...People just don't revere it like they used to" says public employee Scalia, as he uses government thugs to prevent the free press from covering his public speech at a public event.
4apr
[ February 07, 2005, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
The man is such trash. I doubt even the worst Republican apologists can cast him in a good light.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
They find a way.
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
I am curious...is there a legal reason why the press should or should not be allowed to record him? Isn't it his perogitive whether or not he wishes to be recorded? Though I find it kind of odd and am not certain why he would care...but legally speaking isn't it his right? Maybe the guy just hates the press (can you really blame him?), not free speech or freedom of the press? I am honestly asking as I do not know a lot about Scalia or this topic. Comments?
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
In my opinion, this is a power trip, pure and simple, an arrogance in keeping with the image he has projected ever since he was elevated to the court.
Posted by The Digital Man (Member # 6427) on :
*sets up large elephant effigy*
there... have fun guys...
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Come now, Scalia is one of the last defenders of the American Way.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Professionally, I've got to side with the media on this, but there are some questions that need to be answered first.
Was the event at a private college or a public one? Different rules can govern circumstances at private and public colleges for free press laws. Was his speech open to the general public? If so, why could it not be recorded? Was it okay to take notes (verbatim hopefully) if recordings were not to be allowed? In this day, sadly, there are reporters who feel they HAVE to record information because their note-taking skills are so poorly developed. In the case of television or radio, it is almost a given, but still commentary can be done from written notes, if one is careful about their quoting.
But what hangs me up here is... why does a Supreme Court Justice choose not to be recorded or put onto film? As both a public icon and a public servant, he is at and under both the protections of the Constitution AND the need for public discourse through the press. Surely a man of his stature would know and understand that. Wouldn't he?
Or is he one of those increasingly rare folks who feels they lose a bit of their soul in each photo or recording of their speach patterns? Perhaps he's a bit touched in the head, so to say?
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Which Way would that be? Or do you mean people who often disagree with Justice Scalia are unAmerican?
Scalia has his wiser moments. They're usually when he abstains from voicing his opinion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know what, I wrote this big refutation of most of the attacks on Scalia here, but forget it. Your minds are obviously made up, and frankly since anything I'd say has been predismissed I won't bother.
Dagonee
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Dag, I honestly think Scalia has made some wise decisions being silent at certain moments. That that opinion clicks nicely with my attitude toward the man is bonus, but I didn't mean to offend you.
I missed your thread. If you link me to it I might enjoy reading it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
John, my reply was mostly aimed at those who were calling anyone who could defend him a Republican apologist. I never posted the defense - I just got tiredof the dismissive attitude on this board sometimes and decided to indulge in a little of it myself.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Just to clarify - Scalia DID NOT order the Marshall to confiscate the tape.
quote:To set the record straight, this is not, as some detractors might presume, just another case of a churlish government employee forgetting himself. Au contraire. While Scalia, a quiet, almost shy jurist, had made his long-standing wishes for no audio or video recordings known to everyone in Mississippi, he did not instruct the deputy marshal, Melanie Rube, to confront the two reporters.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Scalia, like the other Supreme Court justices who also ask for their talks not to be taped or videotaped - and there are and have been in the past, those who do that - in my opinion, are just afraid that they are going to be caught out saying something that proves that they are not as "objective" as they claim to be.
Now, that is human nature. No one likes to be caught out saying something that might not be flattering to them personally or to their position. But it is also wrong for them to hold themselves above the rest of us peons. These are men and women whose decisions are not appealable anywhere; as such I believe that they should be up front about their biases. No matter how much they protest to the contrary, they do have them - that is also human nature. And we, the people, have a right to know what biases these people are working with, when they have so much power over us. In my opinion.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
lma, that is exactly the problem. If y'all recall, Scalia had to recuse himself from the "Under God" case because of recorded remarks he made.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Scalia, like the other Supreme Court justices who also ask for their talks not to be taped or videotaped - and there are and have been in the past, those who do that - in my opinion, are just afraid that they are going to be caught out saying something that proves that they are not as "objective" as they claim to be.
Or he doesn't like his words being taken out of context and twisted by the media...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Thing is, that's often why reporters will tape such things, so they can prove that what they quoted was actually said.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
[ April 12, 2004, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
So, is there anything prohibiting the reporters from just taking very good, very fast notes, and twisting things up from there?
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote: They find a way.
Apologists *always* find a way, and have since the beginning of time, whatever the party, whatever the subject in question.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Kayla - Did Scalia recuse himself from that case? Do you have a link or reference? I'd be interested in reading what was said about that.
And Chris, thanks for making that point. I had intended to, but I didn't manage to get it in before I posted. I guess he, and the rest, want to preserve their "plausible deniablity" factor. Anyone else remember that little aspect of Nixon's Watergate mess?
Edited: That was supposed to come right after Chris's post about reporters and why they tape things. You all are just too quick on the keyboard today.
[ April 12, 2004, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: littlemissattitude ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Sorry for the double post, but I did a little research and found this, in a CNN story from last month (CNN 24 March 2004, Pledge Story):
quote:Absent from the case is one of the court's most conservative members, Justice Antonin Scalia, who bowed out after he criticized the ruling in Newdow's favor during a religious rally last year. Newdow had requested his recusal.
I find it interesting that Newdow asked that Scalia recuse himself. I wonder, in light of his adamant refusal to recuse himself in the case involving Cheney, if Scalia would have recused himself if the request had not been made.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)