Posted on 06/26/2015 10:33:49 AM PDT by xzins
From Scalia's dissent on court conducting a putsch to overthrow the country:
"22 If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began:
“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,”
I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
I read Scalia’s disnenting opinion in Obergfell. Where is the cited quote contained?
If I had to sign on to STUPID LINE X, I’d hide my head, EVEN IF paid a price.
I believe that this decision will hasten the invocation of an Article V convention.
this government has been run by metal offerings since the assassination of JFK
Scalia wrote it. I didn’t.
And he left interpretation to ....
What price was paid that caused him to hide his head in a bag over writing that ridiculous line?
And you wonder why Kennedy heads attract bullets.
Scalia’s opinion, Obergfell, footnote #22
At any rate, no sense in taking an outcome-determined court of law seriously. They'll do what suits them, and there are enough precedents around (going both ways) that it is trivial to pick the ones that support the selected outcome.
All courts are outcome driven. Somethimes the outcome really does comport with the law, but the law does not drive the outcome.
Nonsense
No. It's "Even if I had to do it to get a fifth vote on my side, if I ever had to sign on to STUPID LINE X, I'd hide my head."
I don’t think he means a literal payment. I think he means in terms of the consequences.
If I had to sign on to STUPID LINE X, I’d hide my head, EVEN IF I had to suffer the consequence.
He already knows he’s suffering the consequences.
Scalia is too intelligent to merely suggest something like this and not have the evidence to back it up. Someone was “paid” for their decisions. Just read the majority decision and how the law was contorted to conform to their interpretation of the Constitution.
Interesting, and I wouldn’t be surprised.
But we knew Kennedy had no principles. Roberts is a bigger problem.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2005-07-20.html
I’ve always wondered what kind of crap they had on Roberts.
Nope. What Scalia was implying was that sometimes judges join a side that already has five votes in return for a deciding vote they agree with on another case.
I suspect such horsetrading has gone on since the Founding.
No, he is referring to the compromises that are sometimes made between justices, along the lines of: if you vote to affirm the lower court’s decision, I will agree to include your preferred language in the Court’s opinion.
IF I ever joined an opinion for the Court, EVEN as the price to be paid for a 5th vote... I'd (still) hide my head in a bag."
I agree, a hinter he definitely is NOT. This is scathing to say the very least; “I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”
That, I would guess, is the equivalent of a redneck type such as myself asking, “What in the flying f*** is goin’ on here, this is not the supreme court of San Francisco, dammit!”
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.