posted
...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.
posted
The man is such trash. I doubt even the worst Republican apologists can cast him in a good light.
Posts: 641 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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
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.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thing is, that's often why reporters will tape such things, so they can prove that what they quoted was actually said.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, is there anything prohibiting the reporters from just taking very good, very fast notes, and twisting things up from there?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Apologists *always* find a way, and have since the beginning of time, whatever the party, whatever the subject in question.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
