General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYet Again, A Scalia Dissent Is Used Against Him
Justice Antonin Scalia strongly objected to Thursday's Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, so it was amusing to see Chief Justice John Roberts use Scalia's own dissent in the last major Obamacare case against him. It was buried in a footnote and amounted to a small dart lobbed Scalia's way, especially when compared to Scalia's blistering dissent that ripped Roberts' legal reasoning.
To defend making the subsidies available to consumers everywhere, Roberts cited a line the dissent to the 2012 decision in favor of Obamacare, in which Scalia said, "Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."
Roberts used the line to argue that it "is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate" in a manner to limit the subsidies only to those states with state-operated exchanges, as the challengers in King v. Burwell argued.
This is not the first time Scalia has seen one of his dissents used against him. His dissent to the 2013 Windsor decision that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act was widely cited by lower courts to invalidate state bans on same-sex marriage.
###
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scalia-dissent-obamacare-used-against-him
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,021 posts)for the white sheet he currently wears only in his mind. I think the old boy is getting a bit senile if he can't even keep track of his own opinions.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)The main point being that he has a sense of the rightness of his position, and the text of the law or even his own former opinions doesn't really seem to matter so much as getting the "right" answer.
Bryant
George II
(67,782 posts)rurallib
(62,491 posts)cstanleytech
(26,367 posts)trying to argue that churches could be forced to wed gay couples which is pure unadulterated bullshit.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I think he will take an Extra Portly.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Now that scares me. Opus Dei is all orthopraxis, and theology and law be damned.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Ref: http://www.mond.at/opus.dei/opus.dei.uo.faq.html
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas all belong to Opus Dei.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Rich ones like him think they're doing the poor a favor by cutting off their aid because the poor have it too easy..
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,370 posts)It's always been easy to trip up people not arguing in good faith.
pansypoo53219
(21,016 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I imagine, though, that Justice Scalia is puzzled by having his own stupid words thrown back in his stupid face: "Hell, I never pay attention to what I've written before! Why does anyone else?"
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Someone commented to Rudolph Bing, manager of the Metropolitan Opera, that "George Szell is his own worst enemy." "Not while I'm alive, he isn't!" said Bing.
samsingh
(17,606 posts)gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I don't think Justice Scalia is very happy in his job; he should get his resume in order and start looking around.
samsingh
(17,606 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,021 posts)but his opinions are becoming more and more irrational and less and less based on any reasonable interpretation of the law. Fat Tony is the epitome of an "activist" judge, a term thrown at liberal courts when the right wingers don't agree with a decision. But Scalia is exactly that, and worse: he decides the result first, then tortures the law to fit that result. And he's doing it more and more obviously and irrationally.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)which made his utter wrongness easier and sometimes even rather entertaining to read. Now his opinions are pure Abe Simpson:
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,021 posts)Now they're just nuts.
randys1
(16,286 posts)rest of the world.
He could show them
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I wonder what it is like backstage at the ol' SC.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Thanks for the laugh.
SunSeeker
(51,824 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)He only panders to his right-wing masters. He is the archetype corrupt political judge.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)BELIEVES every word he writes. That's what he is. I know a guy, now a federal judge, who clerked for him on the DC Circuit. The opinions are his unvarnished core beliefs, though they have sounded more and more like Abe Simpson as the years go by.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)A judge is not supposed to issues decisions based on his personal beliefs.
A judge is expected to base his decisions on LAW.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)But that is the real Scalia. WYSIWYG.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)and the suggestion (not saying it is your suggestion) that he merely ignores the law in favor of his own personal beliefs has no basis in reality. I rarely agree with him, but I also rarely think that his arguments are dumb.
George II
(67,782 posts)....and insulting comments - comments directed toward his fellow justices.
I've never seen anything like this from a Supreme Court justice. He's had simply lost all sense of reality and objectivity.
tishaLA
(14,176 posts)I'm always amazed that conservatives talk about his "brilliance" when his opinions are often filled with snark, petulance, and phrases that are ultimately used against him. And even when they aren't snark filled and petulant, they aren't particularly well-reasoned.
Conservatives must have special criteria for brilliance.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)partners in the firm at which I was working was getting ready to argue a case in front of the Supremes. This was back in the late 1980s. John was a kind, gentle man, a lifelong liberal Democrat involved with the upper reaches of the state party, and never said a bad word about anyone. Small town MN boy who went from the U of MN to Harvard Law, where he was on the Law Review, graduated magna, and clerked for Felix Frankfurter.
The topic of the case came up in a meeting and someone asked him about Scalia, who had been one of his classmates. His dry response "I knew him in law school. Tony is very smart, but only half as smart as he thinks he is" and the twinkle in his eye said it all.
John won his case before the SCOTUS. Scalia dissented.
tishaLA
(14,176 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,021 posts)And that was, indeed, his reputation. Great story.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)who saw the practice of law as a learned profession. John was one of a kind and as good a human being as ever walked the earth.
herding cats
(19,569 posts)I can't believe he's comfortable in his own skin, what with all the anger and hate inside of him.
I shudder to imagine what his dissent to the gay marriage ruling will be if it comes down on the side of civil rights for all as it should.
George II
(67,782 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)of sticking a shiv in a colleague.
alfredo
(60,082 posts)Jiggery-Pokerey is a game played at lemon parties. How did Scalia know that?
AndreaCG
(2,331 posts)Heh heh. Yep, Scalia certainly COULD be into them.
alfredo
(60,082 posts)asjr
(10,479 posts)Kyblue1
(216 posts)spanone
(135,952 posts)well, there is clarence the mute
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Vinca
(50,336 posts)ananda
(28,924 posts)..
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)ProfessorGAC
(65,466 posts)In 2012 he was basing that on the original intent of the framers. Now, he's basing his view on the original intent of the framers. Obviously the framers changed their mind between 2012 and now, even though they've all been dead for 200 years or more.
Not sure how you missed something so obvious.
bucolic_frolic
(43,551 posts)which cites facts, case law, precedent.
But there seem to me to be 2 to 3 justices who are simply not working very
hard. They spout off like journalists, or are a simple knee-jerk to the right
wing position.
Yeah. Scalia, Alito, Thomas.
These lifetime appointments. Some presidents have appointed SIX justices.
We'd get more stability and less partisanship with retirement ages, limits to appointments, and at
least one for each President who serves at least 4 years.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)His head exploding is making this day even better than it already is. I can't wait for the day that this narrow minded bigot is no longer in the Supreme Court. Thanks Ronnie for appointing this jerk.
Peregrine Took
(7,421 posts)or where ever the fat cats are going these days?
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)isn't upon Roberts to show him the door? He is, after all, Chief Justice, i.e. the boss. I know it's a lifetime appointment but if Scalia is not functioning in a rational manner or is having memory issues there must be a way to push him toward retirement. Of course that would open up a slot for Obama to fill which would open a whole new can of worms. I think I'd prefer the worms.