Holy Crap, I agree with Scalia

[amjsjc]

I just read the outcome for the Hamdi case, and, for just about the first time, I actually agreed with one of our favorite justice's trademark dissents. Scalia argues that the government has to either actually charge Hamdi with something concrete or set him free (or suspend Habeas Corpus). It's only a pity he couldn't get the rest of the court to go along with him...

[aquart]

1. SCALIA said that?

What's the catch?

[Lucky Luciano]

3. Yes, Scalia actually said that!

I saw that in the news today as well. For all his flaws (and there are many), he really is an exceptional scholar of the law. That is why he isable to use his knowledge so effectively for his conservative causes. A friend of mine that is definitely liberal and who clerked for the ninth circuit even stopped in his tracks when I mentioned Scalia and my friend just said, "a truly brilliant man." My friend is a true genius of the law as well and not known for throwing out such strong statements so I took him for his word.

Our biggest enemy in the court is Clarence Thomas....he is the absolute worst and seems the least intellectual of the bunch...I never see him writing one of the main opinions of any decision - I only see him voting with the Reich Wing and he does so automatically. Rhenquist is obviously really bad too, but he will be gone shortly...this is why it is IMPERATIVE that b*sh be defeated (among many other reasons).

[Jacobin]

7. Snarf:

Read one of Scalia's "brilliant statements" that I use in my sig line.

Whenever I hear people get reverential about Scalia's supposed brilliance, I want to :puke:

[StopThief]

12. I would be interested in seeing the context. . . .

of that quote. Would you happen to have a cite for me?

[Jacobin]

9. KNOWING of course that he was writing a minority opinion

so he could pretend to be a constitutional scholar and "honor the constitution in spite of difficult times", since the other nazis were going to give Smirk the green light.

I give this fucking bastard NO QUARTER

[StopThief]

11. Interestingly, todays pornography decision. . . .

provides one of many instances where Thomas did not vote with Scalia and Rhenquist. In a 5-4 vote, he voted with Stevens, Ginsberg, Suter, and Kennedy. Hardly the conservative block of the court.

[Lucky Luciano]

16. I just saw that article too

I am a bit befuddled since he usually votes with the conservative block in the more important cases...maybe Thomas just needs his daily dose of porn as he roams the internet looking for Anita Hill look-alikes!

[MisterP]

21. well, we know his attitude towards porn

Coke, anyone?

[noonwitch]

19. Clarence Thomas should have never been appointed to the USSC

He had little judicial experience prior to his nomination-he mostly was known for running the EEOC under Reagan, which is where Anita Hill had the misfortune of meeting him.

In one of his early rulings, he was the sole person on the court who ruled that it was acceptable for corrections officers to beat inmates without provocation. He was the only dissenter to the majority opinion that COs shouldn't used excessive force unless it's self-defense.

[chascarrillo]

2. Scalia is sometimes really good on criminal defense cases

He's thrown a few decisions regarding the rights of defendants our way. Not enough to be consistent, but enough to make you glad that he counterbalances whichever moderate justice decided to swing conservative on a particular case.

[depakid]

13. Huh?

Could you please cite one of those cases?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

20. yes, I'd like to see one too. n/t

[Scottie72]

4. must be a sign of the end times

I would never imagine seeing Scalia being praised here on DU. I also find it hard to believe that I do actually agree him also..

Will wonders never cease.

[Swamp Rat]

5. Then Bush* may suspend Habeas Corpus.

This decision is great news for America, but I'm concerned that Bush&Co may be considering a suspension of Habeas Corpus. If things keep getting worse for the inept little tyrant and his cabal, they WILL resort to alternatives.

[amjsjc]

6. Actually that wasn't the majority decision...

The court as a whole ruled that you could hold an 'enemy combatant' in custody so long as active combat continued, but it at least said that Hamdi also had the right to challenge his classification. Better than nothing, but not so good as one would hope...

[sendero]

8. It's just possible...

.... that Scalia really tries to do what he is supposed to do, interpret the Constitution as it applies to laws and procedures.

In this particular case, he sees it the way we do because the Constitution is clear and unequivocal about these issues.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

10. I don't believe that.

I have no faith in Scalia to try to do the right thing, to try to interpret the Constitution properly. After Bush v. Gore, I don't know how any one can trust anything he does or says. That was the greatest and most blatant travesty of justice, apart from slavery, in our nation's history.

[StopThief]

15. Which of Scalia's arguments in Bush v. Gore. . . .

did you think was the worst. The 7-2 equal protection holding? The 5-4 vote saying that there was not enough time within Florida statutes to do a complete recount? The Article 2, Section 1 argument that only Thomas and Rhenquist agreed with?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

18. Most DUers are well-versed on Bush v. Gore

For anyone who is not, here are some good places to start:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010205&s=bugliosi

http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/archive/supreme/statement.html

http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/bushvsgore.htm

I'm not interested in hijacking this thread in order to rehash Bush v. Gore. If you wish to do so, you can start a new thread. My intent was merely to remind everyone of Scalia's role in that ruling.

[TexasSissy]

14. But the Justices decided that Hamda gets due process, I think.

Isn't that correct? I was relieved to see that they supported the due process clause of the Constitution. The executive branch CAN pick up someone on the battlefield and detain him, BUT if it's a U.S. citizen, that citizen can challenge his status, his being detained, and his treatment in the U.S. Courts.

That is an excellent decision.

So Scalia goes even further than that? That IS remarkable.

Where did you find the decision? I didn't think it had been published yet.

[shance]

17. Was Scalias opinion majority rule or was it a solo (ineffective*)opinion?

If it was solo, then what does it really matter?

In reality, he can appear as though he has changed his ordinary (dictatorial) pattern and look good for *doing the right thing* and still get his true desired outcome, without looking like he wanted the opposing decision in the first place.

Hes been receiving a lot of negative press and criticism lately, and it could certainly stand to create some better press for him. He can look the hero without lifting a finger. Im not inclined to believe this leopard has changed his spots so quickly.

Question: Why would Scalia make some sweeping change for fairness and away from his typical ideology which has been his pattern for years?

Did he get a visit from three ghosts the night before?

I would love to believe he has changed his biased tone. Time will tell.