Scalia tells FAU student: 'That's a nasty, impolite question.'

South Florida Sun Sentinel ^ | February 3, 2009 | Brian Haas

[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:

[silverleaf]

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

[KC Burke]

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.

[null and void]

Ah.

[deannadurbin]

Maybe he’s not getting enough sex.

[utahson]

"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.

[microgood]

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.

[trisham]

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

[utahson]

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.

[ArrogantBustard]

freepers seldom trust the media

Hah!!!! As if ...

[DJ MacWoW]

Yeah. What was I thinking! ;-)

[Red in Blue PA]

LOL!

[trisham]

Scalia is as activist as they get.

*****************

Scalia is no activist. You're either confused or misinformed.

[bruinbirdman]

"Read the lead. Is this reportage or an editorial?"

If it reads like an editorial, are we to even believe the "quotes" are accurate?

yitbos

[Moonman62]

She probably p’d him off by mentioning the book tour part while he was there on a book tour.

That's my guess and probably the tone of her voice.

[Mr. Jazzy]

“She probably p’d him off by mentioning the book tour part while he was there on a book tour.

That’s my guess and probably the tone of her voice.”

That was WHAT she was trying to do.
She even stated as much to the Blog of Legal Times:
“We knew it was a little jab, but his response was unanticipated,” she says.”

Here is a link to the BLT with the FULL story, not the clipped and purposely misleading story in the newspaper.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/02/florida-student-asks-scalia-a-question-and-gets-scolded.html

[papasmurf]

Mr. Haas' quote is not accurate.

Here is Ms. Jeck's accounting...

"So what did Sarah Jeck ask that caused the volatile justice to erupt? According to her own notes and this account in today's Sun-Sentinel, Jeck asked whether the rationale for Scalia's well-known opposition to cameras in the Supreme Court was "vitiated" by the facts that the Court allows public visitors to view arguments and releases full argument transcripts to the public, and that justices go out on book tours.

It's that last part that probably grated, because Scalia could, at that precise moment, have been said to be on a book tour. He was speaking before the Palm Beach County Forum Club and Bar Association, while his book -- Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, co-authored by Bryan Garner -- was for sale at a table outside the hall. "

...and at that, I'd bet there was a third version...the accurate one.

She was, by her own accounting, sarcastic and insulting.

[Ken H]

He endorses the New Deal view of the Commerce Clause, whereas Clarence Thomas does not.

"...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

J. Scalia, concurring in Raich.

[microgood]

If you truly think he is an activist, you are no conservative and not very informed.

Scalia is very activist with regard to the 4th Amendment. Some of his justifications on 4th Amendment rulings have been ridiculous, bordering on the absurd.

I used to believe that conservatives were strict constitutionalists like everyone at FR here. Then I started reading some of his 4th amendment rulings and in the Michigan case on sobriety checkpoints, he even admitted they were a violation of the 4th amendment but granted an exemption so they could catch drunks.

He has also, in the name of the drug war, sided with all the libs in Gonzales v. Raich which has further evicerated the 10th Amendment and Federalism.

I understand that today conservatives in general favor some amendments over others, but I favor them all equally, and if that means I am not a conservative, then so be it. I prefer honesty to spin and saying Scalia is a strict constructionist on all parts of the constitution is just spin.

Justice Thomas is the only strict constructionist on the court.

[LZ_Bayonet]

"Most Americans have no idea what goes on at the Supreme Court..."

Or sausage factories.

[bvw]

Scalia’s main love is stare decisis, so what does his affection for original intent gain, if the pathological meanderings of stare decisis obscure it so deeply to negate it?