Forget Bush
Mar. 27th, 2006 02:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumScalia is probably my least favorite justice (Roberts and Alito being too new to the Supreme Court for me to have a real opinion, merely an expectation).
His blithe hypocrisy is probably the biggest thing I loathe. If he was honest in his legal reasoning (which is to say he looks for precedent, and "intent" which support his political philosophy) I could respect him. But he doesn't.
He also doesn't care about the appearence of a conflict of interest. When he had been spending quality time with Dick Cheney, and some other people, who had business coming before the court (some of whom made it possible for him to enjoy a trip which would have cost some tens of thousands of dollars, for free) he said he wouldn't be influenced by that, and so he didn't need to recuse himself.
Happily the original intent of the founding fathers was to allow the Vice-President to engage in clandestine meetings with business interests in the setting of national policy, and Scalia was able to sit on the case.
A few weeks ago he went one better. Just over two weeks ago, (apparently) on March 8th, Justice Scalia gave a speech at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. Apparently he permitted it to be filmed, because the video of the speech, a follow-up Q&A, and a short interview, can be viewed here. Justice Scalia is characteristically combative and provocative. For instance, in response to a question about Bush v. Gore, he responds: "Come on, get over it." He states that the real question in the case was whether the election was to be decided by the Florida Supreme Court or by the U.S. Supreme Court -- "not a very hard question," in his view -- and "there was no way we could have turned that case down." He then states that the Florida Supreme Court -- but not the U.S. Supreme Court -- was "politically motivated." And in response to a question about affording constitutional rights to Guantanamo detainees, he states unequivocally that "foreigners, in foreign countries, have no rights under the American Constitution" and that "nobody has ever thought otherwise." SCOTUSBlog
Ignoring, for the moment that people have thought otherwise, and there is a fair bit of precedent which says just that, ignoring that he says the Supreme Court (or at least he) didn't grant cert in Bush v. Gore because of any issue of law, but rather one of either politics, or perogative (and if one reads it closely, the underlying statement he makes is one which undermines the very idea of the actual legal questions being resolved, but rather one of making an active decision, instead of actually counting the votes), ignoring all those, the part which jumped out at me was a bit further down.
Justice Scalia expresse[d] incredulity at the notion that detainees captured "on the battlefield" should receive a trial in civil courts. It is, he says, a "crazy idea." To a follow-up question about the Geneva Conventions and other human rights treaties, he responds with evident disdain: "What do they mean? They mean almost anything." The questioner then refers again to a hypothetical Guantanamo detainee, at which point Justice Scalia interjects: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son. And I am not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."
The emphasis is because there is a case on the present docket (which Chief Justice Roberts has recused himself from) about that very question. Looking at that statement, it seems perfectly reasonable that Scalia needs to recuse himself.
If he doesn't it would seem perfectly reasonable to demand his impeachement and removal.
His blithe hypocrisy is probably the biggest thing I loathe. If he was honest in his legal reasoning (which is to say he looks for precedent, and "intent" which support his political philosophy) I could respect him. But he doesn't.
He also doesn't care about the appearence of a conflict of interest. When he had been spending quality time with Dick Cheney, and some other people, who had business coming before the court (some of whom made it possible for him to enjoy a trip which would have cost some tens of thousands of dollars, for free) he said he wouldn't be influenced by that, and so he didn't need to recuse himself.
Happily the original intent of the founding fathers was to allow the Vice-President to engage in clandestine meetings with business interests in the setting of national policy, and Scalia was able to sit on the case.
A few weeks ago he went one better. Just over two weeks ago, (apparently) on March 8th, Justice Scalia gave a speech at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. Apparently he permitted it to be filmed, because the video of the speech, a follow-up Q&A, and a short interview, can be viewed here. Justice Scalia is characteristically combative and provocative. For instance, in response to a question about Bush v. Gore, he responds: "Come on, get over it." He states that the real question in the case was whether the election was to be decided by the Florida Supreme Court or by the U.S. Supreme Court -- "not a very hard question," in his view -- and "there was no way we could have turned that case down." He then states that the Florida Supreme Court -- but not the U.S. Supreme Court -- was "politically motivated." And in response to a question about affording constitutional rights to Guantanamo detainees, he states unequivocally that "foreigners, in foreign countries, have no rights under the American Constitution" and that "nobody has ever thought otherwise." SCOTUSBlog
Ignoring, for the moment that people have thought otherwise, and there is a fair bit of precedent which says just that, ignoring that he says the Supreme Court (or at least he) didn't grant cert in Bush v. Gore because of any issue of law, but rather one of either politics, or perogative (and if one reads it closely, the underlying statement he makes is one which undermines the very idea of the actual legal questions being resolved, but rather one of making an active decision, instead of actually counting the votes), ignoring all those, the part which jumped out at me was a bit further down.
Justice Scalia expresse[d] incredulity at the notion that detainees captured "on the battlefield" should receive a trial in civil courts. It is, he says, a "crazy idea." To a follow-up question about the Geneva Conventions and other human rights treaties, he responds with evident disdain: "What do they mean? They mean almost anything." The questioner then refers again to a hypothetical Guantanamo detainee, at which point Justice Scalia interjects: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son. And I am not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy."
The emphasis is because there is a case on the present docket (which Chief Justice Roberts has recused himself from) about that very question. Looking at that statement, it seems perfectly reasonable that Scalia needs to recuse himself.
If he doesn't it would seem perfectly reasonable to demand his impeachement and removal.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-27 05:19 am (UTC)