Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Scalia's 'impartiality' questioned yet again.

Mar 8, 2004 1:42AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
I'm sure the liberal left will continue to raise such issues. So what?
Mar 8, 2004 2:03AM PST

Does anyone imagine that liberal judges leave their own, personal beliefs behind when they render their decisions? Does anyone imagine that liberal judges do not attend liberal functions, and even speak at same? This is nothing more than an attempt to Bork Scalia. It's a bold attempt to intimidate those who oppose and speak out against the liberal agenda.

Dave, when you start attacking liberal judges, like the ones in California who refused to enforce the law, then you might get some credibility. Until then, it's just more of the usual smear attempt.

- Collapse -
I think we already know the answer. -nt
Mar 8, 2004 2:37AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Scalia's 'impartiality' questioned yet again.
Mar 8, 2004 2:54AM PST

It would be nice if just once KD would talk to the issue instead of attempting to smear the messenger.

Is or isnt Judge Scalia's behaviour fitting for a Supreme Court Judge regardless of what other justices have done, are doing, or, will do?

Or is that question too difficult to answer?

- Collapse -
Putting it simply...
Mar 8, 2004 3:07AM PST

his "behavior" is immaterial as he doesn't live in an isolated cave any more than any other justice on the Supreme Court who has been in similar circumstances.

All one has to do is look at his decision in light of what the rest of the court decides on any specific case. At no time does he appear to have had his decisions "made for him" by outside groups or friendships any more than any other Justice on the court. Look at the groups Ginsberg has interacted with immediately prior to cases/decisions that have or can have an effect on them.

This is indeed a case of the Liberal Left trying their best to make something out of what is not there.

Sometimes the "messenger" NEEDS attacking, especially when the "messenger" is attempting to provoke doubt and cast aspersions.

- Collapse -
Re: Putting it simply...
Mar 8, 2004 4:31AM PST

Hi, Ed.

If you developed a distibution for questionable decisions in terms of Supreme Court justices, of whatever stripe, Scalia is way out on the right hand side of the distribution (which is probably fitting given his politics, but isn't fitting for a Supreme Court justice who's supposed to be impartial). Yes, it's the liberals who are making all the fuss over Scalia, but please don't pretend that if this were Souter or Ginsberg y'al wouldn't be all over it like fleas on a stray!

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Those are a whole lot of questionable assumptions Dave.
Mar 8, 2004 4:49AM PST

You said 'questionable decisions'. Who's deciding which decisions of Scalia's are questionable? I'm certainly not aware of any. With some research, I dare say a whole lot of questionable decisions by other justices and judges could be unearthed. How about 'emanations of the penumbra' of the Constitution in the Roe vs Wade case? How about the 9th Circuit ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance?

It seems to me that judges should be impartial in their rulings and conduct in court. What evidence is there that Scalia has not been impartial in his rulings? The suggestion that judges, including justices, should be impartial in everything, suggests that they should have no moral compass, no sense of right or wrong which would lead them to take sides. I'm sure no one wants that.

My guess is that Souter, Ginsberg, etc. have not been targeted or tracked. Conservatives haven't thought in those terms. It's the left that comes up with this kind of tactic. I suggest you not be surprised if these attacks spread. I think conservatives are learning from the left.

- Collapse -
Dave believes and isn't shy about saying it...
Mar 8, 2004 8:18AM PST

that any decision he personally disagrees with is "questionable" if not downright wrong.

Dave likes most every decision the 9th has made in the last 20 years--strangely because their decisions tend to be the most liberal and thus the most often reversed for activism.

- Collapse -
No Dave we weren't when they did similar things...
Mar 8, 2004 8:14AM PST

simply do a little checking and even as rabid as you are you should be able to note some of those instances JUST in the last 5 years.

You get rather bent out of shape when a conservative judge leans toward a conservative interpretation but have never seemed to have a problem when a liberal judge leans left on an interpretation and becomes an activist--legislating from the bench.

Look around, they are all people and tend, as is UNAVOIDABLE to see things in the light of their beliefs.

- Collapse -
Re: No Dave we weren't when they did similar things...
Mar 8, 2004 12:01PM PST

Hi, Ed.

While I onbject to his opinions, what separates "Justice" Scalia from his peers is his lack of attention to proper judicial ethics in terms of partisan actions away from the Court, and keeping a proper distance from those with business before it. Rhenquist and thomas are equally bad in their decisions, but at least they show proper and traditional judicial decorum. Scalia reminds me of some other names whove been in the news lately as they came to grief when it was pointedly demonstrated that they weren't exempt from the rules after all (one of those folks just got convicted on Friday...) If this were Souter or Ginsberg, y'all would be demanding investigation at least, and possibly impeachment.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Scalia's 'impartiality' questioned yet again.
Mar 8, 2004 10:29PM PST

I think you all are missing the point. Out of his own mouth

"A month after Devlin's dinner, the high court struck down the Texas sodomy law in a victory for gays and lesbians. Scalia issued a blistering dissent, saying the Supreme Court had "signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda" even though "countless" other laws and court rulings have stated homosexual activity is "immoral and unacceptable.""

He is supposed to rule on constitutional law not "immoral and unacceptable". There is nothing in the Constitution that states that homosexuality is illegal (immoral should not be in the offical language of a SCOTUS - and don't give me any guff about murder being immoral - murder hurts other people, homosexuality (in and of itself) does not). He is letting his own views influence his reading of the Constitution.

- Collapse -
It would be great if all the justices did that.
Mar 9, 2004 12:33AM PST

There is also nothing in the Constitution about privacy, abortion, and a host of other issues. There is a substantial history of the Supreme Court considering and including morality in their deliberations and decisions. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, they used to open their proceedings with prayer.

- Collapse -
Re: It would be great if all the justices did that.
Mar 9, 2004 8:28AM PST

Hi, KP.

The absence of a right to privacy is a neocon invention of Robert Bork. The right to privacy is the underlying impetus bhind the very existence of the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers make that very clear. Not only abortion, but also the right to unfettered access to birth control stem from the right to privacy (read Baird v Massachussetts). It is true that the right to privacy is interpreted more broadly (in terms of the government not being able to interfere with private behavior of adults in ways it once could, including censorship) -- but I'd think those who claim to be for personal freedoms and less intrusive government would find that a good thing. What's the old joke that has more than a little truth in it? Ah, yes: "Republicans want less government regulation in the boardroom and more in the bedroom, while Democrats want the opposite." Enron, Global Crossing, Worldcom, et al. should have shown everyone what happens when there's no oversight in the boardroom, but y'all still complain about "too much regulation" when ordinary Americans complain about the pharmaceutical companies' excess profits while people die for lack of needed drugs...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
What Enron, etc. showed...
Mar 9, 2004 9:23AM PST

Enron etc. showed is what happened when Clinton and Reno were "minding the store". Remember, Gang, Dave would have you believe that everything was just ginger-peachy until Bush got in office.
Sorry, Dave, I remember skipping doses of medicine during the Clinton years. But then again, I had government health care.

- Collapse -
'The Federalist Papers make that very clear'
Mar 9, 2004 9:48AM PST

Maybe this time you can find me the specific references. I'll again help you out by providing a linkto the Federalist Papers online. BTW, I searched on the bottom of the page on "privacy" and came up with two references having nothing to do with an individual's right to privacy.

I won't hold my breath!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
It looks like both Evie and I have decided not to hold our breaths
Mar 9, 2004 10:55AM PST

waiting for you to respond. Any idea what that means Dave?

- Collapse -
Re:'The Federalist Papers make that very clear'
Mar 9, 2004 1:02PM PST

Hi, Evie.

The word "privacy" was not used -- but the rights to free speech, freedom from search without a warrant, freedom from having troops quartered except in time of war, freedom from testifying against oneself epitomize (and are based on) the right to personal privacy from an intrusive government, and discussion of those rights pervades the FPs. You're trying to use the same tired "strict construction" as those who complain that freedom
of speech doesn't extend to the Internet because that term isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Never mind that Al Gore didn't invent it until two centuries later! Wink

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
So ...
Mar 11, 2004 11:14PM PST

... you cannot back up your statement with quotations from the Federalist Papers. I didn't ask for a re-direct back to the Bill of Rights and a reiteration thereof.

The Gore-internet thing is a nice diversion, but since the word privacy does indeed appear in the Federalist Papers, it was a concept that was around in those days. Therefore had the Founders intended to put it in the Bill of Rights, there should be ample evidence of heated discussions regarding same.

Sorry Dave, your assertions come up short.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Very glib Dave, but very short on specifics.
Mar 9, 2004 10:52AM PST

While you managed to smear Republicans, you neglected to mention WHERE the Federalist Papers deal with the right to privacy. And, of course, you're also going to point to the text in the Constitution which describes the right to privacy and abortion. Right? You'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath while waiting.

- Collapse -
How about the fourth amendment?
Mar 11, 2004 12:24AM PST

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- Collapse -
Re:How about the fourth amendment?
Mar 11, 2004 11:16PM PST

Hi Diana,

I think Kidd is referring to the basis of Roe v. Wade. The bottom line of that decision is some perceived right to privacy in the Constitution that is simply not there.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Mar 8, 2004 8:11PM PST
- Collapse -
(NT) The above was supposed to be a new discussion I have requested for deletion please do not reply here
Mar 8, 2004 8:15PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Does this line of reasoning also apply to Justice Ginsberg?
Mar 10, 2004 9:55PM PST

What about Justice Ginsburg?

Two edged sword. Are both edges sharp or are both dull? Or are the edges sharp only when the sword is falling on a conservative?

DE

- Collapse -
Certainly not because that is 'different'...
Mar 10, 2004 10:24PM PST

according to Dave's response to me here
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=14792&messageID=167951

I had just suggested that with little effort he could find the Liberal Left justices doing the same things and that unlike the Left the Right realizes that there is nothing unnatural with conservatives supporting a conservative position any more than with liberals supporting a liberal position.

DaveK and many others on the Left of the Left seem to think it is only Liberals who can set aside partiality and rule objectively despite evidence to the contrary.

- Collapse -
Yes, it does. -nt
Mar 10, 2004 11:42PM PST

.