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

Skip to comments.

E.J. Dionne: Justice Scalia must resign
Washington (Com)Post ^ | 06/27/2012 | E.J. Dionne

Posted on 06/27/2012 11:48:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 last
To: OneWingedShark

Sorry, I’m not understanding you. I’m talking about recusal from hearing a case, not from the correct decision IN a case. A judge whose impartiality might reasonably questioned, such as by his/her having previously publicly stated a personal opinion on the underlying issue, must self-recuse, e.g., Kagan’s email to Larry Tribe celebrating the passage of Obamacare.


101 posted on 06/27/2012 2:20:12 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The WaPo actually pays this monkey to write?


102 posted on 06/27/2012 2:24:54 PM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DanMiller; pogo101
Thank you, DanMiller, for providing the context for Scalia's wise observations.

So-called "progressives," such as Dionne, use the tools of dissembling and mischaracterization in order to distort and attack. We must not fall for their methods, but expose and repel them.

103 posted on 06/27/2012 2:30:47 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll

Can’t say I would cry if certiant federal “justice” were knocked off.

Not that I am advocating or would advocate such an unlawful act. I simply don’t see their lives as more valuable than any other man(whom I do not know) live.

While there can be no question as to the enhanced danger they place themselves into in their frequent judgments having the effect of rendering injury not only to individuals but large segments of the American people.

I don’t feel that in itself entitles them to the expense of such special protection. Indeed it should be noted that I take similar issue in regard to the president on whom I am thoroughly convinced we are made to spend far too much money.


104 posted on 06/27/2012 3:22:25 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
In his descent

Were you making a pun or was that an honest mistake?

105 posted on 06/27/2012 3:30:01 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture TM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2

Nice quote; though I think the section number might be wrong, Google’s book section had it as 1914.


106 posted on 06/27/2012 3:42:20 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: pogo101
Sorry, I’m not understanding you. I’m talking about recusal from hearing a case, not from the correct decision IN a case.

But aren't the comments that this guy is whining about precisely about the non-uniform application of such laws? And it's ridiculous to say that any statement made outlining a [political] opinion should result in the need to recuse on that topic.

107 posted on 06/27/2012 4:02:21 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa

You owe monkeys an appology. A monkey banging on a keyboard would have a better chance of having something interesting to read than a Dionne. How is that circulation doing?

Pray for America


108 posted on 06/27/2012 4:34:46 PM PDT by bray (Power to We the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
So Scalia commenting on how things are, or are not, Constitutional is considered being a politician?

I do wish sometimes that SCOTUS justices would go beyond merely saying things are unconstititional, and say what that implies: that they are illegitimate. The Court has no authority to make things be constitutional or unconstitutional. If the court is doing its job legitimately and it says something is constitutional, that something will be constitutional. Likewise if it is doing its job legitimately and it says something is unconstitutional. On the other hand, the notion that a Supreme Court declaration that something is unconstitutional necessarily implies that the thing actually is unconstitutional only holds if one assumes that the Supreme Court will always do its job legitimately; given the number of 5-4 decisions on what should clear-cut cases, such an assumption would seem dubious at best.

109 posted on 06/27/2012 4:39:51 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; All
Thanks, OneWingedShark. You are correct. It is Story's "Concluding Remarks" Section, #1914, not 1907.
110 posted on 06/27/2012 5:55:52 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-110 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