NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok. I admit I have not been following the court as of late. This comment is about the recent arguments of the clean water rights that was sent back to the lower courts which I just heard on the radio.

The clean water act was set up in the 70's and it cleanned many water sources. The people that hate it. Developers.

There was a recent case where the court reviewed it and split down the middle.

Roberts and Scalito were on the side to gut the clean water act.

So was all that yabber about Stare Decisis nothing more then a lie for congress? Or did it get redefined?

Has he been "fair and balanced" or just another ideologue?

Er, could you be a bit more specific and list the actual case you're talking about? It's hard to judge the merrits of an argument or SCOTUS decision without know which one we're talking about.

Er, could you be a bit more specific and list the actual case you're talking about? It's hard to judge the merrits of an argument or SCOTUS decision without know which one we're talking about.

Sorry. You are right. It was only a news blip and I am kind of hoping somebody is a little more up on things and will respond.

Basically, the Army Corp of Engineers has been controlling the water ways and wetlands.

Developers hate that so they have been arguing that they have overstepped their bounds.

There was an effort to "redefine" the roles of the act and it was sent back.

Meh. Bad thread......

Sorry. You are right. It was only a news blip and I am kind of hoping somebody is a little more up on things and will respond.

Basically, the Army Corp of Engineers has been controlling the water ways and wetlands.

Developers hate that so they have been arguing that they have overstepped their bounds.

There was an effort to "redefine" the roles of the act and it was sent back.

Meh. Bad thread......
Ok, I found said case.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1034.pdf

From what I understand, the case was a question on if said wetlands actually connected to navigable (sp?) waters of the United States. The CWA covers all such waters or streams that lead into such waters, or wetlands that are next to and have connection to such waters.

The wetlands in this case were connected (eventually) to a known body of water covered by the CWA but only by an overflow ditch that normally was dry. SCOTUS held that this does not actually constitute waters as defined by the CWA.

I think.

Ok, I found said case.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1034.pdf

From what I understand, the case was a question on if said wetlands actually connected to navigable (sp?) waters of the United States. The CWA covers all such waters or streams that lead into such waters, or wetlands that are next to and have connection to such waters.

The wetlands in this case were connected (eventually) to a known body of water covered by the CWA but only by an overflow ditch that normally was dry. SCOTUS held that this does not actually constitute waters as defined by the CWA.

I think.

If that is the case, thenI support the decision, if not, then SCOTUS needs to be overhauled (as it usually does :D)

John Roberts wants to legalize rape, at least thats what the lady from NARAL said when she came to talk to my sex ed class last week. This is really scary, how can people feel this way? To be for rape of women!! I went to the NARAL website and sure enough all the proof is there, his wife is even in Feminists for Life. How can a women, even a fundie like Jane Roberts, be for the legalization of rape and incest?

I will never vote Republican because I hate what they are doing to this country. Hands off my body! I should be able to do whatever I want without thinking about any financial aspects of it. Otherwise, how can people fully develop to be the best they can be?

John Roberts wants to legalize rape

What, you don't like rape? The world needs more rape, I think any rational person can agree. :)

Frankly, I knew what I was getting with CJ Roberts. A conservative jurist. He simply replaced Rehnquist. The issue was AJ Alito. He is more akin to Scalia than he is Roberts. Scalia is a nutter no matter how you display it.

This decision is not terrible, but it isn't a great one either. The Court has been sidestepping land mines left and right since Roberts took over the Court. This essentially remands the case back to the Federal District it came from with some minor instructions.

John Roberts wants to legalize rape, at least thats what the lady from NARAL said when she came to talk to my sex ed class last week. This is really scary, how can people feel this way? To be for rape of women!! I went to the NARAL website and sure enough all the proof is there, his wife is even in Feminists for Life. How can a women, even a fundie like Jane Roberts, be for the legalization of rape and incest?

I will never vote Republican because I hate what they are doing to this country. Hands off my body! I should be able to do whatever I want without thinking about any financial aspects of it. Otherwise, how can people fully develop to be the best they can be?
You'll have to show me that. I just poked around the NARAL website and didn't see anything. Sure, they don't like Roberts, but I didn't see evidence that he wants to legalize rape. I'm as pro-choice as the next guy (unless the next guy happens to be for bans on abortion, then I'm considerably more pro-choice than the next guy) but it doesn't do any service to exagerate a position to this level. To me it's the same kind of hysteria as equating those who are against the war with terrorists, it disrupts the discourse.

John Roberts wants to legalize rape, at least thats what the lady from NARAL said when she came to talk to my sex ed class last week. This is really scary, how can people feel this way? To be for rape of women!! I went to the NARAL website and sure enough all the proof is there, his wife is even in Feminists for Life. How can a women, even a fundie like Jane Roberts, be for the legalization of rape and incest?

I will never vote Republican because I hate what they are doing to this country. Hands off my body! I should be able to do whatever I want without thinking about any financial aspects of it. Otherwise, how can people fully develop to be the best they can be?

NARAL is so fiddlesticking fanatic ultraleft that their previous anti-Roberts campaign got repudiated by just about the entire DNC.

To listen to NARAL when it comes to, er, reproduction-issues is about the same as listening to the NRA on gun-control.

Why would anyone oppose a clean water act? Everyone needs to drink clean water.

"SCOTUS for the non-Usians"

Heh, like non-USians would keep themselves apprised of what the acronym stands for, but not know anything about the members of the court or the concept of stare decisis.

NARAL is so fiddlesticking fanatic ultraleft that their previous anti-Roberts campaign got repudiated by just about the entire DNC.

To listen to NARAL when it comes to, er, reproduction-issues is about the same as listening to the NRA on gun-control.
Actually, NARAL could much closer be compared to one of the nutball nonviolent militia groups. The NRA is an extremely tame organization which actually relies on fact for most of it's stuff.

Actually, NARAL could much closer be compared to one of the nutball nonviolent militia groups. The NRA is an extremely tame organization which actually relies on fact for most of it's stuff.

ullshitbay. They're both utter crap.

Ok. I admit I have not been following the court as of late. This comment is about the recent arguments of the clean water rights that was sent back to the lower courts which I just heard on the radio.

The clean water act was set up in the 70's and it cleanned many water sources. The people that hate it. Developers.

There was a recent case where the court reviewed it and split down the middle.

Roberts and Scalito were on the side to gut the clean water act.

So was all that yabber about Stare Decisis nothing more then a lie for congress? Or did it get redefined?

Has he been "fair and balanced" or just another ideologue?


Actually, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were gutted in the mid-1990s by a SCOTUS decision. They are unconstitutional because they allow the EPA to make what amount to laws by bureaucratic fiat. The Acts are written in such a vague fashion that you could virtually make any regulation without consulting anyone.

We've been riding along for 10 years, hoping that the Congress would clarify and specify the exact limits of the ability to make regulation, but they haven't.

It's a classic example of how a legislature votes for something vague so they don't have to argue the specifics.

This isn't a matter of stare decisis. This is a matter of forcing the legislature to pass specific laws to cover specific regulations.

John Roberts wants to legalize rape, at least thats what the lady from NARAL said when she came to talk to my sex ed class last week.

Yeah, and NARAL is so objective and above absurd invective. :rolleyes:

I think I'll ignore everything relevant about the thread and fixate exclusively on the use of the hurtful, spiteful offensive and loathesome descriptor contained at the end of your thread title, TBF.

Just kidding.

Frankly, I knew what I was getting with CJ Roberts. A conservative jurist. He simply replaced Rehnquist. The issue was AJ Alito. He is more akin to Scalia than he is Roberts. Scalia is a nutter no matter how you display it.

This decision is not terrible, but it isn't a great one either. The Court has been sidestepping land mines left and right since Roberts took over the Court. This essentially remands the case back to the Federal District it came from with some minor instructions.
I got to listen to Justice Scalia talk, and he made a girl in my group cry :(.

I got to listen to Justice Scalia talk, and he made a girl in my group cry :(.

Oh? What did he say that made her "cry"

Oh? What did he say that made her "cry"
Chewed her out after she asked about his judicial philosophy. She used the wrong word (make case law).

Chewed her out after she asked about his judicial philosophy. She used the wrong word (make case law).

Well you do not want to say that phrase in the presence of the Supreme Court. Even I know that.

Well you do not want to say that phrase in the presence of the Supreme Court. Even I know that.
So? She was only 16 ffs.

So? She was only 16 ffs.

So? That doesn't make a difference. The teacher should've explained the Supreme Court better for they do not make Case law.

So? That doesn't make a difference. The teacher should've explained the Supreme Court better for they do not make Case law.
Yes, it does. You don't make kids cry because they slipped on one word in what was in the whole a pretty decent question.

Yes, it does. You don't make kids cry because they slipped on one word in what was in the whole a pretty decent question.

You have to watch what you say while at the Supreme Court. They are a touchy bunch and they don't talk much about what they do at the Supreme Court.

You have to watch what you say while at the Supreme Court. They are a touchy bunch and they don't talk much about what they do at the Supreme Court.
It was just scalia in an informal chat.

It was just scalia in an informal chat.

Doesn't matter. They are a closed society and the inner workings as well as justices personal beliefs are a touchy issue with them.

Doesn't matter. They are a closed society and the inner workings as well as justices personal beliefs are a touchy issue with them.

Yes it does matter, Corneliu. Associate Justice Scalia bullied a child. Rudeness is not an excusable trait because of someone's position on the Court. Touchy or not, he has the responsibility to be the adult in the situation and graciously correct the young lady and then answer her question.

If he and other Justices of the Court are not prepared to behave in a civilized manner when out in public, or at a public speaking engagement, they need to not make public engagements.

Authority does not trump courtesy or civility, especially when you are an invited speaker.

By the way, Antonin Scalia has made no bones about his personal beliefs and his ego is bullet-proof in that regard, he has been described as "pugnacious" on more than one occasion.

An adult needed to step in right there and tell him he was being a rude, arrogant, son of a bitch and needed to leave.

Yes it does matter, Corneliu. Associate Justice Scalia bullied a child. Rudeness is not an excusable trait because of someone's position on the Court. Touchy or not, he has the responsibility to be the adult in the situation and graciously correct the young lady and then answer her question.

On the flipside, we do not know the words that actually made her cry. CSW, if you can remember, what did Scalia say that made her cry?

On the flipside, we do not know the words that actually made her cry. CSW, if you can remember, what did Scalia say that made her cry?
Probably used the term 'USian' once too many.

I think I'll ignore everything relevant about the thread and fixate exclusively on the use of the hurtful, spiteful offensive and loathesome descriptor contained at the end of your thread title, TBF.

Just kidding.

Is it really necessary to bait people on that all the time. Some people don't like the term. They haven't brought it up in this thread. Why should you?

Why would anyone oppose a clean water act? Everyone needs to drink clean water.

Why would anyone oppose the Patriot Act? Who doesn't love their country? If I wrote a law saying that Jews should be exterminated and called it "Act to save the Birds and Butterflies," would you support it?

What a law is called is irrelevant; what it does and how it does it is the main thing. Also remember that good intentions do sometimes have unintended or dilaterious consequnses.

With regard to the main point, lawmakers aren't always very precise when they write their laws. This is especially true when their moral outrage over something is high. Since technically nearly every piece of land in the world has rain dumped on it at one time or another, it can all be considered a waterway in its broadest sense. That's what the supreme court is working to limit here. As usual, the federal government can't take responsibility for writing necessary changes to badly defined laws without stepping on some special interest group's toes (In this case, the environmental lobby), it puts the non-democratically elected body in carge of that. Frankly, I think that I might side with the Roberts court in this case when looking at the framer's intent, but I would agree with the liberal wing that the law is best defined by lawmakers, not the courts.

Why would anyone oppose a clean water act? Everyone needs to drink clean water.

Yes, but Republicans would prefer that clean water didn't just fall out of the sky, they'd like to be able to charge for it. They don't like stuff to be free.

Bechtel (to claim that American corporations are distinct from the party whose leaders are major shareholders is absurd) got the government of one of the mining operations in Latin America to ban the collection of rain water for drinking precisly because they wanted to sell bottled water to the penniless natives after polluting their rivers.

Rick Santorum wrote legislation to ban the national weather service from providing weather data to news outlets and scientists (the major part of its raison d'etre) so that one of his corporate friends could sell that same information. He argued that this would give the service more time to focus on disaster forecasting, but it takes no effort for them to allow scientists and news outlets access to the data that they have to collect anyway.

Baisicly, when the republicans say that they don't want to take your tax dollars, what they mean is, they want to let corporations do it.

Yes it does matter, Corneliu. Associate Justice Scalia bullied a child. Rudeness is not an excusable trait because of someone's position on the Court. Touchy or not, he has the responsibility to be the adult in the situation and graciously correct the young lady and then answer her question.

If he and other Justices of the Court are not prepared to behave in a civilized manner when out in public, or at a public speaking engagement, they need to not make public engagements.

Authority does not trump courtesy or civility, especially when you are an invited speaker.

By the way, Antonin Scalia has made no bones about his personal beliefs and his ego is bullet-proof in that regard, he has been described as "pugnacious" on more than one occasion.

An adult needed to step in right there and tell him he was being a rude, arrogant, son of a bitch and needed to leave.

You forget. Corneliu is a republican apologist. You can't favor the Republicans these days and also favor civility or just being a decent person.

"SCOTUS for the non-Usians"

Heh, like non-USians would keep themselves apprised of what the acronym stands for, but not know anything about the members of the court or the concept of stare decisis.

Skittles Cause Our Taxpayers' Unreasonable Snacktimes?

On the flipside, we do not know the words that actually made her cry. CSW, if you can remember, what did Scalia say that made her cry?

You know, I'm not really prepared to debate this. The girl was a minor. The adult needs to be (and should demand to be held) to a civilized standard. Bullying minor students should not be the province of an appointed public servant.

There is no "depends on what he said." That's inexcusable, and implies the child might be at fault.

You know, I'm not really prepared to debate this. The girl was a minor. The adult needs to be (and should demand to be held) to a civilized standard. Bullying minor students should not be the province of an appointed public servant.

There is no "depends on what he said." That's inexcusable, and implies the child might be at fault.

I'm not defending the man, but, Jesus, you don't even know what happened. You are aware that sometimes young girls and young boys, for that matter, cry. The question was merely posed of whether or not the Justice behaved unreasonably and no one has shown that he has. Is it innocent until proven guilty for everyone except Supreme Court Justices?

I'm not defending the man, but, Jesus, you don't even know what happened. You are aware that sometimes young girls and young boys, for that matter, cry. The question was merely posed of whether or not the Justice behaved unreasonably and no one has shown that he has. Is it innocent until proven guilty for everyone except Supreme Court Justices?

If we're going to trade Scalia anecdotes.. I had the priviledge of sitting in on a 90-minute teleconference with Scalia back in October of '04, or roundabout that time. He seemed patient and genial to me, even when questioned in a condescending tone, which happened once or twice. I considered it a good experience.

Well you do not want to say that phrase in the presence of the Supreme Court. Even I know that.

Why? He makes up things as he goes.

"No Founding Father ever uttered the phrase Seperation of Church and State"

And he is a Constitutional historian! :rolleyes:

Is it really necessary to bait people on that all the time. Some people don't like the term. They haven't brought it up in this thread. Why should you?

No worries lad. I bait him from time to time so it's only fair.

Doesn't matter. They are a closed society and the inner workings as well as justices personal beliefs are a touchy issue with them.

Scalia needs his ass kicked then.

With the lack of knowledge of US history and law shown by the average US teenager; why chew their ass out when they are showing an interest?

On the flipside, we do not know the words that actually made her cry. CSW, if you can remember, what did Scalia say that made her cry?

:D

Try to turn it back on to the girl now?

You have to watch what you say while at the Supreme Court. They are a touchy bunch and they don't talk much about what they do at the Supreme Court.
First rule of Supreme Court is that you don't talk about Supreme Court.

How can Roberts be against clean water! I'm sure he gets clean water. Water is a right not a privelege.

You forget. Corneliu is a republican apologist. You can't favor the Republicans these days and also favor civility or just being a decent person.

And yet this "republican apologist" will in all likelyhood be voting for a democrat for Governor because the Republican nominee isn't saying anything on where he stands.

First rule of Supreme Court is that you don't talk about Supreme Court.

That is indeed correct.

:D

Try to turn it back on to the girl now?
It's possible the girl was a blubbering twit. There were quite a few at my school, so why she might not be I'm somewhat unsure. Without a transcript or preferably audio, or several eyewitnesses of various political and philosophical leanings, we have little to base our judgement of the incident on.

I'm not defending the man, but, Jesus, you don't even know what happened. You are aware that sometimes young girls and young boys, for that matter, cry. The question was merely posed of whether or not the Justice behaved unreasonably and no one has shown that he has. Is it innocent until proven guilty for everyone except Supreme Court Justices?

Jocabia. As an adult, you have a standard of behavior you must meet, especially when you are speaking with a crowd of minors.

I read the story when it originally came out, I searched for a link to it yesterday. To the best of my knowledge, the girl formulated and asked a question that included "formulating case law." Most folks who have above a fair working knowledge of SCOTUS knows that they do not make case law. Scalia took offense to it, pounced on it and pounded on her verbally for her error, just like he does in sessions of the Court.

That's NOT how you treat kids. I would say the same of any of the people I admire if they did the same thing.

So, yes...the adult is at fault here. Instead acting like a civilized adult, he ripped into a minor child and embarassed the crap out of her in front of her school. That's reason enough to cry for anybody.

This is not the quality of an adult, this is the quality of bully who just happens to be 50+ years older than the kid. I do not give the benefit of the doubt to an adult who acts like an arrogant ass in front of kids. Especially one with a clear pattern of that type of behavior in public in the first place.

Oh, BTW.

Corneliu is not a bad guy, he and I occasionally spar and I learn something and hopefully he learns something too. That's give and take. He is not as big a Republican apologist as you folks think.

I suppose that makes me a Corneliu apologist, right?

Jocabia. As an adult, you have a standard of behavior you must meet, especially when you are speaking with a crowd of minors.

I read the story when it originally came out, I searched for a link to it yesterday. To the best of my knowledge, the girl formulated and asked a question that included "formulating case law." Most folks who have above a fair working knowledge of SCOTUS knows that they do not make case law. Scalia took offense to it, pounced on it and pounded on her verbally for her error, just like he does in sessions of the Court.

That's NOT how you treat kids. I would say the same of any of the people I admire if they did the same thing.

So, yes...the adult is at fault here. Instead acting like a civilized adult, he ripped into a minor child and embarassed the crap out of her in front of her school. That's reason enough to cry for anybody.

This is not the quality of an adult, this is the quality of bully who just happens to be 50+ years older than the kid. I do not give the benefit of the doubt to an adult who acts like an arrogant ass in front of kids. Especially one with a clear pattern of that type of behavior in public in the first place.

Oh, BTW.

Corneliu is not a bad guy, he and I occasionally spar and I learn something and hopefully he learns something too. That's give and take. He is not as big a Republican apologist as you folks think.

I suppose that makes me a Corneliu apologist, right?

Okay, so with no evidence and no actual direct knowledge of what happened I'm supposed to decide that this happened and that Scalia mistreated a minor.

I call BS on you, my friend. Elvis is alive. I read a story about it a couple of weeks ago, but I just can't find the link right now. You believe me, right?

I don't even have a opinion on Scalia's personality, but I'm not going to form one on a "my cousin told me that her friend's brother's girlfriend once heard about this time..." story. Sorry, but my rules of evidence are a bit more strict. For one, I start with a requirement that it exist.

EDIT: I don't know what you're talking about on that last bit. Who cares about Corny? This isn't about him.

Oh, BTW.

Corneliu is not a bad guy, he and I occasionally spar and I learn something and hopefully he learns something too. That's give and take. He is not as big a Republican apologist as you folks think.

I suppose that makes me a Corneliu apologist, right?

I thank you for stating this. I've been saying this but for some reason, no one believes me. Thanks and yes, I do learn when we spar. I do learn many things when it is done in a respectful manner and not in a condescending manner.

I do learn many things when it is done in a respectful manner and not in a condescending manner.
ohh....isn't that sweet? liddul Corny does learn himself some new stuff when he comes here. How cute!
I'm gonna give you a big BIG cookie, for being such a good widdul boy!:)

Okay, so with no evidence and no actual direct knowledge of what happened I'm supposed to decide that this happened and that Scalia mistreated a minor.

I call BS on you, my friend. Elvis is alive. I read a story about it a couple of weeks ago, but I just can't find the link right now. You believe me, right?

I don't even have a opinion on Scalia's personality, but I'm not going to form one on a "my cousin told me that her friend's brother's girlfriend once heard about this time..." story. Sorry, but my rules of evidence are a bit more strict. For one, I start with a requirement that it exist.

EDIT: I don't know what you're talking about on that last bit. Who cares about Corny? This isn't about him.

Let me repeat myself. I read the stories about this when it came out. I read it from multiple sources. I looked for links to repost here and I could not find precisely what I was searching for, for that I apologize, but it does not invalidate my opinion.

I am willing to accept my responsibility if I am wrong.

AJ Scalia has a documented history of making an ass of himself in public, and speaking out in a pugnacious and combative manner is well in character with his public behavior.

I repeat, as an adult he has a responsibility and as far as I am concerned you draw the line at bullying kids. You don't invite the man back and you make it plain why you don't and if it were my daughter, Scalia would be needing fucking dentures.

Let me repeat myself. I read the stories about this when it came out. I read it from multiple sources. I looked for links to repost here and I could not find precisely what I was searching for, for that I apologize, but it does not invalidate my opinion.

I am willing to accept my responsibility if I am wrong.

AJ Scalia has a documented history of making an ass of himself in public, and speaking out in a pugnacious and combative manner is well in character with his public behavior.

I repeat, as an adult he has a responsibility and as far as I am concerned you draw the line at bullying kids. You don't invite the man back and you make it plain why you don't and if it were my daughter, Scalia would be needing fucking dentures.

Ah, so I have the choice between a person threatening to physically attack a Supreme Court Justice with no evidence or being rational? I choose rational.

If he has a documented history of making an ass of himself in public and speaking out in a pugnacious and combative manner (um, he's a lawyer) is well in character with his public behavior then you should have no problem presenting evidence. So far, none.

Why don't I find it shocking that with all this evidence that exists you've presented none?

Ah, so I have the choice between a person threatening to physically attack a Supreme Court Justice with no evidence or being rational? I choose rational.

If he has a documented history of making an ass of himself in public and speaking out in a pugnacious and combative manner (um, he's a lawyer) is well in character with his public behavior then you should have no problem presenting evidence. So far, none.

Why don't I find it shocking that with all this evidence that exists you've presented none?

You've missed my point. I have spent two days looking for the articles in question, and I generally do not make it a practice on these forums to post without having at least a solid knowledge of the subject at hand.

But you have better things to do than to read the posts I have made in other parts of this forum.

My comments are not EVIDENTIARY in nature in this case. I am not attempting to present you with evidence of his mendacity, pugnaciousness, or public combativeness. It is quite easy to get on the internet and find most of his appearances, and it will take less than thirty seconds to find the record of those appearances and the comments he made. My comments are opinion based on what I have read in regards to this one specific incident.

I am annoyed that you accuse me of having an opinion based on bad faith. I trust that it does not escape you that I have very clearly accepted responsibility for my comments and if I am wrong, then I am wrong.

The issue is simply this, YOU are unwilling to accept I have read any articles regarding this specific incident. You are rather trollishly pushing forth the point of view that I am unwilling to present any articles I have read. I have assured you that I have sought the articles and I cannot find the specific articles I read. While that is frustrating to me, it does not represent bad faith on my part.

I am only going to respond to you one more time on this matter and move on.

Any adult, Supreme Court Justice, it does not matter, is responsible for their behavior in public. When making an appearance in front of minors, the burden of behaving appropriately falls on the adult. Minors are expected to behave, but adults must comport themselves in a manner befitting adults. If the adult bullies those minors, the fault lies with that adult. PERIOD. You are expected to tailor your commentary and responses with care. If an adult bullies a minor and makes that child cry, then it becomes the responsibility of the institution that invited the bullying adult to stop the proceedings and tell that person to leave.

If my child is verbally assaulted by an adult, I AM going to take action to prevent such a thing from happening again, up to and possibly including popping the arrogant bastard in the snoot. That night not be rational, but that's life.

Take issue with me all you want, but I consider this matter between us closed.

I repeat, as an adult he has a responsibility and as far as I am concerned you draw the line at bullying kids. You don't invite the man back and you make it plain why you don't and if it were my daughter, Scalia would be needing fucking dentures.
She was 16 and she got in a verbal altercation during an informal chat with someone known to be extremely abrasive to say the least. She then broke down crying because he tore her statement to shreds. Given the evidence she falls under the blubbering twit category. 16 does not qualify as a child if it is an organized school event IMHO. It's not like he butted in to a passing conversation and ripped her apart.

She was 16 and she got in a verbal altercation during an informal chat with someone known to be extremely abrasive to say the least. She then broke down crying because he tore her statement to shreds. Given the evidence she falls under the blubbering twit category. 16 does not qualify as a child if it is an organized school event IMHO. It's not like he butted in to a passing conversation and ripped her apart.

Hey I have heard that logic before!

She wore provocative cloths! She was asking for it!

You are guessing if she is a constant crier.

Public humiliation just shows he is a pathetic fuck and it's an insult that he wears the robes.

What is more pathetic is the fact you defend his actions.

But hey! He put her in her place! Right! :rolleyes:

You've missed my point. I have spent two days looking for the articles in question, and I generally do not make it a practice on these forums to post without having at least a solid knowledge of the subject at hand.

But you have better things to do than to read the posts I have made in other parts of this forum.

My comments are not EVIDENTIARY in nature in this case. I am not attempting to present you with evidence of his mendacity, pugnaciousness, or public combativeness. It is quite easy to get on the internet and find most of his appearances, and it will take less than thirty seconds to find the record of those appearances and the comments he made. My comments are opinion based on what I have read in regards to this one specific incident.

I am annoyed that you accuse me of having an opinion based on bad faith. I trust that it does not escape you that I have very clearly accepted responsibility for my comments and if I am wrong, then I am wrong.

The issue is simply this, YOU are unwilling to accept I have read any articles regarding this specific incident. You are rather trollishly pushing forth the point of view that I am unwilling to present any articles I have read. I have assured you that I have sought the articles and I cannot find the specific articles I read. While that is frustrating to me, it does not represent bad faith on my part.

I am only going to respond to you one more time on this matter and move on.

Any adult, Supreme Court Justice, it does not matter, is responsible for their behavior in public. When making an appearance in front of minors, the burden of behaving appropriately falls on the adult. Minors are expected to behave, but adults must comport themselves in a manner befitting adults. If the adult bullies those minors, the fault lies with that adult. PERIOD. You are expected to tailor your commentary and responses with care. If an adult bullies a minor and makes that child cry, then it becomes the responsibility of the institution that invited the bullying adult to stop the proceedings and tell that person to leave.

If my child is verbally assaulted by an adult, I AM going to take action to prevent such a thing from happening again, up to and possibly including popping the arrogant bastard in the snoot. That night not be rational, but that's life.

Take issue with me all you want, but I consider this matter between us closed.

And I'm sorry, but I generally treat people who admit they would proudly commit criminal acts when words fail them as lacking credibility. I regard your claims incredulously, and I searched myself for said articles and there is no evidence that they exist. Given the only place I've found any reference to said event is on here by people I find to lack credibility, forgive me, but I think it did not happen.

I could be wrong, but I'm not wrong in terms of having a healthy increduliity towards someone who would gladly teach his child that if someone hurts you with words resort to violence. If someone presented a physical danger to my child they had better beware, but I'd like to believe I will raise and more robust child than for them to be endangered by some agressive opinions of a stranger. And even if my child were endangered by such a thing, I'm pretty certain I would only exasperate that danger by teaching that violence is a solution to a verbal dispute. Plus, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be doing my child any favors by letting them watch me be cuffed and hauled away because I'm silly enough to respond with words with violence.

Hey I have heard that logic before!

She wore provocative cloths! She was asking for it!

You are guessing if she is a constant crier.

Public humiliation just shows he is a pathetic fuck and it's an insult that he wears the robes.

What is more pathetic is the fact you defend his actions.

But hey! He put her in her place! Right! :rolleyes:

I still see no evidence that this event ACTUALLY occurred. Even if one assumes it occurred a crying teenage girl is not evidence that 'a pathetic fuck' is involved. Last I checked, crying isn't an unusual event for teenaged girls and as memory serves I've made one or two cry in my life, occasionally by being on the phone at the wrong time or by suggesting we stop at McDonald's when they wanted to go to Dairy Queen (I have two sisters of almost exactly the same age).

Given how little we know of this teenaged girl and the fact that I'm certain we all have direct experience with teenagers who have a tendency to overreact, I see no evidence to jump to 'a pathetic fuck' accusation.

And I'm not defending Scalia in any way. I know nothing of his personal actions nor do I particularly care. If, for example, the guy beats his wife, I think he belongs in jail but provided it doesn't affect his decisions on the bench I don't care. If the guy is a saint and his decisions on the bench amount to embarrassing shredding of the US Constitution I would like to see him removed regardless of his saintly status.

I still see no evidence that this event ACTUALLY occurred. Even if one assumes it occurred a crying teenage girl is not evidence that 'a pathetic fuck' is involved. Last I checked, crying isn't an unusual event for teenaged girls and as memory serves I've made one or two cry in my life, occasionally by being on the phone at the wrong time or by suggesting we stop at McDonald's when they wanted to go to Dairy Queen (I have two sisters of almost exactly the same age).


I admit I am giving CSW the benefit to the claim. I also believe it after hearing a few supreme court aides talking about the justices. From what they described of him, it fits his character.

Teenage girls can cry for just about anything; so what?

As the story stands, he ripped into her in a public setting. That's a pathetic fuck. It's one thing to rip into a lawyer and it's another to rip into a teenager(well if they are yours that's different ;) ).

(If the story is true of course. If CSW made it up then he is a pathetic fuck ;) and I am a dumbshit for believing him ;) )

I admit I am giving CSW the benefit to the claim. I also believe it after hearing a few supreme court aides talking about the justices. From what they described of him, it fits his character.

Teenage girls can cry for just about anything; so what?

As the story stands, he ripped into her in a public setting. That's a pathetic fuck. It's one thing to rip into a lawyer and it's another to rip into a teenager(well if they are yours that's different ;) ).

(If the story is true of course. If CSW made it up then he is a pathetic fuck ;) and I am a dumbshit for believing him ;) )

If it happened, one would think it would have printed somewhere. I can find the story of me being arrested in 2000 online. I'm quite certain if this event happened it would be in some archives somewhere or I would, at least, be able to find some reference to the incident. I can find nothing resembling it anywhere.

If it happened, one would think it would have printed somewhere. I can find the story of me being arrested in 2000 online. I'm quite certain if this event happened it would be in some archives somewhere or I would, at least, be able to find some reference to the incident. I can find nothing resembling it anywhere.

Well stories don't always end up in print.

For one thing I think she is underage and would need parental permission. Maybe they didn't want it printed.

Newsworthy? It could be the press (if they know about the story) decided it was a ho hum piece on the same level of Coulter bitching about liberals.

So I guess it's up to CSW to confirm or deny......

Well stories don't always end up in print.

For one thing I think she is underage and would need parental permission. Maybe they didn't want it printed.

Newsworthy? It could be the press (if they know about the story) decided it was a ho hum piece on the same level of Coulter bitching about liberals.

So I guess it's up to CSW to confirm or deny......

And yet if I gave you my name right now, you'd be able to find a story about me online being involved in a very non-incident. I suspect if this was so expected I would find similar stories wouldn't I? I certainly could find a mountain of support for Ann Coultier bitching about liberals. Why can't I find any support for this if it's so commonplace as to be ho-hum?

And yet if I gave you my name right now, you'd be able to find a story about me online being involved in a very non-incident. I suspect if this was so expected I would find similar stories wouldn't I? I certainly could find a mountain of support for Ann Coultier bitching about liberals. Why can't I find any support for this if it's so commonplace as to be ho-hum?

You had no choice. The police log is an open thing and has been printed for years.

You had no choice. The police log is an open thing and has been printed for years.

The point is, if this kind of activity towards private citizens outside of the courtroom is commonplace, why no evidence? It would seem I would find it everywhere. I found a couple of pundits complaining about his views and a story about him making an obscene gesture that according to witnesses was actually a fairly tame Sicilian gesture, but nothing that supports any of these claims.

The point is, if this kind of activity towards private citizens outside of the courtroom is commonplace, why no evidence? It would seem I would find it everywhere. I found a couple of pundits complaining about his views and a story about him making an obscene gesture that according to witnesses was actually a fairly tame Sicilian gesture, but nothing that supports any of these claims.

Again so what?

The fact it didn't make print says it never happened?

Again it's the perceived value of the story. A known dickhead acting like a dickhead is not always print worthy. Now if he went on a profanity binge while doing it.....

Again so what?

The fact it didn't make print says it never happened?

Again it's the perceived value of the story. A known dickhead acting like a dickhead is not always print worthy. Now if he went on a profanity binge while doing it.....

Again, I've seen no evidence that he's a 'known dickhead' outside of the rants of people who don't like him. I've found a lot of blogs and posts like yours but I've seen no actual stories of him being a 'dickhead' to anyone outside of the courtroom and inside the courtroom is somewhat questionable.

And I'm sorry, but I generally treat people who admit they would proudly commit criminal acts when words fail them as lacking credibility. I regard your claims incredulously, and I searched myself for said articles and there is no evidence that they exist. Given the only place I've found any reference to said event is on here by people I find to lack credibility, forgive me, but I think it did not happen.

I could be wrong, but I'm not wrong in terms of having a healthy increduliity towards someone who would gladly teach his child that if someone hurts you with words resort to violence. If someone presented a physical danger to my child they had better beware, but I'd like to believe I will raise and more robust child than for them to be endangered by some agressive opinions of a stranger. And even if my child were endangered by such a thing, I'm pretty certain I would only exasperate that danger by teaching that violence is a solution to a verbal dispute. Plus, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be doing my child any favors by letting them watch me be cuffed and hauled away because I'm silly enough to respond with words with violence.

You can be incredulous all you want, that's your privilege. I am generally not the violent sort, but I still firmly believe that some people occasionally need to be taken out behind the woodshed and whupped.

If an adult verbally assaults a MINOR (and thus via the law unable to act on their own behalf), and the parent of that child doesn't even briefly feel the desire to pound some sense into the person with a 2x4, then they aren't human.

You can be incredulous all you want, that's your privilege. I am generally not the violent sort, but I still firmly believe that some people occasionally need to be taken out behind the woodshed and whupped.

If an adult verbally assaults a MINOR (and thus via the law unable to act on their own behalf), and the parent of that child doesn't even briefly feel the desire to pound some sense into the person with a 2x4, then they aren't human.

You didn't say you'd feel like it. You said you would. And the law is on your side if the adult assaults a minor even verbally. However, the law is not on your side once you decide to start hitting people. I don't really share your desire for vigilante justice. By sixteen, I certainly hope my daughter will be able to withstand the words of another person and I'm certain she'll suffer no damage that will justify my violating the law and teaching my children that daddy needs violence to solve verbal disputes.

ohh....isn't that sweet? liddul Corny does learn himself some new stuff when he comes here. How cute!
I'm gonna give you a big BIG cookie, for being such a good widdul boy!:)

Don't patronize me DH. I know you are being sarcastic.

Don't patronize me DH. I know you are being sarcastic.

What gave it away?

What gave it away?

The way it was worded not to mention the tone.

The way it was worded not to mention the tone.

Seriously, who are you? Arthur Conan Doyle? I'm so starstruck.

Seriously, who are you? Arthur Conan Doyle? I'm so starstruck.

Just a College Senior who is duel majoring in Political and Government Affairs and History.

Just a College Senior who is duel majoring in Political and Government Affairs and History.

Dude, I'm supposed to play the straight man. You have to put the stress on the word AND to really nail your part.

Just a College Senior who is duel majoring in Political and Government Affairs and History.

:confused:

Dude, I'm supposed to play the straight man. You have to put the stress on the word AND to really nail your part.

I'm sorry. I'll do better next time.