Posted on 01/12/2011 10:56:37 AM PST by markomalley
Justice Antonin Scalia has accepted a speaking invitation from a Tea Party leader, drawing fire from some law professors and a liberal group.
Scalia will speak to incoming House members about the Constitution at the behest of U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded the House’s Tea Party Caucus, the Los Angeles Times reports. The Jan. 24 topic will be separation of powers.
The meeting was described as bipartisan and open to all members of Congress. But several law professors who spoke to the newspaper criticized Scalia, saying the meeting appeared to politicize the court.
One of the critics was George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. He told the Times that Scalia is showing "exceedingly poor judgment." Nan Aron, the president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, also criticized Scalia in a news release. “Justice Scalia should protect the integrity of the court and cancel his appearance at this blatantly partisan, right-wing event,” she said.
M. Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former clerk to Scalia, supported his mentor. "My guess is that, schedule permitting, Scalia would be happy to speak on the same topic to any similar group of members of Congress who invited him,” he told the Los Angeles Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at abajournal.com ...
Sounds like good judgment to me, if he's accomplished that.
The left wanted him to sit down for bong hits with Loughner.
I love when the left worries that the court might be “politicized”. As if their opposition to conservative nominees is not politcal.
Who cares?
If he was going to talk to liberals they would be praising him
Good idea.
George Washington University had better take a closer look at his ability to teach, if he is going to make a silly comment like this.
The lawyers are genuinely afraid of the TEA party. This is good.
“...appeared to politicize the court.”
More like constitutionalize the politics. Mustn’t have that now.
Whereas, had he accepted an invitation from the CPUSA, the NLG, the SPLC or the ABA, ATLA, or any other radical extremist far-left neo communist organization, he’d be applauded for his open-mindedness and moderate judicial temperament.
Yep....they have no common sense and logic in their thinking...all PC cr*p built on “feelings” and never intellect. They hate logical people like Scalia—hate him because he makes so much sense people can “feel” the Truth and might wake up from their communist fog, if they listen to him.
Yes, it looks like I will have to find a list of all the political events in which the liberal judges and have it ready to post with my comment pointing out the hypocrisy of my friend if they did not complain when their beloved judges did the same.
Do you have a list? ;-)
OMGoodness! This man’s complaint is so off base, I cannot believe it. I read the headline and carelessly scanned the article...I assumed it was a Tea Party group...it is Congress that Scalia will be talking to ...not a Tea Party group in small town America.
The opposition has really become unhinged.
I SECOND YOUR SENTIMENTS. ENOUGH WITH THE WISHY WASHY PC.
Now, if only I could address the brilliant Scalia on his “opinion” of abortion and his “reasoned and logical” thinking on the idea that the majority in a state can vote and decide something even if it goes against the Founding principles of Natural Law Theory and inalienable rights that were pre-existing prior to the establishing of the Declaration and Constitution.
Natural Law Theory is the basis of all our laws and it presupposed a Higher Power that can never be discarded in our judicial system if we remain the U.S.A. To discard inalienable rights for a class of persons is not possible with any majority vote under our Constitution.
Also his “reasoned” opinion on Homosexual marriage. Does he truly ignore, as an Originalist, the intent of the Founders and the fundamental issue of Natural Rights for every child to have a biological mother and father—that ability to pursue happiness in a most fundamental way? Natural Law Theory as he understands it in some areas, is becoming extremely twisted in the Marixst sense.
Just eliminate part of the fundamental basis and intent of the Founders—that right to life for all human beings can be decided by a legislature, a majority vote? Does that mean if the majority voted for slavery, then it becomes law? Or are just “some” rights inalienable?
I do love Scalia—Thomas Clarence more—but I do have some issues with some of his “logic”.
So now the Tea Party is beyond the Pale? That’s exactly what the Democrats want.
I’ve been a member of the bar for ages. Scalia should go, and I don’t care what liberal law professors think. I didn’t care what they thought when I was in school.
This article and the criticisms say more about the ABA than they do about Scalia or Bachmann. She’s not a “Tea Party Leader”. I don’t think there even is a leader of this grassroots movement. She’s a member of Congress. In the ABA’s mind, which members of Congress may invite USSC justices to speak?
I don’t have a list of where the Liberal USSC Justices went, but I know Ginsburg (the former ACLU lawyer) has spoken at liberal enclaves.
Sorry, all we’ve got today are “Evil cowardly cop shoots family dog” stories. :(
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.