"Yaaaaaaaaa Tribe, stick it up your galactic vsisrqqo."
In it, Tribe attacked Justice Scalia for what he called a "caricature" of an argument in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent, and for the effect of Scalia's dissent in allegedly unleashing what Tribe called "bloodlust" from the "truly extreme Right," in particular, here at FreeRepublic.com.
This seems almost as nutty as Tribe putting down the Chief Justice for getting a less-than-perfect grade in con law 28 years ago (if anything, it makes Roberts more qualified for the job that he didn't quite understand all that nutty stuff Tribe was making up about the Constitution in the 1970s). Why attack Justice Scalia this way? Why attack us bloggers at FreeRepublic.com and encourage us to fire back with anything negative we can find on Tribe? Especially with all that "bloodlust" we have, here on the "truly extreme Right"? Seems like it's nuts to me.
You can watch a clip of Tribe going nuts on this here. You can read the FreeRepublic.com post that Tribe is quoting (or misquoting) here. What a nut! Enjoy.
Oh: Here's a text of Tribe's comments:
My point is to make clear what bloodlust from the truly extreme Right caricatures like Justice Scalia’s unleash, though this may not be his intention.I looked at a fairly typical website just after the decision in Lawrence, discussing Justice Scalia's point about how it was the allure of foreign law that somehow had misled his colleagues. A website called FreeRepublic.com.
And if you looked at it, you would have found people calling at the very least for the impeachment and removal of Justices Breyer and O'Connor, followed by their trial for treason.
The debate seemed not to be over whether they had done anything wrong, but whether impeachment and conviction was enough.
There were those who thought they should be "tarred and feathered."
There were opinions expressed that "these 'living Constitution' people are the death of the republic."
Somebody said the plot is to get Breyer promoted to Chief Justice and to bring Bill Clinton back as U.N. Ambassador. If that happens, this sage said, "you can be damn sure the time of the anti-christ will have begun."
Somebody said: "It's time we cleaned that snake pit out."
"It's time we cleaned that snake pit out."
Somebody was right.
It's time we cleaned that ... pit of vipers out!
since the Old Girl ain't quite dead, yet, that statement's a bit overdone.
That the "living document" motards are a chronic and toxic cancer on the Republic... That is a statement which is difficult to deny.
"Yaaaaaaaaa Tribe, stick it up your galactic vsisrqqo."
Translation:
"WAHHHH! It was supposed to be ME! It was supposed be THE TRIBE COURT! WAHH! WAHHHHH!"
I say President Bush should nominate Justice Scalia for the soon-to-be-vacated seat of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This way he gets TWO votes!!!!!
We are many many things, but I NEVER thought of us as "fairly typical". ;)
"truly extreme Right"
Since when have Conservatives been the "truly extreme Right" ?
It must be that Asian bird flu which, strangely enough, seems to affect only libacrats. Symptoms include violent, irrational tantrums followed by subscribing to The Nation, then slow death of all brain tissue with great pain to all within earshot.
Time will tell whether you are a conservative, a lurker, a DU mole, a troll, or what.
Cheers!
snip
President Bush will soon have the opportunity to demonstrate leadership that unites Americans around the shared values of liberty, the rule of law, and the role of the Constitution as described in its preamble: “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
If he fails this test of leadership, and chooses the divisive and destructive course of trying to achieve far-right domination of the U.S. Supreme Court, People For the American Way members and millions of other Americans will call on Senators to take a stand for our country and our Constitution.
Endnotes
1 Ron Suskind, “Without a Doubt,” New York Times Magazine, 10/17/04.
2 David Plotz, “Chief Justice William Rehnquist: Mr. Efficiency,” Slate (Jan. 11, 1998) (visited Dec. 3, 2004).
3 Laurence H. Tribe, God Save This Honorable Court: How the Choice of Supreme Court Justices Shapes our History, at 37 (1985).
4 Laurence H. Tribe, God Save This Honorable Court, at 37-38 (1985).
5 Laurence H. Tribe, God Save This Honorable Court, at 37 (1985).
So Roberts got a A minus in his constitutional law class. Maybe he made Tribe look bad in class one day.
Well??
If you believe in the Constitution and not the personal opinons of judges and
if you believe it is our Constitution by which our rights and the limits on government are secured, and
if you believe that if those rights and limits are diminished by judges who abrogate the Constitution in order to uphold their personal views, then
it is certainly logical and reasonble to deduce
that judges who use their personal opinon to design a "living constitution" do in fact represent a danger to the Republic, because they abrogate the contractural basis for the Republic's existence, which is the written Constitution, not their personal opinions.
That contract, the Constitution, is not a contract between the Supreme Court and the People. It is not a contract spelling out what the Supreme Court grants and denies. That contract does not begin with "We the Supreme Court, in order to form a more perfect union...".
The Constitution begins....."We the people...." and the concept of a "living constitution" is no more than an excuse to avoid the legal procedures for amending the Constitution and writing a new one, incrementally, one Supreme Court decision at a time.