Showing posts with label Justice Antonin Scalia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice Antonin Scalia. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

'Family Guy -- The World is Beautiful with Gore as President'



From the YouTube poster's description:

Fox ran a train on their loyal Republican audience last night with scathing episodes of The Simpson and Family Guy. In this Family Guy episode, Death allows Peter to go back in time, but when he returns to the present he discovers he is married to Molly Ringwald and Lois is married to Quagmire. An alternate version of the world is presented in which Al Gore is president,...Basically, it's paradise on earth. Enjoy the fantasy.


hat tip to Down with Tyranny

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Tuesday Was a Rotten Anniversary


And I missed it. Tuesday marked the sixth anniversary of the most dishonest Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott: Bush v. Gore.

Lawyers, Guns and Money: A Rotten Anniversary

Today, I am sad to remind everyone, is the sixth anniversary of the grotesque and consequential Bush v. Gore decision, which was delivered in all its steaming feculence by five activist judges who substituted their own political fantasies for the rule of law and rendered a decision that flew in the face of tradition and popular will.

[]...every December 12, we ought to remember the names of the dishonest hacks who buggered the Constitution on behalf of George W. Bush.


And those five were:

Anthony Kennedy
Sandra Day O’Connor
William Rehnquist
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas

They gave us 9/11, the Iraq War, unconstitutional eavesdropping, shit (oh, sorry, e coli) in our vegetables, energy policy by oil comanies, and all the other crap we've been subjected to by the incompetent, corrupt, cronyist Bushco.

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Must See TV

Pay no attention to that little man in the corner

Stephen Colbert put George Bush on the spit, with a side of pompous Washington journalists, grilled to perfection, at the Correspondents Dinner last night.

I saw the replay after midnight and was afraid I was going to wake up my upstairs neighbor with my peals of laughter.

It was a little tense in the room, as almost no one seemed to enjoy being the main dish of the barbecue. George and Laura had real sourpusses.

I say 'almost' because Injustice Scalia (Colbert addressed him with a "Vaffunculo", and some other hand gestures, "I'm just saying hi to my Sicilian paisan") grinned broadly and went to the podium after it was over to shake Colbert's hand. George Bush put on a fake smile to shake his hand, then it disappeared as he turned away. Laura didn't even extend her hand. She and Colbert just nodded at each other. Helen Thomas (star of Colbert's video when she pursued him trying to ask why we went to war in Iraq) got a big hug and kiss.

The corporate media seems to be trying to pretend it didn't happen. CNN is running a piece on Bush's schtick with his fake Bush sidekick, with no mention of Colbert. C-Span doesn't have it on the schedule today. Hmmmmm.

Guess you'll have to watch it on the internet. Crooks & Liars has the video, and several other links.

Editor & Publisher: Colbert Lampoons Bush at White House Correspondents Dinner-- President Does Not Seem Amused

Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged the Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, “and reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

He attacked those in the press who claim that the shake-up at the White House was merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. “This administration is soaring, not sinking,” he said. “If anything, they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.”

Colbert told Bush he could end the problem of protests by retired generals by refusing to let them retire. He compared Bush to Rocky Balboa in the “Rocky” movies, always getting punched in the face—“and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world.”

Turning to the war, he declared, "I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."

He noted former Ambassador Joseph Wilson in the crowd, just three tables away from Karl Rove, and that he had brought " Valerie Plame." Then, worried that he had named her, he corrected himself, as Bush aides might do, "Uh, I mean... he brought Joseph Wilson's wife." He might have "dodged the bullet," he said, as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't there.

Colbert also made biting cracks about missing WMDs, “photo ops” on aircraft carriers and at hurricane disasters, melting glaciers and Vice President Cheney shooting people in the face. He advised the crowd, "if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. will be right over with a cocktail. "

Observing that Bush sticks to his principles, he said, "When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday - no matter what happened Tuesday."

Also lampooning the press, Colbert complained that he was “surrounded by the liberal media who are destroying this country, except for Fox News. Fox believes in presenting both sides of the story — the president’s side and the vice president’s side." He also reflected on the alleged good old days, when the media was still swallowing the WMD story.

Addressing the reporters, he said, "You should spend more time with your families, write that novel you've always wanted to write. You know, the one about the fearless reporter who stands up to the administration. You know-- fiction."


He claimed that the Secret Service name for Bush's new press secretary is "Snow Job." Colbert closed his routine with a video fantasy where he gets to be White House Press Secretary, complete with a special “Gannon” button on his podium. By the end, he had to run from Helen Thomas and her questions about why the U.S. really invaded Iraq and killed all those people.

As Colbert walked from the podium, when it was over, the president and First Lady gave him quick nods, unsmiling, and handshakes, and left immediately.

Youtube video of Colbert's video piece: his application for White House Press Secretary.

The Democratic Daily has a rough transcript.

A high quality bittorrent file of Colbert's appearance. (I saw this at Boing Boing)

AOL Poll on who was funniest at Correspondents dinner; Bush imitator Bridges holds a slim lead.

Friday, March 31, 2006

Et tu, Antonin?



Judicial intemperance - Scalia flips message to doubting Thomases


Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.

“You know what I say to those people?” Scalia, 70, replied, making an obscene gesture, flicking his hand under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flak for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.

“That’s Sicilian,” the Italian jurist said, interpreting for the “Sopranos” challenged.


Fans and foes weigh in on justice gesture


While legal watchdogs wagged a disapproving finger at U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for his off-color “Sicilian” salute in Boston’s cathedral, the Archdiocese of Boston said yesterday it won’t publish a photo of the gesture in its newspaper The Pilot.

“Because it won’t,” archdiocese spokesman Terrence Donilon responded when asked why.

Justice fires back

To the Editor:
It has come to my attention that your newspaper published a story on Monday stating that I made an obscene gesture - inside Holy Cross Cathedral, no less. The story is false, and I ask that you publish this letter in full to set the record straight.

Photographer: Herald got it right


Amid a growing national controversy about the gesture U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made Sunday at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, the freelance photographer who captured the moment has come forward with the picture.

“It’s inaccurate and deceptive of him to say there was no vulgarity in the moment,” said Peter Smith, the Boston University assistant photojournalism professor who made the shot.

[]

Smith was working as a freelance photographer for the Boston archdiocese’s weekly newspaper at a special Mass for lawyers Sunday when a Herald reporter asked the justice how he responds to critics who might question his impartiality as a judge given his public worship.

“The judge paused for a second, then looked directly into my lens and said, ‘To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” punctuating the comment by flicking his right hand out from under his chin, Smith said.

The Italian phrase means “(expletive) you.”

Church fires photog over Scalia picture: Freelancer pays for ‘right thing’

A freelance photographer has been fired by the Archdiocese of Boston’s newspaper for releasing a picture of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia making a controversial gesture in the Cathedral of the Holy Cross on Sunday.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Blogtopia Round-Up


Digby asks: I Wonder Why Bush Didn't Attack Zarqawi When He Had The Chance?, in which he discusses NBC's story that Bush ignored several chances to take out or capture Zarqawi.

Firedoglake digs up some early work by Atrios, when he was an intrepid footsoldier for the late, lamented Media Whores Online: Late Night FDL: Portrait of the Artist as a Young Blogger

Will Bunch of Attytood finds that one of the wingnuts running for Duke Cunningham's House seat in California has posted a photo of his visit to "calm and stable" Baghdad on his website. Problem is, the picture is not only not Baghdad, it's from some other country. Play along as blogtopia plays "name the place in this photo": Can you spot the mistakes in this photo?

Here's shock. ThinkProgress says Scalia isn't going to recuse himself from the Hamdan case. Told you the odds were a gazillion to one against.

Body and Soul tells the Democratic Party to find the good in themselves and become the party of Roosevelt again: Roosevelt Democrats

Steve Gilliard posts a list of immigration facts for the fact-free corporate media, by American author Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez: Stupid Americans


Note to readers: Posting will be light for the next week as Coach Mom arrives and we go to the women's basketball Final Four this weekend (Duke and Monique Currie, LSU and Simone Augustus, Maryland and Kristi Toliver, and my pick to win it all, North Carolina and Ivory Latta!)

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Recuse, Antonin


WaPo: Retired Generals Want Scalia Off Gitmo Case

Hamdan's lawyers have not called for Scalia to step aside. Instead, five retired generals who support Hamdan's arguments sent a letter late Monday to the court with the request that Scalia withdraw from participating in the case. They say Scalia appears to have prejudged the case.

The retired generals said Scalia's speech in Switzerland "give rise to the unfortunate appearance that ... the justice had made up his mind about the merits" of Hamdan's arguments.

In the speech, first reported by Newsweek, Scalia repeated his views from 2004 that enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should not have access to U.S. courts and traditional legal rights.

[]

The letter came from five retired generals and admirals: Navy Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter; Navy Rear Adm. John D. Hutson; Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn; Marine Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms; and Army Brig. Gen. James P. Cullen.

I doubt this show of military might and right will influence chickenhawk Scalia. (Originally I typed 'chickhawk' Scalia, one of the funniest typos ever.)

In today's print edition, WaPo:

Scalia's Recusal Sought in Key Detainee Case
Retired Officers Say Justice's Impartiality Is in Question After Remarks on Combatants


In a letter delivered to the court late yesterday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's March 8 remarks to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. Scalia reportedly said it was "crazy" to suggest that combatants captured fighting the United States should receive a "full jury trial," and dismissed suggestions that the Geneva Conventions might apply to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Scalia's remarks "give rise to the unfortunate appearance that, even before briefing was complete, he had already made up his mind" about issues in the case, the lawyer, David H. Remes, wrote. Noting that Scalia reportedly had discussed the rights of accused terrorists in the context of his son Matthew's recent tour as an Army officer in Iraq, Remes wrote that this creates an appearance of "personal bias arising from his son's military service."

[]

In his letter to the court, Remes said Scalia's reported reference to the Geneva Conventions was of particular concern to the retired officers as it is directly at issue in the case. Their brief supports the view of the petitioner, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, that the conventions apply to him and could entitle him to a court-martial trial like that which U.S. soldiers receive.

Other calls for Scalia's recusal came yesterday from the Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil rights organization that supports the challenge to the military commissions, and from Rep. John D. Conyers (Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.



Previous posts: Ethics, Schmethics (March 27, 2006)

Scalia: 'Flipping a middle finger to his critics'
(March 27, 2006)

Monday, March 27, 2006

Scalia: 'Flipping a middle finger to his critics'

Not this finger, the middle one


AMERICAblog: Scalia just gave the finger in church yesterday (not kidding)

From UPI:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia startled reporters in Boston just minutes after attending a mass, by flipping a middle finger to his critics.

A Boston Herald reporter asked the 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic if he faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state.

"You know what I say to those people?" Scalia replied, making the obscene gesture and explaining "That's Sicilian."

The 20-year veteran of the high court was caught making the gesture by a photographer with The Pilot, the Archdiocese of Boston's newspaper.

"Don't publish that," Scalia told the photographer, the Herald said.

Right back at you, Antonin. I too swore an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution; unlike you, I meant it.

Ethics, Schmethics


Surprise, surprise. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has already made up his mind about the Guantanimo Bay enemy combatant cases. And he's in favor of lifetime detention without the right to counsel. How constitutional.

WaPo: No Legal Rights for Enemy Combatants, Scalia Says
'War Is War,' Justice Tells Audience


Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly told an overseas audience this month that the Constitution does not protect foreigners held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

He also told the audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland that he was "astounded" by the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to the prison, this week's issue of Newsweek magazine reported.

New Chief Justice John Roberts has already recused himself from the cases, as he was a member of the federal appeals court panel whose decision is under review.

Odds of Scalia recusing himself from hearing these cases, about which he has already made up his mind and announced his position publicly? That would be about a gazillion to one. Sheesh, Scalia didn't even recuse himself from the case involving Cheney's secret energy task force meetings after he went duck hunting with Dick Cheney. (He's lucky he's still alive, but that's a separate matter. Or is it? Maybe he didn't recuse because Big Time threatened to give him the Harry Whittington treatment. Hmmmm.)

Ethically, of course, he should recuse himself.

U.S. high court judge said to slam detainee rights


Ethics experts said the impression that Scalia had already made up his mind before the hearing should mean that he will voluntarily drop out of the proceedings. However, Newsweek said he did not refer specifically to this week's case.

"He should remove himself when there is a reasonable doubt of his impartiality," said Father Robert Drinan, a professor of law at Georgetown University and long-standing human rights campaigner, who teaches judicial ethics.

"It should logically be a reason for his recusal but I don't think he'll do it ... he's so stubborn" said Drinan.

[]

"A judge has to have an open mind; when he hears the articles and reacts to briefs. If he's made up his mind on a particular issue, he shouldn't be sitting (in)," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

"Here he has publicly said that this is what my position is, before the arguments ... It's really stacking the deck," Ratner said. CCR has argued for Guantanamo prisoner rights.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

The Right to Die With Dignity Upheld

The Supreme Court today upheld Oregon's assisted suicide law by a 6-3 vote.

Justices Uphold Oregon Assisted-Suicide Law
In a Blow to Administration, Ruling Paves Way for Other States to Follow Suit


Text of Court Ruling


It was a 6-3 decision, with new Chief Justice John Roberts, Scalia and Thomas in dissent. No surprise that Roberts joined the two most conservative members of the court in opposing assisted suicide. You wonder what Rehnquist would have done. Normally he was a reliable conservative vote. But after suffering for over a year during his thyroid cancer treatment, and after watching his wife's long battle with ovarian cancer (she died in 1991), I wonder if he might have ended up with the majority on this one.

I've represented people with cancer for years. Often they are in horrible, intractable pain from either the disease or the treatment. Pain that leaves them drawn, exhausted, barely able to think. They fight bravely but eventually come to that point where the pain is more than they can bear. I believe strongly that the individual should be able to make the decision to end the suffering. It's true freedom, the freedom to make decisions about your own body, about when you are ready to go.

I tell my friends, help me when I need it. Don't leave me to suffer in a hospital bed tied up with tubes. Make sure I have some good meds & let me go happy.

This was the right decision by the Court.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

"Of course he's against abortion."

Alito's Mom: 'Of Course, He's Against Abortion'

From the mouths of old people. So we know he passes that ultra-right wing litmus test.

The lefty blogs are calling him "Scalito", for Scalia. If he is confirmed there will be five Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court.

Let's see if the Democrats in the Senate really have a spine.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

This Made Me Laugh

Perplexed by This Pick

I have nothing against Miers, though I probably will once she dons those black robes and starts voting on cases I care about. Over the years, the president has had more than enough time to peer deeply into her heart, or her soul, or wherever it is he looks to discern what the person under scrutiny thinks about Roe v. Wade . I'm betting that she's no David Souter -- that she quickly signs up with the Scalia-Thomas fringe, even if she lacks Antonin Scalia's right-wing erudition or Clarence Thomas's persecution complex. They'll be like a middle-aged Mod Squad, a trio of groovy avengers fighting for truth, justice and the American Way circa 1805.

Julie (Harriet), Link (Clarence), and Pete (Antonin). I can just see it. Wasn't Clarence still 3/5 of a person in 1805? Harriet didn't exist, constitutionally speaking.

I can't decide where to come down on Harriet. Obviously, she's in Bush's hip pocket. But she's at least taken a few positions in her life that I would agree with (favoring gay rights, etc.). If we defeat her, will we get an even more right-wing wingnut, a la Clarence Thomas, with a better resume, that the Republican majority (55-45) in the Senate will vote in no matter how horrible the record or hateful the beliefs?

Let's hope we get some frogmarching news in the next few days to take our minds off this conundrum. I fear there are no good answers.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

David Letterman's Top Ten -- Harriet Miers edition

Top Ten Signs Your Supreme Court Pick Isn't Qualified

10. "Lost 10 grand yesterday in the 'case' of Jets vs. Ravens"

9. "Spends most of her time trying to fit the gavel into her mouth"

8. "Her legal mentor: Oliver Wendell Redenbacher"

7. "Asks courtroom stenographer to, 'Quit that annoying tapping!'"

6. "Instead of Constitutional law books, consults set of 'Garfield' paperbacks"

5. "Keeps shouting, 'When does mama get to hang somebody?!'"

4. "When Scalia walks by, she pretends to cough and says, 'Rogaine'"

3. "Authored the book: 'I'm Not Qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice'"

2. "The closest thing to courtroom experience was being an extra on 'Matlock'"

1. "Glowing letter of recommendation from former FEMA director Michael Brown"

Monday, June 27, 2005

There Are Court Orders, and Then There Are Court Orders We Don't Really Care About

Cops Can't Be Sued for Restraining Orders

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police cannot be sued for how they enforce restraining orders, ending a lawsuit by a Colorado woman who claimed police did not do enough to prevent her estranged husband from killing her three young daughters.

Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of the court order against her husband, the court said in a 7-2 opinion.

City governments had feared that if the court ruled the other way, it would unleash a potentially devastating flood of cases that could bankrupt municipal governments.

Gonzales contended that police did not do enough to stop her estranged husband, who took the three daughters from the front yard of her home in June 1999 in violation of a restraining order.

Hours later Simon Gonzales died in a gun fight with officers outside a police station. The bodies of the three girls, ages 10, 9 and 7, were in his truck.

Now, if the Supreme Court issued an order and the U.S. Marshals didn't enforce it, you know there would be hell to pay. But some poor non-lawyer, non-corporation, non-insurance company with a court order? Pound sand.

That's why I always counseled abused women that a restraining order is just a piece of paper. Often it just inflames the situation with the abuser. That becomes the act of defiance for which the abuser wants to punish you. You're better off squirreling away your money & sneaking off to a safe house than getting a court order from a court system that thinks abused women and children don't count. At least the people who run the domestic violence shelter will try to help you.

It was a 7-2 decision. In dissent were John Paul Stevens, the last liberal giant on the court, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only decent appointment Clinton made to the Court. (Stephen Breyer, Clinton's other appointment, voted with Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter against this poor woman's claim. Thirty years ago, instead of being described as a moderate liberal, he would have been a moderate Republican.)