Barney calls Scalia a "homophobe"

And he is. Read More......

The age of the members of the US Supreme Court

John Paul Stevens, 88 (Ford)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75 (Clinton)
Antonin Scalia, 72 (Reagan)
Anthony Kennedy, 72 (Reagan)
Stephen Breyer, 70 (Clinton)
David Souter, 69 (GHW Bush)
Clarence Thomas, 60 (GHW Bush)
Samuel Alito, 58 (GW Bush)
John Roberts, 53 (GW Bush)

Only 2 of the 9 were chosen by a Democrat. Read More......

Supreme Court says Gitmo detainees have right to challenge their detention in US courts

UPDATE: More from AP

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.... The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.

Huge decision from the US Supreme Court. And just as huge, the decision was 5-4. If John McCain becomes president, the court will shift to the right and this will be another decision, like Roe v. Wade, that will be overturned.

In a nutshell, the court concluded, from what I can find, that we don't suspend the Constitution simply because bad men are trying to hurt us. And the fact that the bad men have dark skin and are Aye-rabs doesn't matter either.

“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court.

As always, Scalia speaks for the scaredy-cat wing of the Republican party:

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

I'm afraid of the dark man isn't a legal argument, Antonin. Nor is "it will save lives." Having cops on the street summarily execute anyone suspected of any crime in America might save lives, it probably would in fact. That doesn't justify suspending the Constitution and doing it. Scalia, like many conservatives, thinks that the Constitution was only written for the good times. In other words, it's only for when you don't need it. Read More......

Justice Ginsburg speaks out

George Bush politicized the federal courts -- including the U.S. Supreme Court. He wants justices who will turn back women's rights. And, that's happening. It's actually just beginning. As the NY Times reported earlier this week, there is, however, one Justice who is calling her colleagues on their politics:

Both in the abortion case the court decided last month and the discrimination ruling it issued on Tuesday, Justice Ginsburg read forceful dissents from the bench. In each case, she spoke not only for herself but also for three other dissenting colleagues, Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer.

But the words were clearly her own, and they were both passionate and pointed. In the abortion case, in which the court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act seven years after having struck down a similar state law, she noted that the court was now “differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation.” In the latest case, she summoned Congress to overturn what she called the majority’s “parsimonious reading” of the federal law against discrimination in the workplace.

To read a dissent aloud is an act of theater that justices use to convey their view that the majority is not only mistaken, but profoundly wrong. It happens just a handful of times a year. Justice Antonin Scalia has used the technique to powerful effect, as has Justice Stevens, in a decidedly more low-key manner.

The oral dissent has not been, until now, Justice Ginsburg’s style. She has gone years without delivering one, and never before in her 15 years on the court has she delivered two in one term. In her past dissents, both oral and written, she has been reluctant to breach the court’s collegial norms. “What she is saying is that this is not law, it’s politics,” Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, said of Justice Ginsburg’s comment linking the outcome in the abortion case to the fact of the court’s changed membership. “She is accusing the other side of making political claims, not legal claims.”

Ginsburg is right, of course. For all Bush appointees, even judges, it's all about politics. On the Today Show this morning, Joan Biskupic, who is the Supreme Court reporter for USA Today, basically said that Ginsburg wants Americans to know the Court is moving backwards. That's a scary reality.

The right wing theocrats now have a majority on the Supreme Court. Your rights really are at stake. Read More......

"New Conservative majority" on Supreme Court rules for Phillip Morris

A sign of things to come from the Supreme Court. CNN just reported that the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Phillip Morris and threw out a $79.5 million judgment for punitive damages as "excessive."

Just this morning, the LA Times reported that the Court is heading towards a Scalia-led majority:

It has been two decades in the making, but this is the year Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court's most outspoken dissenter, could emerge as a leader of a new conservative majority.

Between now and late June, the court is set to hand down decisions in four areas of law — race, religion, abortion regulation and campaign finance — where Scalia's views may now represent the majority.

Supreme Court justices are the ultimate political appointments. They're life-long appointments. And, their legacy lives on long after the President who appointed them. We'll be facing some ugly decisions from the Scalia court.

(Hat Tip to Think Progress for the link). Read More......

Scalia denies DeLay

You can call him "GOP candidate for Congress Tom DeLay."

Via Hotline On Call:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia quickly denied a request by lawyers for the Texas Republican Party to stay an appelate court's decision keeping Ex-Rep. Tom DeLay on the November ballot in the 22nd district.

The poster boy for Republican corruption stays on the ballot. Read More......

BREAKING: 5-3 decision, Supreme Court smacks down Bush over Gitmo detainees

UPDATE: Here's the entire decision.

UPDATE: Did the Supreme Court just gut Bush's illegal domestic wiretapping program?

UPDATE: ScotusBlog says this decision is huge, and about far more than the media realizes.

More importantly, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

UPDATE: Washington Post:

The Supreme Court today delivered a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration over its plans to try Guantanamo detainees before military commissions, ruling that the commissions are unconstitutional.

Just coming in now.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.

Not so quaint after all, those Geneve Conventions.

This is apparently the Ahmed Hamdan case, the "driver" of Osama bin Laden. The court said Bush overstepped his authority in setting up military war crime tribunals to deal with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The government has to come up with new procedures to either repatriate the detainees at Gitmo, let them go, or try them. The Geneva Convention must be applied, and the US has not properly established the military commissions to try the detainees

More in a bit. But note one thing. The Supreme Court is now 7-2 Republican to Democrat. The court is even further to the right than it was when Bush took office since he replaced Sandra Day O'Connor with Alito, who is far to the right of her.

That means that even with the most conservative Supreme Court in decades, Bush still got slapped down for his handling of civil liberties under the war on terror. Enough of this "activist judges" bs. Even the Republican-run court slaps down Bush (and apparently the legislative branch gets slapped too).

And what a surprise:

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent, saying the court's decision would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."

The court's willingness, Thomas said, "to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also filed dissents.

Three of the four horsemen of the apocalypse would have given Bush a blank check, big surprise. And had Roberts been involved, he recused himself, it's not hard to imagine that he'd have supported Bush's power grab as well. One more vote folks, and there is no stopping this administration. The next Supreme Cour vacancy, if it's one of the reasonable judges, and there will be no more checks on this administration. Read More......

Wash. Post looks at Scalia's erratic behavior

Scalia's increasingly bizarre behavior is capturing the attention of the media. He's redefining judicial temperament:

To some, Scalia's conduct shows a lack of judicial temperament -- and hurts the court. "It's sad as much as anything else," said Dennis J. Hutchinson, a former law clerk to two justices who teaches Supreme Court history at the University of Chicago. "It suggests to me a frustration with his colleagues and the left-wing kulturkampf in the academy, and it just does not add to the dignity of the office."

Maybe Scalia just has no dignity. Or maybe there's something else going on. Either way, he's just acting weird.

UPDATE: John and I were just talking about Scalia's recent behavior. It strikes me as intemperate and erratic, like something's off. John thinks Scalia may just be giving up now that he's knows he won't be Chief Justice. John wonders if he'll even stay on the Court. Poor Nino, it must be tough to know he's never going to be the Chief. But Scalia's pal Bush, who he helped make President, gave that job to a much younger conservative. Again, either way, he's acting weird for a Supreme Court Justice. Read More......

Scalia's Proud

Proud, yet also increasingly bizarre:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday called his 2004 decision not to recuse himself from a case involving Vice President Cheney, who is a friend of his, the "proudest thing" he has done on the court.

The conservative justice's remarks came as he took questions from law students during a lecture at the University of Connecticut.

Scalia's not exactly the model of judicial temperament these days. Read More......

Boston Archdiocese fires photographer who caught Scalia's obscene gesture

The hypocrisy of the Catholic Church -- especially the Archdiocese of Boston -- knows no bounds. When they're not defending child abusers, they're bashing gays. Now, they're defending and protecting Antonin Scalia. By now, everyone know Scalia made an obscene gesture and swore right in one of their churches. But, they are firing the photographer who busted Scalia:

A freelance photographer has been fired by the Archdiocese of Boston’s newspaper for releasing a picture of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia making a controversial gesture in the Cathedral of the Holy Cross on Sunday.

Peter Smith, who had freelanced for The Pilot newspaper for a decade, lost the job yesterday after the Herald ran his photo on its front page. Smith said he has no regrets about releasing it.

“I did the right thing. I did the ethical thing,” said Smith, 51, an assistant photojournalism professor at Boston University.

Smith did the ethical thing. When was the last time anyone could say that about the Catholic church?:

While news outlets from across the country sought Smith’s photo yesterday, the archdiocese said there’s no proof that Scalia uttered an obsenity in the church. Smith said Scalia said, “To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” while making the gesture. That’s Italian for (expletive) you.

The Boston Archdiocese apparently has a VERY high standard for proof. That's why the ignored the child abuse scandal for decades.

Just imagine how riled up the new cardinal would be if a liberal pulled a stunt like that in one of the Catholic churches in Boston. That would cause outrage all the way to the prada-wearing pope. Read More......

Photographer: Scalia lied in saying he didn't make an obscene gesture at church; Scalia also told reporter to "go get fucked up the ass" in Italian

The photographer has come forward, angered that Scalia lied. The photo is published in today's Boston Herald.

Per the Herald:

Amid a growing national controversy about the gesture U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made Sunday at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, the freelance photographer who captured the moment has come forward with the picture.

“It’s inaccurate and deceptive of him to say there was no vulgarity in the moment,” said Peter Smith, the Boston University assistant photojournalism professor who made the shot.

Despite Scalia’s insistence that the Sicilian gesture was not offensive and had been incorrectly characterized by the Herald as obscene, the photographer said the newspaper “got the story right.”

And just as importantly, Scalia also told the reporter to go get fucked up the ass, in Italian:

“The judge paused for a second, then looked directly into my lens and said, ‘To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” punctuating the comment by flicking his right hand out from under his chin, Smith said.

Vaffanculo means "go get fucked up your ass."

So, rather than simply moving his hand under his chin to indicate "indifference," which is what Scalia claimed he was doing in an open letter to the Herald, in fact Scalia flipped off the media and used a phrase in Italian that is incredibly vulgar, and that only reinforces the gesture not being a sign of indifference, but the gesture itself meaning "fuck you" in Italian.

He did this minutes after taking the Eucharist (communion), in church, during Lent, and two weeks before Easter. In addition, he's now lying again during Lent and right before Easter.

Some man of conservative family values. He's not even a good Christian, let alone a good Christian conservative. Which begs the question of what the religious has to say about their darling being an obscene liar who shows disrespect in church?:

"We were hoping the President might elevate someone like Scalia," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council.

Still hoping a foul-mouthed man who disrespects church during Lent becomes the standard-bearer for Supreme Court justices? Read More......

Scalia denies making "obscene" gesture. Great, then release the photo

No problem. Release the photo that was taken of you at the exact moment and prove it. And then explain why you ordered the photographer not to publish the photo.

Release the photo.

Release the photo.

Release the photo. Read More......

Scalia asked to recuse himself from case where he already stated his opinion

Scalia's been getting a lot of press for himself lately. When he goes public with his personal opinions on a case that's coming before the Court, he shouldn't sit in judgment:

On the eve of oral argument in a key Supreme Court case on the rights of alleged terrorists, a group of retired U.S. generals and admirals has asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, arguing that his recent public comments on the subject make it impossible for him to appear impartial.

Scalia's behavior has been erratic lately. For a justice to speak publicly about a pending case is highly unusual. For a Catholic to make an obscene gesture in church -- right after communion -- during lent -- is almost unheard of. Read More......

Scalia just gave the finger in church yesterday (not kidding)

UPDATE: The Boston Herald is reporting Scalia's movement as "an obscene gesture" and a "flick of the wrist." That still is unclear, it could have been the wrist-under-chin gesture mixed with the middle finger. Either way, it's not really relevant. Scalia gave the "fuck you" to reporters in church right after taking communion. End of discussion.

You gotta be kidding me. This is the family values justice that Bush embraces? I'm not a Christian conservative by any means, I'm a regular old Christian, and the thought of flipping somebody off in church, minutes after receiving the Eucharist, is just, well, beyond shocking, insulting, infuriating. You don't do that kind of thing.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia startled reporters in Boston just minutes after attending a mass, by flipping a middle finger to his critics.

A Boston Herald reporter asked the 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic if he faces much questioning over impartiality when it comes to issues separating church and state.

"You know what I say to those people?" Scalia replied, making the obscene gesture and explaining "That's Sicilian."

The 20-year veteran of the high court was caught making the gesture by a photographer with The Pilot, the Archdiocese of Boston's newspaper.

"Don't publish that," Scalia told the photographer, the Herald said.

Scalia owes every Christian an apology. If a "gay activist" had done this, it would be the headlines around the world and the gay community would be apologizing for it for the next 20 years.

Scalia owes every Christian an apology. And frankly, in view of his recent public rants about Guantanamo Bay, I'm starting to wonder if Scalia isn't becoming a bit unhinged.

President Bush, is this still your favorite justice?

Religious right, is he still yours?

Or don't you people care about the sanctity of church? Read More......

Scalia publicly prejudges Guantanamo detainee case, calls for him to recuse himself grow

What Scalia ought to do is step down altogether. He knows a judge has no business publicly stating which way he will decide on a case. The idea is that he's supposed to listen to the arguments and THEN decide, though I know in Republican-land that's considered a bit of an old chestnut, deciding on the facts FIRST then acting.

From ThinkProgress:

This week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the special military commissions created by the Bush administration to try Guantanamo detainees violate national and international law, as human rights groups charge.

But Justice Antonin Scalia doesn’t have to wait for arguments — his mind is already made up. Newsweek reports that in a controversial unpublicized March 8 speech, Scalia “dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions.”

“War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts,” he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK.

“Give me a break" - challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don’t have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: “If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it’s crazy.” Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.

Read More......

Religious right say masturbation will be the end of Western civilization

I just had to share a little bit of an anti-gay email I just got from a lead religious right group (it's one of the groups that claims you can pray away the gay):

Here is the terrifying fact: If we as a nation and as a Church allow ourselves to be taken in by the scam of monogamous same-sex couples, we will be welcoming to our Communion rails (presuming that we still have Communion rails) not just the statistically insignificant number of same-sex couples who have lived together for more than a few years (most of whom purchased stability by jettisoning monogamy); we will also be legitimizing every kind of sexual taste, from old-fashioned masturbation and adultery to the most outlandish forms of sexual fetishism. We will, in other words, be giving our blessing to the suicide of Western civilization.

Catch that? Masturbation will lead to the suicide of Western civilization. We're talking nutsy cukoo here. Oh, and you'll note they didn't say "homosexual masturbation," they're talking about the need for the state to prohibit ALL masturbation. (Which might explain what I wrote about last night, my post about why conservatives have grown so constantly angry.)

Think that's just one fringe religous right group going nutso? Let me remind you of what Republican Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote only three years ago in his dissent against the Supreme Court ruling that gays should no longer be thrown in jail simply because of who they are:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

Did you get that?

Scalia, the darling of the Republicans, the kind of judge they want to appoint to every court in the country, is worried that if liberals get their way states will no longer be able to make masturbation a crime.

This is what we're up against folks. These are the people the Republican party proudly calls their base. These are the people George Bush proudly embraces as his own, as people who represent what he thinks about God and state.

They want to make masturbation a crime.

That should give you insight enough into what the Republican party, and conservatism, has become. Read More......

Scalito: "Activist Conservativist"

Bush just lied saying that Scalito didn't want to make the laws from the bench. Not so say those who have tried cases in front of him. From US News:

Alito's conservative stripes are equally evident in criminal law. Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer who has known Alito since 1981 and tried cases before him on the Third Circuit, describes him as "an activist conservatist judge" who is tough on crime and narrowly construes prisoners' and criminals' rights. "He's very prosecutorial from the bench. He has looked to be creative in his conservatism, which is, I think, as much a Rehnquist as a Scalia trait," Lustberg says.

With the nomination of Scalito, we can see Republican's true colors:

• Replace O'Connor with a woman? Bah, who needs that, let's go with a man who wants to curtail women's rights - it'll make Sandra proud she decided to leave during Bush's administration!
• Don't like "activist judges"? Too bad, this one's a Republican, so he's OUR kind of activist judge.
• Believe in separation of church and state? Screw off, we want our Ten Commandments.
  

Republicans believe in nothing. It's war. Read More......

Supreme Court Scandal: Right Wing Activist Scalia and Thomas Pay Deference to Foreign Courts

So make up your minds already. Scalia et al yelled and screamed when other Justices mentioned in one ruling that virtually every country in the world refuses to kill the mentally retarded and minors.

But now, in another ruling, Scalia and Thomas insist it's perfectly fine to pay attention to the legal rulings of courts overseas. A man filling out a form said he'd never been found guilty of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison by "any court." His lawyers argued that "any court" meant simply any US court and not any court in the world, so he was fine to not mention his conviction in Japan. Today the Supreme Court agreed.

But in a dissent, Scalia and Thomas and Kennedy said the statutes were clear and that the man's conviction in Japan meant he was prohibited from possessing a gun in the US. I'm sure the NRA will denounce Scalia as an activist judge trying to put our country under the thumb of foreign leaders, right? Either you can take international law into consideration or you can't, so they need to make up their minds and get a little consistency.

In this particular case, it seems not unreasonable. But imagine: you fight for human rights and democracy in China and get jailed for five years and then you move to the US and get treated like a criminal? Is that what Scalia wants to do? Give the dictatorial rulings of commies the same weight as a conviction in Texas? Outrageous! Dang activist justices. Read More......

Scalia and Sodomy, Part II

Let me back up what Joe just wrote below. I just read the open letter from the NYU student who asked Scalia this week if he sodomized his wife. And all I can say is, THANK YOU.

Joe links to the entire letter in the post below, but here is an especially good segment. This guy rocks, in my book. And anyone who says "well that wasn't appropriate" should think about how appropriate it is for Scalia to lament that states can no longer regulate masturbation (not kidding). If Antonin Scalia can regulate masturbation, then we have the right to know if he sodomizes his wife. either these are private sex acts or they're fair game for state involvement. Scalia can't have it both ways. God bless this guy for doing what he did.

I am 17 months out of a lifelong closet and have lost too much time to heterosexist hegemony to tolerate those who say, as Dr. King put it, "just wait." If you cannot stomach a breach of decorum when justified outrage erupts then your support is nearly worthless anyway. At least do not allow yourselves to become complicit in discrimination by demanding obedience from its victims.

Many of our classmates chose NYU over higher-ranked schools because of our reputation as a "private university in the public service" and our commitment to certain values. We were the first law school to require that employers pledge not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Of Scalia's law schools that have "signed on to the homosexual agenda," our signature stands out like John Hancock's. We won a federal injunction in the FAIR litigation as an "expressive association" that counts acceptance of sexual orientation as a core value. Those who worry about our school's prestige should remember how we got here and consider whether flattering those who mock what we believe and are otherwise willing to fight for appears prestigious or pathetic. We protestors did not embarrass NYU, Scalia embarrassed NYU. We stood up to a bigot for the values that make NYU more than a great place to learn the law.

Read More......

Scalia's Sodomy Questioner Responds

Last Wednesday, John posted a link to the story about, Eric Berndt, a student at NYU Law School asking Antonin Scalia if he ever sodomized his wife. Thanks to Impeach Bush for pointing us to the student's response to his critics which was posted by Wonkette.

Any doubts about whether Scalia should be asked this question will be assuaged by reading his hateful, homophobic dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. And realize that under the theocracy, everyone will be asked these questions, because sodomy is going to be illegal for everyone, not just the homos. Read More......