Re: RAT FWD: Scalia's legal vision is blinded by his ambition

[schedlinski <schedlinski@yahoo.com>]

A note about reading articles in newssources whose
reputation is as soiled as is the New York Daily News.
We must be careful to read for accuracy even when we
agree with the premise, or we lose credibility when,
for example, we bash the reputation of the New York
Post. Mr. Dwyer does not provide the quote from Mr.
Scalia. He does not even quote the article in which
another reporter stated Scalia said such a thing. If a
Justice were to say that he would serve under one
president and not another, it would be on the front
page of the NY Times the next day, so I'm extremely
skeptical that the alleged quote is accurate. Mr.
Scalia can be criticized for the fact that his
federalist views seem to have vanished in the current
case, he can be criticized for his stridence in
opinions, which serves no purpose other than sully-ing
the court. Making up rumors about him and passing them
around on-line does not become active and
well-informed citizens.

rm






--- Laura Winton <fluffysingler@prodigy.net> wrote:
> this is one of the more sickening and blatant things
> I've read--although all
> the way through it's been about favors and
> backscratching.  I did read that
> Scalia's son is on Bush's legal team, and this
> article shows that it's even
> worse than just that.
> 
> 
> ------Original Message------
> From: Mary Jo Maroney <maroneym@hpmidwest.org>
> Sent: December 12, 2000 4:23:13 PM GMT
> Subject: Scalia's legal vision is blinded by his
> ambition
> 
> 
> Published on Monday, December 11, 2000 in the New
> York
> <http://www.nydailynews.com/> Daily News
> Justice Scalia's Legal Vision Is Blinded by His
> Ambition
> by Jim Dwyer
> 
> Earlier this year, Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court
> justice
> who now is all but serving as the attorney for
> George W. Bush, let it be
> known that if Democrats won the presidency, he'd
> quit the court.
> He would leave because under a Democratic
> administration, he
> would have no shot at being named chief justice by
> Al Gore, according to the
> March issue of the Washingtonian magazine.
> Now, Scalia has taken charge of the election case
> for George
> W. Bush and will try to herd the conservatives this
> morning for the result
> he apparently wants: a Bush presidency, and,
> perhaps, the job of chief
> justice when William Rehnquist retires in a few
> years as is expected.
> Normally, judges disqualify themselves from cases in
> which
> they have a personal interest; if the naked ambition
> to be the court's chief
> was accurately attributed to him, then he has no
> business deciding this
> fight.
> Scalia, however, could not have been bolder in his
> advocacy
> for Bush's cause, and, by extension, his own.
> During oral arguments two weeks ago, he took shots
> at the
> Florida courts, which had said the most fundamental
> right in a democracy is
> the vote.
> No way, Scalia said.
> "There is no right of suffrage under Article II," he
> declared.
> In plain English, he said that the citizens have no
> constitutional right to vote for President. His
> reason is that the
> Constitution places that power in the hands of the
> state legislatures,
> although he did not mention that all 50 state
> legislatures submit the
> question to a popular vote. (Some transcripts of the
> Supreme Court session
> attributed this remark to Rehnquist, but Scalia
> apparently was the actual
> speaker.)
> Over the weekend, he took matters even further.
> Scalia wrote that Bush would suffer "irreparable
> harm" if
> votes were counted "by casting a cloud upon what he
> claims to be the
> legitimacy of his election."
> You have may seen that moment in "A Few Good Men"
> when Tom
> Cruise is defending a soldier at a military trial.
> "I want the truth!" says Cruise, during
> cross-examination.
> Jack Nicholson looks up at him with contempt.
> "You can't handle the truth," snarls Nicholson.
> The legality of the votes worries Scalia."Count
> first and
> rule upon legality afterward is not a recipe for
> producing election results
> that have the public acceptance democratic stability
> requires," Scalia
> wrote.
> We've gotten by for two centuries on precisely that
> recipe.
> That is what is done on every Election Day in this
> country.
> First we vote. Then come the challenges, if any,
> which end
> up in court, and are decided there. This is not new.
> To have disputed
> ballots decided by courts doesn't "change the rules
> of the game." Those are
> the rules of the game. To do otherwise changes the
> law, the customs and the
> practice in every single state.
> No one can possibly argue that it is the best
> interests of
> Bush or Gore that the votes not be counted.
> There was talk yesterday - unfortunately, it proved
> to be
> untrue - that the Florida courts were going to ship
> uncounted ballots up to
> Washington. Those ballots, for better and worse, are
> the only evidence about
> the results of this election.
> To exclude them from this decision is like saying
> that a
> murder weapon seized from a suspect can't be shown
> to a jury because of a
> legal technicality.
> But Scalia says that we - the nation - can't handle
> the
> truth of counting those ballots, that the results
> might damage a Bush
> presidency if they show that he really didn't win.
> So we hide the facts for the good of the country.
> Or is it really for the good of Antonin Scalia, the
> chief
> justice wanna-be?
> Copyright 2000 NY Daily News
> ###
> 
> "Those poor kids.  So young.  So nauseous."
> --Krusty the Klown Telethon for Motion Sickness
> 
> 
> Laura Winton
> fluffysingler@prodigy.net
> http://pages.prodigy.net/fluffysingler
>  
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/