EJ, piss off
Posted on 06/27/2012 11:48:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court.
He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem.
So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.
Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.
“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”
What boggles the mind is that Scalia thought it proper to jump into this political argument. And when he went on to a broader denunciation of federal policies, he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Neither did the grounds Kagan and company used in their ruling. They are on common ground there.
You mean that WaPo can't find an American to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court ... or can't E.J. find something to criticize in Canada ??
EJ, piss off
An assassination could easily change the balance of the Federal court, to the benefit of who ever happens to be president and in control of the U.S. Senate.
But on the same level and in the same act it will also politically polarize the federal court in the minds of the people thus undermining the self-destructive blind faith in that body’s presumed dictatorial athoirty over the Federal Constitution.
That is in fact a real goal we should be looking to accomplish as it is essentially that Federal agents are not blindly trusted with the power to define the limits of their own power. A restoration or even retention of Federalism requires a veto on the other(state) side.
What? Is Canada experiencing a shortage of brain-dead liberals, such that Canada needs this one from you? Keep it!
I couldn't get past the 3rd sentence. Dionne is a punk-ass liberal twerp. Funny how he doesn't think that Ruth "Bad Girl" Ginsberg doesn't legislate from the bench.
From growing up in an Italian neighborhood, THAT was the one I was thinking of!
I'm only 53 - just a kid!
William O. Douglas was a flaming Lib who was appointed by FDR and was on the court until 1975. (He was on the court for over 36 years). As bad as some of the Libs on the court today, none are as bad as Douglas. If you look up "activist judge" in the dictionary, you'll probably see a picture of Douglas. Although I was only a high school student at the time, I celebrated his retirement. Unfortunately, Gerald Ford nominated Stevens to replace him...
The name in the title is the implicit barf alert.
Hilarious!
EJ Dionne needs to spit out the semen next time before he swallows . . .
I guess lifetime appointments should only apply to liberals!
“Although I agree with what Scalia said, I “concur” with Dionne partially. I worry that Scalia’s mouthing off about current events may result in his having to recuse himself in a forthcoming case about immigration.”
Given that he was talking about this particular case I don’t see that being a problem. His example was quite appropriate and insightful in-regards to the implications of the Federal court edict on the Arizona law..
The Federal court was effectively giving the President the discretionary to decide not to enforce Federal laws, by prohibiting the States from using their own resources to enforce the laws themselves.
From the prospect of one who wishes to see Federal laws enforced the edict was rather disappointing. Insolently it was also disappointing from the prospective of those who believe in the text of the Constitution and the promise that the States are still sovereign.
I agree with Scalia in that this edict was in the ironic position of being a blow to both Federal law and State sovereignty, two sides not usually allied. His example served to make that point quite well.
Some attorney may correct my perception, but there appears to be no legal authority over supreme court recusal. Specifically, both Kagan and Sotomayor could have lost their jobs if the Kerchner case had resulted in the removal of an ineligible Obama. Kagan was solicitor general, working for the executive branch, when a half dozen eligibility cases were appealed to the Supreme Court.
Kagan and Sotomayor refused to recuse themselves from the vote to determine whether the court would hear the Kerchner case. We don't have access to the vote, but there was an announcement that the "rule of nine" resulted in the court's decision not to hear the case. Had Kagan and Sotomayor recused themselves there would have been a "rule of seven", and even Roberts, who seems likely to be one of those protecting Obama, and not the Constitution, couldn't have rejected the case. This probably holds for other cases, including the several Donofrio cases. Any case which could remove their patron, and thus his lifetime appointments are a patent conflict of interest. These justices were voting themselves millions of dollars in benefits by protecting Obama. Grounds for impeachment of justices?
Touche!
E. J. Dionne thinks this nation can run itself without laws. He has always been an hysterical, panty-wetting moron; but this is a new low.
'nuff said...
You are right that there is no way to enforce recusal rules as against SCOTUS Justices. (There is some dispute whether Justices, as opposed to lower federal judges, are subject to the recusal STATUTE at all, enforceability aside. So I’m going to focus on the ethical rule: Recuse if your impartiality might reasonably be questioned ... and refrain from public pronouncements about matters reasonably likely to come before your court.)
Kagan surely should have recused herself from the ACA case, for example, and she didn’t. Now I worry that Scalia may fall under the rule later when a new immigration case comes along. Whether or not he recuses himself in fact, I worry — and that is why I would have preferred that he maintained his neutrality, publicly, on any “issue likely to come before the court.” I don’t want us to start saying, “Well, Kagan got away with it, so we can too.”
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.