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

"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.

81 posted on 02/04/2009 4:35:51 PM PST by Big_Monkey

To: deannadurbin

Yeah, I was pretty sure a tight-a$$ like you wouldn’t get it....

82 posted on 02/04/2009 4:38:57 PM PST by safeasthebanks ("The most rewarding part, was when he gave me my money!" - Dr. Nick)

To: safeasthebanks

Nah, because I don’t hang out with foul mouthed libs like you. :)

83 posted on 02/04/2009 8:00:02 PM PST by deannadurbin

To: deannadurbin; trisham

84 posted on 02/05/2009 5:00:28 AM PST by safeasthebanks ("The most rewarding part, was when he gave me my money!" - Dr. Nick)

LOL. Scalia is as activist as they get.

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

85 posted on 02/05/2009 2:52:10 PM PST by presidio9 (Islam Is As Islam Does)

To: trisham; presidio9

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).

86 posted on 02/06/2009 12:42:43 AM PST by microgood

To: safeasthebanks

Is your case that fat and lardy? I can hear it fart from here. LOL!

87 posted on 02/06/2009 9:18:38 AM PST by deannadurbin

I’ll be nice and say that your logic is a bit hard to follow. Scalia is the worst Justice we have right now (except for all the others).

88 posted on 02/06/2009 2:31:07 PM PST by presidio9 (Islam Is As Islam Does)

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

89 posted on 02/07/2009 10:48:00 AM PST by microgood

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794