Your video, Judge Dead, 2016 (RIP(?) Antonin Scalia dead at 79), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Antonin Scalia And Michele Bachmann Are The Exact Same Idiot, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Charlie Rose: A conversation with Justice Antonin Scalia. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Translation: Total Ownage of the left.

"Liberals go straight to ugly racist stereotypes when attacking conservative blacks, calling them oversexualized, stupid and/or incompetent.
The late, lamented, white liberal reporter Mary McGrory called Justice Antonin Scalia "a brilliant and compelling extremist" -- while dismissing Thomas as "Scalia's puppet."
More recently, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called Scalia "one smart guy." In the next breath, he proclaimed Thomas "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court," adding, "I think that his opinions are poorly written."
When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, terror swept through the Democratic Party. What if people began to notice and ask questions: "Who's that black woman always standing with George Bush?" Never mind! He's probably arresting her.
In addition to an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from "Gone With the Wind," a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches, allegedly respectable liberals promptly called her stupid and incompetent.
Joseph Cirincione, then with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Rice "doesn't bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position." (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.)
Democratic consultant Bob Beckel -- who ran Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign so competently that Mondale lost 49 states -- said of Rice, "I don't think she's up to the job."
When Michael Steele ran for senator in Maryland in 2006, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of his credit report -- something done to no other Republican candidate. He was depicted in black face with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Oreo cookies were rolled down the aisle at Steele during a gubernatorial debate in 2002.
Trafficking in racist imagery is consequence-free for liberals because they have ruined charges of "racism" with their own overuse of the term. By now, any accusation of racism has the feel of a Big Foot sighting."
AC "Why Our Blacks are Better than Their Blacks"



Not one of the people you mentioned commenting on Conservative Blacks is on the "Left" in anyway shape or form. Please apologize to us lefties immediately because we can't take this sort of abuse.

Translation: Total Ownage of the left.



"Liberals go straight to ugly racist stereotypes when attacking conservative blacks, calling them oversexualized, stupid and/or incompetent.

The late, lamented, white liberal reporter Mary McGrory called Justice Antonin Scalia "a brilliant and compelling extremist" -- while dismissing Thomas as "Scalia's puppet."

More recently, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called Scalia "one smart guy." In the next breath, he proclaimed Thomas "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court," adding, "I think that his opinions are poorly written."

When Bush made Condoleezza Rice the first black female secretary of state, terror swept through the Democratic Party. What if people began to notice and ask questions: "Who's that black woman always standing with George Bush?" Never mind! He's probably arresting her.

In addition to an explosion of racist cartoons portraying Rice as Aunt Jemima, Butterfly McQueen from "Gone With the Wind," a fat-lipped Bush parrot and other racist cliches, allegedly respectable liberals promptly called her stupid and incompetent.

Joseph Cirincione, then with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Rice "doesn't bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position." (Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose experience for the job consisted of being married to an impeached, disbarred former president.)

Democratic consultant Bob Beckel -- who ran Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign so competently that Mondale lost 49 states -- said of Rice, "I don't think she's up to the job."

When Michael Steele ran for senator in Maryland in 2006, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee dug up a copy of his credit report -- something done to no other Republican candidate. He was depicted in black face with huge red lips by liberal blogger Steve Gilliard. Oreo cookies were rolled down the aisle at Steele during a gubernatorial debate in 2002.

Trafficking in racist imagery is consequence-free for liberals because they have ruined charges of "racism" with their own overuse of the term. By now, any accusation of racism has the feel of a Big Foot sighting."

AC "Why Our Blacks are Better than Their Blacks"

Yes, yes. Any school with famous liberals who graduated are now completely invalid as educational institutions. That's how you get around that one. Harvard Law is a crap school. So here are the conservative graduates who also don't have a valid degree according to you:

Chief Justice John Roberts
Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist
Justice Antonin Scalia
George W. Bush
William Bennett
Henry Paulson
Bill Frist
Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens
Mitt Romney
Alan Keyes
Lou Dobbs
Bill O'Reilly

Man... too bad they must all be idiots... and they clearly don't have a grasp on being "American".

Do you ever stop and think before you say things like that?

You don't get to invalidate someone's academic achievement because you politically disagree with them... Well, you can, but it just makes you look incredibly stupid. There's something horribly wrong with people who look down on someone's intelligence despite graduating from one of the elite colleges in the US because they disagree with them. Ridiculous...

Sarah Palin can really galvanize and lead, eh?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/07/palin-unfavorable-rating-reaches-new-high/

What, are all polls now liberally biased, too?!

And nice try attempting to make this about how well Obama has done as President. That wasn't the debate. You said Palin is just as smart, if not smarter, than Obama. She's not. Period. You can't even sanely argue that she is. She's of average to above average intelligence overall, but sorely lacks knowledge of the economy, foreign policy, and other crucial topics needed to be a good president. Plain and simple. Your political leanings shouldn't cloud that assessment. There are plenty of right wingers who also can accept Palin just isn't smart, and Obama is.

Bonus: The only person who brought up Al Gore is you. This isn't a liberal vs conservative thing. This is you saying idiotic things flying in the face of simple facts.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Did you seriously just say Obama's intellect is comparable to Palin's?!
Palin has a far better grasp on what it means to be an American than a bitter leftist who sat in a hate-Whitey church for 20-plus years. His Earness is endlessly promoted by His media lackeys, so a fair comparison is not possible.
SERIOUSLY?!?!?!? Look, gaffes aside, Obama graduated from Harvard Law School with a JD magna cum laude. Palin took six years to get a bachelor's degree in communications bouncing around from school to school to get it!
You might have had a point when Harvard wasn't a politically-correct degree mill. Speaking of kollij, we will never see Obama's kollij papers to know his genius even then. Community organizer? Do you even need higher education to become a rabble-rousing 'activist'?
Dude, if the conservative/libertarian ideology concluded the world is flat, would you spout that crap, too?! In fact, your beloved Ron Paul wouldn't tell Obama he's not smart enough to be president.
I don't need any labels to denounce His Earness. I merely observe the results of his incompetence (or genius, for those promoting the one-world illuminati worldview). His results are indefensible by any metric you care to name.
Just ridiculous. I get you don't like Obama, but that doesn't mean you should ignore basic fact. And I'm sorry, but she's simply not smart enough to be president. This has nothing to do with her ideology. Plenty of conservative politicians are out there who have the intellectual capacity to be president, but she's not one of them.
Due to an unfortunate media-created outbreak of Palin Derangement Syndrome, your observation cannot be quantified. Anyone here think Joe Biden is smart enough to operate a doorknob much less be President?
BONUS NO. 2 -- "Who are these people?" -- mid-90s Vice President and supergenius Al Gore, referring to the busts of Jefferson, Washington and Franklin during a tour of Monticello, home of Thomas Jefferson.

Antonin Scalia: Resident Evil.

>> ^jonny:
in the words of Antonin Scalia - "Get over it"


Well said, and more deeply ironic than it might appear.

*news

in the words of Antonin Scalia - "Get over it"

>> ^SDGundamX:
Unfortunately, our legislators aren't lawyers in most cases and craft laws with vague language or gigantic loopholes. In those cases the courts wind up having to decide how to effectively carry out the law in practice. And that's where the politics come into play.

Well put.

I just absolutely hate that the legality of torture has somehow turned into just another "partisan political issue."

>> ^SDGundamX:
>> ^twiddles:
If one wanted to be pedantic about things you would apply the legal definitions. And if your name was Scalia you would sound like a prick.

It's not about being pedantic, it's about being precise. If "punishment" can mean "interrogation" then any word in a law can mean anything anyone chooses and the entire legal system crumbles.

--
By its own volition that comment should be considered pedantic. Besides I never said that punishment can or should mean interrogation. Torture is cruel and unusual punishment. Interrogation is not torture.

Also I agree with rickegee that the 5th is likely the one that applies here (IANAL). However I was merely stating an opinion that Scalia likes to dance on the head of a pin in order to justify his political beliefs.

>> ^twiddles:
If one wanted to be pedantic about things you would apply the legal definitions. And if your name was Scalia you would sound like a prick.


It's not about being pedantic, it's about being precise. If "punishment" can mean "interrogation" then any word in a law can mean anything anyone chooses and the entire legal system crumbles.

>> ^DrPawn:
Total Bullshit.
Because it is the needless infliction of pain, torture is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.


Interesting interpretation. So by your own logic, if a criminal has knowledge of a crime or a crime that is about to be committed, then torture is legal and justified. After all, it isn't needless in that case. The police aren't doing it just for giggles, they're doing it to solve/prevent a crime. Congratulations, your interpretation has just shown that the 8th Amendment doesn't prohibit torture. To the contrary, in your interpretation it promotes it.

This is why precision is so damn important in legal matters and why you can't get away with just swapping out words in an already written law (particularly the Constitution) just because it seems like "common sense." Common sense is often plain wrong.

Unfortunately, our legislators aren't lawyers in most cases and craft laws with vague language or gigantic loopholes. In those cases the courts wind up having to decide how to effectively carry out the law in practice. And that's where the politics come into play.

>> ^twiddles:

Amendment VIII
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
pun·ish·ment
1: the act of punishing
2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
   b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

Nowhere does it define punishment as being post conviction. Indeed the amendment as a single sentence mentions bail which is certainly not restricted to post conviction. The logical conclusion based on the possible definitions of punishment - even if you were to read the constitution and its amendments literally - is that cruel or unusual punishment (severe treatment) at any time is prohibited. How do you get to punishment as being only something that happens upon conviction? Any case law to back that up? Is it okay if I hit you repeatedly with an iron bar as long as I am "interogatting" you? That flies in the face of logic. If you stretch it enough you can say it is okay if you kill the suspect as long as you were interrogating them.
I agree with NetRunner, Scalia isn't doing his job correctly and he is being a smug prick about it.


rickegee already pointed out the case law.

The dictionary definitions are moot because legal definitions differ from common dictionary definitions. Here is the legal definition of cruel and unusual punisment. Note that it specifies convicted criminal defendants:

"cruel and unusual punishment n. governmental penalties against convicted criminal defendants which are barbaric, involve torture and/or shock the public morality. They are specifically prohibited under the Eighth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. However, nowhere are they specifically defined. Tortures like the rack (stretching the body inch by inch) or the thumbscrew, dismemberment, breaking bones, maiming, actions involving deep or long-lasting pain are all banned. But solitary confinement, enforced silence, necessary force to prevent injury to fellow prisoners or guards, psychological humiliation, and bad food are generally allowed. In short, there is a large gray area, in which "cruel and unusual" is definitely subjective based on individual sensitivities and moral outlook. The U. S. Supreme Court waffled on the death penalty, declaring that some forms of the penalty were cruel and prohibited under the Furman case (1972), which halted executions for several years, but later relaxed the prohibition. The question remains if the gas chamber, hanging, or electrocution are cruel and unusual. Cruel, certainly, but hanging was not unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. (See: capital punishment)"

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.

No one is saying it's okay to beat (American) prisoners or the like. The argument is that other constitutional rights and other laws are being violated in those cases: not the 8th Amendment.

>> ^SDGundamX:
But marinara, he has a point--as a judge, it's his job to uphold the law. The 8th Amendment says "cruel and unusual punishment" not "interrogation." Until lawmakers decide to change that, his hands are tied. Unless, perhaps, you think it is better to have a Supreme Court capable of creating laws on the fly--an idea that completely upsets the (albeit already tenuous) balance of power between executive, judicial, and legislative branches.

So Scalia's argument is that while the police can't search you without a warrant, can't hold you without a charge, and can't beat or torture you as punishment for a crime, that since it's not explicitly in the constitution you can legally torture people while searching for incriminating evidence?

After all, they don't mention murder in the constitution either. Perhaps that's a new "interrogation" technique they should use.

What's the point of "innocent until proven guilty" if you can torture people who haven't even been to trial?

Judges do make law. In cases where the law is not clear on how to proceed, judges make law by setting precedent.

In cases like, say, Roe v. Wade, the supreme court created law. It's what they're there to do. It's why they're the third co-equal branch of government. It's why there wasn't armed rebellion when they anointed George Bush President.

This emphasis the religious right (and their neocon allies) place on the necessity of appointing judges who believe in the strictest possible interpretation of the letter of the law leads to people like Scalia having a position of power in this country.

As a supreme court justice, his job is not to uphold law, it's to uphold the principles of the constitution. Scalia isn't doing that job, he's just upholding the letter of it.