as an independent state with the exact same breath they blasted the federal government for allowing non-slave states to do the same.

Equal for me, but not for thee, in other words.

He just has a right wing political philosophy and uses that to determine how he will rule on cases. Then he turns to one of his Ivy League law clerks to find him legal support for the conclusion he wants to make. And legal precedent is much like the Bible. You can find a quote to justify anything.

he is good at what he does is all. Understand the difference.

when he and the other Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse overturned the Florida Supreme Court's ruling to recount ballots and appoint George W. Bush president.