Are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas the Bonnie and Clyde of Judicial Ethics? "Citizens Robbed"

[Donnachaidh]

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12254

Are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas the Bonnie and Clyde of judicial ethics?

There isn't a law that prohibits Supreme Court justices from speaking on controversial issues, but there has been a code of conduct that generally minimizes public appearances that include pronouncements on issues that might appear before the highest judicial body of the land.

Well, Antonin Scalia took that book of ethics and fairness and threw it out the window. BuzzFlash has been running a Scalia watch for over a decade now, and the man never ceases to amaze us in his brazen right-wing pronouncements while "on the road" and on the Court.

In recent months, he has declared in speeches that there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees rights for women, that the 17th Amendment allowing for the popular election of senators was a mistake, that legislative intent should not be considered in a SCOTUS ruling, and far too many more "Scaliaisms" to recount in a short column. Some of them are just plain stupid - and deadly.

Take Scalia's dissenting court opinion in 2009 that nothing in the Constitution prevents an innocent man from being put to death: "This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

More at the link --

[ladjf]

Scalia and Thomas are well aware that their partisan activities

are in fact illegal. But, they also know that there is no one in Government that has the mind or stomach to take them on. They will become even more blatant in the partisianism in the future.

It appears that the Federal Government is largely a corrupt institution.

[ThomCat]

4. "It appears that the Federal Government is largely a corrupt institution."

Yes, that is certainly true. A lot of what goes on is exercises in justifying the validity of the indefensible. :(

Oh no, those justices aren't really being corrupt and partisan.

Oh no, those politicians aren't blatantly taking bribes from every lobbyist and then emptying the treasury to give all that money to the corporations that paid them, leaving us broke and in debt.

Oh no, our reps aren't creating regulations that are just for show and then neutering the regulators because the corporations demand it in exchange for campaign donations.

Oh no, constantly having Goldman Sachs alumni in charge of the economy, the Fed, and the Treasury who have been wrong every step of the way for the last 30 years isn't a deliberate plan to surround the president with yes men and allow the raiding of the treasury to continue.

If this is what it looks like, well, we the people just aren't as wise as the people in D.C. who "really know what's going on." We should just sit back and let the grown ups run things for us, and stop worrying. :grr:

[ladjf]

6. Your cynicism is well justified.

You and thousands of other Americans know that it is true. We are being totally screwed over by the rich.

I ask the obvious question. Why are they doing the things that they (the rich) do?

The obvious answer: So that they can steal as much money as they can, as fast as possible.

A less obvious question: Why are they doing this? Simple greed? Yes. But, is it as simple as that?

Less obvious answer: They may be neurotically hoarding wealth as a response to ancient survival instincts present in us all. In other words, they may be marching to the tune of ancient (millions of years old) built in adaptations for survival during times that such rules led to overall success.

If my theory is correct, there may be a sliver of hope that hoarding being done by the rich could be attacked on the basis of mental illness, attacks that could alter behavior, not through volunteerism
but by force from the 83% who have managed to gain enough political strength to gang up on the sick bastards and overthrown their terrible plot to steal everything.

(I apologize for my inefficient writing style.)

[ThomCat]

1. "Legislative intent shouldn't be considered?"

:wtf:

If legislative intent isn't important in figuring out what a law means, then what the fuck is?

[ladjf]

2. Exactly! A very good and salient question. nt

[unblock]

9. the scalian ideology is fetishize the written word. the law itself is the only thing that matters

if the law says one thing, and the "legislative intent" says another, then the text of the law is what matters. he discards legislative intent as "oh we meant to say '...'". scalia says the law is the law and if you meant it to say something else then you need to pass a new law stating exactly what you did mean.

of course, this runs counter to his preferred mode of dealing with the constitution, which is heavily influenced by selective passages from the federalist papers, which is really nothing more than the constitutional equivalent of legislative intent (but lacking even the full agreement of the entire body that put forth the constitution).


basically, he has a simpleton's ideology that lets him find an "intellectual" basis for anything he wants. it's remarkably easy to come to a conclusion first and then to find a passage or two in the text of a complex law to let you uphold it or strike it down. just ignoring all the subtle trade-offs inherent in the constitution, or in justice itself, is hardly intellectual.

[old mark]

3. K&R- Which one's Bonnie?

[DCKit]

7. Too true! Bonnie was neither the mastermind, or a feckless stooge.

They're more like some famous serial killer duos. But that would probably be considered too harsh for publication or reasonable debate.

[DCKit]

5. "...that legislative intent should not be considered in a SCOTUS ruling..."

Unless he can twist it to justify his POV. Then, suddenly, "the intent is clear."

[catabryna]

8. Once again...

"Needless to say, Scalia is a favorite of the fringe right wing, and will actually be speaking to the Congressional Tea Party caucus on November 24..."

Date of submission, January 23, 2011. This is the second post I've seen this morning that links to an article written months ago, but only submitted in the last couple of days.

????? :shrug: ?????