Discussion for article #222464
Whatever clown Scalia is for or against, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. Another rancid Reagan gift to the nation.
2 Likes
Stopped for a seat belt violation and the cop searches your cell phone? Hmm. Sounds unreasonable to me.
Yes, but will he remember what he wrote in those earlier decisions? 
3 Likes
I have to say that, when I read this kind of spin on Scalia (“Well, at least he’s right on this…”), I recall Robert Parker’s best recurring line from his Spenser series of crime novels: “Hitler loved dogs.”
7 Likes
Bullshit! Scalia helped give police the right to enter your home without a warrant less than 2 months ago in a 6-3 decision with the Fernandez case late February:
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/25/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226
Scalia goes along with the liberal judges in the meaningful cases when they are already outnumbered, or when it is a less important case. When it comes to expanding the rights of the police, billionaires, corporations, the powerful, or sliding towards Sharia law, Scalia is front and center.
7 Likes
He is more than happy to uphold any law that he agrees with. The idea however, of defending laws that he does not advocate–anathema.
Not so much “We the People”, as “Me, Antonio Scalia”.
5 Likes
Chastened by his recent embarrassing screw-up, Scalia finds an excuse to side with liberal justices. Just for now.
Same as it ever was.
My dad once assured me that even a blind hog can find an acorn once-in-awhile.
1 Like
“But when it comes to privacy matters concerning women’s bodies and sexuality in general, Scalia is nowhere to be found,” Fredrickson said. “The justice’s use of originalism therefore looks opportunistic or irrationally applied.”
I think that last couple of sentences says it all about Scalia.
4 Likes
Thank-you Mr. Scalia for helping the rights of the unborn. They can not speak for themselves yet, but women can, because they are all ready born.
So the abuser feels remorse and acts nice after slugging the black lady…
When Scalia can still remember the text of the Constitution, he can be faithful to it at times.
Great. If Scalia is suddenly a big fan of the Fourth Amendment, then perhaps it’s time to revisit the issue of pre-employment drug tests. Back in the 1980s, the Court ruled that such tests do not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Unless you’re hiring me to drive a truck full of plutonium, my bodily fluids, or what I choose to put in them, are none of your business.
1 Like
“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great, world-historical facts and personages occur, as it were, twice. He has forgotten to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce .” – Karl Marx
1 Like
Clearly with a name like “drail”, you are here to troll, but let’s examine Mr. Scalia for a moment. There doesn’t seem to be any core of belief with the justice. His opinions and dissents lately reek of political positions. Privacy is at the heart of Roe v. Wade. While he would rule for privacy for some rich schmuck’s cell phone, he wants everyone to know whether I’m pregnant. That lack of intellectual consistency, such as dissenting against his own opinion in a case just last week, shows that Scalia is a troll as well. He seems only to be doing it for the reaction. It’s fascinating to me to watch people like him, and yourself of course. Such intellectual dishonesty out in plain sight for everyone to behold is like being in a biology lab with a microscope. OK, it’s more of an anthropologist thing, but no one gets anthropologist analogies. Shit.
4 Likes
This just goes to show that jurisprudence is far more complicated than the terms “liberal” or “conservative”. While politics surely influences judicial decisions, at it’s heart, legal reasoning and judgment is more dependent on an analysis of the law through the prism that the jurist has developed through his or her legal education and experience. My analysis of legal cases usually is not the same as Scalia’s. But in this area, we agree. So too is it true that I may not always agree with Justice Breyer even though politically, we surely do agree on issues. Further complicating the issue is that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” as they are used to describe legal analysis do not necessarily align with the meaning of those terms as they are used in politics. I could be a die-hard Republican, for example, but have a “liberal” view of legal analysis.
Sorry, I can’t agree with you on this. Scalia, perhaps more than any other Justice,and definitely more than any sitting there now, has pretty consistently put his political views about all else. The man has issued on opinion on one thing, and the same day, argued against the very same basis in another case!
He has however, been fairly consistent regarding the 4th Amendment as this article points out. Which is one of the reasons that if any of the NSA cases actually make it before the SCOTUS, I think he will side with the 4 libs and probably Kennedy (possibly even Alito) and rule against the NSA in a very big way. The case in 2012 regarding the GPS device was particularly illuminating into their thinking…especially Alito’s (The case was 9-0 decision,too).
For whatever the reasons, the current court seems decidedly set against the NSA/FISC process as it stands now. The problem is getting a case before them so they can actually make a ruling.
I am have to troll, why you say that. O that’s right,i have a difference of view then you . Cellphones don’t kill people, Roe& wade do. That’s the difference.!!! No fancy words here.
I am here to troll sorry.