Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, October 24, 2016

WASHINGTON — Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court.

He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem.

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’ failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

  • MarleneB

    Scalia from the *start* acted like the “activist justices” conservatives complain about! But then when the “activist justice” is on YOUR side of the aisle, he can do no wrong!

    • ObozoMustGo

      MarleneB… I say you are a freak of nature… so what?

      If you don’t want your sexual preferences to separate you from other Americans, don’t bother telling everyone about them! Keep your private business PRIVATE! No one actually cares.

      Have a nice day!

      • Hey Bozo, insulting someone’s “sexual preference” isn’t a reasoned response to what they have to say. But I understand why you did that. There is NO reasoned response to the point she made, so mindless insults is all you’ve got!

        • ObozoMustGo

          Eta… the point was to keep your sexual preferences to yourself if you don’t like how you may be judged by them. What the hell business is it of anyone else’s anyway? I’m not the one that brought it up… he/she did in her handle. So…….. tough crap!

          Have a nice day!

          • howa4x

            Ok I know where you are comming from.
            Have a nice day

          • Since you are dogging Marlene about her telling you her sexual identity. Obozo I will use your argument against you. Your nic makes it very clear what you think of the President. So you think the President is a clown? I really don’t care nor want to know that you think the President is a clown.

          • ObozoMustGo

            TJ… sorry for late response… been on vacay for 2 weeks.

            Re: your post: My nic is perfectly appropriate for this site. It is a political site, not a freak sexual fetish site. If I were to go to a web site touting such anomalies in the human experience, I would expect to see Marlene proudly proclaiming his/her/its identity. 2 different forums. Fair enough?

            Have a nice day!

        • metrognome3830

          Well look at that, OMG. Another Linotype operator. We tend to get “snarky” sometimes. It’s OK, Etaoin, OMG can take it as well as hand it out.

      • howa4x

        Where did you draw sexual preferences from what she said? As I read it she was just saying how conservatives don’t mind if judicial activism is going their way.
        Just because she calls herself something it was not in her statement.
        Why do you care if she is a transexual? Isn’t this America where people can be free!

        • MarleneB

          OBG saw my mini-bio next to my name, love… guess they’re the kind who can’t stand people like me having the same rights as they take for granted…

          • howa4x

            When they talk about freedom it only refers to guns and making money

        • ObozoMustGo

          Howie… it’s in her handle. Look at it. And I don’t care one iota. This is why I said keep her private business private. Why proclaim it? No needs to know because no one cares what anyone else does in the privacy of their home. When you proclaim it out loud, you make it other people’s business. That’s all I’m sayin, Howie.

          Have a great day!

      • EdC

        At least she knows what she is, do you.

      • MarleneB

        First of all, precious, being treanssexual is as natural as being left-handed, having red hair, etcetera. It’s also prevalent in nhature as well.

        Second, oh ignorant fool, there have been a number of studies made on the hypothalamus where there is a *biological* basis for gender identity, which is where it’s housed.

        Third, you the the rest of the heterosexual world announces *their* sexual orientation on a consistent basis! From wearing wedding rings, to the love songs on the radio, romantic TV shows and movies, putting family portraits in a cubicle, on the desk or locker; talking about what they and the spouse and family did over the weekend at work, ad nauseum!

        So why don’t you keep YOUR sexual orientation private too, darling! I wonder how long it would take YOU to violate that pledge!

        • ObozoMustGo

          mar… the term “freak of nature” implies NOT ORDINARY, but rare… Like a turtle born with 2 heads…. very rare, but it happens. If you want people to treat you without prejudice to your sexual preferences, than shut your freaking mouth about them. No one really gives a damn what you do in your private business. Really, no one does. Despite your fantasies to the contrary.

          By the way… you live in a hetero world. Your parents were obviously hetero, otherwise you would not be here. You, and the other freaks of nature, who I am certain are nice people, would do yourselves well to keep your private business private and accept that simple fact that you’re oddities in a world where 99% of the rest of us are hetero. It’s just the way it is, has been, and always will be.

          Have a nice day!

          • MarleneB

            Darling, what part of the Constitution’s guarantee of *equal* treatment do you NOT understand?

            If YOU and the rest of the heterosexuals are allowed to shove your sexual orientation around like it’s some sort of holy grail, then *I* and the rest of the TLBG community can announce ours too!

            You sound like the typical member of the religious reicht/TeaBirchers… you want special rights to promote your religion and sexuality, but restrict the rights of others. Well, precious, it doesn’t happen — but only in your delusional mind.

          • I don’t understand your life style. You don’t understand mine. You sounds like a good person and that’s all that matters.

          • metrognome3830

            WHOA! We’re getting way off the subject here. I would guess Antonin Scalia is heterosexual. I don’t really care. Whatever he is, I don’t like him because of his arrogant personality. I, myself, am a known heterosexual and I believe OMG is as well. I don’t care if Marlene is a transsexual lesbian and I don’t care if she wants to let us know. There, now that we have all been properly introduced, back to the subject at hand.

          • ObozoMustGo

            metro…. you gotta kind of go to the original post. I figured I’d be stirring the leftist hornets nest, but hey, that’s my role here! hehehehehehehe

            By the way, I am a lesbian also. I just never went through with the sex change and remain trapped in a man’s body. 😉 😉

            Have a great night!

          • metrognome3830

            Does Mrs. Obozo know that? It’s OK, your secret is safe . . . oh, wait . . . not anymore.

            BTW, you are doing a heckuva job, OMG. Stirring up the leftist hornet’s nest.

            Talk to you later.

          • ObozoMustGo

            Oh, she knows. It’s why she married me! 🙂 We are very unconventionally conventional. She actually wanted a man that …. shhhhhhh…. liked women….. shhhhhhhhh…… dont say anything, Metro.

            Re: stirring the nest…. you would not believe how many comments I get nightly. I just have to ignore most of them. No time.

            Have a nice evening. Say hello to Mrs. Metro for me! 🙂

          • metrognome3830

            Oh, me too! Like women, that is. That’s why the third Mrs. Metro keeps a close eye on me.

            I bet you do get some interesting replies.

            Have a great and greatly productive day!

          • ObozoMustGo

            Hey Metro… I’m back from vacay… but swamped with catchup work. Just saw your response and got a good chuckle, thank you. Wanted to say hello.

            Have a nice and cool afternoon, my friend!

          • metrognome3830

            Welcome back, OMG! Things were getting dull without you. Hope you had a great vacation. I am taking vacation in September — in Minnesota — to visit my mother. Amazingly enough, someone of my advanced age has a living parent. She will celebrate her 95th birthday in August.

            “How does someone who is retired take a vacation?” you mght ask. And I’m not sure how to answer that.

            But, now that you are refreshed and restored, get that work caught up. But have a nice day, too!

          • ObozoMustGo

            Thanks Metro. I promise to energize The Memo once again for you with even more caustic and snide remarks for the Obozo zombies out there.

            You know, I was thinking exactly that… retired and vacation? Hmmmm?!?!?!?!?!

            God bless your mom! 95??? WOW!!! God willing, she’ll see 100 and get a birthday card from President Romney. You have good genes, Metro. Exploit them!! 🙂

            Have a great day!

          • metrognome3830

            A card from president Romney! My mom would love that! Really! My brother and I are the only left-wing loonies in the family.

            I’ll be looking forward to your caustic and snide remarks once again.

            Have a great day yourself!

          • ObozoMustGo

            Metro… it is my God given duty to drop the depth charges in this sea of leftist insanity. I cannot deny that.

            Talk to you soon, my friend!

            PS> Wish I could be in AZ with you drinking a few cold ones. Dont think it’s as hot there as it is here in PA. 🙂

          • ObozoMustGo

            By the way… how in the hell did you and brother become leftist loonies? Usually, rational thinking is a family trait. What happened to you both? 🙂 🙂

            Talk to you soon!

          • metrognome3830

            There were three boys in the family and four girls. All the girls are comfortably middle class, married to salt-of-the-earth, hard-working professional and conservative guys. Really nice guys. I was the oldest child and somewhat rebellious. I had two younger brothers in the middle between the four girls. Unfortunately, they sort of followed their big brother. More unfortunately, they grew up in the 60s and got into drugs and alcohol too regularly. The youngest survived it, settled down and raised a family and is now retired. The other didn’t settle down. He didn’t pass 60 and didn’t collect SS. So, as a result, my surviving brother and I are still loved by our sisters, and treated as crazy, but loveable. By the way, at least three of my five children are definitely in the conservative camp. But they also tolerate their crazy uncle me as well. So, there is another of your conservative ideas — shot to hell. Three leftist loonies in a conservative family of nine. So it’s possible that out of nine people, six will get off on the wrong track.


            Have a nice day.

          • ObozoMustGo

            Good Sunday morning to you my friend! Early church, Starbucks, and a killer breakfast sandwich from my favorite little deli. Now I am in the office for a little while.

            WOW! One of seven? So was I, except 4 boys, 3 girls. We were not raised very political at all. In fact, I cannot really remember politics being a component of our family dinners or get togethers. In later years, none of us, thankfully, have any longer given up reason, and turned looney left. Well, the ones that are left. Both of the older brothers are dead, 9 and 11 years now. They were products of the 60’s – 70’s and were heavily into drugs and later years alcohol. One got so bad that he lost his home, job, wife, and family. He was homeless in the last 10 years of his life, except when he lived with my parents until they couldn’t take him anymore. Later in his life, he had no politics. He had no life. I was first to the hospital immediately following his death. I had to tell my parents. Toughest thing I ever had to do in my life. My mom and dad’s faces at that moment are etched in my mind like carvings in granite. The other brother was about the same, but never homeless.

            I went to college in the 80’s and came out much more liberal, of course. After all, what would one expect having spent 4 years in a leftist seminary? In fact, I even voted for Dukakis over Bush 1. I am embarrased by that one. Over time, as I grew up and started a family, I realized that my personal living habits and belief systems were at odds with my politics. That the very nature of how I made decisions in my life was very much the same nature that all humans make decisions out of. Then my eyes opened up. Leftism is incompatible with human nature. That’s why it will never work. It takes too much coercion and force to institute.

            Interestingly, Metro, I don’t actually see you as a leftist. Rather, I read you as a typical 20th century Democrat that came of age believing in American principles and values, working hard in a, what many refer to, “blue collar” career. You became Dem because it was “the working man’s party”. You are what I would refer to as a “liberal”, but not a leftist. I believe I am correct on this one. Tell me if I am wrong. As a liberal, you continue to defend and support the DemocRATic party because you believe it is “compassionate”. Those of us who have grown up and left liberalism, we know otherwise.

            The problem with today’s DemocRAT party is that it no longer is the party of the working man. Rather, it is the party of the NON-working man. Right under your noses, the party was infiltrated and taken over by the leftist radicals of the 60s and those who grew in their religious belief of socialism out of the FDR days. Slowly but surely, the party rhetoric and platform has devolved into one of class envy and an engine toward the growth of the entitlement class. Despite the abundance of evidence plainly visible attesting to the collassal failure of social programs, the Dems continue to sell those very same ideas, and more of them, to a populace that appears to be growing in it’s ignorance and declining in it’s desire for self sufficiency. These policies and programs have corrupted our culture. And our corrupted culture is reflected back on us with the election of an incompetent community organizer and Manchurian candidate who views America with disdain. So sad!

            Maybe one day there will be hope for you. 🙂

            Have a great Sunday, my friend!

          • metrognome3830

            Good Morning, OMG. I hope you put in a good word for me at church. If what the Catholics taught me is right, I will need all the help I can get. If they’re not right, what can it hurt. I can envision your sons eating those 2lb. steaks. My 3 sons, 6’6″, 6’4″ and 6’4″, could go through hundreds of dollars worth of groceries in short order.

            Yes, I suppose your view of me as a liberal more than a leftist is correct. I did forego the invitation of the Socialist Worker’s Party to join up. But not because I found them to be reprehensible people. I just found their ideas to be unworkable. But I came to understand where they were coming from. I personally knew some of the old Teamsters from the 1934 Minneapolis Teamsters strike. What happened to them at the hands of the Citizens Alliance and their armed guards (against unarmed Teamsters) is what turned at least three of them to the Socialist Workers Party. Two of them were shot in the back as they ran for cover from an attack by the “Citizens Patrol” (aka armed thugs). And for joining the Socialist Party, they went to prison for several years. It seems that was against the law at the time. But the irony of the story actually plays into your scenario. In the 80s, the SWP had moved so far left that these old-timers were kicked out of the party for being too mainstream. I was involved in only one strike in my union days. Well, actually two, I suppose. We went out on a wildcat strike first, got ordered back to work by the International (to avoid an unfair labor practices lawsuit), went back to work for week, got strike sanction, and walked out. There were a couple of attempts at bring in what I will refer to by the PC name, replacement workers, but, being enlightened, modern-type craft union types did not resort to violence, we just discussed the situation with them and persuaded them to look for work elsewhere. But, just like in the rest of society, members of the unions decided they weren’t getting enough out of the union (failing to recognize what the word union meant) and quit attending union meetings or participating in the union process. Then complained about those who did participate and run the day-to-day operations of the union. I was elected to several contract negotiating committees and I got so tired of guys coming up to me at work and asking the status of the contract that I began refusing to tell them. “Show up at the meetings, and you’ll get a full report! Right now we are here to work, not talk union business.” was my reply. One would think that attitude would get me voted off the committee, but hell no, they kept re-electing me. Until I got tired of listening to the whining and refused to run.

            I think my transition to Democrat started back in high school. I went to high school in the early to mid-50s. If you look at the history of the two parties, the Democrats were considered the conservatives up to the late 40s. That’s why Ronald Reagan was a Democrat then. As one biographer said of Reagan, “He didn’t change, the party did.” Today’s Republican party is not the party of Abraham Lincoln. My father and his father before him and my great-grandfather were Republicans. My maternal grandfather was an Irish Democrat, as was his father and grandfather and probably way back. My father’s father was much more liberal that my mother’s father. I, in fact, acquired much of my life view from my father and grandfather. And I became a Democrat. Now, I’m still harboring liberal leanings, but I don’t identify fully with either major party nor any third, fourth, or fifth party. So I guess I just kind of make it up as I go along. The Metrognome party. Unlike so many on this website, however, I don’t really attribute any evil intentions to either candidate. I believe they are simply following what they believe is the right path. I emphasize the word “simply.” But I am very suspicious of some of their backers.

            Well, you kick back and enjoy your Sunday. And I heartily endorse Starbuck’s. It’s my first stop every morning about 4:45 a.m. on my way to the dog park with Bailey, the Schnauzer.

          • ObozoMustGo

            Good morning Metro! 4:45AM for a dog walk? I suppose it’s the only time you can get out of the heat and get some excercise. I get up each moring around 6, go for a 4 to 5 mile fast paced hike, then to Starbucks for a coffee and cool down. Then to the office by 8:30.

            It’s interesting to consider how one comes about their views. I figured you for an old time union fella. While I think unions were at one time valuable, in today’s globally competitive market where companies are free to locate where they want, the unions are self-destructive. They actually drive business away, and therefore, their own jobs. They kill the goose that lays their golden eggs. I’ve always found the notion of a union confounding. Think about it. Unionized workers are adversaries of the company. How successful can a company be over time when it’s at odds with itself internally? It can’t. This is why GM has 202,000 employees, 167,000 of them are overseas, and they proudly proclaim that 6 out of every 7 cars they make next year will be foreign made. GM is only 1 example.

            Meanwhile foreign car companies are building factories in states that allow them to do so non-union. Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes. There’s a reason they don’t want to go to MI, IL, or any of the other states that are not right to work states. Because, when given a choice, they know the unions’ extra costs make them uncompetitive. It’s just a fact of life.

            Regarding your assessment of Republicans, you’re actually wrong on this one. I’ll tell you why. Because the longing for the “old Republicans” is actually a misinterpretation of what they were. With the exception of Barry Goldwater, every Republican from Hoover up until Reagan, were progressives. Coolidge was the last conservative. Hoover was a big government progressive. In fact, did you know that during the campaign between he and FDR that one of FDR’s attacks of Hoover was that he was “spending out of control”? It is 100% true. Hoover’s response to the stock market crash was huge government spending programs. Of course it did not work. It never does. The Republicans of today that you guys like are the McCains and Grahams and Snows. They are big government progressives. The newer Republicans like DeMint, Bachmann, West, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, etc., they are the true conservatives who are devoted to Republican principles of constitutionally limited government. That’s why they are HATED by the left, and why the left likes the McCain progressive types. The true conservatives ARE the threat to the left. It’s why they falsely attempt to paint the Tea Party as “racists” or whatever other derogatory name they can give. The reality is that, it’s not the Tea Party or constitutional conservatives that the left is afraid of… it’s The Constitution they are afraid of. So they attack, with Saul Alinsky tactics, that which they fear the most and the people who support the exact opposite of what they want.

            This is what constitutional conservatives really want:

            1) Constitutionally limited Federal Government
            2) Fiscal responsibiltiy with the public treasury
            3) Free market economics
            4) Strong national defense

            What exactly is wrong with that? I fail to see how this is wrong. These are American values. In fact, if we had to label them today, they are libertarian values. And I believe most Americans in their own lives are actually mostly libertarian. Even you, Metro.

            I have to run, my friend. Work is calling……

            Have a nice day!

      • I thought that was snark by Marlene… I’m a lesbian trapped in a man’s body.

    • and therefore you are a Democrat. Is being a TL defines all you are?

      • What inconsistent logic! Typical Bubble Wrap conclusion! But that is the thought process the tea baggers, Religious Right and NEOCONS! One of the major reasons for the divisions of the USA.

      • EdC

        your handle is interesting, Was Geronimo a hero or an enemy, in your book. If he was a hero then you are a discrace to his name, it was the conservatives that placed his people in chains, not the liberals. but the same statement to the other indian name twotomarrows, applies to you Never attribute to malice that which is adequarely explained by stupidity.

      • MarleneB

        Not at all, Gerry… I’m also left-handed, blonde, blue-eyed, and live in the midwest.

        I’m also an amateur historian who can look at parallels in society, and as a minority can bring back examples of how *other* racial and national origin minorities were treated.

        Did you know, my dear that the more darker-skinned Italians who settled in the south during the 1800s faced Jim Crow segregation because they were perceived by the racists as being *black*? I bet you didn’t know that, did you?

        If you *are* of native origin, did you know there were many laws banning you from marrying other races, especially in the far west? Bet you didn’t know that eithyer, did you, darling?

    • MarleneB Screw Obozomustgo He Should Do Like His Name Says And GO!!!

  • ObozoMustGo

    I laugh at how you guys on the left call the SCOTUS “conservative” because they uphold the Constitution as it was written. Helloooooooo….. McFlyyyyyy…. Is anyone in therrrrrreeee???? That’s exactly what they are SUPPOSED to do. They’re not supposed to act as the legislature and write laws, which is what the activist left wants them to do. By definition, they are NOT activists if they are doing what they are SUPPOSED to do….. Upholding the Constitution as it was written and intended. Justices ARE activists if they are expanding their role by rewriting legislation and making interpretations that never existed in order to advance a social agenda. This is what the left likes when they cannot advance their agenda through the legislative process. They turn to some leftist court to rule in their favor. Witness: Everywhere that marriage definition of 1 man-1 women has been on the ballot for the citizens to decide, they have WON handily in EVERY case. But what has happened? The left has gone to the courts to overrule a duly enacted statute voted on by the people of that state because they cannot win within the regular legislative process. In other words, the leftist activist courts have legislated from the bench. Clearly, regardless of what side you are on, this is NOT the type of justice system that is good for a civil society over the long run. If you don’t like the Constitution, there is an Amendment process that can be followed to change it. But manufacturing leftist nutjob social engineering agendas where none previously existed IS called ‘judicial activism’.

    Scalia is free to speak however he sees fit. You just dont like it because he’s not on your side. I don’t hear any of you useful idiots, especially the useful idiot that wrote this piece, out there criticizing Ginzberg for her speach and interview in Egypt where she said that she would NOT recommend to another country the very Constitution she has taken an oath of office to uphold. How friggin crazy is that? The old woman ought to be impeached for violation of her oath. Talk about a leftist nutjob hack????? Sheeesh! And what do we hear from the useful idiots at The Memo? Same thing we always hear when a leftist like Ginsberg speaks her mind…….. crickets………. crickets………. crickets………… crickets………..

    What a blowhard hypocrite you are, EJ.

    Have a nice day!

    • tstahl41

      What is the point in physical description being a point to complain about when discussing judges>”lefist hag”? Can you just attack the points you don’t like without attacking appearance?

      • ObozoMustGo

        tst…. your point is so noted! Thank you.

        Have a nice day!

      • ObozoMustGo


      • “Leftist hag”. Great way to have an intelligent debate.


    • No. Conservatives CLAIM they are following the Constitution as written, but frequently they do the exact opposite. Case in point: D.C. v. Heller, where “Mr. Originalism” (Scalia) took the ONE part of the Constitution where the intent is expressly spelled out, and threw that part in the trash bin. (The first half of the Second Amendment.) Instead of tying the right to keep and bear arms to the need for a “well regulated militia”, Scalia decided any Tom, Dick or Harry can own a gun (no matter what), subject only to those regulations the Court deems “reasonable”. Talk about broad judicial power!

      A true conservative would have followed the text, realized that there is a poor fit between the Amendment’s first and second half’s, and then tried as best as possible to make them work together. Instead, he just chopped out the part he didn’t like. If a liberal Justice did the same, you’d be the first to scream about “activist judges”.

      “Originalism” is a fraud, and conservative “respect” for the Constitution is often an exercise in hypocrisy!

      • ObozoMustGo

        Eta… you are a fraud! What kind of moron seeks to parse the 2nd Amendment into 2 distinct parts? A leftist nutjob and useful idiot moron, that’s the type. I get why you leftists seek to separate the 2: because doing so would mean that only government run militias (local, state, or fed) could own firearms. Clearly NOTHING could be further from the truth. The entire meaning behind allowing ALL citizens rights to own guns is specifically for the reason that the founders knew governments tend toward tyranny and citizens that were well armed would be a major deterent. Look at all the unarmed peoples of the world that have been murdered at the hands of socialist tyrants! Hundreds of million in the last century alone. There’s a reason dictators and tyrants don’t let their citizens have arms.

        Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. A Republic is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, and the sheep has a gun!

        Our founders were MUCH smarter than you. They have written the greatest organizing documents ever assembled in human history, and embarked upon a rare experiment of man and self-governance. Scalia simply reads the Constitution and interprets the words and meaning behind them. If you dont like the words, there is imbedded in the document the political means of changing what it says. Follow the legal process to make the changes if you want. Until then, stuff it!

        Have a nice day!

        • Ah, more reasoned discourse from the Bozo – NOT!

          I suggest you take the time to actually READ the Second Amendment (not just the truncated version the NRA propagandizes, and Scalia prefers). It does indeed contain two parts: the first thirteen words (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,”) and then (after that comma) the second fourteen words (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”) Scalia, in D.C. v. Heller, erased that first part (by calling it “prefatory” – a fancy phrase which refers to the PURPOSE of what follows after the preface). You know, a statement of INTENT – the thing Scalia claims to follow, but which he went out of his way to ignore in this case.

          So, sorry, the “leftist nutjob and useful idiot moron” who separated the two is your beloved Scalia.

          As is also true with an ideologue, you then proceed to assume what I would have done instead: use the “militia” language to argue that only the government can own guns. FALSE! (Of course, like Scalia, you engage in “result oriented” reasoning. You want everyone and anyone to own guns, so you prefer his “reasoning”.)

          Trouble is, you forget that even he never said you have an unlimited right to own any weapon you choose. Re-read the case sometime. Scalia says “reasonable” gun regulations will be upheld. That brings me to my point about “broad judicial power”. Who decides what’s “reasonable”? Nine unelected Justices. How do they decide that? Well, experience with similar decisions about “reasonableness” suggests it’s based on what side of the bed they got up on that morning!

          And how would I decide? Not, as you seem to believe, by ruling only militias have the right “to keep and bear arms”. The Amendment clearly says the people (including individuals) have that right. But it also says WHY they have that right (so there can be a “well regulated” militia, not a rag-tag gang of irresponsible people given to “road rage” or shooting defenseless people in schools and grocery stores). In short, both the “arms” to be protected, and the people who are to exercise this right, must be measured by the stated INTENT of the Amendment: insure weapons are available for use in a militia.

          So, instead of the vague and subjective standard of “reasonableness”, I would employ a standard based on that EXPRESS intent. Weapons suitable for use by a militia would enjoy the strongest protections, those unsuitable (such as the infamous “Saturday Night Specials”, which are notoriously unreliable) would not, and neither (for example) would nuclear equipped drone planes. Ditto for who could exercise the right. Those who are proven to be of sound and responsible personality (mentally and emotionally), and who have received proper training, would enjoy the widest rights. Those who are proven otherwise (Jared Loughlin, the paranoid schizophrenic who was legally able to buy a gun which he then used to kill people at that grocery store) would not. One could call this simply “reasonable” gun regulation. I prefer to call it fulfilling the EXPRESS intent of the Founders that guns be available to be used by a “well regulated militia”. Note, that in the end (the practical part of all this) Scalia and I get to the same result. The difference? I get there by following the Constitution, and respecting every word in it. He gets there by rewriting the thing!

          One last point: you have obviously bought into the NRA’s romantic fiction that if the U.S. government ever became tyrannical, an armed citizenry would be able to defend themselves against the combined might of its military. After all, if the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines turned against the government, you wouldn’t need your weapons, would you? No, they would only be needed if the military supported the government. So, if you are even capable of THINKING, sir, and not just parroting right-wing propaganda, ask yourself this question: What chance would you have against one of those nuclear drone missiles? After all, I’m pretty sure Scalia isn’t going to strike down the laws that prevent you from owing any of your own (or any anti-ballistic missiles, the only possible defense). Better think about this before you decide to “take up arms”, once you’re vaporized it will be too late.

          Oh, and as for dictators versus “armed citizens”, study a place known as the Warsaw Ghetto. The people there were armed, and for a month held off the Nazi army (a right-wing dictatorship), but in the end the superior might of the Army destroyed those “militias”.

          Have a nice day yourself, but remember: one nuclear drone missile can spoil it completely!

    • EdC

      In what parallel universe are you talking about. The supreme court like that Republican house of Represenitives who read the constitution when they took over office skips over the parts they don’t like just like they skip over parts in the Bible they don’t like. Selling the country to the highest bidder is not something the Constitution agrees with. Saying the corporations are people too, is not in the Constitution. Denigning States Rights on certain issues and declaring them on others are not in the Constitution. Denigning health care to people is not in the Bible. In the Constitution allmen are created equal, that doesn’t mean that corporations can buy elections, In the Bible it says Due unto others as you would have them due unto you, By letting citizens United become law that might have just stopped God from blessing this country.

      • ObozoMustGo

        Ed… put down the bourbon, please.

        Have a nice (and sober) day!

    • Nom_DeGuerre

      Hey, dude, you know I quit wasting my time on arguing with “usual suspects” on this insane site. I stop by in here from time to time for just to admire your tenacity and patience in dealing with these mental patients.

      I have a real good story about the SCOTUS to share with you. A couple of years ago I somehow caught on PBS (not my usual venue), practically back-to-back, press-conferences of Clarence Thomas and Bader-Ginsburg. What a world of difference between those two distinctive human beings!

      To the question about the hardest part of his job Thomas answered that it is NOT to impose his PERSONAL feelings and experiences (including his destitute childhood and all other hardships any poor black person faces in this country due to total disintegration of their community by pervert implementation of Civil Rights Act of 1965) on his judicial rulings. He said that after witnessing firsthand and surviving everything what race-pimps like Cloward and Piven, Sharpton and Jackson, and all their predecessors and followers unleashed on “liberated” blacks, including insult of Affirmative Action, it is very hard for him to make his impartial decisions based strictly on the Constitution and the Laws and not to succumb to natural desire to get even with the liberals responsible for three generations of 80% of murder victims being black, 70% of black children born out of the wedlock, 65% of black high school drop outs. For Thomas Femida MUST be blind and objective, completely detached from his PERSONAL grievances and desires.

      Bader-Gisburg started the narrative from the story of being denied a clerkship position with some judge (can’t remember his name) because she was a women and her pregnancy back in the 60th (70th?), which she had to hide from her bosses at Rutgers Law School in fear of being fired for that (???). That PERSONAL experience, she stated absolutely unequivocally and shamelessly, defined her life long judicial philosophy and practice. By 2010-11 she was still fighting the wind-mills of the 60th and had no scruples about it. It was ALL about HERS hurt 50 years ago feelings, which she still has to punish for that cruel white-male dominated world.

      Both are brilliant, both are convincing public speakers, both exude enormous power over our lives, , but they are world apart in their mental processes and understanding of right and wrong……..

      • ObozoMustGo

        Amen to that, Nom! Thomas is driven by THINKING, Ginsburg is driven by FEELINGS. This is the central difference between liberals and conservatives.

        Thanks for stopping by.

        Have a great day!

    • MarleneB

      Sweetie — The Constitution is NOT written in stone! It was *purposefully written to change with the times — that’s why we have Amendments to it!

      Should we go back to where blacks were considered 3/5 of a white? Shouyld we go back to where women didn’t have the right to vote?

      • ObozoMustGo

        mar…. 3 things:

        1) The Constitution was actully written on paper… just an FYI. It is NOT a “living document” as you leftist nutjobs like to say. What is meant by leftist nutjobs when they say such nonsense is that they prefer interpretations that change over time and the words can mean whatever they want them to mean whenever they want or need them to satisfy their socialist agendas. That’t not the way it is written. But it of course does allow for changes. Amending the Constitution is a LEGISLATIVE process, not a judicial process. That is the point of my post.

        2) Of course women’s suffrage was a good thing and the 19th Amendment was a good thing.

        3) Also, do you have any idea what the 3/5ths Compromise was about? Please tell me what you think it was about. I am interested to hear your opinion.

        Have a nice day!

        • MarleneB

          Hoeny, like most TeaBirchers, you wouldn’t know what socialism is, even if Bernie Sanders kissed you full on the lips!

          You’ve been fed a bunch of lies, baloney, malarky, and bushwa, not to mention complete and utter bullshit from the traitorous Koch brothers and their butt-kissers, boot-lickers, and Kochsuckers!

          Second, the Constitution has most *definitely* changed with the times! Why else would there be 28 Amendments to the document, precious?

          Oh and you just proved yourself to be a freaking hypocrite when you agreed that amending the Constitution to allow women the right to vote. Class act there, darling.

          Finally, I do suggest you find a series of books called “Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme Court”. The editors have shosen a number of cases for the series, including Dred Scott, Brown v Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, et al where the court *has* changed it’s interpretation of the Constitution to reflect the times as well as look forward.

  • widollar

    Tony Scalia is the most arrogant justice in recent memory. He really is a light weight pretending to be a legal scholar. He is a blow hard and an embarrassment to America and he should quit, but of course he won’t!

    • adler56

      It comes from being an only child in an italian family at a time when Italian families had 4-5 kids- not one. Guess his old man didn’t want to take a chance that he’d have another loser like this fatass.

  • ObozoMustGo


    The number of prominant DemocRAT politicians that are running from Obozo and the DemocRAT convention for his 2nd party incarnation ceremony. They are smart!!!

    Have a nice day!

    • As compared with the “enthusiastic” response of all members of the Republi-Con party to the selection of Mr. Etch-A-Sketch?

      Don’t worry, I’m sure that when the time comes the “purests” in both Parties will “rally around” the nominee, given that for each of them the alternative is poison!

      • ObozoMustGo

        Correct… Obozo is poison! But the number 14 is going to continue growing larger and larger as Obozo becomes more and more poison to his OWN PARTY!

        Have a nice day!

        • Only a “right-wing nutjob” writes as you do, sir: conclusory utterances, vituperation instead of facts or reason. Of course you think a “reality based” Administration (instead of a “faith based” one provided by Bush the Second, and promised by Mr. Etch-A-Sketch) is poison. (And by “faith based” I’m not referring to religion, but to blind faith in the politician in question.)

          However, I’m flattered that you think so highly of what I write that you feel the need to “pounce” once the electrons have barely left my modem!

          • ObozoMustGo

            Eta… you pounce quickly, as well! And I am equally flattered.

            And, uhhh…. the FACT that 14 Dems are mysteriously busy during Obozo’s 2nd Dem Party incarnation is worthy of note.

            Obozo’s getting his butt kicked, even by a “par” candidate like Romney. He’s just been that bad for America, and his own party colleagues’ actions are demonstrating this FACT!

            I know it’s hard for the leftist nutjobs to accept, but it’s none the less true.

            Going home for the night. Looking forward to your snide replies.

            Have a nice evening!

        • Jake Hawkes

          Dear Bozo,

          What a good name for you!

          Obama is poison because he saved the world economy from a Republican inspired collapse?
          He’s poison because he saved the American auto industry?
          He’s poison because he passed a bill that will begin the repair of the US healthcare system?

          Just what do you Republicans want on your tombstones: “Wow…did we screw the poor and the middle class.”

          How do you live with yourself?

          • ObozoMustGo

            Jake…. your crack pipe is calling you, buddy! Can’t you hear it? Only a crack head and useful idiot thinks Obozo saved the world economy. HAHAHAHAHAHA

            What a dope!

            Have a nice day!

          • Jake Hawkes


            Speaking of crack, you’ve obviously been sniffing butt crack instead of paying attention to the FACTS.

            As early as 2009, professors from many of the most prestigious universities started writing about how the Obama administration’s bold moves at the Fed had saved the WORLD ECONOMY. It has also been said by world class economists like Paul Krugman and world class investors like Warren Buffet.

            …but I guess a third rate, hyperbole prone right wing nut job like you knows better than them…

            Look it up!

            And in spite of all the Republican obstructionism and feckless comments from bozos like you he stuck to his guns and that is why the US economy is recovering while the European economies are double dipping.

            Now unless you have something intelligent to say for a change…STFU.

          • ObozoMustGo

            Jake… Maybe you’re not on crack… heroin is more likely. Only the most hardcore Obozo zombie and useful idiot thinks that:

            1) Printing money out of thin air is good economic policy
            2) Adding $6 TRILLION in debt to our nation is good economic policy
            3) Growing government’s spending as a percentage of GDP from about 20% to now almost 30% is good economic policy
            4) Persistent year over year over year of unemployment at 8% and higher reflects good economic policy. That doesnt include the REAL unemployment rate that includes those who are no longer collecting unemployment and those that are underemployed in part time jobs (22 million people) because they can’t find full time. The REAL unemployment rate (reflected as U6 by the BLS) is at or above 15%. Dont forget, Obozo said himself that unemployment would not go OVER 8% if his wastelous… errr… stimulous… was passed.
            5) The percentage of Americans that actually work is now at an all time low since the Great Depression. Don’t blame Bush. This has been SINCE Obozo’s stimulous
            6) Giving $80BILLION to GM who employs 2/3 of its workforce of 202,000 overseas and 3 weeks ago bragged that 7 of 10 of their cars will be built overseas and FORCING American taxpayers to finance foreign jobs is good economics
            7) Economic growth of 1% to 2% per year is good economics

            Do you want me to continue? You’re probably in college or a recent graduate of the American Leftist Seminary (read University). After all, only completely indoctrinated drone would repeat Obozo’s lies and talking points. Further, only an idiot would believe that leftist professors from Leftist Seminaries proclaiming the Messiah’s success at “saving the world” only a couple of months into his term has any credibility. That’s like Obozo wining the Nobel prize before he even was in office for 2 weeks.

            And Krugman, by the way, is nothing but a socialist piece of crap anyway. Almost everything the idiot says is totally wrong. Buffett is a blow hard looking out for his own interests. He’s the reason the Keystone pipeline was killed by Obozo because he owns the trucking and rail companies that are shipping the oil instead of the pipeline.

            And yes… I am smarter than they are. NO DOUBT!

            So, go back to your needle now and STFU!

            Have a nice day!

    • StephenMcDonald

      Obozo. I don’t even know why I am replying to you since you are obviously limited in facts and intelligence, but the reason these 14 Democrats aren’t going is because they are involved in election campaigns of their own. If you don’t know already there will also be Republicans skipping the RePug convention for the same reason and the number will be more than 14.

      Have a nice day

      • ObozoMustGo

        That’s right. They are in elections in tough races. But trust me, Mac, if Obozo was so popular and wonderful, they would ALL want to be seen with him. Instead, they are staying away from him like he is the plague… because he is the plague.

        You know that I am right, Mac. You know it.

        Have a nice day!

    • Wearing your KKK uniform again!

  • Justice Scalia is to judicial restraint what a 21 year old college student is to moderation. The only thing either have in common is they know the term is in a book somewhere. You don’t go hunting with Dick Cheney, appear on stage with Wayne LaPierre and publicly lament Robert Bork’s lost Supreme Court nomination lambasting President GHW Bush for not pressing more without giving the appearance of partiality.

  • keefert55

    Yes, the entire Supreme Court should be disbanded. They are no more impartial than the the Tea Party. They are appointed on the basis of how they will vote on important legislation. They have essentially put American democracy up for sale to the highest bidder. The American public sees Scalia for what he is and despite his protestations, he is a mockery of our legal system.

    • The Supreme Court cannot be disbanded. The Constitution requires a Supreme Court as part of the “checks and balances” of the federal government. The problems is, the Supreme Court, and for that matter many lower courts, have become politicized, with judges trying to usurp the roll of all three branches of government, thereby not only interpreting law, but making law. What needs to be done, is impeachment of judges that become activists (both left and right activists) and do not follow the sacred code of non-partisonship established by the Constitution.

      • Rae

        I agree with Ford Truck. I would sincely hope that keefert55 would reconsider his desire to throw out our government. Many people have died to uphold our system of government and to have it just tossed because things have become difficult is really not logical thinking. I do recall during voting times we were choosing a great number of judges etc. Do your homework and choose wisely. Our Presidents appoint these Judges, lower courts are voted in, so make different choices but dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is why I laugh at the suggestion of throwing out Electoral College. I would like to stop the madness but not go to the brink of NWO.

        • bigspender7

          Although I agree that keefert’s solution was too radical and unworkable, I do agree with his sentiment. There should be an effort made to impeach Antonin Scalia. He is not worthy of the high court and contributes to its sinking reputation.

    • Your statement is erroneous, c’mon comparing the supreme court to the tea party is absurd. Actually I lost faith in the supreme court when they seemingly removed all spending caps associated with corporate campaign contributions and allowing foreign entities to contribute to campaigns. These rules are insane and a real threat to freedom and democracy. In the last 60 or so years politicians have slowly become nothing more than corporate puppets and now because of the supreme court’s recent decision regarding contributions it will only get far worse. Politicians no longer need the public.

      • Shirl24112

        You are so right!!! That is such an eye opening statement. “Politicians no longer need the public.” We have said for a long time now that OUR politicians do not listen to what we say or seem to have the parties best interests at heart. NOW I realize why and the fact that they can get away with it. “Politicians no longer need the public.” We have definitely been at their mercy… How do “The People” as in for the people and by the people…take back our government.

      • Ed

        Every president appoints justices that see the world as he sees it. Scalia is a special case. Because he grew up withing a 5 mile range of me I will not comment on him except to say he has fulfilled my expectations at his appointment.

  • twomorrow

    BO is the one who should quit. or maybe even RBG who recently join BO on the international apology tour dissing the Constitution. What a joke of a political party. The SCOTUS does have 3 or 4 partisan political hacks and they are all left.

    • adler56

      Pack up and get out of my country loser.

      • twomorrow

        This isn’t now or ever will be your country, moron. Funy how you draw a religious inference from being an olny child. You are beyond a loser.

        • adler56

          Funny how I draw a religious reference from being an only child? What a doofus you are. His father was born in Sicily- you have to be Catholic there or you’re deported. Scalia has always claimed to be a catholic but he leaves out that he’s a Sunday Catholic- non-practicing to you. Your ignorance explains why you’re a racist and/or voting against your own interest. you’re too dumb to be in the top 1%.

        • bigspender7

          trowmso — still can’t spell. You shouldn’t be critizing others when you yourself are remarkably stupid — assuming you mean what you write or are you just a bad actor.

          • twomorrow

            BigSpender or is it BS – you are certainly a mental midget. Go back to watching MSNBC – they need you.

    • EdC

      You are at it again, I agree B O nher should resign, If you really looked, you would see how wrong you are, However i was just told not five minates ago Never attributte Malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. back to you, If Romeny is elected you will have twotomarrows.

      • twomorrow

        It’s unfortunate that you just don’t get it and more than likely never will.

    • twomroww… can’t spell. How can you be so stupid?

      • twomorrow

        Read your own post moron -I think you are the one who can’t spell.

        • bigspender7

          Unlike you I stayed in school and can spell. Your problem is obviously so much deeper.

      • crestdad

        Twotomorrow should reevaluate his position. Its not that EdC doesn’t get it. Its that twotomorrow is only looking for something to be mad at. If in fact its because Obama has done this or that,,,,well,,,,then why in hells bells did he vote for GWB?
        After all the destruction and work Obama had to do to keep this country afloat in 2009 it should be apparent. Someone (or alot of right wingers) dont get it, and never will. Its like an addiction. I had one,,,once,,,but now its your problem not mine. Lack of taking responsibility. It took GWB eight long years to bring the country to its knees. It will take Obama about half that before its up off its knees. I know your saying,,,,,no,,,,its on Obama. Remember your addiction? Had Obama came into office with a budget surplus, like George did,,,,I assure you we wouldnt be this bad off eight years later. And if a Republican came in to fix Bushs mess up,,,,well,,,,I wonder if there would be banks, or auto manufacturers, or firemen, or policemen, or a government.

  • One might say that I would like him as a politician then we could not elect him or throw him out of office. Question his ethics and his fairness to the American People, bad combo for a man who should be investigated

  • If you expect any of the members of SCOTUS (or any judge for tha matter) to stop having pre-concieve opinions you are being naive. Because laws are usually the product of compromises (in a democracy), most of the are usually vague and open to interpretation
    Scalia was put there by Republicans and he is a known conservative, he just happens to be more outspoken than your average judge

  • it sure would be comforting to know that no matter what i said or did , or didn’t do i would still have a job for life! !

  • cwalter711

    There is always the option of impeachment.

    Interesting how he assigns the crime of the parent onto the child. This was charateristic of the justice during the time of Greece or Rome, or more commonly ancient history. Being 1st generation American and born in the USA, these young people feel American. Their parent’s home country is as foreign to them as it is foreign to anyone of us. Deportation would be extremely cruel to them because many of them are losing the language, and the home country is an interesting vacation experience, but their roots are not there. Their friends and culture are here, not in some foreign land.

    Apparently our neigbhors to the south are some sort of untermensch, but if one group is treated this way and the winds of politics blow on some other group then that group will be treated to some real “justice”. This is a trend that requires immediate action, or I fear the consequences. One Civil War was enough, do we need another?

    He should stick to the topic of the Arizona law and rule accordingly. Since when did a state have a right to usurp what is the right of the federal government? Wasn’t there a Civil War fought over states rights?

    • EdC

      One has to wander with the name Scalia, wre his grandparents vetted before they came to America

      • MV Fontaine, Sr

        Save the Indians, were any of our grandparents vetted, and once here did they learn to spell the word ‘wonder?’

      • To what tribe are you related ? Part of mine is Chippewa, of the GREAT Iroquois Nations. We taught Benjamin Franklin, what real democracy was, and is. He then worked our teachings into your constitution and Bill of Rights. My white family came here, with John Smith. He was an illegal alien to the Native Peoples, too. Was YOUR family vetted? Thought not. You are so, ashamed, of your name; you hide it…

    • Indeed, it is sad that the parents, and/or grandparents, broke the law. Disregard, for American laws, seem to run prevalent, in the Mexican culture. It is a travesty for the children, who think they are American; with no birth rights. Should they pay for the sins of their parents, who came here, illegally. Mighty heavy question. It would be up to the children, as to which country, to be a citizen. when they are old enough. If not old enough, the parents would choose, for them. There are costs, for breaking the law. The tab is on their tables…

      Tell the world what Mexican soldiers do to the illegal aliens, crossing their southern borders. They shoot them. No Mexican Rights, for their illegals.

      With the abundance, of natural resources, Mexico has to offer; one would question the need to immigrate, here, anyway. Unless…Your government is corrupt and you are ruled by cartels. Again, we have the criminal disposition. Our western jails are filled to capacity, with illegals and their children…mostly, their children; for complete disregard, for American laws.

      That leads to Mexicans complaining, about their wages. Why, complain when you sold yourselves out, for lower pay. Don’t low-ball America; then demand higher wages.

    • This was posted in the wrong place, so I removed it.

    • Dear cwalter711:

      While I’m no fan of Scalia, there are so many things wrong with what you wrote that I have to reply.

      First, impeachment is not an option. The Constitution clearly states that impeachment can only be used for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Art. 2, Section 4. It also states that Federal judges shall hold their offices “during good behavior”, which had been recognized as meaning “for life” (except for impeachment). Art. 3, Sec. 1, Paragraph 1. So, sorry, misinterpreting or misapplying the Constitution doesn’t qualify.

      Second, your analogy to Greece or Rome fails because your facts are wrong. Read the story again. The issue isn’t anyone who is a “1st generation American and born in the USA”. Such “young people” don’t just “feel” American, they ARE American. (14th Amendment, Section 1.) What’s being discussed are children BROUGHT HERE while children. They may have grown up here, and they may “feel” American, but unfortunately they aren’t. Neither are they here legally. (That doesn’t mean they should be kicked out. I support ideas such as the DREAM Act to remedy this problem. But that’s a matter for Congress, not the Courts, and had nothing to do with Arizona’s infamous SB1070.)

      As for States’ Rights, while I agree that cannot overrule valid Federal laws (which is what the Immigration case was all about), it is a valid concept. The problem is: our “conservative” friends understand it as little as you apparently do. All that phrase really refers to is the government powers that were NOT delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution. They remain with the States. (Read the health care decision for a good discussion of this.) Immigration, however, IS one of the powers delegated to the Federal government, and therefore the States have no “rights” in that area. (Unless, of course, Congress chooses to grant them some. That’s why one provision of SB1070 survived, there was a section of the Federal Immigration Act which allowed such State action. Repeal that section, and bye-bye SB1070.)

  • middleclasstaxpayer

    There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court Justices. The only public officials that should resign are Eric Holder & Obama!

  • What inconsistent logic! Typical Bubble Wrap conclusion! But that is the thought process the tea baggers, Religious Right and NEOCONS! One of the major reasons for the divisions of the USA.

  • Scalia should never have been put on the court!

  • The man is a clown

  • adler56

    Scalia is a very ugly man- having to look at his ugly face every day makes him very frustrated
    so he bitches about everyone who looks better than he does- like the entire world. On top of that he’s a Sunday Catholic- in other words a non-believer. We don’t need anyone like that on the Supreme Court or even in this country. Deport the wop.

  • 13observer

    The article states “Unaccountable power can lead to arrogance”… boy, don’t we know too well from Odumba’s recent moves.

  • When you mention the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, do not forget to include
    Scalia. Their ancestors from Europe gave life to Atilla the hun, Nero, Hiltler, the Bosnia cleansers, and when they ran out of space emigrated to America to have the formers poison this beautiful country.

    • EdC

      spanish Inquisition, Thomas, Roberts Chaney, George”W” Bush, George “HW” Bush, George Herbert Walker (Barabra Bush’s father) Prescot Bush, {look the last two up, on the internet} thanks OctavioE for letting me add to your list.

    • I have an sister in-law whose maiden name was Limbaugh. Politically, she is far left of anyone else I know. So its not the name or the ethnicity!

  • What the people need in government

    1. Get rid of the electoral college and let your vote really count.
    2. Get rid of the Senate and go to a One House Parliamentary system.
    3. Get rid of the two party control bottleneck. Open primaries in states, like California, are a start. A National Primary would be best.
    4. Limited time to campaign, limited TV time and money to finance campaigns. The SC rulings for Citizens United I and II will kill this country.
    5. Eliminate the battleground state fiasco!

  • 13observer

    Odumba screwed LABOR, now its his turn to get screwed. Get your votes from the gays and illegals you will stand up for. We will see if they can carry you in November!

    • metrognome3830

      The depth of your intelligence and your sharp wit are truly astounding.

  • We need a Constituional Convention to start liminting term limits — including those of Supreme Court Justices…….Let them go find honest work.

  • adler56

    Scalia is also a 1st generation American but strangely he’s an only child of a Catholic from Sicily-
    so much for his Catholic faith. No Catholics from the time he was born had one child- four or five was common. His old man was a phoney Catholic and so is he. I wonder if he has a long form birth certificate- he was supposdedly born in New Jersey- what italian wasn’t- oh yeah his old man- the Sicilian.

  • Joris Heise

    Three things keep in current with this Justice. 1) Justice Scalia’s great emphasis on “Originalism” was carefully and caringly refuted by Abraham Lincoln at Cooper Union; 2) Justice Scalia keeps touting the Constitution as THE law, ignoring his own religion’s emphasis on “natural law” and its teachings about justice and humanity; 3) Justice Scalia, as this article indicates, consistently flouts the “objectivity” and the “appearance” of propriety which we expect from our justice; and–this is extra, and a guess–Justice Scalia would have voted with the majority on the (immoral) Dred Scott decision because he believes (see above) in unusual definitions of “person.”

  • 13observer

    Obama = welfare for everyone… paid for by the middle class. Obama = cheap labor and lots of it. Don’t worry about jobs, there will be plenty when wages are next to nothing and the U.S. imports more illegal, impoverished workers from around the world to live on our welfare system until it is “tapped out” like Greece, Spain, Portugal etc.

    • There is no middle class left, thanks to 8 yrs of W in office. Tax cuts for the wealthy, benefit cuts for everyone else. And the brain-washed like you are like lemmings, following the others over the cliff.

  • So this guy wants to be elected to something – anything. He’s so far from impartial, and making statements that are lies about Obama is reprehensible. He needs to leave the supreme court as he’s totally unqualified to sit on that panel

  • tutidiez

    This Idiot Judge is Completely Out of Touch and Reality, there should be a rule reminding the Supreme Court Judges what is their Job, how they suppose to behave and when they suppose to keep their Trap Shut, Obviously Mr Scalia is doing none of this, and there should be a new rule that the rest of the Judges should be able to vote against any other Judge that brakes this Rules and should be fire from his job and be replace, this kind of behavior shouldn’t be Tolerated by the Supreme Court Judges or any Otrher Judge under the Skies of this Country

  • He should be impeached and removed from the court.

  • Scalia… Hmmm. That sounds like the name of an immigrant to me. When evaluating these types you have to consider how much race plays a part in everything they think, do, and say. When the hoardes of European immigrants came over here, that was O.K., no matter how little education they had, what communist, fascist block of nations they hailed from, or the degree of criminality they brought with them… they were accepted. Never mind the fact that the true owners of this land, the Native Americans, were murdered wholesale, their lands stolen, and their cultures written out of history. So I am not at all surprised by Scalia’s antics. But one day he wont be around anymore and his children, grandchildren, and their children will reap the wrath he has sewn.

  • AlfredSonny

    Lets help him quit by impeaching him and Clarence Uncle Tom

  • Jerpell

    I don’t agree with any of the liberal judges….I think they should quit!

    • metrognome3830

      I don’t agree with you. You should quit.

  • Jerpell

    The Conservatives think the liberal judges should quit….
    The liberals think the conservative judges should quit….
    So goes the world!

  • Scalia has no business being a justice on any level. His was a very foolish appointment.

  • The underlying reasoning to push so hard to get a Republican President is to appoint the Supreme Court’s new member for the retiring memebers. Load up the Court with Far Right Puppets. Four more years with the current members is unlikely.

  • yes he should be impeached,,,unworthy to be a judge

  • daffodilly

    Nothing says Supreme Court Judges can’t get wiggie just like the rest of us old people.

  • Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Should Quit. I am just saying. From even the Uber Liberal Standpoint of this publication, that is the case. Why? Because she has health issues that could kick up at any time. IF they did, what chance do you think that anyone so Politically Liberal would be confirmed to replace her? The chances are best now. Recent polls show that with the Senate seats that seem to be vulnerable to swinging one way or another Harry Reid’s hold on the majority is severely in question after the upcoming elections. The most reliable numbers I see seems to indicate that the Democrats could retain a two man majority, (and that is only by the two independents who caucus with them by the way — and the winds of change could blow them the other way as unlikely as that seems) or they could have an eight person deficit. Those are the outside numbers that seem reasonable at this point. That could change. those changes could be for the benefit or detriment of the Democrats. The middle number is that they become the minority party by 3 votes. If that is the case, Obama cannot expect to replace Ginsberg with another Liberal Activist elite. It just will not happen.

    So I don’t have to spill the denigrating Vitriol to make that point. But I could not resist taking a swing or two at her. She deserves it as much as Scalia does. And frankly, I hope that my advice is *not* taken in this matter. I expect the outcome will shift the Court farther away from Liberal Activism when she does retire. I fully expect her health to fail suddenly. Check the history of her health, and be *very* scared. She pretty much is the cornerstone of Liberal Activism on the Supreme Court. She is smart and capable, but not destined to be able to serve on that court forever.

    From my standpoint, it would be best that she does not resign. If the Republican’s Take the Senate, Obama will have little opportunity to replace her with another uber liberal again. He probably cannot already, his political coin is pretty much all spent — frittered away with dreams of socialism, universal health care and all. But if he gets another 4 years, do you really think the economy will improve? Your eggs are all in that basket friends. I am of the opinion that he is destroying the economy. The race for the presidency will not give the advantage of incumbency to the Democrats. If this is a close race, (and I think it is) it will be even a tougher sell to Americans to sign up for another Democrat, (or at least a Democrat who is not more moderate like Bill Clinton was) and I doubt seriously that the old war horse Ginsberg will effectively last another 13 years. She is not 76. She is 79.

    I am just saying. But no worries. I am happy for you to not listen to me and reason…

  • bobbime

    I agree that we should throw out current justices & elect by vote for a term of 8 years all future justices. Judges are not almighty and should only serve to uphold our constitutional rights, not their (or party) opinions.

  • E. J.
    You article ain’t worth squat.

  • At least he showed us his birth certificate.

    • metrognome3830

      Do you have proof of that?

  • Scalia’s mind is more boggled than the average American on immigration issues.

  • Hey I bet this writer and most of the morons below are devout Obama loving democrats. I’m an independent and this immigration BS has completely gotten out of hand.

    Hey illegals that Obama wants to make a meaningful contribution to American society, go back to your legal countries and make that contribution there. What is that, did you say something? Oh you want to wave your country’s flag here (Mexico) and proclaim you are proud Aztecs then get the benefits of being in the United States.

    If you are such proud Mexican patriots, then why would you leave the mess there that Mexico is, and try to make a MEANINGFUL contribution there to raise the standards THERE? You are not welcome illegally here – purposely being here illegally WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR THE RULES AND LAWS WE HAVE HERE.

    You think because there are millions of you illegally here all breaking the laws of the United States of America, that somehow makes it “okay” and “justified”.


    As for Obama reaching out to you, gay people, and the fact that gas is dropping – HEY – it’s an election year! You will be forgotten and gas will rise right after the election – mark my words!

  • Agree with the one below! Scalia is ” out there” as a judge & if anything an activist judge for the right!

  • Gammaanya

    Justice should be blind, impartial. None of them suitable to be in Supreme Court. It’s Kangaroo Court. They are bought and paid for by the BIG MONEY. One who also should resign or to be impeached is Thomas. He is a Judas.

  • on the right to own guns, the 2nd mendment, says a well regulated Militia being neccesarry to the

    security of a free state. I’m not talking against hunting weapons, and they should be clearly define.

    Weapons have catergories and they belong in their right place. The solution is that simple, because

    we have the National Guard,because we had no National Guard at the the time of the writing of

    the second amendment. The Constitution is a living document and we can clearly see that it grew

    from a Militia to the National Guard as proof of the intent.

  • sleeprn01

    I agree that Justice Scalia should either step down or be impeached. If he wants to be a politician then do it. But, Justice Scalia cannot have feet in both camps. Along with Justice Thomas, both justices attended a conservative gathering sponsored by the Koch brothers. One can only imagine how they were instructed to interpret the constitution!!!

  • George Merlis

    I’m sure he has an exceedingly lucrative deal at Fox News just waiting for him. He already sounds like one of their radical right-wing rabble rousers. Why not get paid for it?

  • Rae

    I dont see anything wrong with a Judge showing passionate feelings after having to judge the types of cases that fall to the Supreme Courts. I would not relish a position like that.

    It may seem political from our perspective but as far as I have seen the media has been hanging on every breath that comes from these Judges. If there were not a pack of wolves pen in hand to write about all of this, his opinion might have missed the ears of so many. I believe it is still a free country and you can always just choose to ignore what he has to say.

    He does have a right to an opinion and him being 70 plus years old (respect the elders please) and a judge would make me want to at least consider that his opinions have some history and basis. He is not just spouting off. He might be just voicing some of the opinions of his Generation.

    I dont think a person should have to give up thier job or that it makes it impossible for him to follow the laws or perform his duties by feelings alone.

    Good Luck.

    • rmarqua2921

      A justice of the supreme court getting into a political fray maybe palatable for some, not for me being a lawyer, but getting into a political argument from the Bench of the Supreme Court is totally out of bounds and the guy should be impeached! I question his ability as an impartial judge on anything!

  • Jack Wormer

    The Scalia-expose has given us all a CLEAR PICTURE into the mind of a MAFIA DON………

    And some of us still maintain that immigration gives the US not only hard-working men and women but “enriches” our “culture” as well……………………

  • At the least, term limits need to be imposed, on the Supreme Court. They have become less intellectual and more political; since the Bush debauchery, 0f 2000.

  • Yes, Scalia needs to step down…he is, too, political and set in his ways to represent, all, Americans.

  • 2ac911

    Disbanding the Supreme Court is a great idea. They can violate the Constitution with a stroke of the pen. They are out of touch with the reality being lived by the average American. They do have a new FROZEN YOUGURT MACHINE though. ASSHOLES THE WHOLE BUNCH OF THEM!!!

  • At the very least, let’s get rid of Scalia and Thomas.

  • onedonewong

    What a bunch of liberal PAP. Never in our history has a president attack the SC for its decisions yet a President who was a quota admission to college wants to go toe to toe with Scalia a brilliant Jurist?? barak can’t shine Scalia’s shoes

  • joyscarbo

    I feel that the Supreme Court should have terms of service. No more than 10 years and age limits as well.

  • I support Arizona and I believe everybody should be able to understand that it should be no big deal if you are asked to prove your citizenship or produce authorization verifying your legitimacy for being in the United States. We have been far to careless regarding the protection of our borders. I have no problem with the police checking everybody they stop for verification of citizenship. I am sick of the costs associated with illegals and that includes the twin towers in NYC to the dumbing down of our own students due to the costs associated educating illegal foreigners. To many people including el presidente obama want to reward lawbreakers with citizenship. Get real

  • How do we expect the Supreme Court to be impartial when they are selected based on partisanship? Until we eliminate parties we will be saddled with this issue, and I know that this won’t be in my lifetime.

  • Yes he needs to resign. He does not have regard for the decorum of the office he occupies. His holding on in the office is like eating his cake and having it at the same time.

  • Scalla was always voting on the negitive side of the court but ever since President Bush appointed Roberts Chief Justice, Judge Scalla has been more negitive in his views then before, both he and Judge Thomas are a disapointment to the Court, they both need to quit.

  • Shirl24112

    I agree with some of what you have to say but … the state is simply upholding what the Federal government would not enforce. The laws are already there…

  • Yes it is time for Justice Scalia to leave the bench. He is a perfect example of why we must change the Justice “for life” on the Supreme Court.

  • Asnak

    I believe the constitution is the corner stone of rule of law and democracy and the separation of power of the three branches of government. Unfotunately, I strongly think that the idea that our Supreme Court judges should have life time appointments should be revisited.

    I think it is about time that the Congress come up with an amendment to the constitution to eliminate the life time appointment our supreme court judges enjoy today as well as the power of the President to nominate a person to the court. Instead, I think our supreme court judges should be of the peoples choice through the voting ballot just as its done in Chicago for its High Court judges.

    This is my suggestion, I do not think the Supreme court should be constituted of nine justices, however, if the Congress chooses to limit the number up or down, that should be their prerogative. However, whatever number they decide on, they should redistrict the nation to that number. For example, if the Congress decide that there should be eight, nine or ten justices for the Supreme Court, they should devide the nation into eight, nine or ten districts or voting blocks and let the winners of each district or block (together) make up the Supreme Court.

    The next issue is what about the Chief Justice position. How do we choose the Chief Justice?
    Well, it is simple. The newly constituted Supreme Court justices should be empowered to choose one of their own to be the Chief Justice within the first week in office.

    The benefits are:
    The justices will be non-political and will owe no allegiance to any political party ( democrat, republican, tea party and independent).
    The justices will be more responsive and sensitive to the general public interest rather than the interest of their political inclination or affiliation.
    The general public will have the power to outvote any justices they deem him or her to be insensitve to their interest.
    The justices decisions will reflect the true interpretations of the constitution.

  • Scalia has been involved in some shady things with Dick H Cheney He is a disgrace to the high court and should be removed.

  • And what I said to Obozo applies to you too. You engage in insults because you have no reasoned response to make.

  • Hey Obozo:

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    But thanks for demonstrating metrognome3830 was wrong. Judging from your last remark, you can’t take it!