Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Scotus.

Author Topic: Scotus.
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 

Antonin Scalia isn’t sweating it. At a book reading and lecture at Washington’s American Enterprise Institute this week, the 76-year-old associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and self-described “textualist” entertained the crowd by rattling off a litany of his top judicial no-brainers.

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” he said. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”



“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?” Scalia asked.

Addressing Hosie, Scalia deadpanned: “I’m surprised you are not persuaded.”



"Our culture’s deliberate separation of sex from procreation has destroyed our ability to articulate a coherent explanation of sexual ethics. Parents and educators have damaged the tools that would allow them to explain why homosexual activity is wrong."
Son of Scalia.


A suggestion by Supreme CourtJustice Antonin Scalia that a key 1960s-era voting rights law aimed at ending Jim Crow-era voter discrimination against blacks perpetuates “racial entitlement” has drawn outrage from civil rights leaders and others.
During oral arguments at the high court Wednesday in a case seeking to end the federal government’s control over voting decisions in areas of the country with a history of discrimination, Justice Scalia suggested Congress only reauthorized the law in 2006 out of fear of being labeled racist if lawmakers opposed it.
“I don’t think (Congress‘ renewal of the law is) attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement,” he said.



According to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a prisoner who was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a guard after asking for a grievance form -- but suffered neither serious nor permanent harm -- has no claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

Thomas objected when the high court, in a little-noted recent opinion, said this unprovoked and malicious assault by a North Carolina prison guard amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

The court's decision came a few days after Thomas' now-famous former law clerk John C. Yoo was charged with flawed reasoning, but not professional misconduct, as a Justice Department lawyer when he applied much the same view toward the treatment of Al Qaeda prisoners.

In the so-called torture memos in 2002, Yoo reasoned that subjecting prisoners to simulated drowning or "stress positions" in cold cells was not illegal torture because it did not cause the intense pain of a serious injury, equivalent to "death or organ failure."

Thomas' consistent record of dismissing claims of prison brutality, most of them joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, shows that Yoo's view of torture was not that of a rogue lawyer. Instead, it represents a strain of conservative thinking that looks back in history to define cruelty and torture, rather than toward what the court has called the "evolving standards of decency."

Over two decades, Thomas and Scalia have repeatedly dissented when the court ruled for prisoners who alleged they were subjected to cruelty. They include an inmate who was handcuffed to a "hitching post" and forced to stand shirtless for seven hours in the hot summer sun of Alabama. Another involved an inmate from Louisiana who was repeatedly punched in the mouth by a guard.

According to Thomas, this harsh treatment did not qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. "Judges -- not jailers -- impose punishment," he wrote.

The two justices explained that the word "punishment" as it was used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689 referred to judges imposing punishment for a crime. Prison guards do not impose "punishment" even if they mete out cruelty, they said.

Scalia raised eyebrows when he repeated this view on the CBS TV program "60 Minutes." When asked about torture and cruelty toward prisoners, he discounted the possibility. "Has anyone ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so," Scalia said. "What's he punishing you for? He's trying to extract" information, he said.

Yoo took a similar approach in his 2002 memo. He said a CIA interrogator could not violate the law against using torture if his "specific intent" was to obtain information rather than to inflict pain.

This is one area of law where Thomas and Scalia are not in sync with the court's other conservatives.

When he was a young Justice Department lawyer, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. argued on behalf of Keith Hudson, the Louisiana inmate who had been punched in the mouth and kicked by a prison guard. A supervisor stood by and told the officers "not to have too much fun." The punches left Hudson with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate. Roberts argued in 1991 that this unprovoked beating was cruel and unusual punishment, and the high court agreed in a 7-2 decision in Hudson vs. McMillian.

Thomas and Scalia dissented and said Hudson did not have a "serious injury." Justice Harry A. Blackmun took them to task for this view. If adopted, it would "place various kinds of state-sponsored torture and abuse entirely beyond the pale of the Constitution," Blackmun wrote. As examples, he cited "whipping them with rubber hoses, beating them with naked fists, shocking them with electric currents, asphyxiating them short of death, intentionally exposing them to heat and cold, or forcibly injecting them with psychosis-inducing drugs."

The same issue of prison cruelty arose two weeks ago in the case from North Carolina. In a 7-2 decision, with Roberts in the majority, the court revived a suit from Jamey Wilkins, who had filed a handwritten petition to the justices. He had been punched and kicked, but a judge threw out his claim without a hearing because he did not show he had suffered a serious or permanent injury.

The Supreme Court reversed this decision and repeated its view that the use of "excessive physical force" is cruel and unusual punishment if it is malicious and unprovoked.

"I continue to believe Hudson was wrongly decided," Thomas said.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 9712

 - posted      Profile for Itsame           Edit/Delete Post 
Sooo.... this isn't a thread about Duns Scotus.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post 
Thomas is worse. He just remembered that saying about being quiet and being thought a fool, instead of opening his mouth.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post 
Originally posted by Parkour:
Thomas is worse. He just remembered that saying about being quiet and being thought a fool, instead of opening his mouth.

Well, from what I've read, Thomas actually doesn't talk because he is afraid of being mocked for his thick Gullah accent.

to the OP, yeah, Scalia is basically A Wahhabist Christian. He's Fred Phelps with a little extra class.

Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2