Scalia did NOT say that he would have voted for segregation

[ThePantaloon.com]

I dislike Scalia and his strict constructionist views of the Constitution, but we cannot be like Fox News and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and all the other rightwing buffoons who don't verify the facts before complaining.

When I heard and read the stories about Scalia supposedly saying he would dissent in Brown v. Board of Education, it just didn't sound right. Even for that rotund rightwing rat Scalia.

So I went to the source video of the debate. The link is below. Go to the 22 minute mark and listen for a couple of minutes. He posits some wrong-headed, rhetorical questions about whether the 14th Amendment protects same-sex marriage or equal pay for women, but he does NOT say that he would have dissented in the Brown case.

He said that he would have been with Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson as an "originalist" judge. Plessy's majority upheld the notion of "separate but equal," and Harlan was the lone dissent. Scalia said the text of the Constitution "prohibited racial discrimination." Hence, Scalia never said he would have dissented in Brown.

So while Scalia may be a conservative arrogant rightwinger, he simply didn't say that Brown v. Board of Education was wrong.

Let's get our facts straight before we make our arguments, otherwise we end up looking as foolish as the other side.

THE VIDEO: http://tv.azpm.org/kuat/segments/2009/10/26/kuat-a-conversation-on-the-constitution/

[Captain Hilts]

1. I apologize for my snarky comments, but, it's sad that it was seen as even remotely possible. nt

[Eric J in MN]

2. Thanks for researching this. NT

NT

[SDuderstadt]

3. Would you join us in the 9/11 forum?

This precisely what I keep saying to the "truthers" who, thereupon, turn around and ask me why I am "defending Bush".

[ThePantaloon.com]

4. In New York on 9/11

As someone who lived a couple miles from 9/11 on that day, I don't relish the idea of arguing with people who think it's a conspiracy. Is that what the forum is about, I'm guessing?

[SDuderstadt]

7. Unfortunately, yes...

it often descends into lunacy. A perfect example is the contingent who denies any planes actually took place in the attack and, no, I'm not making this up. Frankly, I think it embarrasses liberalism in general and DU in particular.

[ThePantaloon.com]

13. If a lunatic sat down next to you on the subway...

and started ranting about the aliens living in his testicles, would you debate or move to another car?

[SDuderstadt]

19. I'd throw him out the window...

but that's just me.

[Solomon]

14. You mean GOVERNMENT conspiracy, right?

After all, it WAS a conspiracy since more than one person was involved.

[ThePantaloon.com]

17. Yes, correct.

[eomer]

47. You mean US GOVERNMENT conspiracy, right?

Because it's pretty clear that both the PAKISTANI AND SAUDI GOVERNMENTS were part of the conspiracy.

[CBGLuthier]

5. Accuracy? On DU? Asking for a lot now.

Just a few short weeks ago I was called names for pointing out that a certain grotesque radio announcer might not have said the worst things being attributed to him.

Some prefer outrage and hysteria over accuracy.

[ecstatic]

6. He still needs to retire.

OK so the quote was wrong. Can we just drop it and not devote endless posts and OPs to defending Scalia now? He's still a RW asshole.

[ThePantaloon.com]

9. I'm not defending him

I'm defending the facts - that's all. I don't like the guy at all, but I don't want the right to point at us and say we don't get our stories straight either.

[SDuderstadt]

12. I'm with you 100% on this....

the "shoot first, ask questions later" crowd is an absolute embarrassment to DU.

[T Wolf]

8. Can you prove that he NEVER said that? Didn't think so. In the war against the reich, NO weapon

should be off limits.

Creative narration is an effective tool and should be used. "Fighting fair" against an enemy who has constantly and consistently shown that it does not follow any rules is a sure road to defeat. We cannot afford that.

[SDuderstadt]

10. "Creative narration is an effective tool and should be used"

I could not disagree more.

[T Wolf]

22. IBTL? - to use the acronym so loved by the apologists.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Who the fuck are you calling an apologist....

dude?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. Is it okay to lie about fellow DUers also?

[ThePantaloon.com]

11. Did you look at the linked video?

"Didn't think so?" It's in the video of him - are you going to say it's doctored? Come on, dude, grow up.

[T Wolf]

24. I don't give a shit what the video shows. If anything can be used totake down the scumbag,

I'm all for it.

[SDuderstadt]

26. New Democratic Party slogan....

"We're better liars than the GOP".

No thanks, dude.

[Posteritatis]

15. Yay! Let's all become liars! The GOP says it's okay! (nt)

[Seeking Serenity]

45. We have to destroy the village in order to save it. (eom)

[immoderate]

16. If we adopt their rules, we've lost.

--imm

[ThePantaloon.com]

18. Exactly - then there is no truth

[T Wolf]

21. We are losing, in case you haven't noticed. But if it is more important to feel good about

losing while playing by a set of rules that the enemy ignores, go right ahead.

Personally, I would rather...

1) end the war
2) get real healthCARE reform
3) etc., etc., etc., etc.

[SDuderstadt]

23. I guess you also need to study the logical fallacy known as...

"false dilemma".

[T Wolf]

29. You approach this as if it was merely an academic exercise. Politics ain't a debate society

because there are real-world consequences to those Roberts Rules of Order conversations in Congress.

The ONLY thing that matters is results. How we get there is secondary, if that.

[SDuderstadt]

30. So, the end justifies the means?

Hmmm, who does that remind me of? Oh, yeah...the GOP.

And Robert's Rules of Order isn't about Logic, dude.

[T Wolf]

33. RRoO is about polite conversational rules. As if it is possible (or desirable) to have calm,

reasoned debates about some issues.

e.g., Some think slavery is good. Some think it is bad. Let's have tea and discuss as if both sides are equally valid.

That is the Fuck Nuze model of fair and balanced. And it is fucked.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Dude,,,,let's get something straight....

I'm a "fight fire with fire" kinda guy when it comes to dealing with the GOP. That means go after them with the same passion and vigor that they go after us. I never advocated "polite conversational rules", dude. And your example is a logical fallacy knwn as "splitting the difference" which I never advocated.

Lastly, if your reference to the "Fuck Nuze" model is in any way a swipe at me or implies anything about my political leanings, you can stow it.

We're not talking about "polite conversational rules", dude. We're talking wrong or right. I am a Democrat because it's the party of right, dude. Now, go argue with yourself or something.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. So you think slavery is good?

[Posteritatis]

50. Okay, please let us know just how far you want to take that one

Just the same making-shit-up mindset the Republicans default to? Further? Wanna up it to threats? Throwing the force of new laws against them? Violence and intimidation? Worse?

You don't get to say things like "the only thing that matters is results" unless you've got the nerve to actually back that up. So tell us, just how far would you be willing to go to get your way politically, and why should I think you're the least bit better than any other Sulla wannabe for having that attitude?

[GirlinContempt]

53. I know I'm totally going where you should never go

and 'Godwin'ing myself, but how about Germany?

Look at what Hitler and the Nazi party did for the majority of Germans, and the tactics used to do it?
What about Nazi medical research, or the Japanese 'research' done on US soldiers who were POW's?

Results are never the only thing that matters. That is why torture is not acceptable.

[rd_kent]

28. What does that have to do with NOT LYING?

Telling the TRUTH is ALWAYS the best choice, period. Do you not agree?

[T Wolf]

31. Always? Your child is held at gunpoint. The gunman says, "Say I am right or I kill the kid."

What do you do, oh enlightened one?

"I'm sorry, but you are not correct." BANG!

or

"Yes, you are most certainly correct, sir." Hug.

Your choice.

[SDuderstadt]

32. What the fuck are you babbling about now...

dude?

[T Wolf]

34. "the TRUTH is ALWAYS the best choice." Now you have a dead child. Happy?

[SDuderstadt]

38. Oh, for Pete's sake....

hyperbolize much?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. So you would be okay with killing a child if it would get Scalia off the bench?

[rd_kent]

43. Oh FFS! Could you make a MORE idiotic argument?

Always SOMEONE, isnt there.....

[ThePantaloon.com]

51. Misstating the facts won't win in the end

[Rage for Order]

52. Losing? By whose count?

We've got the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, and one Supreme Court justice in Obama's first 6 months. In what world is that considered "losing"?

"But if it is more important to feel good about losing while playing by a set of rules that the enemy ignores, go right ahead.

You sound like the right-wingers when they talk about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who are in favor of torturing people to get answers. They don't play by the rules, why should the US military?

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

20. I think you need to study the logical fallacy known as...

"trying to shift the burden of proof".

[ecstatic]

27. I have a slightly different take

If we find out a rumor about a RW thug is not true, just stop talking about it--no need to endlessly correct the record or continue to discuss the false rumor. Just change topics!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. Does that include murder, framing them for murder, etc or just lying about them?

[Igel]

49. He's done his job.

He's shown that a claim was false. He doesn't need to show that people lied. False is quite enough.

To continue to push the line after it's shown false moves into lying territory. At that point all you're after is power, nihilistic power. That's not progressivism. That can be war. But it's nihilistic war. There's been enough of that on the right *and* on the left.

The default hypothesis is that somebody did *not* say something unless there's evidence that they did. Otherwise if somebody said, "Obama said that he wants to hire some terrorists to nuke DC while he's away eating escargot in Paris," well, you'd have no real response. "No he didn't!" "Yes he did." "No, he didn't." That's not an argument, it's a series of denials. (A la Monty Python.) The appropriate response is, "So, where and when did Obama say he wanted to nuke Washington?" If there's no response, there's no response and it can be dismissed by thinking people.

Yes, my attitude is that if there's an insufficiency of thinking people then, in a democracy, the country gets what it gets. It's a pity about the victims, but it's a democracy.

[cark]

35. Strict Constructionist

I believe Scalia has recently refered to himself as an original meaning guy.

What is a legitimate alternative to original meaning philosophy?

After reading the 'Presumption of Liberty' it seems like it is clearly the most intellectually honest approach. The constitution puts in place ways to amend the constitution as the countries priorities and attitudes change. Twisting provisions and literal meanings doesn't seem like a good way to achieve desired outcomes however noble they are. Right now we are picking and choosing what parts of the constitution we enforce and which parts we ignore. Some day the shoe may be on the other foot and kicking you in the ass.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Yet Scalia and Thomas have voted the most to...

overturn laws enacted by congress. How is that not judicial activism?

[cark]

42. Overturning laws

Overtuning laws that are outside of what is allowed by the constitution is the reason we have a supreme court. It is their job and a necessary check on the powers of the legislative branch. Just because congress passes a law doesn't make it constitutional and because they overturn a law doesn't make them activists (as you are using the term).

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

46. Strict constructionism is a joke

The U.S. Consitition is a vague and general document. It simply doesn't address specific narrow issues concerning certain rights enumerated under it. Does the 4th amendment prohibiting search and seizures without probable cause extend to the trash cans in front of someone's home? It isn't stated in the Constitution. Does the 4th amendment extend to the trunk of an automobile? Is there an expectation of privacy there? Does the 4th Amendment include information on how to treat a search done without a warrant that uncovers incriminating evidence? No, and it took a case like Mapp vs. Ohio for the court to interpret how the Amendment covers it whereas it was silent on the subject. The Constitution wasn't meant to be an immutable King James version of our laws like a Bible. It was meant to be flexible and to be interpreted. It was meant to be a living document, interpreted as the nation lives and evolves.

"Originalists" like Scalia, have the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be. That's a complete joke, as that itself requires interpretation, assumption, and vague supposition. We can't know what the original drafters of the U.S. Constitution would consider a reasonable interpretation in our modern times. That is itself judicial activism.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. Huffington Post and Rush both made to look like fools within one week.

[ThePantaloon.com]

54. Rush just kept going with the story though

saying "we know Obama thinks like" this fake thesis...

[eomer]

55. Please get your facts straight: Scalia does not have "strict constructionist views".

I'm referring to the first sentence in your OP:

I dislike Scalia and his strict constructionist views of the Constitution, but we cannot be like Fox News and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and all the other rightwing buffoons who don't verify the facts before complaining.

What Scalia has is a game he plays where he claims to have strict constructionist views when such views work in favor of the corporatist side of a case. When the corporatist side would need an activist ruling then he goes ahead with that ruling and hopes that no one will notice.

[ProfessorGAC]

57. Kind Of Agreeing With You

His "originalism" is an intellectually dishonest piece of buffonery in which one needs to INTERPRET the Constitution in order to understand the LITERAL meaning. Which, of course, makes absolutely no sense. It's either literal or it's intepretable. It cannot be both. But, Fat Tony's whole intellectual claptrap requires that it be both all the time.

So, he's not really a strict constructionist but he believes it must be interpreted, but only in the way he WANTS it intepreted.
GAC

[Joe S]

56. Good job digging that up!

And you're right: We can't be like the wingnuts, you swallow whatever they're told!