Posted on 06/26/2015 10:33:49 AM PDT by xzins
From Scalia's dissent on court conducting a putsch to overthrow the country:
"22 If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began:
“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,”
I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
“Damn these human beings; if I had invented them I would go hide my head in a bag.”
- Mark Twain
“What future case could he be waiting for where he will call in his marker for that fifth vote? What could be so important where a Liberal Justice would vote the conservative line where otherwise he/she would vote the other way?”
I know, tactically I can’t see how it works but that is what the English words put before me seems to say.
Seriously, look at those words again. “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began...”
What price is paid for a 5th vote that he is talking about?
It can’t be hiding his head because that’s his reaction to doing all this that he thinks is so stupid.
If I had to join the democrat party in order to endorse abortion, I’d hang my head in shame.
If, as the price for getting their $5 walking around money, I had to join the democrat party , I’d hang my head in shame.
I think he’s definite hinting there’s a benefit to being the 5th vote.
A dreadful decision which I believe will be hailed by the American people, who still support ‘’Roe v. Wade’’ and most other bad court decisions.
If Kennedy or the lesbo soutemayer go up for Holy Communion, the Priest BETTER NOT GIVE THE HOST TO THEM!!!
Roberts is being blackmailed about either his Gayness or his ILLEGAL adoption of his two IRISH kids....or both.
The "price" that Kennedy was paid was to be the Justice who wrote the official opinion of the Court.
You have to read the footnote within the context of its annotated sentence:
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentiousas its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate con-curring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22
-PJ
George Soros’ son.
see #83
I'm sure that Kennedy was told he would get to write the opinion if he sided with the majority. It's legacy building; he goes down in history as the Justice "writing for the majority" in all future citations.
That's why Scalia wrote of pretentiousness in concurring and dissenting opinions, as opposed to scholarliness expected from the privilege of writing the majority opinion.
-PJ
“Writing the opinion” is a benefit I suppose.
But it doesn’t really say.
I’m glad it’s open to interpretation.
Great tagline.
Correct.
The important thing here, and it is important, is that Scalia confirms that there are quid pro quos between the Justices.
Something we all know happens (see Justice Blackmuns released notes on Kennedy and the Casey decision upholding Roe v Wade), but that a sitting justice rarely acknowledges. Particularly in an opinion.
But I wouldn’t read that into this specific case. Kennedy’s vote was telegraphed long before the case was actually heard.
I doubt it means that. It is a common American phrase that does not mean bribery.
Well, then we shall continue to disagree.
There are now nearly 100 posts that seem to indicate it’s murky what’s being said.
I suppose a lawyer could write something that couldn’t quite be nailed down.
Here’s a thought: what if it’s a threat?
That Scalia knows there’s vote trading going on and is prepared to expose it. Perhaps after he retires (or dies - I increasingly think he’ll be carried off the Court feet first)?
One of my favorite statements made in the dissent...
That is how I understood it as well, plus you used the word maudlin.
Nice touch!
If the decision violates the laws of nature and nature's God and/or the Constitution, as this one most certainly does, it MUST be rejected by all, inside and outside government.
That's completely irrespective of whether or not a "justice" was bought.
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.