Skip to comments.Scalia tells FAU student: 'That's a nasty, impolite question.'
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 ...
She “threw him off”? More like the other way around.
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?
What was nasty about it?
Read the lead. Is this reportage or an editorial?
Well, to my lights, it sure isn’t reportage.
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.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me.
What’s nasy and impolite are the vast majority of rulings sent down.
I don’t get it. It sounded like a valid question. Did I miss something? Who peed in Justice Scalia’s Wheaties?
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.
I’ll hear the audio before I’ll believe the reporter. It’s that bad.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
Seems like a reasonable question to me.
Oh, sure, she’s the ass here, not Scalia.
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.
The "living document" Democrats aren't about to tow that old fashioned line of thinking.
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.
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.
How dare a pathetic little worm question a demigod. /s
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.
It WAS impolite. Simply what is the reference to “book tours” supposed to imply? She blew it right there.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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
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!
Also, cameras in a court proceeding is not routine.
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 dont 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.
Installing cameras in and around the workplace is for little people.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Maybe he’s not getting enough sex.
That may be the stupidest statement I’ve ever seen.
Hah!!!! As if ...
Yeah. What was I thinking! ;-)
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.