Scalia should be impeached immediately

There is no excuse whatsoever for the United States to delay impeaching Justice Scalia and removing him from the court.

He has openly asserted that women have no rights, and that women are not human beings, and have no human rights.



Has this imbecile ever read the United State Constitution?

Right there, in the open, the 14th amendment states, quite clearly:


Apparently Scalia doesn't consider women to be "persons."

There is no reason that the man should be allowed to serve on the nation's highest court. He is not of this century. He is not of humanity.

The Congress should gather their reserve and remove this despicable man from the court and send him into retirement, without pension or admiration.

...that such a moron could have a seat on the highest court in the country!!

decisions like Bush v Gore and Citizens United.

Go figure.

morons all.

Otherwise you got a real tough time explaining set-asides for government contracts based on minority or female ownership.

I don't understand how the Fullilove v. Klutznick 1980 decision negates the 14th Amendment. Is that what you're referring to?

There is no mention of the word "discrimination" in the US Constitution, and the way that word is used today would be an alien usage to the people of the time when the amendment was written. There's a concept mismatch here.

recommended an amendment as the only way to prevent the southern states to stop discriminatory laws and practices. By the use of the term "all persons" this is extended to prevent discrimination against all people - even women. The exact term 'discrimination' not used, but that's why people smarter than Scalia need to be on that court.

It doesn't end with the well-known equal protection clause.

It also has this, which is why the 19th was necessary:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Interesting sidenote for Scalia supporters. When you're going about figuring out what things like the 14th Amendment mean, you consider all the words. You especially consider the fact that in Section 1, the drafters used "person" and "citizen." In Section 2, they used "male citizens."

That's a pretty powerful indicator that (1) the drafters actually knew that the categories of "male" and "female" existed and (2) were quite capable of using inclusive terms when they meant to be inclusive and exclusive ones when they meant to be exclusive.

As I said on another thread: If they meant for the 14th to apply only to black people (or black men) they had all the words available to them to say that. They didn't say that. The 14th is every bit as silent on black people as it is on women. Only if you choose to exclude one of those categories from your definition of "person" can you make Scalia's argument. Scalia doesn't get to pick and choose, or add context, when the words themselves are clear and not subject to interpretation.

Talk all you want about how words have changed their meanings in the last 145 years. "Person" really hasn't changed. (Other than, I suppose, now including corporations. But that only in the fevered world of Supreme Court jurisprudence.)

... to the people of the time when the amendment was written> Interesting.


I suppose that means that the 2nd amendment only refers to flintlocks. You only have the right to have a flintlock in order to form a well regulated militia. I mean "arms " then has no concept with arms" now.

And Scientology and Mormons are out of luck too, much less Wiccans, because no one would have considered such things legit religions.




Fools who think the Constitution can only be considered to be relevant to the time its various parts were written might as well go live in the 18th century, and let the rest of us get on with our modern lives.

Ha ha ha, people here don't even care about what the amendment ACTUALLY says and that as a Supreme Court justice it is actually his job to enforce the laws as they are ACTUALLY written.

It is congress's job to write the laws and the court system's job to enforce the laws. He is explaining the law exactly as it was written. If it needs clarification it should go back to congress to be fixed.

The majority of people here respond with their emotions rather than their brains.

The Court(s) interpret the law.

I really don't see how anyone could believe that they do...

If you use the soldier/servant metaphor for male/female. Many people believe that, if you are not tough and mean, you are a servant without rights.

That is not a new thought if you remove gender from it.

The male/female as metaphor is in many places, however trying to remove the rights for kind people that help people is to keep people fighting each other.

There is a group in society that wants people always fighting each other. Then there are many that find balance, and also there are groups that find the helping of people better to bring the mean types more into society.


Star of David, V and ^ the Mason symbol, even spiderman kissing the girl in that movie, all have the male/female gender concept.



Could be he thinks in Roman or Spartan culture for society, or a made up news article, or him thinking he can say or do anything to show the control of some people.

but do you expect a ReTHUG House to impeach Scalia?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nan-aron/so-much-for-impartial-jus_b_804428.html
<snip>
The decision by Justice Antonin Scalia to serve as a featured speaker in an event on January 5 organized by far-right Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's Tea Party-oriented "Constitutional Conservative Caucus," is just the latest in a series of actions and statements by the Justice that threaten the integrity of the federal judiciary.

A cornerstone of the American legal system is the notion that judges and justices interpret the law fairly and impartially. This fundamental principle of our democracy is undermined when Supreme Court justices serve as willing agents of a transparently political entity like the Tea Party movement, which has an aggressive legislative and judicial agenda that is directed, in part, at the Court itself.

Regrettably, this is not the first time Justice Scalia has shed any pretense of objectivity. His refusal to recuse himself in 2004 from a case involving then-Vice President Dick Cheney, with whom he had just completed a hunting trip, as well as his recent comments making clear that women stand no chance with him to protect their Constitutional rights, erode the expectations Americans have for the behavior of Supreme Court justices.

At the time of the Cheney incident Justice Scalia said, "I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned." Given his eager participation in tomorrow's Tea Party seminar, his words ring hollower than ever.
--------------------
He should be impeached for this as well

Which is the amendment Scalia and his ilk really want to repeal. Building that bridge to the Eighteenth Century.

That's why the bushes could authorize torture and not be prosecuted, that's why bankster may run ponzi schemes that destroy our real economy, that's why Rove was never brought before congress, that's why Dick could get away with shooting a guy in the face, and that's why defense contractors can get away with murder and pedophilia (much like the Catholic priests).

Things are just getting more an more unequal and justice is for sale.

Impeachment without conviction, or without any chance of conviction, is pretty meaningless but it is something that Republicans like to do (Clinton?). Calling for impeachment when impeachment could happen but doesn't is something that evidently Democrats seem to prefer (Bush).

I realize that DU often likes to fantasize outside of the possibility of reality, but thinking that the Congress, this Congress, a decidedly Republican controlled Congress would ever vote to impeach a conservative Supreme Court justice is quite the leap into fantasy.

so that that's necessary.

If they help get Scalia impeached and removed, that we'll stand out of the way if they go to impeach Obama and remove him.

Then Biden could take over for the rest of this term and perhaps the Democrats in power now could have Howard Dean made VP and Dean could run for president in 2012 instead... It could also serve as a warning to DLC members of the party that if they step out of line too much with the base, then we'll facilitate them getting dumped one way or the other.

I guess the key then would be who would appoint Scalia's replacement, Biden or Obama... Whoever gets appointed should hopefully move the court to the left like Bush moved the court to the right to get back balance again, if Obama getting sacked is a warning on whoever appoints them not to nominate a corporatist...

Not sure if the Rethugs would buy into such a deal, but tell them that's the only way they get Obama impeachment they would try to have happen to be anything more than symbolic as Clinton's was.

And if Obama is impeached, probably anything that is used substantively to rationalize removing him (rendition, etc.) could also be applied retroactively to Bush and Cheney to keep them from working in government again too.

Testa Di Cazzo Stronzo.

You can't impeach Fat Tony without the nose coming out of his navel, Mr. Pubic Hair on the Coke Can.

No question. Despicable is the word.

We should go back to that.

lead this country to a wake-up call that will lead to a major reform period. Life is full of cycles & right now we're in a modern-day how-low-will-they-go McCarthy period. Hope is all there is left.

Scalia is right.

imho

One of the great liberal justices in the history of the court. And so thoroughly a political animal that he actually briefly campaigned for the presidential nomination while sitting as a SCOTUS justice.

Sorry, I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of, disagree.

High crimes or misdemeanors, and possibly mental incompetence are the only valid grounds for impeaching a Justice.

One much more corrupt than the one that confirmed him?

would you like some victory gin? It's really grain alcohol, but does it matter anymore?

then why bother pushing for the Equal Rights Amendment?

You can argue about whether the Constitution *should* prohibit sex discrimination, but I think Scalia is correct in saying that currently it does not.

to re-make America into their idea of a fascist state. ;)

on Oprah and book tours, ya think a bigoted criminal judge is some kind of priority? Maybe Obama's new JP Morgan chief of staff will advise him on it? For the U.S. to start doing things like removing criminal judges from it's supreme court, the U.S. 1st needs to hold the worst political criminals in it's history accountable for a conspiracy to commit war via WMD lies, committing war, institutionalizing torture camps and creating and using the most illegal propaganda networks in history.

The U.S. is a criminal country until our criminal leaders are held accountable to the same laws we are.

ACLU Disappointed with Supreme Court Ruling on Domestic Violence Orders of Protection

Civil Liberties Group Calls on States to Take Lead in Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence

http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/aclu-disappointed-supreme-court-ruling-domestic-violence-orders-protection

Being an ass hole is not an impeachable offense, in fact it is a virtue when Republicans are in power. You can't have a democracy if you don't let the assholes have their say.

All his opinions and his appointment to the court are because he is an asshole!

There is no precedent or requirement that a justice be apolitical.

--imm

They made it unconstitutional to count the votes.

My thought as well...

Why would he care what you or I think!? He rules us!

So Scalia is there for at least another 2 years, unless the old fuck dies.

...grab a few pins if you're not too busy.



- K&R

The founding fathers used the term "arms" to refer to weapons that they had at the time. They did not explicitly mention future arms. Given that, the 2nd ammendment only protects the ownership of "arms" that existed at the time that the 2nd amendment passed.

Would you want your First Amendment rights interpreted that way? You'd be posting your opinions with a quill pen and parchment paper with that logic.

Scalia is WRONG, when he takes that narrow construction .... and if one uses HIS logic, MANY parts of the US Constitution COLLAPSE!!!

My example shows how his logic DESTROYS the right wing interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You can own nothing but Muskets.

YOUR example shows how Scalia's logic DESTROYS the first amendment. The press is limited to quill and parchment.

So thanks for helping me prove my point!!! Good job.

take his pimp(s) out of action?

-

He's a sick and twisted old fuck, but he's right.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that I can't discriminate against women because I think they are inferior. I own an apartment building and I don't want women living in it because I hate them bitches.
Hey, guess what?
The state that I live in passed a law saying I'm not allowed to do that!

I can't stand the world that Scalia wants, or pretty much anything that he represents, but he's right on this one...

Is for White Men to run things and have all the money and woman to be barefoot and Pregnant with Black People being their servants and live in tents out in the open eating dog Food

if his bush vs gore performance didnt do it nothing willl (NT)

Not with a Repuke majority in the House or Reps willing to impeach.

that they were not recognized as citizens. They were otherwise protected by the Constitution in terms of the rights including the right to trial.

That their rights were limited after passage of the 14th Amendment was to a great extent the fault of the Supreme Court of the era.

No one thought about women's rights except women.

The first convention at which women met to move toward gaining their rights was in Seneca Falls in 1848 -- before the Civil War.

The first women's rights convention is held in Seneca Falls, New York. After 2 days of discussion and debate, 68 women and 32 men sign a Declaration of Sentiments, which outlines grievances and sets the agenda for the women's rights movement. A set of 12 resolutions is adopted calling for equal treatment of women and men under the law and voting rights for women.

Read more: Women's Rights Movement in the U.S.: Timeline of Events (1848-1920) — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html#ixzz1ADxerJml

Scalia interprets the Constitution according to what he wants to find in it.

:puke:

www.abajournal.com/news/article/scalia_accepts_invite_of_tea_party_leader_law_prof_hits_exceedingly_poor_ju/

The Los Angeles Times published editorial today DEFENDING Scalia's actions because...apparently...Stephen G. Breyer did it too!

Because corporations are persons!

Ah, but, corporations are!

have the same status as persons? We're all waiting Don Antonin.