Precious.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/supremes_06.html

Given enough time and we attorneys that have half a brain can figure out things without being told.

That’s what separates the A, B and C students. Well it was a slippery slope in Law School. I started out with a 3.5 for the first year and then I took it easy. I had not a life out side of law school. I was afraid of flunking out and then I realized that I could pass and still have fun except for 6 to 8 weeks during the year. I chose the path of least resistance to my basic nature.

I look back at the McCombs School of Bidness and wonder how I even got in as well, but I passed. I did get an Accounting degree in 3 worked for 6 months and then went back to school for Marketing.

I thank you for your chat, sir.

I retired from the Federal government, although not as an LEO; hence ‘Former’, and not retired LEO. I had eighteen and one-half years of duty as a Federal law enforcement officer.

Bunker? Oh my.

O.K.,

I confess to naked duck hunting with Scalia and Dick, while accidently shooting my friend in the face. Fortunately, she apologized to me, so everything’s fine now.

That was too bad about Scalia being exposed because he does value the right to privacy for himself so highly. Oh Well. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

Back to the bunker for me. Have a good evening.

Well, well, I am offended. I was just reading about Scalia and his desire to have his private life open to the public. So I figure you would as well.

Like Gyges, I’ve already said too much:)

So what kind of “No Good” were you up to?

Thank you for what you said. In an open, democratic society, difference of opinion is to be cherished not repressed. Vigorous debate is one ot the best qualities of this website. Anyone who understands the Constitution and respects what JT is trying to do here, values it.

I do not read Patty posts but I get some idea of them from what others write. My philosophy is to ignore her type of personal and ignorant attacks. I just wasn’t posting because I was up to no good most of the day!

Again thanks. I know you and I don’t agree on things but I’m glad you are posting here. I do agree with you about FFLEO!

Jill

It is good to recognize the new people and what they have to offer and contribute to this site.

You are a person of integrity, how did you last as a LEO with the Feds? Oh, you never said you retired.

Please do not take the bait. I have noticed that you have not been posting. I enjoy the open exchange it is fun, although I may disagree with you, I enjoy reading.

He was admitted to the Cardiac Service and given a bland diet while under observation – overnight, only.

Good to notice that you moved over to the main Blog (Blawg) Tab from the BIO Tab and not to the Latest Column Tab. Welcome.

Old man Judge Scal (scowl) looks like a mafia puppet in that thumbnail photo accompanying this topic thread, especially the way his arms are positioned—sans the active puppet strings.

To me this was “deeply worried” in his own words. Though not a lawyer by certificate he was a lexiphile at heart:

“The people who hate lawyers would, if their logic was to be extended, repeal both Constitution and Magna Carta and we would be happily returned to serf and Lord where order and certainty was restored to human society.

Too bad there are lawyers indeed! Too bad there is a Law, they argue in courts. Muzzle them, pillory them, slander them!

Or better yet, subvert them, suborn them, co-opt them. There will always be willing dogs to lie at the feet of their masters.

And there will always be polemicists who argue the virtues of Power unchecked.”

I will speak from my experience and I’m certain others will speak of him as well. D.W. had worked for the Federal? govt. One of his last posts described him as having blacked out, waking up in the hospital, being forced to eat phood known as “the cardiac diet”!

His posts were always deep, thoughtful, unique, well researched, kind-spirited, and intelligent–to name of few of their qualities. He only posted a few times after describing the hospital visit. As he had posted here regularly I assume the worst, but hope for the best.

I think you can google, deeply worried on jonathanturley to find some of his many posts. You won’t be sorry that you did.

Jill

You can’t change our blog history. We’re bonded together
- forever.

Bob,

“He is evil incarnate.”

I spread that word as fast as I can.

mespo,

Please avoid Bolivia.

“mespo, DW admired you very much. You were like Redford to his Newman.”

************

Thank you Patty C. I can’t recall a finer compliment. I know he felt the same way about you.

The federal bench is unbalanced:

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/03/here-come-de-conservative-judges.html

I do not follow what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that you are for Obama? That is all I could get out of this. Please explain. Thank you.

That’s pretty much it; but you left out the element that makes Scalia worth despising.

By taking a textualist, formalist approach to the document that both Hamilton and Madison agreed was predicated upon the existence and acknowledgment of inalienable rights, Scalia anoints himself as Law itself by disregarding the Hamilton/Madison paradigm and formulating any outcome determination he desires.

He’s evil incarnate.

It is often said of Justice Scalia that he does not suffer fools gladly. More accurately, he does not suffer disagreement with his positions gladly, which I suppose makes him a soul mate of Dick Cheney. So strong are his ideological leanings that he is not reluctant to incorporate derogatory dicta into his opinions, as though he felt it necessary to warn the bar in advance not to ask him to consider issues he has already ruled upon in his mind.

An example of this propensity appeared in his concurrence in the Pleasant Grove City v. Summum case, the park monument case that was the subject of a recent thread on this site. That case was argued and decided under the Free Speech Clause, although some of us, including me, wondered why it had not been litigated under the Establishment Clause. Without the benefit of any argument based upon alternative First Amendment theories, Justice Scalia gratuitously let us all know that he has already foreclosed all other avenues of attack. “The city,” he wrote, “ought not fear that today’s victory has propelled it from the Free Speech Clause frying pan into the Establishment Clause fire. Contrary to Respondent’s intimation, there are very good reasons to be confident that the park displays do not violate any part of the First Amendment.” Not that anyone asked, of course, but the city fathers of Pleasant Grove are likely relieved to know that they can do whatever the hell they please with religion in the public square without worrying about pesky interference from us Madisonian nut jobs. And it’s nice to know that we need not waste our time and energy presenting issues concerning which Justice Scalia has given us the benefit of his ruling in advance. That’s judicial economy for ya. Come to think of it, he could have crafted Judge Bybee’s memo with maybe a single phone call to the vice-president. No wonder these guys are so comfortable around shotguns.

Child’s play for a students of Locke…

http://discoverjohnlocke.com/quotes.html

“Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to”. (Second Treatise, Chapter 18).

“(Tyranny is) … when the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion”. (Second Treatise, Chapter 18).

As you probably guessed, I was being sarcastic in showing my undying love for Lord Scalia.

Speaking of the amendment I spent my third year of law school researching and writing about, it does not confer any rights, but acts merely as Hamiltons reminder of the rule of construction–expounded in Fed 84.

Goldberg in Griswold almost had it right, but he kept using the same language as the Douglas plurality; i.e. implying that the right was conferred by the amendment — just as Douglas said the right was conferred by the penumbras of (insert what you want here).

The only rights set forth by the 9th Amendment are the rights that can be easily extracted by analytic judgments; i.e the concept of the predicate being contained within the concept of the subject.

Rights that cannot be alienated must be ‘retained.’

“AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”

“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”

And what pray tell is the most fundamental stick in the bundle of self-ownership rights?

That’s right; privacy.

SIYOM,

Bob

P.S.

Rights confer power; not vice versa. Accordingly, I do not derive my right of privacy from a sovereign of nine; e.g. in Griswold.

I agree if you cannot or won’t and have the opportunity to protect then how can you claim that your right to privacy has been infringed?

Strictly(constructionist)Speaking of course.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy

The Right To Privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public’s attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th’s search and seizure limits, and the 5th’s self-incrimination limit.

I went back and reviewed the text of the constitution. From the perspective of our lord textualist Scalia, there’s absolutely no text protecting a right of … how do you say… ‘privacy’ in the constitution.

Pity.

This is mostly for ‘Sundance’, but surely most remember ‘Burt’s
‘South American Getaway’…

“This is so because it violates the underlying principle in our enforcement of the criminal law. Ours is the accusatorial, as opposed to the inquisitorial, system. Such has been the characteristic of Anglo-American criminal justice since it freed itself from practices borrowed by the Star Chamber from the Continent whereby an accused was interrogated in secret for hours on end.”

Game. Set. Match. Try these bastards!

DW was a truly great man. He is sorely missed.

“deeply worried
1, February 20, 2008 at 9:45 pm
And one last time (I promise you)

Watts v Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949)

Mr Justice Frankfurter announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice Murphy and Mr Justice Rutledge [two sainted souls] join: [excerpts follow]

“There is torture of mind as well as body; the will is as much affected by fear as by force. And there comes a point where this Court should not be ignorant as judges of what we know as men. See Taft, C.J., in the Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20, 37.”

“A confession by which life becomes forfeit must be the expression of free choice. A statement, to be voluntary, of course need not be volunteered. But if it is the product of sustained pressure by the police, it does not issue from a free choice. When a suspect speaks because he is overborne, it is immaterial whether he has been subjected to a physical or a mental ordeal. Eventual yielding to questioning under such circumstances is plainly the product of the suction process of interrogation, and therefore the reverse of voluntary. We would have to shut our minds to the plain significance of what here transpired to deny that this was a calculated endeavor to secure a confession through the pressure of unrelenting interrogation. The very relentlessness of such interrogation implies that it is better for the prisoner to answer than to persist in the refusal of disclosure, which is his constitutional right. To turn the detention of an accused into a process of wrenching from him evidence which could not be extorted in open court, with all its safeguards, is so grave an abuse of the power of arrest as to offend the procedural standards of due process.”

Now comes the heart of Frankfurter’s analysis:

“This is so because it violates the underlying principle in our enforcement of the criminal law. Ours is the accusatorial, as opposed to the inquisitorial, system. Such has been the characteristic of Anglo-American criminal justice since it freed itself from practices borrowed by the Star Chamber from the Continent whereby an accused was interrogated in secret for hours on end. See Ploscowe, The Development of Present-Day Criminal Procedures in Europe and America, 48 Harv.L.Rev., 433, 457-58, 467-473 (1935). Under our system, society carries the burden of proving its charge against the accused not out of his own mouth. It must establish its case not by interrogation of the accused, even under judicial safeguards, but by evidence independently secured through skillful investigation. “The law will not suffer a prisoner to be made the deluded instrument of his own conviction.” 2 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown c. 46, § 34 (8th ed., 1824). The requirement of specific charges, their proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the protection of the accused from confessions extorted through whatever form of police pressures, the right to a prompt hearing before a magistrate, the right to assistance of counsel, to be supplied by government when circumstances make it necessary, the duty to advise an accused of his constitutional rights — these are all characteristics of the accusatorial system and manifestations of its demands.”

“Protracted, systematic and uncontrolled subjection of an accused to interrogation by the police for the purpose of eliciting disclosures or confessions is subversive of the accusatorial system. It is the inquisitorial system without its safeguards.”

Now this is the common-law, due process accusatorial system that the distinguished jurists of the previous generation left us.

And which if Scalia had his way, would be dismantled under the name of State security, and a new edifice of inquisitorial law erected.”

BTW thank you JT for that link to your older Scalia post, “Scalia and the Advent of Celebrity Justice.” I was able to reacquaint myself with some of the wisdom we so abundantly enjoyed when our friend, “deeply worried,” roamed this blog. His wit and analysis were gems in a dunghill (my dung included), and, like Patty C, I do miss him very much.
—
mespo, DW admired you very much. You were like Redford to his Newman.

All that said the man is not a crook, or corrupt in a general sense. He is mentally unable to grasp another point of view and to empathize with people outside of his circle of approval. He may well be a highly intelligent man, but he fits my definition of a very ignorant one. If a human is incapable of putting themselves in someone else’s shoes, so to speak, they suffer from ignorance/intolerance. If a human can not look at belief systems, other than their own and not be capable of understanding the reasoning behind it (agreement is irrelevant)then they are ignorant and beyond that dangerous. This is so because then all belief system’s differing from one’s own become threatening and therefore need to be stamped out.

In this instance Scalia is incapable of seeing the irony of being hoisted on his own petard. He will use torturous rationalizations to differentiate between his remarks and the resultant actions and never realize his own hypocrisy.
He is a Robert Bork type, who made it through to SCOTUS and discredits all who voted him on board.