Scalia tells FAU student: 'That's a nasty, impolite question.'

In a room filled with some of Palm Beach County's most powerful people, it took a 20-year-old political science student to throw off U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday afternoon.

Student Sarah Jeck stood in front of 750 people and asked Scalia why cameras are not allowed in the U.S. Supreme Court even though the court hearings are open, transcripts are available and the court's justices are open enough to go "out on book tours." Scalia was at the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts in part to do a book signing and wasn't happy at the question.

Scalia's trademark mixture of humor, confidence and combativeness was on full display Tuesday at a luncheon put on by the Palm Beach County Forum Club and Bar Association.

In a half-hour speech, he described the division on the nation's highest court, not between liberal and conservative, but how the justices view the U.S. Constitution. More than 750 people packed the luncheon, including judges, politicians and prominent local attorneys, to listen to a man admired as fervently as he is maligned. In the back corner, sat Jeck and her Florida Atlantic University classmates, excited to hear Scalia speak.

"Most Americans don’t have time to read the court’s often-lengthy opinions

They don't have the time? Or, is it that they don't have the intellectual curiosity or acuity to read the briefs and the decisions? They do, however, find the time to watch Ellen, Oprah, Jerry Springer and whatever else comprises their almost 40-hours-a-week of television viewing.

Not to get on a soap box, but I think cameras would be the worst thing to happen to the court in decades. People play to the camera - the solicitors and probably the justices as well. It's not like what goes on in the court is some type of esoteric ritual. It's public record and is open to the public if you have the gumption to show up and wait in line.

Scalia, in fact, is an originalist and not an activist. Thomas is also considered an originalist. If you have something you can cite that refutes this, I'd like to see it.

Please expand on that comment. It's more than a little vague.

Sometimes he cites originalism in his rulings, other times he does not. And sometimes his "originalism" can be pretty suspect.

In Gonzales v Raich he cites New Deal Commerce Clause logic, driving another stake in the 10th Amendment.

Hudson v Michigan he basically states that if you have just a regular search warrant but do a no-knock search instead that the exclusionary rule does not apply. His originalism in this one is that the founding fathers thought the best remedy to violations of the 4th Amendment was for the affected parties to sue and that cops are more professional than they used to be so we should go ahead and get rid of the exclusionary rule anyway. Luckily Rhenquist restated that would not happen.

Justice Scalia is a smart man and a good judge, but they all are affected by their lives, their politics, and work histories so that they are all activists, although they claim to be this or that.

Originalism itself involves one's interpretation of the intent of the founding fathers, and that can vary widely.While I like many of his rulings that preserve American sovereignty and many other areas, but I do not trust him with the 4th Amendment(once you are off your property).

I’ll be nice and say that your logic is a bit hard to follow.

Sorry about that. Here is a better explanation about the conservative's attempt to eliminate the exclusionary rule (which is the only thing that keeps the 4th Amendment alive):

Justices Step Closer to Repeal of Evidence Ruling

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.