Sunday, October 7, 2012
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in the spirit that has prompted Republicans in recent months to ignore their former propensity for lying to hide their true beliefs, was quoted in a piece at the Huffington Post as follows:
"T'he death penalty? Give me a break. It's easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state,' Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute."
Fat Tony's rationale at this piece of irrational thinking at the AEI, a Conservative "think tank" of Conservative consiglieres was explained:
"Scalia calls himself a "textualist" and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak in Washington the other day, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.
"So Scalia parts company with former colleagues who have come to believe capital punishment is unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution didn't think so and neither does he."
"He contrasted his style of interpretation with that of a colleague who tries to be true to the values of the Constitution as he applies them to a changing world. This imaginary justice goes home for dinner and tells his wife what a wonderful day he had, Scalia said."
Scalia is supposed to be a judicial "intellectual," but exposes himself as a judicial imbecile with statements like this unless we understand that he is nothing more than a shill for the Conversative con game, one of the many means that Conservatives impose their wills upon the People.
From Justmytruth's weblog, "How To Impeach A Supreme Court Justice":
"Section 1 of Article III states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” “The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness the ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” encompasses.
"In addition, any federal judge may be prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office."
And in another essay from the Huffington Post by Nathan Newman, founder of Tech-Progress.org titled, "Let's Talk Aout Impeaching Supreme Court Justices," Mr. Newman make the final case for impeaching Scalia and his four cronies:
"So why talk about impeachment? Especially since it takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate, it won't happen any time soon.
"Talking about impeachment, however, is a way to label this right-wing Court majority as the partisan tool of corporate right-wing interests that it has become. The Constitution says judges 'shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,' so speaking of impeachment is the way to assert that using partisan judicial power to undermine health care for our nation is not proper behavior for unelected judges.
"An attack on the health care reform law by what would inevitably be a narrow 5 to 4 partisan divide on the Court -- and by extension the Court reasserting its power to strike down core economic regulations -- is not a normal act of judicial review, modifying democratic governance at the margins, but the Supreme Court becoming de facto another partisan legislative body."
"Progressives need to get over their recent attachment to the courts as an institution and recognize that unelected judges have overwhelmingly been the enemy of civil rights and economic justice in this nation.
"Mounting a full-throated progressive campaign against a rightwing judicial elite ultimately complements the Occupy rhetoric against the financial and political elites protecting the interests of the 1% in our society.
"Talking about impeachment is a way to pull together critiques of a Court that increasingly just protects moneyed interests in cases ranging from Citizens United to a myriad of other less-known cases that just pad the wallets of the financial elite and undermine our democracy.
"We need to start talking about impeachment before the court makes democratic action on most progressive legislation impossible."
We couldn't have said it better.
"Old age is no place for sissies."