You may be aware that the most rabid activist Republican ideologue on the US Supreme Court will be goose stepping with the Tea Party at their Conservative Constitutional Seminar in January. The following editorial does not go far enough in condemning this display of judicial activism and prejudice.
When the Tea Party holds its first Conservative Constitutional Seminar next month, Justice Antonin Scalia is set to be the speaker. It was a bad idea for him to accept this invitation. He should send his regrets.
The Tea Party epitomizes the kind of organization no justice should speak to — left, right or center — in the kind of seminar that has been described in the press. It has a well-known and extreme point of view about the Constitution and about cases and issues that will be decided by the Supreme Court.
By meeting behind closed doors, as is planned, and by presiding over a seminar, implying give and take, the justice would give the impression that he was joining the throng — confirming his new moniker as the “Justice from the Tea Party.” The ideological nature of the group and the seminar would eclipse the justice’s independence and leave him looking rash and biased.
There is nothing like the Tea Party on the left, but if there were and one of the more liberal justices accepted a similar invitation from it, that would be just as bad. This is not about who appointed the justice or which way the justice votes. Independence and the perception of being independent are essential for every justice… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
There the editors here make their mistake is by saying that Scalia’s participation might hurt his perception of independence. His voting record already makes it certain that his own extreme ideology takes precedence over decency, let alone Constitutionality. The danger is not that he might be perceived as a Teabagger. The danger is that he IS a Teabagger, one who will commit Teabuggery against our Constitution and our people at every opportunity. And he does not even care that we know it.
He, along with the others of his ilk, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas, ensure that I will vote Democratic for President for the foreseeable future, even if I have to hold my nose to do so. Were the Republicans to be able to appoint a fifth justice like these four, it would spell the end of the possibility of representative government in America.
10 Responses to “When Scalia Goose Steps with the Tea Party”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You know… I don’t care for Scalia any more than you do. But I think you might want to take an honest look at what you’re writing. Take this for example: “The Tea Party epitomizes the kind of organization no justice should speak to — left, right or center …” Well then… who should he speak to? This says that he should speak to no one. So I think perhaps your impartiality (or lack thereof) is showing. You didn’t offer a single objective reason why anyone should be bent out of shape over this. Not one. You just said he was a bad man and the whole scenario was bad. So if you want to make a credible exception to the man you’re going to have to do better than “he’s a bad man”. I’m just sayin….
You are mistaken. The quote you attribute to me is not mine. It is from the editorial that I said does not go far enough. You might read more carefully before you pass judgment.
“There is nothing like the Tea Party on the left…” How sure of that are you Tom? As the 99ers begin to lose their benefits to the tune of 800,000 a week there may be more appetite for a fight from the corner of poverty, despair and, hunger.
Why does there have to be a name? Why a name instead of a mass migration to the towns and cities where the money to feed the hungry resides? Seems to me that would be where the Walton family lives and NY, The Hamptons DC and the like. They got the money so they must have the food too. Never did give much credence to names anyway.
Mark, you’re making the same mistake as Cletus. I posted that article as an example of something I consider insufficient. However your example is not like the Tea Party. You describe the potential for a grass roots uprising. The Tea Party is an astro-turfed amalgamation.
I see. So when someone takes you to task over a blatantly logical error you censor the comment. You’re no different than the scumbags you rail against.
No, Cletus, you don’t see at all. At times WordPress holds items for moderation, and I have no idea why. I did not return to the blog after you posted it until just now, when I approved it. Nobody censored your mistake. However, I do take offense at your personal attack against me. Here, we disagree with each other in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Since you seem unwilling to abide by that standard, I have set the blog to hold everything you say for moderation. We are a very well established A list blog. You are the very first to make the moderation list.
Supreme Court justices don’t need to speak behind closed doors. If what they have to say isn’t presentable to the general public, it should not be said. Let Scalia speak to the TEA Party convention but make his comments public.
Charles, I would still object to any sitting Justice taking part in any partisan activity, because such participation is against the Code of Judicial Ethics (albeit nonbinding). However, doing so publicly would be less offensive.
It looks like this is just for the members of congress. Oh no, he can’t talk to congress . . . about the constitution . . . argh!!
“Conservative Constitutional Seminars will be held at least twice monthly for members of Congress.”
http://teaparty.einnews.com/pr-news/264142-justice-scalia-to-address-conservative-constitutional-seminar
Sorry Steve, but what we’re talking about here is not Scalia misinforming Congress for Michelle Bachmann. That’s altogether different. This is about the Tea Party’s first Conservative Constitutional Seminar, where he will be instructing Teabuggery techniques to abrogate the Constitution behind closed doors.