Scalia told me a secret about George W. Bush

[KamaAina]

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/15/scalia_told_me_a_secret_about_george_w_bush/

Mostly, I recall Justice Scalia making light conversation throughout the meal and seeming fully at ease. Of course, he had strong opinions on every subject that came up, whether it was the newly advanced EU constitution or Chelsea vs. Manchester United. He spoke fondly of Justice Ginsburg as his “best friend on the Court.” He said he hoped C-SPAN would one day record oral arguments because he’d obviously outperform his fellow justices. He agreed with one of the Rhodes scholars in attendance that his “Platonic golf” line was an all-time best.

After food came glasses of sherry. I gathered my courage and decided to ask the two questions I’d considered in advance.

“Justice Scalia, as we’re coming to the end of Bush’s presidency, I wondered if I could ask your opinion on the president’s leadership qualities.”

I recall Justice Scalia leaned back a little and examined my face. He may have thought I was a plant. Nonetheless, he was completely candid. “I have the utmost respect for the Bush family,” he said. “And I’m not a politician or a political figure. But a lot of my fellow Republicans think the other Bush brother is much brighter. That the wrong Bush brother became president.” There in the Gladstone Room of the historic Oxford Union, Justice Scalia indicated that he shared this opinion.

[randys1]

1. Jeb is not brighter and not any better. He is, like his brother, a privileged

person with no more qualifications to be prez than the guy who will wash your car this weekend

[KamaAina]

2. "no more qualifications to be prez than the guy who will wash your car this weekend"

He must be pretty bad. I don't drive.

[randys1]

5. WE had a family joke that the people we dealt with in business if they didnt

do their jobs right were sent back to washing cars.

Of the 3 Bush men none were qualified, the Woman may have been qualified, not sure.

I think not though given her privilege was so tremendous that she has no clue about the rest of the country and what we have to do.

[LW1977]

10. I wouldn't bet on the Twins..

I think one of them got kicked out of Central America, to much partying or something.

[jberryhill]

3. Jeb is not overtly as boneheaded as W

But I think they thought "Jeb was the smart one" simply because he was quieter and not as goofy.

[randys1]

6. When I think back to those guys knowing there was no WMD 3 weeks before

invading (google 60 minutes/curve-ball)

So what we now know is they knew ABSOLUTELY they werent there, and they invaded anyway.

[wildbilln864]

11. so tRump was right when he said they lied! And knew they were lying. n/t

[Thor_MN]

20. I think it's a safe bet to say that Jeb did fewer drugs than George...

[jberryhill]

21. Yeah, well maybe he should have taken more

[leveymg]

27. Why would you think that?

Did you go to school or party with either of them?

[Thor_MN]

30. They are both older than me. Jeb just seems more boring and uptight.

[mainstreetonce]

4. Resonsible?

Well the idiot son never would have been president if.......

[spanone]

7. smarter than george is a really, really low bar

[herding cats]

8. Guess he wasn't as brilliant as he thought he was, huh?

As for Jeb! being the brighter...well, that just shows you how low the bar really is in that family. If you're not the family member who was avoided at family gatherings because you couldn't hold your alcohol and said stupid crap and made rude jokes, you were the smart one.

[dmr]

9. Scalia says: if you're not free to use money in the political process, then

the First Ammendment is dead.

This is from the article linked in the OP's post.

Honestly, I think he's wrong. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the First Ammendment dies a little each time unknown money is used.

If there is sunlight then we can see who, or what is donating. Or, we can trace that money to its origin if the donation is suspect.

I just don't see how a non-breathing corporation is considered 'people' that can spend their profits on or against political candidates. Also, to me, their huge donations are akin to using their tax breaks. In essence the taxpayer is writing the checks, yet never is a beneficiary.

I urge you to read the full article, it's well worth it.

[ronnie624]

13. Money in politics is purchasing influence, plain and simple.

It's the very definition of corruption.

He may have been "brilliant" at recalling case law, but that isn't much help as a jurist if one has never bothered to develop an intellect and a decent set of guiding principles. He wasn't really brilliant at all, a fact that is amply demonstrated by his rejection of evolution and embrace of creationism.

[dmr]

15. Agree.

What I forgot to say in my post about the dark money ....

We would never know if foreign governments are contributing. Friend or foe. Our enemies might someday have a ringer in the campaign. Someone being blackmailed or extorted. It could happen one day.

Our founding fathers were concerned about foreign powers enough by assuring the president is a naturally born citizen. That says something.

I'll wave our flag,

[SDJay]

14. It's Asinine

Money is not speech. Money is a negotiable instrument. Speech is protected for the exchange of ideas. Money is used to affect influence, at least in the political sense. These two things could not be more different.

I always ask people who think corporations are people and money = speech the same thing: How many corporations have gone to jail for murder? If kitties killed as many people every year as money, how long would it take to ban them altogether?

I never get any type of cogent response to either.

[NYC Liberal]

17. Money is absolutely necessary for a lot of speech.

If the First Amendment allowed Congress to regulate speech simply because money is involved, then Congress would have the power to ban books and movies. That is precisely why the ACLU supported Citizens United. As did I.

Even something as simple as putting out leaflets requires spending money. Money is integral to many forms of speech. Perhaps the only form of speech that should be allowed is standing on a street corner shouting?

I always ask people who think corporations are people and money = speech the same thing: How many corporations have gone to jail for murder?

BP Oil pled guilty to manslaughter in 2012.

[SDJay]

19. The Right to Put Out Pamphlets Should Be Protected

The right to pay for them should not. It's splitting hairs, but it's a very important difference. If money gave someone the right to shout fire in a crowded theater, it should not be protected. That's exactly what some of these goofs on the right are doing.

It doesn't matter anyway - the Supreme Court has spoken and money is speech. You and the ACLU can agree with it. I choose not to do so.

Great, they paid a fine - that wasn't my question. The question was how many corporations have gone to jail for killing someone? The answer is none, as you can't do it. Corporations have all the rights of individuals now but not even close to the number of duties.

[jberryhill]

22. You think Nathan Hale paid for a press?

Ben Franklin owned one, but he wasn't running s charity operation.

I'm sure there was a bit of quiet money behind the printing and distribution of pamphlets. It's not like there was a laser printer on every desk and a 24 hour Kinko's on the corner.

[SDJay]

24. And I'm Happy For Them

This goes into the whole reality of the passing of time. Paying for printing pamphlets in the 1700s is a whole lot different than buying candidates, politicians and representatives with hundreds of millions of dollars. How many different ways should I express my opinion? Money = protected speech should not be an absolute. It should not be protected when it's purchasing influence on government. That's not democracy as I see it.

And once again, it doesn't matter that I think it's asinine. It's the law, the SC has spoken and that's that.

Do you agree that the Sheldon Adelsons of the world should be allowed, actually protected by law, to run amok buying elections and undue influence? If so, that's fine - I don't.

In essence, I see your Nathan Hale/Ben Franklin and raise you the Koch Brothers. I don't think a broad brush is satisfactory here. Money = speech should not be a universally accepted standard. It's inherently unfair and undemocratic when it comes to making policy.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, but folks on your side of the debate get the win because the law, such as it is, is on your side and won't change anytime soon.

[jberryhill]

25. Is it legal to pay someone to make a movie?

[SDJay]

28. It's Legal to Pay Someone To Make a Movie

It's also legal to buy politicians. I'm not happy about that.

Do you think buying politicians and elections is OK? Is that protected speech in your opinion? You haven't answered that one yet.

[jberryhill]

31. Buying politicians and elections is not okay

CU was about whether it is legal to pay someone to make a movie.

[SDJay]

32. Sort Of. But Not Really.

It was about whether or not it was OK to broadcast a movie without the required disclaimers at the time. It was also a case that was argued by Ted Olson on pretty narrow technical grounds regarding electioneering communication, but the conservative judicial activists decided to expand it to all forms of communication. I find that truly despicable. You don't seem to agree. And looky looky at what the law of unintended (or perhaps intended by some) consequences has brought about... Elections for sale, everyone!

I'm waiting for the day we get "IT'S THE ELECTIONS! BROUGHT TO YOU BY BUDWEISER, THE KING OF BEERS!" We'll get to watch a room full of oligarchs decide whether or not to agree with the result reached by the 20 percent of eligible voters who turned out on voting day or to install a POTUS of their own choosing. LIVE ON PPV TV!

You seem to be arguing dogma, which is also what the ACLU constantly does and why I don't always agree with them. I'm arguing nuance, as that makes a lot more sense in this type of situation, especially since the SC went well beyond what even CU's lawyer was arguing. I also understand that nuance is difficult to put forth in a SC decision, but it's not impossible. I'm also quite convinced that the judges vastly overstepped their bounds in this decision, creating a disaster for democracy.

But once again, I'm wrong. The law as it currently stands is dogma.

[jberryhill]

23. How about the right to make a movie?

[Marr]

12. Well hell, why didn't he install Jeb, then?

He won that election about as much as George W. did.

[milestogo]

16. Well maybe he wasn't referring to Jeb!

[hifiguy]

18. Another thing about which he

could not have been more wrong. Jebthro may be more sober but he's every bit as dumb.

[mountain grammy]

26. This is a man who twice argued for the state's right

to imprison adults for the crime of consensual sex and for the state's right to execute innocent human beings.. brilliant? I don't know. Certainly evil.

[underahedgerow]

29. Maybe he was referring to Neil Bush.

Although he's the crook who got caught.

[spanone]

33. scalia wasn't as bright as they are painting him...obviously