Justice Scalia Says He'll Retire Once He 'Can't Do The Job As Well'

[Demeter]

AS WELL AS WHO? ARE WE TALKING John Marshall:


Marshall authored the most important American judicial opinion of all time: Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the supremacy of the Court in legal judgments. He also issued a series of decisions involving the balance of power between the federal government and the states that laid the legal foundation for the young republic. “A hush falls upon us even now as we listen to his words,” Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote more than two centuries later....

OR ARE WE TALKING Chief Justice Roger Taney?


Any list of terrible Supreme Court justices that does not begin with Chief Justice Roger Taney will inherently be controversial. Taney authored what is widely viewed as the worst single decision in the Supreme Court’s history, the pro-slavery decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Though Taney was far more moderate on the issue of slavery as a young man — he once referred to slavery as a “blot on our national character” and he emancipated his own slaves — his views hardened in his old age. In 1857, the same year as Dred Scott, Taney labeled the abolitionist movement “northern aggression.”


BECAUSE I THINK SCALIA HAS GOT TANEY BEAT, BETWEEN THE FLORIDA NON-ELECTION AND THE UNITED CITIZENS DECISIONS...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/justice-scalia-retirement_5627ba31e4b08589ef4a1366?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[ruffburr]

1. Please Proceed!!!

[madamesilverspurs]

2. What???

He retired in 2000 and didn't tell anyone???!!!

[LiberalArkie]

3. I wonder does he have to die before he retires? Or he might just stay there as he rots

[Mnemosyne]

5. Rotten, and corrupt, to the core already. nt

[bravenak]

4. Um? Wha? Can we get our money back for these incompetent years. Meaning all of them?

[Jester Messiah]

6. As well as what, a potato? [nt]

[happyslug]

7. I hate attacks on Taney, his Civil Rights decisions during the Civil War are priceless...

Last edited Wed Oct 21, 2015, 11:52 PM - Edit history (1)

When Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, Taney ruled Lincoln could NOT do that for the US Constitution says only CONGRESS can suspend that writ. Taney's rationale was simple, Article 1 of the US Constitution set forth the power of CONGRESS, the President's power are listed in Article 2.

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives......

Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman

Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, author of one of the dissents on Dred Scott, held his former colleague in high esteem despite their differences in that case. Writing in his own memoirs in 1872, Curtis described Taney:

He was indeed a great magistrate, and a man of singular purity of life and character. That there should have been one mistake in a judicial career so long, so exalted, and so useful is only proof of the imperfection of our nature. The reputation of Chief Justice Taney can afford to have anything known that he ever did and still leave a great fund of honor and praise to illustrate his name. If he had never done anything else that was high, heroic, and important, his noble vindication of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the dignity and authority of his office, against a rash minister of state, who, in the pride of a fancied executive power, came near to the commission of a great crime, will command the admiration and gratitude of every lover of constitutional liberty, so long as our institutions shall endure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney#Lincoln_Presidency

In the Amistad case (Where Africans from African were able to take over the slave ship they were on, but ended up in the US) Taney voted with the Majority saying they were free men not slaves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._The_Amistad

The Actual Decision:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/amistad/opinion.html

Taney had been President's Jackson's Secretary of Treasury during Jackson's fight with the Third Bank of the United States. Taney disliked one bank having control over US finance and withdrew the US money from the Bank of the US and deposited into several states banks (to both spread out the risk of loss and to subsidize as many then start up banks as possible). Taney hated monopolies:

Taney decreed that, in future contests between the interests of "adventurers" and those of the public, any "ambiguity" would be decided in favor of the community.

http://www.anb.org/articles/11/11-00834.html

AS to Taney's decision in Dred Scot, it was an attempt to end a national debate that was dividing the country. Like the later efforts to end debate on Abortion (with Roe vs Wade in 1972) and the decision last year on same sex marriages, it failed. The better option is to leave the debate go on and if that leads to disruption of the Union, so be it but in most cases a compromise is worked out between both sides that is acceptable, but such compromise is only possible if the ability to compromise is NOT taken from the legislative branch of the Government. The problem with rulings like Dred Scot and Roe vs Wade is NOT that the decision was wrong but it permitted the 'losing side" in the court case to revert to a position of no compromise and to subject every other issue to that issue. Dred Scot lead to Southern succession due to fears re-enforced by radical northern abolitionists. In Roe vs Wade, anti-abortion advocates reverted to supporting politicians only on that issue (just like Abolitionists had reverted to the issue of abolition slavery as the only issue in elections).

The better option is to leave the advocates of both sides yell at each other, but then forced to compromise to get anything done. This is what Taney's Dred Scot decision prevented from occurring between both sides on the issue of slavery AND what Roe vs Wade did on the issue of what restrictions should be have on abortions (and in the recent case involving same sex marriage, took that issue out of the hand of politicians, so that those politicians can say they oppose it or support it knowing that they will not have to address it or force to cut a deal with the other side on the issue).

Compromise is the art of governing (and remember Bismark's famous quote "People with weak stomachs should NOT watch sausages or laws being made). Taney's ruling on Dred Scot was an example of the Court trying to make a rule that the court hoped would end a debate but the real affect of the ruling is that it permits politicians to take a position they do not have to compromise on and still get elected. The Abolitionists were force to take a position for complete abolitionment, even if that meant warfare, and the South saw that position and decided it would fight to preserve slavery. In Roe vs Wade you saw the same thing occurring, people who opposed abortion took the position they had to do all they could to end abortion, even if that meant destroying the government, and the people who supported abortion reacted to that position by taking a similar position as to support of abortion. I see the same thing happening to same sex marriage, but the decision is to new to see how both sides will react but I suspect it will be like Slavery and Abortion, something that we thought was decided, becoming a steady drag on the political scene.

I am sorry, forcing people to compromise forces them to address the limitations of they own positions, rulings by the US Supreme Court on such issues permit the radicals on both sides to retreat to their absolute positions on the issues knowing it will not hurt them and knowing they do NOT have to compromise. Politicians see such people as the base they can run for election on, and that is what happened in the South with Slavery and in much of the US when it came to the issue of Abortion.

Just a comment that was Taney's great mistake, trying to take away from Politicians the function of the politician to work out compromises and the duty of Politicians to get the people to accept such compromises. Rulings like Dred Scot, permit Politicians to take radical positions, knowing (or hoping) that the base will support them and when the issue actually comes up these Politicians can blame the court for NOT doing what the Politicians told the voters what the Politician would do if elected. With a ruling like Dred Scot or Roe vs Wade, elected politicians would have to actually address the issue in dispute, with people who oppose they side. That forces politicians to work out compromises for the absolute positions are just not tenable and people will accept such "Deals" as solutions to the dispute. Yes, the Radicals of both sides end up hating the compromise, but most people accept the compromise as what keeps the country together AND addresses the dispute.

Roe vs Wade has been attacked for the issue of abortion was being addressed nationwide in the early 1970s. The Radical Catholic Priest Berrigan had actually come out the the state should get out of the business of regulating abortion, for such regulation forced the states to decide the issue of what fetus should live or die. Thus the better position was to keep the state OUT of that decision and leave it up to the woman. Berrigan still opposed abortion, but his position was the state by regulating who could get an abortion was permitting such abortions, Berrigan wanted that decision to be the woman's alone.

This is the type of arguments you were hearing in the late 1960s and early 1970s BEFORE Roe vs Wade. People were debating if abortion should be legal AND if legal what types and what restrictions? Most people oppose a viable fetus from being aborted, but most people also opposed forcing a woman to go full term with a non viable fetus. The extremists on both sides tended to support both positions, and those are NOT viable positions in the real world. The Legislatures were addressing this dispute, reluctantly and at baby steps, but they were addressing it (New York State even legalized abortion BEFORE Roe vs Wade). This movement all died with Roe vs Wade, it died a premature death. Roe vs Wade permitted Politicians to address the extremes on the issue knowing they will never have to deliver on their promises to them (and if they did the court will strike it down, in many ways an even better option for such politicians).

Sorry, about this liberal attack on Roe vs Wade, but Roe is like Dred Scot, a decision the Court made to end a debate, but in the long run did not end the debate (and in effect made the debate impossible to occur, the radicals wanted to win not compromise).

I hate to go on their rave, but Taney's position on the Third Bank of the US, on Monopolies and the abuse of Habeas Corpus by Lincoln in many ways offset Dred Scot. I can see why Taney made his ruling, but he should have said it was up to the states and the Federal Government had no business when it came to a person being a slave or not. Taney's attempts to show that African Americans were NOT part of the people of the United States when the people of the Untied States wrote the US Constitution in 1787 was a jump, but it was also an attempt to take the issue of slavery out of the political arena where Slavery was tearing this nation apart. Taney's efforts failed, but at least he tried to solve the dispute without bloodshed, something that I can NOT say about people on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line (and yes, it was mostly the South, but you had enough Northerners who were NOT willing to compromise on the issue of slavery)

[Demeter]

9. Thanks for the post--I learned a lot, and want to learn more

I agree that Roe v. Wade is a crippled and flawed decision and has caused nothing but grief for the nation (and relief in varying degrees for women who are pregnant against their will).

It would have been better if Congress had formulated a fundamental right to women's autonomy in all matters, but that ship sailed when the Constitution was written.

You might want to read how Brazil solved the slavery issue--without a drop of blood.

[happyslug]

10. The end of the Empire of Brazil

[morningglory]

8. Would love to see what the Rude Pundit could do with that one. nt