Next Chief Justice U. S. Supreme Court--sexual orgies encouraged - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-25-2004, 11:04 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Next Chief Justice U. S. Supreme Court--sexual orgies encouraged

Quote:
Scalia Describes ‘Dangerous’ Trend

By DANIEL J. HEMEL
Crimson Staff Writer

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions protecting abortion rights, upholding the legalization of assisted suicide and striking down anti-sodomy laws represent a “dangerous” trend, Justice Antonin Scalia told a Harvard audience last night.

Scalia held the rapt attention of the jam-packed John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum last night, although some students and faculty said they were put off by his conservative judicial philosophy.

In a freewheeling question-and-answer session following the justice’s prepared remarks, an African-American graduate student challenged Scalia to defend the constitutionality of racial profiling.

The Kennedy School student, Larry Harris Jr., said that his Fourth and 14th Amendment rights had been violated when he was pulled over in Cambridge for—as he put it—“driving while black.”

Scalia was less convinced.

“What the Fourth Amendment prohibits is ‘unnecessary’ search and seizure,” the justice said. “Is it racial profiling prohibited by the Fourth Amendment for the police to go looking for a white man with blue eyes? Do you want to stop little old ladies with tennis shoes?”

The eccentric justice launched into a parody of a police radio dispatch under a scenario in which profiling were prohibited. “The suspect is 5’10, we know what he looks like, but we can’t tell you,” Scalia quipped—drawing laughter from the audience.

Harris was less amused. He said afterwards that “the flippancy with which [Scalia] dealt with the question was insensitive. It shows that on issues like this, he might be a little out of touch.”

Earlier in the evening, Scalia ridiculed the European Court of Human Rights’ 2000 decision striking down British legislation that bars group gay sex on the grounds that the law intruded upon private life.

He asked—rhetorically—how many individuals would have to be involved in a sex act for it to no longer qualify as “private.”

“Presumably it is some number between five and the number of people required to fill the Coliseum,” Scalia joked.

An audience member later rose to ask Scalia “whether you have any gay friends, and—if not—whether you’d like to be my friend.”

“I probably do have some gay friends,” Scalia said. “I’ve never pressed the point.”

But Scalia said his personal views on social issues have no bearing on his courtroom decisions.

“I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged,” Scalia said.

“But it is blindingly clear that judges have no greater capacity than the rest of us to decide what is moral.”

Scalia graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1960 and become the first Italian-American Supreme Court justice in 1986.

He said that jurists should be selected for their “lawyerly skills and judicial temperament.” But he said that the Court’s progressive voices had politicized the judicial process in recent years.

Dunster House resident Zachary D. Liscow ’05 rose during the question-and-answer session to suggest that Scalia’s own vote in the controversial 2000 presidential election case could be viewed as an example of the “judicial activism” Scalia deplores.

“I do not mean by [‘judicial activism’] judges actively doing what they’re supposed to do,” Scalia responded. He said the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to order a recount in Miami-Dade County—a decision Scalia and his colleagues overruled—amounted to a “clear violation of the federal constitution.”

And while conservative justices have been criticized for effectively deciding the 2000 election themselves, Scalia quipped: “Would you rather have the president of the United States decided by the Supreme Court of Florida?”

While Scalia’s prepared speech—which lasted less than half an hour—was narrowly focused, his remarks in the 20-minute question-and-answer question spanned a broad range of topics.

In one of the more bizarre moments of the evening, Scalia mentioned—in passing—that he thought the 17th Amendment was “a bad idea.”

The 17th Amendment provides for the direct election of senators.

The students, faculty and community members who held tickets to last night’s event were the winners of an online lottery in which 2,016 entrants competed for 850 spots.

The fortunate few who scored seats walked out of the forum wowed.

“That was quite possibly the most eloquent speech I have ever heard,” said Hurlbut resident Eduardo E. Santacana ’08.

—Staff writer Daniel J. Hemel
article here
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 11:27 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Quote:
In one of the more bizarre moments of the evening, Scalia mentioned—in passing—that he thought the 17th Amendment was “a bad idea.”

The 17th Amendment provides for the direct election of senators.
Is this is a strange individual?

Most believe W appoint him to Chief Justice.

Is this reason enough to vote for Kerry/
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 12:52 PM   #3
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 03:48 AM
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 12:57 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 09:48 AM
goodness.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 02:27 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
dandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: styrofoam peanut commune
Posts: 4,310
Local Time: 06:48 AM


him as the next chief justice? now, that's disturbing.
__________________
dandy is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 04:54 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 04:48 AM
Just another reason to effect regime change, ASAP.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 05:18 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:48 AM
What is the logic behind the calls for "regime change" in this context? That Scalia is the defacto successor to Rehnquist? That discussion of Constitutional principles cannot be reduced to friendly soundbites?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 05:22 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 04:48 AM
Rehnquist is gone. Whether Scalia becomes Chief Justice or not is relatively irrelevant. What is relevant is whom Bush will appoint. I shudder at the thought, considering he believes Scalia to be the model Supreme Justice. Henceforth, Bush must go, ASAP (for a multitude of other reasons as well, just in case anyone was flip flopping over this).
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 06:25 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Rehnquist is not gone. He has the most curable form of cancer. He'll be back.

As for the next appointment, they have been shamefully politicized since the Bork.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 08:55 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 04:48 AM
Oh God, help us!!
__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 10-25-2004, 09:05 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 04:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Rehnquist is not gone. He has the most curable form of cancer. He'll be back.
He's 80 years old.

And since when is thyroid cancer the most treatable form or carcinoma? I can tell you from research experience that I know for a fact that when caught at equally early stages, skin cancer is more "curable", and so are some forms of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Also, it depends on what type of thyroid cancer he has - if it's anaplastic or MTC, the prognosis is extremely poor due to a quick metastasis.

I don't expect him to stay on in his position for very long, regardless of his bout with cancer, in which I wish him the very best of luck. Research is particularly promising in the slow spreading forms of thyroid cancer.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com