Scalia: "Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?"

[Canuckistanian]

by SusanG
Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 08:46:44 AM PDT

This is what we have come to: Supreme Court justices citing Hollywood for constitutional principles:

Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge's passing remark - "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra 'What would Jack Bauer do?' " - got the legal bulldog in Judge Scalia barking.

The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

"So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes."


From Daily KOS

Original article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070616.BAUER16/TPStory/TPNational/Television/

KOS link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/19/11445/8105

[acmavm]

1. Scalia HAS GOT to be on drugs.

[Zodiak]

2. Well, put that in your opinion then asshole.

I'm sure our rich history of jurisprudence will be enhanced by Scalia's brilliant television show method of establishing precedent.

[endarkenment]

3. The answer of course is "yes".

In the fictional ticking bomb scenario, which of course absurdly demands that the torturers have certain knowledge that their victims actually have the information that they are going to torture out of them, the ethical case for torture demands that those who decide to commit torture do so with the equally certain knowledge that they will be tried and convicted and punished to the fullest extent of the law for their actions. In fact the torturers must agree to plead guilty to the most serious possible charges before they commit torture. Only with this sort of guarantee (and ignoring the absurdity of certain knowledge previously mentioned) can the ticking bomb scenario be used to justify the use of torture.

p.s. jack bauer would of course accept these terms.

[Warpy]

14. It also assumes the victims/bombers want to get out alive

instead of being incinerated by the ticking bomb and that the victims/bombers are not religious zealots who will send the torturers out on all sorts of wild goose chases rather than give up the information.

Information obtained through torture in the real world is completely unreliable. Only in fiction does it ever work.

I'm convinced Scalia's got some organic mental disease going on. Not only is he making some very odd decisions based on some very odd principles, he's disinhibited when it comes to simple decorum.

He needs a serious examination by a competent neurologist.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Now THAT would be Political Theatre!

:think:

[pepperbear]

5. how about tony soprano, or those desperate housewives....

I think vinnie chase should be arrested, and greg brady too!

and ugly betty is the most subversive of all.

[WinkyDink]

10. Scalia already IS Tony Soprano.

[neverforget]

6. So that's the reason conservatives hate Hollywood? They're confused

between make-believe and reality? :shrug:

[WinkyDink]

7. OMG. This is THE single scariest remark I've ever heard from a SCOTUS justice.

And that includes the ruling of Gore v. Bush.

[Solly Mack]

8. Scalia is mentally unstable and should be retired

I am not being a smart-ass.

The man is seriously sick and needs to be removed from the bench.

[kenny blankenship]

9. Remove him from SCOTUS & get him a new position at the Nielsen Company

since he clearly wants to preside over a television drama version of the world, and no longer appears to know that there is a difference between TV and the world outside it.

[never_get_over_it]

16. Well lets not remove him until after Jan 20, 2009

because if we do the freak in chief will appoint someone just as bad only younger - we're already pretty screwed when it comes to the Extreme Court - Roberts, Alito and Thomas are still fairly young and will be around for years - which reminds me another thing that really pisses me off about the stolen election of 2000 - we can be rid of the freak in chief in 2009 - his appointments will go on for YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS -

[WinkyDink]

11. Somebody ask him why Jack needs only 24 hours to solve crises, and Bush can't, with years.

See if he mentions the "real vs. reel" worlds then.

[tanyev]

12. Excuse me, Judge Scalia. Erm...Jack Bauer is a fictional character.

You DO know that, don't you?


:scared:

[blogslut]

13. Looks like Antonin has greasepaint disease

Hey Judge! Quit your day job and go into show business! The media neeeeds you!

[MNDemNY]

15. A fine legal mind, indeed.

[burythehatchet]

17. psssst... Tony..... he's an actor, playing a part in a teevee show. Just FYI

[Johonny]

18. Would

you arrest the Hamburgeralur?

[jobycom]

19. Newt Gingrich does that kind o crap, too. My theory on why is

that conservatives have no real good examples from real life, science, history, or any other fact-based element to support what they believe, so they have to resort to fiction, where some other conservative dreamed up some scenario to support his fantasies. The stupid leading the stupid, and back again.

Same reason they elect actors.