Justice Scalia scares the crap out of the other Justices....

[kentuck]

He intimidates them. It was first noticeable to me with the selection of 2000. But it is obvious even to the untrained eye that he is the dominant figure on the Supreme Court. Few dare to cross him. They follow him as if he were some leader chosen by God, not by the US Senate.

And his latest refusal to recuse himself from the case involving his duck-hunting buddy, Dick Cheney, is just another slap in the face of every American that would wish for the Supreme Court to be above politics. It is not. And it will never be while Justice Scalia is leading the rest of the Court around by the pubic hairs...We need to understand just how dominant his influence is on the rest of the Justices.

[Kagemusha]

1. And do what?

We're stuck with him. That was the whole point of putting him there.

[kentuck]

2. Awareness is the first key....

to understanding.

[StopThief]

3. Just wondering why he has the opportunity. . . .

to write all those scathing dissents. There have been many high profile cases where he has been in the minority, which seems to contradict the basis of your post.

[kentuck]

5. They are not unanimous....

But there are a couple of Justices that you would be hard-pressed to find one time they have dissented with Scalia...

[StopThief]

11. Actually, that is not true.

He has disagreed many times with every Justice on the Court. The one Justice that probably agrees with him most is Thomas, but there have been several instances where Thomas has dissented is cases where Scalia was in the majority. Truth be told, Thomas is the most consistently conservative Justice on the Court.

[kentuck]

13. Perhaps....

my impressions are wrong... I see him as a very divisive and intimidating Justice....

[tnlefty]

4. All this time I thought it was Thomas who fixated on pubic hairs....

Scalia acts like a thug as far as I am concerned. He's continuing to tarnish the image of the court.

[KoKo]

9. Well....he may have friends in some very big "back rooms" with connections

to stuff we wouldn't want to know about. If you think about it. Why else would the other judges be afraid?

And, remember that Souter got mugged last month. Hiring muggers who disappear is the work of whom?

[TreasonousBastard]

6. This court is one of the most acrimonious in history.

Reading some of the opinions, you can see the personal problems they have with each other.

I suspect it also one of the weaker courts, with Scalia being the closest thing they had to an intellectual until Souter came on board.

Notice that in some decisions they may agree on a narrow ruling, but even the concurring opinions hotly argue with each other. This was the problem with Ring that they just managed to sabotage the other day. Ring said that it was a jury that had to decide sentencing, but there were 8 or 9 different opinions on that one, so there was plenty of room to screw it up and not make it retroactive.

Scalia seems to be at the center of the acrimony. Before him, the right wing of the Court didn't seem to be as vicious or arrogant as it is now. And, with Thomas as his lapdog, he has more power than he deserves.

Scalia is the very definition of an activist judge, but try to convince his people of that.

[KoKo]

12. Your view is not as dark as mine, but it may be a combination of what

you say here, and my view that he has "connections," which make him have more power along with whatever intellectual weight he may throw to the Court.

Now, think about Thomas. He was forced on the court by Joe Biden and I can't think of his name...but the Senator who left became an Episcopal Priest who was the Priest who presided at Reagan's State Funeral. Damn...it why can't I remember his name...

Anyway the Thomas hearings were very revealing as the first peek of what we were going to have to deal with in the future. What was done to Anita Hill was the warning shot. Thomas had no business being on that court and it was trashing Thurgood Marshall's legacy to put Thomas there, but that's what it's all about with these thugs. They don't take prisoners they go for the kill, every time.

ON EDIT: John Danforth! The one who held Thomas hand through the hearings and sponsored him for the Court. Guy has so much guilt he had to become a priest. (just my view...who knows why he became one)

[kentuck]

14. Danforth?

Yeah, the Senators are frequently blind to the impact of their decisions.

[KoKo]

15. Yes! I just edited my post when I recalled it. Thanks...

I never could figure out why Danforth sponsored Thomas and was so protective of him. I also remember the media doing retrospectives about Thomas' childhood in the Georgia where his Grandpappy raised him with lots of violin stuff. They sold me on Thomas until the Anita Hill hearings and anyone who watched those up until 2:00 a.m. when Biden wouldn't let the last female witness (the one that's been proven later to show Thomas lied about Hill) appear after holding her off all night by saying the hearings had gone on too long and had to end.

I know more about Thomas than Scalia...but still think there's something shady in his background. One of these days I'll "Google" Scalia. Probably most has been scrubbed but if one digs way back something one missed will be linked in the least unexpected places. Ugh...a pox on them.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. My view is actually very dark...

and the primary "connections" Scalia has are in the the Federalist Society.

The Federalists are a very scary crew indeed. I don't know if there has ever been another organized group of legal ideologues like this before, but they have a stated purpose in being "strict constructionists." This is, of course, simply code for right wing extremism. They are supported and funded by some of the worst of the wingnuts.

There has been a concerted effort to get more Federalist Society judges on the bench. Shrub, Hatch, et al, have taken away the vetting of proposed judges from the Bar Association and given it pretty much to the Federalists.

This is not good.

It is very, very, bad.

[mitchum]

7. Fat Tony is a thug....

and a bagman for Opus Dei. A pox on him.

[donsu]

8. the Supreme Court needs a good housecleaning

we must have some law that allows the removal of traitors from the Supreme Court.

some law that indicts criminal acts by the supremes.

they are not untouchable

we are a stupid nation if the supreme court is set up without recourse.

[johnfunk]

10. Housecleaning requires a Democratic Congress...

... to ensure that Fat Tony, Long Dong Clarence and Bill the Bigot are impeached. The last two are a slam-dunk: lying to Congress. As for Tony, impeaching over a few of his anti-Constitutional, anto-American written rulings should be sufficient.

I doubt they'll be convicted, but they'dl be forever tainted in history for their lies and subversions were they to be impeached.

[KoKo]

16. They are appointed for life. Only death or retirement will relieve us of

them. Supremes also seem to live a very long time. Something about the lifestyle they lead I suppose. Having all that power makes one very healthy. :eyes:

[Senior citizen]

17. They can be impeached.

It is in the Constitution. Their tenure is dependent upon "Good Behavior" and they haven't behaved themselves very well IMO.

[Hamlette]

18. Court watchers disagree

if you study his decisions, according to scholars who do just that, and other information from the court from clerks (justices themselves don't talk about it) the conventional wisdom is that scalia is so rabid he can't build a consensus.

We've been lucky that the great consensus builders of the last 100 years have mostly been moderate to liberal. Warren is the prime example. He didn't like issuing split decisions, especially 5/4 decisions so would work to bring all justices around to his position.