Why didn’t Stevens speak out when it could have helped? Scalia and Thomas have clearly engaged in impeachable practices, shown unacceptable bias (You’re supposed to recuse yourself if a pal who has flown you to his hunting lodge comes before the Court), and are systematically engaged in deconstructing our Constitutional liberties.

Forget the lunch room how about what Scalia has said to the press.  He does not know if the 14th amendment should apply to women.  Scalia wants an original interpretation of the constitution?  Well here is article 3 of the constitution which sets up the courts.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Note there is nothing about the courts deciding the constitutionality of anything.  Perhaps Scalia wanted a smaller work load.

Forget the lunch room how about what Scalia has said to the press.  He does not know if the 14th amendment should apply to women.  Scalia wants an original interpretation of the constitution?  Well here is article 3 of the constitution which sets up the courts.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Note there is nothing about the courts deciding the constitutionality of anything.  Perhaps Scalia wanted a smaller work load.

Scalie is just another dirtbag, much in the Thomas vein. Roberts is a deceitful hyena.

Justice Stevens said not long ago that given that our
‘democracy’ was in a mess, he didn’t see how allowing
unlimited money to be poured in, anonymously,  to
election campaigns would ‘clean’ it up.

****************

Scalia should be in prison for his part in the
unsigned decision to stop the vote recount in
florida in 2000 along with the other 4 that flat
out took the electoral process away from the
voters. He should be drawn in quartered in my
‘unsigned opinion’ because he is just a mummy
taking a ride in the supreme court.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onde
adline/post/2010/10/mummy/1

“Scalia”, the most succinct argument on the planet for the repeal of lifetime
Supreme Court judge appointments.

I say give them ten or fifteen guaranteed years, then each successive year after
that must be up to some chance mechanism—“heads”  and your in for another
year, “tails”, and you retire in one year, with the sitting President appointing your
successor.

The chance mechanism is needed to ensure that lawyers won’t wait out judges less
sympathetic to their cases, as they certainly would in any alternative fixed term
solution.