Making a Joke of the Supreme Court
Making a Joke of the Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia is a Publicity-Seeking Intellectual Midget
by Dave Lindorff / December 13th, 2014
Sometimes you really dont need to write much to do an article on something. Writing about the inanity of Justice Antonin Scalia, the ethics-challenged, lard-bottomed, right-wing anchor of the Supreme Court, is one of those times.
Scalia just weighed in on the CIA torture issue in an interview for a Swiss broadcast network, saying that he didnt think there was anything in the US Constitution that would prohibit torture under all circumstances, and positing a situation a suspect with knowledge about a hidden nuke to be detonated in Los Angeles that he suggested would make torture an acceptable tactic.
First of all, if Scalia can say I dont know what article of the Constitution would contravene harsh treatment of suspected terrorists, he is either terminally ignorant, or has figured out some talmudic-like gymnastic reasoning to allow him to argue that the Eighth Amendments ban on cruel and unusual punishment doesnt apply to torture. Perhaps he thinks that punishment can only refer to the what is meted out to a person after conviction, but as he surely knows, for literally centuries the court has been clear that the treatment of suspects is also covered by that ban. Furthermore, the Founders Scalia claims to have such respect for, clearly had in mind the abuses British colonial forces visited upon arrested and detained colonists when they wrote that ban into the Bill of Rights.
But beyond that, the argument about a suspect who knew about a hidden nuke, or an Anthrax or Small Pox bomb, which is hardly an original idea of Scalias, has always been silly. Establishing that torture is always illegal, and that its perpetrators are committing a heinous crime, would never stop some cop or FBI agent or CIA agent from torturing such a suspect if he or she thought it could produce the information needed to find and prevent such a bomb. Who would think about future punishment in such a crisis?
More:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/12/making-a-joke-of-the-supreme-court/
belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)(used with object), contravened, contravening.
1.
to come or be in conflict with; go or act against; deny or oppose:
to contravene a statement.
2.
to violate, infringe, or transgress:
to contravene the law.
Nictuku
(3,614 posts)I am not a Lawyer, but even I know that there is a clause in the U.S. Constitution regarding Treaties being the supreme law of the land.
I looked it up, it is Article VI (2nd paragraph specifically) states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
What part of 'Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby" doesn't the Supreme Court Justice understand?
It is his duty to understand the Treaties that the United States has signed and ratified.
Specifically, The International Human Rights Treaty (Chapter IV, Section 9) which includes the "Convention against Torture" (CAT) and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This treaty was signed and ratified by the United States Government: Signed April 18, 1988. Ratified Oct 21, 1994.
Is this man for real? What kind of gobbly gook is he speaking?
starroute
(12,977 posts)June 4, 2014
Right-wing media are disappointed that the Supreme Court decided to rule narrowly in a domestic criminal case that nonetheless had big implications for the United States' standing in the global community, rejecting a conservative legal challenge to Congress' long-standing powers under the U.S. Constitution to enforce ratified international treaties.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in Bond v. United States, holding that federal prosecutors had overreached when they charged the defendant, Carol Anne Bond, with violating the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1988, a statute enacted by Congress to fulfill the international obligations of the United States. .... Bond argued (in part) that her conviction should be overturned because Congress has no constitutional authority to enact legislation that would help implement ratified treaties like the Convention on Chemical Weapons. This extreme and ahistorical argument was concocted by the libertarian Cato Institute ...
Right-wing media outlets like The Wall Street Journal and National Review Online were clearly upset that the Court refused to adopt the radical concurring opinions of conservative Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Scalia and Thomas, for their part, "uncritically embraced" the outlandish constitutional argument put forth by Cato that "Congress lacks any specific power to pass legislation necessary and proper to ensure that the United States abides by its treaty commitments."
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)How did such a dimwit make it to the SCOTUS?
Never mind, I know the answer, but geez.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)the most obvious is,
a treaty can not spend money,
that power belongs to Congress
dickthegrouch
(3,175 posts)must have been on the back of the page which has the 4th amendment on it.
Conveniently they both got trashed at the same time.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)1) Conservatives are right about everything. Yes, even that. And that. And that too. Everything. All the time.
2) See #1
Obnoxious bag of shit is the prime argument against lifetime appointments.
Hockey Dad
(70 posts)As noted elsewhere, on an entirely different point, with sixty-six seconds expired in the clip...