Flood of Liberal News and Bloggers Falsely Claim Justice Scalia is Against Desegregation

Earlier today, Liberal news makers and bloggers such as the Huffington Post rushed to their keyboards to make another attack on Conservatism. They were responding to a rumor going around that Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia had claimed he would have been against the decision of the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education. ...

The Left lied about Rush so now they're trying it out on Scalia.

""Brown v. Board of Education is of course the case that made school segregation illegal. Liberals saw this as a great opening to once again use the race card against a conservative, and rushed to attack so fast they didn't even check to see if it was true.

Here is a video of the event the quote was supposedly taken from. At 23:45 you can see Justice Scalia say that he would have dissented on the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which is the case that allowed segregation to be enacted in the first place. Yes, that's right, not only did he not speak in favor of segregation, he said the exact opposite. Liberals rushed out to attack him so fast they didn't even have time to check the video.

Now as the truth of the matter comes out, the Liberals are in another rush. A rush to try to save face and push the articles they wrote under the carpet, hoping no one notices how big they screwed up.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/scalia-on-brown-v-board-o_n_335591.html
“”Scalia Misquoted On Brown v. Board Of Education (CORRECTED)
First Posted: 10-27-09 01:14PM Updated: 10-27-09 05:43PM

CORRECTION: An item posted here — reporting that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that if he were on the court in 1954, he would have dissented in the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision that ended school segregation based on race — was incorrect.

The original report, in Phoenix’s East Valley Tribune has been changed.

Yale Law School Professor and blogger Jack Balkin writes: “Here is the video of the event:

“At 23:45 Justice Scalia.... says that he stands with Justice Harlan, who dissented in Plessy v. Ferguson. He argues that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits racial discrimination.”

Here is our original, incorrect report:
* * * * *
In an appearance at the University of Arizona College of Law, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that if he were on the court in 1954, he would have dissented in the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision that ended school segregation based on race.

Appearing on stage with Justice Stephen Breyer, Scalia cautioned against “inventing new rights nobody ever thought existed.” Scalia said he advocates an “originalist” approach to the Constitution, warning against an “evolutionary” legal philosophy that he described as, “close your eyes and decide what you think is a good idea.’’

Phoenix’s East Valley Tribune reported (via Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire):

Using his “originalist’’ philosophy, Scalia said he likely would have dissented from the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared school segregation illegal and struck down the system of “separate but equal’’ public schools. He said that decision, which overturned earlier precedent, was designed to provide an approach the majority liked better.

“I will stipulate that it will,’’ Scalia said. But he said that doesn’t make it right. “Kings can do some stuff, some good stuff, that a democratic society could never do,’’ he continued.

“Hitler developed a wonderful automobile,’’ Scalia said. “What does that prove?’’

“The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,’’ Scalia said. “And that’s not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.’’””

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.