Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scalia tells FAU student: 'That's a nasty, impolite question.'
South Florida Sun Sentinel ^ | February 3, 2009 | Brian Haas

Posted on 02/04/2009 10:28:37 AM PST by presidio9

In a room filled with some of Palm Beach County's most powerful people, it took a 20-year-old political science student to throw off U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday afternoon.

Student Sarah Jeck stood in front of 750 people and asked Scalia why cameras are not allowed in the U.S. Supreme Court even though the court hearings are open, transcripts are available and the court's justices are open enough to go "out on book tours." Scalia was at the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts in part to do a book signing and wasn't happy at the question.

"Read the next question," Scalia replied. "That's a nasty, impolite question."

Scalia's trademark mixture of humor, confidence and combativeness was on full display Tuesday at a luncheon put on by the Palm Beach County Forum Club and Bar Association.

In a half-hour speech, he described the division on the nation's highest court, not between liberal and conservative, but how the justices view the U.S. Constitution. More than 750 people packed the luncheon, including judges, politicians and prominent local attorneys, to listen to a man admired as fervently as he is maligned. In the back corner, sat Jeck and her Florida Atlantic University classmates, excited to hear Scalia speak.

His speech centered on two main schools of thought on constitutional law:

(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: antoninscalia; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

1 posted on 02/04/2009 10:28:37 AM PST by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9

She “threw him off”? More like the other way around.


2 posted on 02/04/2009 10:31:26 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"Read the next question," Scalia replied. "That's a nasty, impolite question."

And there's your answer in a nutshell. Because the septuagenarians on the court can be cranky, inattentive, or just plain asleep during the proceedings. Who'd want that on camera?

3 posted on 02/04/2009 10:33:05 AM PST by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

What was nasty about it?


4 posted on 02/04/2009 10:33:44 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 16 of our national holiday from reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Read the lead. Is this reportage or an editorial?

Well, to my lights, it sure isn’t reportage.


5 posted on 02/04/2009 10:34:15 AM PST by RexBeach ("Do your duty in all things." Robert E. Lee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

6 posted on 02/04/2009 10:35:11 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 16 of our national holiday from reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
"I don't think that it should be up to him what parts the American people can and can't see of the judicial process," she said.

This girl has a future in the mainstream media - she deftly took his answer and completely ignoring it's content twisted it into a soundbite to serve her political point of view.

7 posted on 02/04/2009 10:35:16 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I like Scalia, but why did this get his boxers in a twist?

This seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me.

8 posted on 02/04/2009 10:35:28 AM PST by Constitution Day (Big Brotha Is Watching You)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

What’s nasy and impolite are the vast majority of rulings sent down.


9 posted on 02/04/2009 10:36:35 AM PST by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I don’t get it. It sounded like a valid question. Did I miss something? Who peed in Justice Scalia’s Wheaties?


10 posted on 02/04/2009 10:37:19 AM PST by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

I agree that it didn’t seem to be particularly nasty. Perhaps he was annoyed because he was there to discuss interpretation, and this was more of a proceedural issue. This would probably be a better question for Roberts, I’m guessing.


11 posted on 02/04/2009 10:38:05 AM PST by presidio9 (Islam Is As Islam Does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
I think he was trying to be funny and/or sarcastic. Its well known the USSC will not ever allow camera's.
12 posted on 02/04/2009 10:42:15 AM PST by montanajoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I’ll hear the audio before I’ll believe the reporter. It’s that bad.


13 posted on 02/04/2009 10:42:26 AM PST by Mr Ducklips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The only legitimate reason I can think of for prohibition of cameras is to prevent lawyers from playing to them ... but it’s easy to think of reasons why video would be helpful.

Most Americans have no idea what goes on at the Supreme Court – none – except that somehow the court decides really important questions, like whether everyone in the country will be allowed to commit sodomy. Most Americans don’t have time to read the court’s often-lengthy opinions, and downloading and listening to audio recordings is more than a little cumbersome.


14 posted on 02/04/2009 10:42:29 AM PST by mgc1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Tool. After all, it’s ‘his’ court. Lol.

We are clowns. Every dam public office or court room should have a camera in there watching our ‘masters’.


15 posted on 02/04/2009 10:42:29 AM PST by BGHater (Tyranny is always better organised than freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

She probably p’d him off by mentioning the book tour part while he was there on a book tour. Still, there was nothing particularly nasty about the question.


16 posted on 02/04/2009 10:42:56 AM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

It’s one which has been answered time and again. They do not want hours and hours of questions and deliberations edited down into 10 second soundbites. The Supreme Court is considering the totality of a question and not what would be revealed in a short clip, regardless of how poignant.


17 posted on 02/04/2009 10:43:31 AM PST by MARTIAL MONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Seems like a reasonable question to me.


18 posted on 02/04/2009 10:43:40 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Oh, sure, she’s the ass here, not Scalia.


19 posted on 02/04/2009 10:43:48 AM PST by cydcharisse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The reason it was at least impolite, was the end of the question when she said the Justices can go on book tours—it sounded like she was not only asking a question, but insinuating that he, Scalia, could express his opinions in a book and on tour but not as well on camera. It was not a proper way to end the question.


20 posted on 02/04/2009 10:45:06 AM PST by Beeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
>>>>>"The Constitution was regarded as an unchanging rock to which the society was anchored," [Scalia] said.

The "living document" Democrats aren't about to tow that old fashioned line of thinking.

21 posted on 02/04/2009 10:45:24 AM PST by Reagan Man ("In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

He must have been having a bad day or didn’t like the way she asked the question. He answered the same question recently on C-SPAN, I think from a high school student. He said that some people watching the court sessions on TV would develop an improved understanding and appreciation for how the court worked. But the other 99,999 out of 100000 people would just see highlights which were taken out of context and used to generate controversy.


22 posted on 02/04/2009 10:45:29 AM PST by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

It seems to be a simple question that could have been simply and politely answered...but wasn’t.

The article says that Scalia later said that he didn’t think that the cameras wouldn’t be a good idea and that he thought that people wouldn’t get the whole picture by just watching bits of it on TV....which he could have said in the first place.


23 posted on 02/04/2009 10:46:33 AM PST by SandWMan (While you may not be able to legislate morality, you can legislate morally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Golly, I wonder why they didn't actually quote the question? Maybe it was impolite, maybe.
24 posted on 02/04/2009 10:47:48 AM PST by bobsatwork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

How dare a pathetic little worm question a demigod. /s


25 posted on 02/04/2009 10:47:56 AM PST by TexasRepublic (I am inconsolate over the death of our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

the way she asked it was childish and imature. she is going to make some feminist happy someday.

She did not just ask “why no cameras” she used the question to bait a assuming quesiton. she could have cut to the chase and just called him a hypocrit.

If she really wanted to ask about cameras she would have, instead she was a little snot student who has only thie intelectual capacity of the stunted brain capacity obama voters.


26 posted on 02/04/2009 10:48:10 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

It WAS impolite. Simply what is the reference to “book tours” supposed to imply? She blew it right there.


27 posted on 02/04/2009 10:48:23 AM PST by Melinda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Student Sarah Jeck stood in front of 750 people and asked Scalia why cameras are not allowed in the U.S. Supreme Court even though the court hearings are open, transcripts are available and the court's justices are open enough to go "out on book tours."

If that final phrase had not been included in the question, punk Sarah Jeck might have gotten a more detailed answer. Instead, she chose to insult a guest and got what she deserved: to be ignored.

28 posted on 02/04/2009 10:49:04 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Unlike Congressional hearings which are really just stages for the Congressfolk to perform on, Supreme Court hearings actually conduct important business. The ridiculous gaggle of press photographers you find in hearings would be a huge and unnecessary distraction.

Of course, Scalia could have just explained it instead of acting like Justice Crankypants.


29 posted on 02/04/2009 10:49:20 AM PST by newheart (Obama. We kind of underestimated the creepiness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

So there were no questions as to why Scalia is conspiring with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito to maintain Obama’s presidency by refusing to hear the cases brought by the 9/11 Truther Phil Berg?


30 posted on 02/04/2009 10:49:48 AM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at I00 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Administration of the court (cameras, visitng hours, security, and the like) is under the purview of the Chief Justice. Hence, Justice Scalia’s response (I presume).


31 posted on 02/04/2009 10:50:21 AM PST by indcons (An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

The question was rude because of the final portion of the question: taking a shot at Scalia because he chose to go on a “book tour”.

The person perhaps was trying to be cute, but was being rude. I don’t blame Scalia for shutting her down.


32 posted on 02/04/2009 10:50:40 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mgc1122

there are audio tapes.

it is just the media whores who get the legal reporting wrong who are screaming for cameras.

They don’t want to educate the public, they want to inflame the public via out of context soundbites


33 posted on 02/04/2009 10:52:11 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

Ya!
Those old know-nothings need to be replaced by snot-nosed, knee-jerk liberals, capable of making up law on the spot, irrespective of what’s in the Constitution!

/sarc


34 posted on 02/04/2009 10:52:22 AM PST by G Larry (Barack's character has been molded by extremists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ducklips
I agree. Is there more that isn't being reported? freepers seldom trust the media but look at the responses here.

Also, cameras in a court proceeding is not routine.

35 posted on 02/04/2009 10:53:57 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Though Scalia passed on Jeck's question, he later told the crowd he didn't like the idea of televising the Supreme Court. He said people probably wouldn't watch whole hearings and would get an incomplete view of what really happens there.

Scalia is probably right about people not watching the entire deliberation.

But as the student stated the deliberations transcripts are available as recordings of many cases.

Of course the real meat and potatoes work goes on behind closed doors when the Justices debate amongst themselves over the merits of the case.

I personally agree with Scalia but for another reason. I don’t want the Justices to become even more swayed by the perceptions of the general public because the unconsciously start to worry how they will appear on television.

36 posted on 02/04/2009 10:54:41 AM PST by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Installing cameras in and around the workplace is for little people.


37 posted on 02/04/2009 11:00:48 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
Those old know-nothings need to be replaced by snot-nosed, knee-jerk liberals, capable of making up law on the spot, irrespective of what’s in the Constitution!

LOL! That was my point exactly!

Put cameras in the court & the justices (the conservative ones) are going to be sound-bitten until they bleed-out.

38 posted on 02/04/2009 11:02:30 AM PST by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The little mini-me Helen Thomas wasn’t interested in asking a question and getting an answer. Like most “journalists” she only wanted to make a statement.


39 posted on 02/04/2009 11:03:11 AM PST by visualops (portraits.artlife.us or visit my freeper page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
and the court's justices are open enough to go "out on book tours."

I think this is the part of the question that was impolite. It was a nasty shot at Scalia by some little imp trying to make a name for herself.

40 posted on 02/04/2009 11:03:43 AM PST by WildcatClan (Iam fimus mos ledo ventus apparatus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

I think it was the jab about Scalia going out on “book tours”

That has nothing to do with the issue of cameras in the USSC


41 posted on 02/04/2009 11:08:00 AM PST by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Certainly it was the jab about book tours disparaging the person giving the talk and interview. It is editorializing in the question.

It is as if she said, “As a person playing to cameras here today, why don’t you let cameras drive the publics view of the court proceedings?” There is no way for an answer to be made without accepting the context.


42 posted on 02/04/2009 11:14:36 AM PST by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free...their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Ah.


43 posted on 02/04/2009 11:15:25 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 16 of our national holiday from reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Maybe he’s not getting enough sex.


44 posted on 02/04/2009 11:16:09 AM PST by deannadurbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
"Tool. After all, it’s ‘his’ court. Lol."

Scalia is a tool? Scalia is the most conservative justice on the court that supports the constitution. Scalia is no tool.
45 posted on 02/04/2009 11:18:00 AM PST by utahson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Scalia, perhaps the most ardent and famous contemporary originalist said the Constitution was meant to be read as a static, legal document, not something meant to change.

LOL. Scalia is as activist as they get.
46 posted on 02/04/2009 11:18:57 AM PST by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deannadurbin

That may be the stupidest statement I’ve ever seen.


47 posted on 02/04/2009 11:20:54 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Scalia is an activist? Sure you jest. Scalia is the most conservative and ardent supporter of the constitution. He does not believe it is a living document. If you truly think he is an activist, you are no conservative and not very informed.
48 posted on 02/04/2009 11:24:25 AM PST by utahson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
freepers seldom trust the media

Hah!!!! As if ...

49 posted on 02/04/2009 11:26:06 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

Yeah. What was I thinking! ;-)


50 posted on 02/04/2009 11:30:13 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson