Justice Antonin Scalia mocks Obama during Supreme Court arguments

foundit66 · #1 (**permalink**) 07-12-2016, 05:33 PM

Quote:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia went after President Obama on Monday with a thinly veiled reference to Obama as a “self-interested president.”

He hit at the president once before — in 2012 when the high court heard a challenge to Arizona’s restrictive immigration law. Scalia was at it again as the Supremes heard a challenge to Obama’s use of executive powers.

After confirmation of appointments was held up by a Republican filibuster, the president filled vacant jobs two years ago.

The Senate was away from Washington, D.C. It was not formally in recess, but holding a minute-long pro forma “session” each day.

The Constitution says: “The president shall have powers to fill up vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.”

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrelli argued the language is ambiguous enough to permit recess appointments when the Senate is meeting only a minute each day.

“It’s been assumed to be ambiguous by self-interested presidents,” said Scalia. The remark caused a distinct stir in the courtroom according to Talking Points Memo’s court reporter.

Scalia took the line that presidents can fill jobs only after the formal adjournment of a Congress every two years, as Washington, D.C. awaits the seating of a new Congress.

The ultraconservative justice deployed sarcasm to make his point. “If you ignore the Constitution often enough, its meaning changes,” Scalia argued.

Verrelli tried to argue of possible disruption, namely challenges to decisions by federal judges named when the Senate was in pro forma sessions.

“You really don’t think we’re going to go back and rip out every decision by a judge,” Scalia shot back.

Justice Antonin Scalia mocks Obama during Supreme Court arguments - Strange Bedfellows — Politics News

I think a trip down memory lane is warranted as some people seem to invent new standards they apply to liberals, but ignore them when a conservative previously violated that standard.

Quote:

Scalia has become increasingly political during the Obama administration. He described the Voting Rights Act as a “racial entitlement” and has delivered sharp opinions on topics like marriage equality. He’s against it.

Did that invalidate him from hearing a case on it?

MrLiberty · #2 (**permalink**) 07-12-2016, 05:43 PM

comparing apples and oranges doesn't work.

foundit66 · #3 (**permalink**) 07-12-2016, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLiberty

comparing apples and oranges doesn't work.

Claiming it's apples and oranges while providing absolutely no reasoning for alleging that doesn't work...

winston53660 · #4 (**permalink**) 07-12-2016, 09:59 PM

Oh how about this one where "blacks" are supposedly "slower"

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well,” he said. “One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”

The 11 most memorable Scalia quotes - POLITICO

racist?

MrLiberty · #5 (**permalink**) 07-13-2016, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Claiming it's apples and oranges while providing absolutely no reasoning for alleging that doesn't work...

There is no comparing what ginsburg said to what Scalia said. obama was already in office he wasn't a candidate. Now, if you had said that Scalia should recuse himself from cases involving obama after he made his statement I might have agreed, but you didn't.

We know now that if Trump is elected ginsburg would not respect him nor have confidence in him and should recuse herself from cases involving Trump.

apples and oranges.

MrLiberty · #6 (**permalink**) 07-13-2016, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660

Oh how about this one where "blacks" are supposedly "slower"

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well,” he said. “One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”

The 11 most memorable Scalia quotes - POLITICO

racist?

nothing to do with the op of course.......

jimbo · #7 (**permalink**) 07-13-2016, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660

Oh how about this one where "blacks" are supposedly "slower"

“There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well,” he said. “One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”

The 11 most memorable Scalia quotes - POLITICO

racist?

Scalia was speaking of placing blacks in situations far beyond their ability solely because of their race. A situation created by affirmative action and quotas. Thus setting up failure.

When that is done, there are two possible outcomes. The person will fail, or the system must be dumbed down to create the false impression of success.

He wasn't speaking of all blacks. Blacks winning a position in direct competition with all groups tend to perform pretty much the same as anybody else.

cnredd · #8 (**permalink**) 07-13-2016, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I think a trip down memory lane is warranted as some people seem to invent new standards they apply to liberals, but ignore them when a conservative previously violated that standard.

So a Supreme Court justice's criticism of someone already elected is now the same as a Supreme Court justice trying to swing an election...

foundit66 · #9 (**permalink**) 07-13-2016, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

So a Supreme Court justice's criticism of someone already elected is now the same as a Supreme Court justice trying to swing an election...

ROFLMAO
Seriously?
You think that some people are waiting on Ginsburg's endorsement to decide who to vote for?

Did you read the other thread's article?
The focus was on other people's comments that Ginsburg might need to recuse herself from any case involving Trump based on her commentary of Trump.
Thus, I presented another justices comments on Obama and am asking why we didn't hear people demanding that Scalia would need to recuse himself in Obama cases...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLiberty

There is no comparing what ginsburg said to what Scalia said. obama was already in office he wasn't a candidate. Now, if you had said that Scalia should recuse himself from cases involving obama after he made his statement I might have agreed, but you didn't.

Wow.
Okay. To spell it out for you, that's exactly what I was referencing when I was talking about "...some people seem to invent new standards they apply to liberals, but ignore them when a conservative previously violated that standard."
What did you think those words meant?

Regardless, I find it amusing that you "might have agreed", but you still try to pretend it's apples and oranges.
Can't actually bring yourself to honestly agree with a liberal's objective point, but you still want to disregard it...

MrLiberty · #10 (**permalink**) 07-13-2016, 03:36 PM

I disregard what you say not because you are a liberal, but because most of the time you do what you are doing with this, trying to make two different cases look the same.

You are the king of spin and horse **** that's for sure.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
Spencer Collins

The Following User Says Thank You to winston53660 For This Useful Post:
Deckard

The Following User Says Thank You to MrLiberty For This Useful Post:
FrancSevin

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
300 H and H, AZRWinger

The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
300 H and H