I'm swamped with work and other stuff but I caught this headline and it just floored me. Given all the brouhaha about USSC nominees commenting at confirmation hearings what the hell is Scalia doing commenting publicly in a speech about an issue coming before the USSC and especially publicly declaring his own bias based on his son serving in the military? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12017271/site/newsweek/ Supreme Court: Detainees' Rights—Scalia Speaks His Mind Newsweek April 3, 2006 issue - The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guantánamo detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the accused. But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about some of the issues in the matter. During an unpublicized March 8 talk at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland, Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don't have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: "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'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy." Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq. Scalia did say, though, that he was concerned "there may be no end to this war." The comments provoked "quite an uproar," said Samantha Besson, a member of the Freiburg law faculty who had invited Scalia to give his talk, which was mostly about his "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution. This isn't the first time Scalia has commented on matters before the court: two years ago he recused himself from a Pledge of Allegiance case after making public comments about the matter. "This is clearly grounds for recusal," said Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights group that has filed a brief in behalf of the Gitmo detainees. "I can't recall an instance where I've heard a judge speak so openly about a case that's in front of him—without hearing the arguments." Other experts said it was a closer call. Scalia didn't refer directly to this week's case, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, though issues at stake hinge in part on whether the detainees deserve legal protections that make the military tribunals unfair. "As these things mount, a legitimate question could be asked about whether he is compromising the credibility of the court," said Stephen Gillers, a legal-ethics expert. A Scalia recusal (it's entirely up to him) would create problems; Chief Justice John Roberts has already done so in Hamdan because he ruled on it as an appellate judge. A Supreme Courtspokeswoman said Scalia has no comment. —Michael Isikoff
Justice Scalia flips the finger in church BOSTON, March 27 (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. He was attending a special mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, and afterward was the keynote speaker at the Catholic Lawyers' Guild luncheon.
Ace your trying to give texx, TJ and Basso a run for most notorious right wing supporter on the board.
So in addition to the 4th amendment, and the frist amendment, which you have shown you don't agree with in the Immigration thread, it appears you applaude Judicial members pre-judging a case. Are there other parts of our judicial system, or United States Constitution that you hate?
While I don't think he's pre-determined how he would actually rule on the case in question, it's pretty dumb of him to say stuff like this. He needs to learn a little restraint. I wonder if you guys would have the same outrage if he were against the war because his child was over there and "pre-judged" the case in the manor that suited your interests. After all, isn't the main reason people support the war because they have no relatives over there? Even through all of this, Scalia should learn to keep his mouth closed on certain issues just to make it easier. I think all judges have these pre-concieved notions of how they would rule but allow the facts of the case to dictate how they ACTUALLY rule. What's most funny is that those of you who wanted Roberts and Alito to say how they would rule are now saying it's stupid for anyone to do that. Which way should it be? (That goes for both sides, actually).
Scalia has always been an @ss. IIRC he almost got into a fight at an elementary school because he asked for no flash photography and someone didn't get the memmo. In the broadest terms I respect the basis of his legal philosophy, but as I have started to pay closer attention I've seen that under the "original intent" phrase he infers meanings that essentially every historian agrees are wrong. The observer affects the outcome, but he doesn't seem to understand this when looking at original intent.
I would because if they supported my POV the fact that they are expressing their bias before hand is crying out for recusement nullifying any possible gain to be expected or worse if they don't tainting the result if it is ruled according to my POV since its known ahead of time that one Justice wasn't impartial. I can't speak for others but I defended Alito and Robert's stance on not saying how they would rule. What Scalia has done though is dropped any semblance of impartiality and IMO borders on either incompetance or reckless arrogance. For those who decry judicial activism this is about as activist as a USSC judge can get by stating he's not going to rule based upon a personal bias. Scalia needs to recuse himself at the minimum and if the Senate actually carried about Judicial impartiality should consider impeachment.
People wanted to know how Roberts and Alito interpret the law and how they would rule based on that. Deciding views based on personal biases is a whole different issue.
Yeah, this is pretty crazy. Scalia has been an arrogant ass for awhile. He's very smart and so has gotten away with his ego, but this is over the line.
I agree. And I agree with Sishir that perhaps his impeachment should be considered, if he continues on this course. We can agree... isn't that cool? Keep D&D Civil.
You and they seem to be aware that Scalia is doing things contrary to what our very military leadership is advocating. He may think that he is supporting his son, but those his kid works for seem to feel differently.
Kind of funny isn't it. His son is off representing the United States abroad (like it or not) and spreading US-style "freedom" - i.e., bombing third world nations for a variety of poor excuses. His father, proud of his son's achievements, promptly ignores the documents that enable said US-style freedom to further this redneck agenda, using his son as an excuse. I guess it's fitting that both father and son are continuing to prove why this administration is anti-american.
