Hey Scalia! When did National Security begin to trump the constitution?

[hootinholler]

What part of your job description allows you to subvert the rule of law in the name of national security? Did you really mean to imply that we should ignore common legal practice since like 1066 AD?

You sir are craven beyond pathetic.

-Hoot

[ColbertWatcher]

1. What Scalia is spewing on about is fear, not National Security. n/t

[BOSSHOG]

2. Republicans and "christians" don't give a fuck about the constitution

and thanks tony the rat fuck scalia for proving that point.

[Disturbed]

4. How does restoring Habeous Corpus endanger Amerika?

:wtf:

[BOSSHOG]

7. I'm Disturbed" by your Kuestion!

The restoration thereof does not endanger. So why did tony the ratfucker vote against said restoration along with three other rat fuckers? The vote was FIVE TO FOUR.

[notadmblnd]

20. Thomas, Roberts Alito and Scalia I presume disented?

[librechik]

3. It was that first sweet time with Cheney in the duckblind

BFF!

[hootinholler]

6. Word is Cheney packs a big hot gun:

-Hoot

[librechik]

17. OMG--yeah he's packin a .50 caliber there

That's why they call Scalia The Happy Warrior

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Scalia's a big proponent of "original intent".

Show me where the suspension of habeas corpus is in the Constitution. Just one exception to the rule. Just one.

Oh wait a minute. Scalia would probably say the Constitution is silent on the prohibition of habeas corpus being suspended, so therefore it can. You gotta use that Alice in Wonderland logic to understand his rationales.

[Vattel]

13. how about the suspension clause?

[Jack Rabbit]

8. The legend of the Magic Spectacles

After being given a pair of special glasses by David Addington that allows the wearer to read the invisible ink between the lines of the Constitution itself, heretofore only worn by Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzalez and Addington himself*, Justice Scalia** has read that clauses in the Constitution that makes the president a dictator. It reads: "In matters of national security, if the president does it, it is not illegal" (Article 2, Section 6).***

*It is also said the George W. Bush has worn the magic spectacles, but it did him no good because he can't read.
**There is some evidence that Addington also gave Scalia the glasses in December, 2000, on which Scalia decided the case Bush v. Gore. That clause of the Constitution, belived inserted by Alexander Hamilton's evil twin, states "The President is a King, Goddammit, and only an authoritarian moron shall be hold that office!" (Article 2, Section 8).
***This has led some to speculate that President Nixon was also once in possession the glasses, but this is yet to be proven.

[hootinholler]

9. Damn, I thought that was just in a movie.

:rofl:

-Hoot

[backscatter712]

10. Scalia isn't even fucking human.

I can't wait until that shitbag finally croaks, along with his fellow shitbags Roberts, Alito and Thomas.

They're fucking inhuman. They're without conscience. They'll profit from selling out our liberties.

If it weren't illegal to say so, I'd suggest putting those animals down like mad dogs.

[Krashkopf]

11. Va fan en culo, Tony.

As an Italian American, I detest Scalia, and everything he stands for.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. You And Me Both, Krash!

The Professor

[Vattel]

12. have you read his opinion?

I haven't yet, but just because he dissented doesn't mean that his position is more conservative than the majority. He dissented in the Hamdi case because his position was more liberal (i.e., more pro-habeas-corpus, pro-due-process and anti-executive-power) than the majority's. He argued that since the writ of habeas corpus had not been suspended, Hamdi (an American citizen detained on the ground that he was an enemy combatant) must be charged with a crime or released. Only he and Souter had a strong pro-civil liberties position in that case. Unlike Thomas, Scalia has been a strong voice for protecting civil liberties.

[hootinholler]

14. No, not yet. I'm going by this thread:

Here.

Haven't tracked it down for myself yet.

-Hoot

[Vattel]

15. thanks

I read a little more about Scalia's dissent. Again, I haven't read the opinion yet, bur it looks like Scalia believes that aliens held abroad are not entitled to habeas corpus. So unlike Hamdi, Scalia appears to be on the conservative side in this opinion. Hamdi was an American citizen and so clearly entitled to habeas corpus. In that case, Scalia's opinion was great because he argued that Hamdi must be released or charged with some crime like treason.

I'm looking forward to reading all of the opinions in this case.

[hootinholler]

16. Here. (PDF)

The http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf">BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH opinion.

-Hoot

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Scalia Claims To Be An Originalist

Where is the Constitution does it say that it applies only to citizens? Answer: It doesn't. So, if you're right about his reasoning, it means he is once again being intellectually dishonest and lazy. Par of the course.

The Professor