FRANKEN KICKS SCALIA ASS

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/29/opinion/main1083723.shtml


Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is, supposedly, a very smart man. Indeed, he is frequently referred to as the intellectual giant on the current high court.

Yet, when Scalia was confronted by comedian and social commentator Al Franken with a basic question of legal ethics, it was the funny man, not the "serious" jurist, who proved to be the most knowledgeable.

The confrontation took place last week in New York City, where Scalia was the guest of Conversations on the Circle, a prestigious series of one-on-one interviews with Norman Pearlstine, the outgoing Time Inc. editor-in-chief.

:)

I just remembered that I have an online subscription to The Nation. Better go read it, huh?

Thank you for posting this.

It is just GREAT!

I laughed my ass off. A comedian knows more than someone who is supposed to be a judge! LOL! Franken for SCOTUS!

ellen fl

:bounce: :yourock:

Goddamn Al - Keep it up!!!:patriot: :headbang:

Because he got better marks in college. Franken earned his way into Harvard and his brother went to MIT. I grew up in a jewish clique and I would take a smart Jewish person anytime. I once watched Dershowitz make mincemeat out of William F. Buckley. If Franken wasn't smoking so much pot in the sixties he could of had the same marks as Scalia.

At least that's been my experience. You can get an easy instructor who will give you at least a C, no matter what. Seats in these instructors' classes fill up very quickly. If you are uninformed and/or lack influence, you can end up with a hardass who will give you a C if you kill yourself for it, or a B if you can walk on water. This type of instructor never gives an A, no matter what.

The moneyed elite are certainly aware of this, and exploit registration day to their full advantage. How else do you think a lazy jackass like Dubmya could ever have gotten a degree?

I'm just saying, don't assume an individual is smart, just on account of the grades they got in school, or which type of degree they got from which institution. It could have been fixed for them. I'm sure it happens all the time.

People of influence, passing such information to their new 'brothers and sisters' to help them skate through.

Never had any use for them.

(Caveat: there are professional Greek houses, the tough academic houses and such -- my disdain is reserved solely for the social houses that tend to be populated by, what do you call it?, heritage students?)

For me being in a Greek House was a way to meet other people, when going away to school not knowing anyone at all - and being a shy person I'm not good at going up to strangers and talking to them. I never received any information from any of the Sorority members to help me get through classes - it would not have been possible, as there were no other Landscape Architects in the house. I worked hard for my degree. I certainly didn't sail through - all the meetings actually made time harder to manage.

I don't think it's fair to judge the purpose of Greek Houses as a whole, without ever being in one. Also, every different house has a different personality of people - sure there were the party houses, which I would not have wanted to join, but there are also more serious houses, as mine was - and some of my best friends came from the Sorority - though I had several really good friends from my classes, and from my first year in the dorms, as well.

The one thing I am a bit sorry to know is I think Laura Bush was in the same Sorority, but then all chapters around the country are different - you will get different personalities of people in them different places.

Meg

Social greeks are just part of the crony capitalist system. As they say, it's more WHO you know than WHAT you know....and the greek system does alot to perpetrate that kind of culture.

Me? I've always been an outsider, so I never wasted time playing that game.

I don't remember getting a choice of instructor for my courses (Penn State class of '89). I don't think that's standard practice at most schools.

Anyway, I don't care who you registered for. If you have a 3.0 or better B.S. in Electrical Engineering from any of the Ivy League or other Top 200 schools, you're darned smart in my book.

No one does well in wave theory class unless they know their shit, connections or not. I'm excluding cases of outright fraud. Of course, cronyism and nepotism will always exist at universities, but I don't think your case, while probably true, is true in general.

You're a freshman & you get a list of classes you're supposed to take, according to your chosen major. You get in line to sign up for each class on your list. First on the list is Social Studies 101. There are are classes at 8 AM, 10 AM and 2 PM, all on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Instructors are:

8 AM Dr. Killdozer

10 AM Dr. Himmler

2 PM Ms. Smurf

Your friends in Skull & Bones have told you that the first 2 instructors are killers, but Ms. Smurf is great. You sign up for the 2 PM class.

You have to register as soon as possible. Otherwise Ms. Smurf's class will be all filled up by the time you get there. There will always be room in the 8 AM & 10 AM classes.

I attended West Virginia State University in the late sixties.

If you folks at Penn State selected the classes to fit into your schedule, and if there was any way whatsoever of knowing which instructors taught which classes, I assure you that this same scenario was operative.

You have to question the judgement of anybody who believes in things like holy water, rosary beads, patron saints, virgin births and other nonsense.

And before I get flamed by catholics, you have to admit that those things are really silly....they exist for the purpose of controlling people's minds and enriching the church's bank account.

...include a perfect 600 in math.

Franken does have his moments...:)

referred to as a comedian any longer. Yes, he's funny and yes he right, but if he wants to be a senator, as the reports are always flying, he needs to re-create his imagine....jmo

The article is hysterical.

FROM Harvard which would lend him credibility.

...the more dignified term, "humorist." That would group him in with people like Garrison Kiehlor and Bill Bryson, knowledgable people who just happen to be funny in their own way.

"The Truth With Jokes"..

You repuke slimeball.

It doesn't seem to matter what profession they're in does it?

What a political hack.

I would go with Franken in this fight. He is an expert @ Yiddish martial arts,
or Jew Jujitsu.

:applause:

Although I disagree with his not touching the election fraud story ....
Al is scary smart: Harvard, writer for SNL, author, actor, comedian, film
writer, and producer.

End of Story.

Jewjitsu

Oranjew glad I correctedjew?

I wonder how much circulation this will get. I imagine that if it had been proven that Franken was wrong the story would have been on every national new cast and some shows would have dedicated segments to how liberals make so many mistakes. Now that it is a conservative justice that has made a big mistake will this be on many national news casts? Also, will anyone question Scalia's fitness to be on the Supreme Court considering he did not know the definitions of two legal words?

The Russian mob probably models their ethos after the Republican Party.

He attended Harvard University and graduated cum laude in 1973 with a Bachelor of Science in political science. In 2003, Franken served as a Fellow with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government at the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy.

It is disappointing that the article fails to point out that franken has BS in Political Science from Harvard which would give him the credibility he deserves,

but was I the only one that was bothered by all the quotes deriding Franken being on the front page and the truth was on the second page? It seems to me that the whole thing would have been more damning of Scalia if they'd organized the story differently. Just wondering if I was the only one that thinks this...

I think the reporter (usually more liberal) came up with the piece and the editor (usually more conservative) altered the story just a wee bit....


On edit: even so, it gave me some wonderful warm Schadenfreude to start the evening hehehehe :evilgrin:

Scalia should be removed from the United States Supreme Court!

I'm sure Al will play that one up today. Why he's smarter than a supreme court judge. That means Al is actually smarter than two judges since Thomas is just the second non-thinking Scalia brain.

It's obvious that Scalia and Cheney have the same demeanor. (way of conducting oneself) They're never wrong. Arrogant bastards.

Sonia

Maybe I'm an elitist intellectual, but generally, it's Franken who gives you in-depth and knowledgeable analyses of wingnut flaws, lies, and corruption. I adore the folks to stick it to the wingnuts with passion, such as Randi and Malloy. But I think there's a very important place for Franken's well thought out analysis of issues.

clown :+ and has no business on the supreme court..how'd he get there, anyway?

Good for Franken ..goin' over there and asking that question and all the whack jobs defending old scalia but Al was the Victor!

it's also tradition that we lynch brothers in the south.

Scalia you are a profound embarrassment to the judiciary and to the legal system, and will go down as another example of what a supreme court justice should NOT be.

And you're powerless to do anything about it.

I love you Al Franken

If I'm not mistaken, he also confronted Scalia at the reception afterward, and exposed Scalia as a hypocrite for calling himself an "originalist". That would mean he should support abortion rights. When Franken pointed out that abortion was common and legal until the mid 1800s, Scalia declared it to be a lie. Franken is apparently correct on this point, too!!

:hi:

at the New York Post; however, I am very surprised that CBS News is relying upon the news reporting of the New York Post. At best what is reported by CBS in this url (given to us in the OP and which is the basis of the OP discussion) is nothing more than a red herring. That is, it's non-facts reported merely for the sensationalism of filling space.

By that I mean, we are left with not knowing what the hell Al Franken actually said. And what Justice Scalia actually said. What we have, instead, is the CBS article giving us their opinion of what the NY Post reported as their opinion of the conversation between Franken and Scalia. And, not the facts (transcript).

Starting at the point of what is told about this conversation -- hardly anything at all -- I'll attempt to fill in the gaps by guessing. Geez, how stupid can it get?

First of all, Scalia may not have had a course in legal professional ethics in law school; and it may possible that at the time Scalia took the Bar exam, a separate ethics exam was not required to be a licensed attorney. This was quite common a few years ago, but not so today. However, I've been in many a situation where an older brother or sister of the Bar will lean into me and say, "Counselor, what's the ethical issue here and wtf is the answer in this ethics matter?" In addition, some jurisdictions (states) don't require "refresher" courses in ethics for those who've never taken a course nor taken the ethics exam.

Heavy stuff, huh?

All that being said, does not give Justice Scalia the justification of not being aware of legal ethics and judicial ethics, particularly judicial ethics despite SCOTUS justices not being held to such. I find it ironic, too, that Scalia authored the judicial ethics in a precedent setting SCOTUS case as stated in the CBS article.

In any event, I'd also speculate that Scalia was 100% correct in his use of the word "ethics" and that Franken was incorrect, yes, INCORRECT, in his use of the word "demeanor." The author of this CBS article appears to be citing incorrect ethics and law. The more appropriate usage would have been, "Justice Scalia, what about your ethical behavior in the _____ issue?" Behavior, not demeanor. Demeanor is not used in such circumstances. However, again, I am guessing here since the full transcript of the conversation b/t the parties is not available. We don't have the facts, only ineffective opinions. Which, truly, makes this entire matter rather stupid, really.

All in all, this is one really dumb "news" article.
.