Scalia Can't Accurately Read Scalia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Party's over. Bob Barnes (very liberal) posted this a few hours ago. A) liberal journalists went overboard on the blast; (b) it may have been clerk error (HLS clerks are hoping it was a Yale Clerk) and C) all of the other Justices save Sam Alito, who was recused, also read it before signing on and no one else caught it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/05/03/8629d9d8-d231-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

oh, bob Barnes said it so now everyone must agree.

You don't know who Bob Barnes is, do you? Liberal and has covered the U.S. Supreme Court for the WAshington Post since 2007.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Party's over. Bob Barnes (very liberal) posted this a few hours ago. A) liberal journalists went overboard on the blast; (b) it may have been clerk error (HLS clerks are hoping it was a Yale Clerk) and C) all of the other Justices save Sam Alito, who was recused, also read it before signing on and no one else caught it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/05/03/8629d9d8-d231-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

oh, bob Barnes said it so now everyone must agree.

You don't know who Bob Barnes is, do you? Liberal and has covered the U.S. Supreme Court for the WAshington Post since 2007.

I do. I find it laughable that you think if one liberal says something that somehow you have proved a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you back again? OK, give me a real argument this time about how he is "inconsistent".

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the idea that Scalia is inconsistent isn't held by just one person in the world-- it's a pretty common criticism. One day he'll write an opinion on how the 4th Amendment was written to prevent random drug testing, and the next he'll say that high school athletes don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore can be subjected to random drug testing-- which is not to say people could think those situations are different, but if you base your decision on "originalism" and argue that the Constitution only means one thing, then it's hard to understand where those distinctions come from, except from the head of Scalia.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the court follows Scalia on the Fourth amendment, including Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan. See, e.g., April 29th: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/opinion/gorod-cell-phone-scalia-court/. I can also provide you with articles in which Ginsburg says Scalia is right on fourth amendment issues. Would you like that one too?[b]

I understand that Scalia occasionally lines up with "liberals" on 4th amendment and criminal justice issues (confrontation clause, sentencing, etc.)-- my point was that I think you would have a hard time going through all of his 4th amendment cases and concluding that he has applied his "originalist" philosophy consistently.

I don't really care that he or a clerk made the mistake, but if you are going to act like you are the smartest person in the room and write bitchy opinions (e.g., about how EPA is always trying to use cost-benefit analysis when they shouldn't) then you should expect some blowback when you get the facts wrong.

Also the poster(s) on this thread who keeps suggesting that the mistake was justified because he's a great man with a large family just seems bizarre-- a Scalia groupie or relative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you back again? OK, give me a real argument this time about how he is "inconsistent".

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the idea that Scalia is inconsistent isn't held by just one person in the world-- it's a pretty common criticism. One day he'll write an opinion on how the 4th Amendment was written to prevent random drug testing, and the next he'll say that high school athletes don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore can be subjected to random drug testing-- which is not to say people could think those situations are different, but if you base your decision on "originalism" and argue that the Constitution only means one thing, then it's hard to understand where those distinctions come from, except from the head of Scalia.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the court follows Scalia on the Fourth amendment, including Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan. See, e.g., April 29th: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/opinion/gorod-cell-phone-scalia-court/. I can also provide you with articles in which Ginsburg says Scalia is right on fourth amendment issues. Would you like that one too?[b]

I understand that Scalia occasionally lines up with "liberals" on 4th amendment and criminal justice issues (confrontation clause, sentencing, etc.)-- my point was that I think you would have a hard time going through all of his 4th amendment cases and concluding that he has applied his "originalist" philosophy consistently.

I don't really care that he or a clerk made the mistake, but if you are going to act like you are the smartest person in the room and write bitchy opinions (e.g., about how EPA is always trying to use cost-benefit analysis when they shouldn't) then you should expect some blowback when you get the facts wrong.

Also the poster(s) on this thread who keeps suggesting that the mistake was justified because he's a great man with a large family just seems bizarre-- a Scalia groupie or relative.

Not "occasionally" read Ginsburg as of two days ago: "Scalia is often criticized by people who would not be labeled conservative. Liberals don't count his Fourth Amendment cases or the confrontation clause cases. He is one of the most pro-Fourth Amendment judges on the court." http://www.businessinsider.in/Liberal-Supreme-Court-Justice-Comes-To-The-Defense-Of-Scalia/articleshow/34553634.cms. Try again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Party's over. Bob Barnes (very liberal) posted this a few hours ago. A) liberal journalists went overboard on the blast; (b) it may have been clerk error (HLS clerks are hoping it was a Yale Clerk) and C) all of the other Justices save Sam Alito, who was recused, also read it before signing on and no one else caught it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/05/03/8629d9d8-d231-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

oh, bob Barnes said it so now everyone must agree.

You don't know who Bob Barnes is, do you? Liberal and has covered the U.S. Supreme Court for the WAshington Post since 2007.

I do. I find it laughable that you think if one liberal says something that somehow you have proved a point.

Because if anyone posts anything from Fox, Weekly Standard or any other supposedly right-wing publication, the liberals avoid the argument - they attack the citation of the post. So I offer a liberal from WAPo, the most liberal paper in the land. That's not good enough for you, so you now say only one liberal isn't sufficient to lay this matter down. OK, let's add Jonathan Adler to the pot: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/02/justice-stevens-made-the-same-mistake-before-justice-scalia/.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Party's over. Bob Barnes (very liberal) posted this a few hours ago. A) liberal journalists went overboard on the blast; (b) it may have been clerk error (HLS clerks are hoping it was a Yale Clerk) and C) all of the other Justices save Sam Alito, who was recused, also read it before signing on and no one else caught it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/05/03/8629d9d8-d231-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

oh, bob Barnes said it so now everyone must agree.

You don't know who Bob Barnes is, do you? Liberal and has covered the U.S. Supreme Court for the WAshington Post since 2007.

I do. I find it laughable that you think if one liberal says something that somehow you have proved a point.

Because if anyone posts anything from Fox, Weekly Standard or any other supposedly right-wing publication, the liberals avoid the argument - they attack the citation of the post. So I offer a liberal from WAPo, the most liberal paper in the land. That's not good enough for you, so you now say only one liberal isn't sufficient to lay this matter down. OK, let's add Jonathan Adler to the pot: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/02/justice-stevens-made-the-same-mistake-before-justice-scalia/.

So you are choosing a line of argument that you know is unfair. How odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you back again? OK, give me a real argument this time about how he is "inconsistent".

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the idea that Scalia is inconsistent isn't held by just one person in the world-- it's a pretty common criticism. One day he'll write an opinion on how the 4th Amendment was written to prevent random drug testing, and the next he'll say that high school athletes don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore can be subjected to random drug testing-- which is not to say people could think those situations are different, but if you base your decision on "originalism" and argue that the Constitution only means one thing, then it's hard to understand where those distinctions come from, except from the head of Scalia.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the court follows Scalia on the Fourth amendment, including Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan. See, e.g., April 29th: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/opinion/gorod-cell-phone-scalia-court/. I can also provide you with articles in which Ginsburg says Scalia is right on fourth amendment issues. Would you like that one too?[b]

I understand that Scalia occasionally lines up with "liberals" on 4th amendment and criminal justice issues (confrontation clause, sentencing, etc.)-- my point was that I think you would have a hard time going through all of his 4th amendment cases and concluding that he has applied his "originalist" philosophy consistently.

I don't really care that he or a clerk made the mistake, but if you are going to act like you are the smartest person in the room and write bitchy opinions (e.g., about how EPA is always trying to use cost-benefit analysis when they shouldn't) then you should expect some blowback when you get the facts wrong.

Also the poster(s) on this thread who keeps suggesting that the mistake was justified because he's a great man with a large family just seems bizarre-- a Scalia groupie or relative.

Not "occasionally" read Ginsburg as of two days ago: "Scalia is often criticized by people who would not be labeled conservative. Liberals don't count his Fourth Amendment cases or the confrontation clause cases. He is one of the most pro-Fourth Amendment judges on the court." http://www.businessinsider.in/Liberal-Supreme-Court-Justice-Comes-To-The-Defense-Of-Scalia/articleshow/34553634.cms. Try again

You really seem to be intentionally missing the point-- whether Scalia is "pro-Fourth Amendment" or not is more or less irrelevant to whether his jurisprudence is consistent or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you back again? OK, give me a real argument this time about how he is "inconsistent".

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the idea that Scalia is inconsistent isn't held by just one person in the world-- it's a pretty common criticism. One day he'll write an opinion on how the 4th Amendment was written to prevent random drug testing, and the next he'll say that high school athletes don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore can be subjected to random drug testing-- which is not to say people could think those situations are different, but if you base your decision on "originalism" and argue that the Constitution only means one thing, then it's hard to understand where those distinctions come from, except from the head of Scalia.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the court follows Scalia on the Fourth amendment, including Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan. See, e.g., April 29th: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/opinion/gorod-cell-phone-scalia-court/. I can also provide you with articles in which Ginsburg says Scalia is right on fourth amendment issues. Would you like that one too?[b]

I understand that Scalia occasionally lines up with "liberals" on 4th amendment and criminal justice issues (confrontation clause, sentencing, etc.)-- my point was that I think you would have a hard time going through all of his 4th amendment cases and concluding that he has applied his "originalist" philosophy consistently.

I don't really care that he or a clerk made the mistake, but if you are going to act like you are the smartest person in the room and write bitchy opinions (e.g., about how EPA is always trying to use cost-benefit analysis when they shouldn't) then you should expect some blowback when you get the facts wrong.

Also the poster(s) on this thread who keeps suggesting that the mistake was justified because he's a great man with a large family just seems bizarre-- a Scalia groupie or relative.

Not "occasionally" read Ginsburg as of two days ago: "Scalia is often criticized by people who would not be labeled conservative. Liberals don't count his Fourth Amendment cases or the confrontation clause cases. He is one of the most pro-Fourth Amendment judges on the court." http://www.businessinsider.in/Liberal-Supreme-Court-Justice-Comes-To-The-Defense-Of-Scalia/articleshow/34553634.cms. Try again

You really seem to be intentionally missing the point-- whether Scalia is "pro-Fourth Amendment" or not is more or less irrelevant to whether his jurisprudence is consistent or not.

+1

This is not about liberal or conservative outcomes. It is about whether he sticks to a judicial philosophy. He has shown quite a willingness to bend his logic to fit the result which agrees with his politics.

[Anonymous]

No, a PP used his fourth amendment cases to buttress the argument that Scalia is inconsistent. I have shown that he is not and admired by his left-wing colleagues for those fourth amendment cases. Please give me proper citations wherein Scalia "bend[s] his logic to fit the result". That's usually what the liberals are accused of doing, as in finding a constitutional right to abortion in the "penumbra" etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, a PP used his fourth amendment cases to buttress the argument that Scalia is inconsistent. I have shown that he is not and admired by his left-wing colleagues for those fourth amendment cases. Please give me proper citations wherein Scalia "bend[s] his logic to fit the result". That's usually what the liberals are accused of doing, as in finding a constitutional right to abortion in the "penumbra" etc. etc.

Once again, he is an originalist who wrote the Heller opinion. Are you ever going to address that? Or his support of extending the Interstate Commerce Clause to give the feds authority over in-state medical marijuana. Will you please address that one? It's only the third or fourth time I have commented.

[Anonymous]

Well, you also tried to say he was inconsistent on fourth amendment. I shot that down. Try this for Heller, but of course you will complain of source, first. http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Party's over. Bob Barnes (very liberal) posted this a few hours ago. A) liberal journalists went overboard on the blast; (b) it may have been clerk error (HLS clerks are hoping it was a Yale Clerk) and C) all of the other Justices save Sam Alito, who was recused, also read it before signing on and no one else caught it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/05/03/8629d9d8-d231-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

oh, bob Barnes said it so now everyone must agree.

You don't know who Bob Barnes is, do you? Liberal and has covered the U.S. Supreme Court for the WAshington Post since 2007.

I do. I find it laughable that you think if one liberal says something that somehow you have proved a point.

Because if anyone posts anything from Fox, Weekly Standard or any other supposedly right-wing publication, the liberals avoid the argument - they attack the citation of the post. So I offer a liberal from WAPo, the most liberal paper in the land. That's not good enough for you, so you now say only one liberal isn't sufficient to lay this matter down. OK, let's add Jonathan Adler to the pot: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/02/justice-stevens-made-the-same-mistake-before-justice-scalia/.

So you are choosing a line of argument that you know is unfair. How odd.

This makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, you also tried to say he was inconsistent on fourth amendment. I shot that down. Try this for Heller, but of course you will complain of source, first. http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119

You didn't actually "shoot down" anything with respect to whether his rationales for his Fourth Amendment decisions are internally consistent-- you simply pointed out that his outcomes in those cases tend to be more in agreement with liberal justices than his other positions.

[Anonymous]

Back to the original post. There is a double standard. Conservatives or Republicans make one mistake and the liberal press goes wild. Liberals make mistake and the press looks the other way. Even ultra-liberal Ruth Marcus agrees the attention focused on the proofreading error was overkill and unfair. http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/05/04/come-even-supreme-court-justices-make-mistakes/8634701/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to the original post. There is a double standard. Conservatives or Republicans make one mistake and the liberal press goes wild. Liberals make mistake and the press looks the other way. Even ultra-liberal Ruth Marcus agrees the attention focused on the proofreading error was overkill and unfair. http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/05/04/come-even-supreme-court-justices-make-mistakes/8634701/

Oh, you are SO PERSECUTED!