Do you agree with E.J. Dionne that Justice Antonin Scalia should resign?

[sinkingfeeling]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions

Currently:

Yes - 81%


No - 19%


Total Votes: 6,355

[Kalidurga]

1. Yes

That was easy.

[spanone]

2. k&r...

[Fuddnik]

3. No.

Him and 4 others should be charged with treason and spend the rest of their lives in Gitmo.

[myrna minx]

4. He makes a mockery of the institution.

[lukkadairish]

5. DAMN good read

I would like to see him go. Many would. There is, however, slim to no hope that the precient voices around him will get through that thick, brittle skull of his....

[11 Bravo]

28. I agree! Let E. J. know you appreciate it at [e-mail]

[bigwillq]

6. Yes

Yes - 81%


No - 19%


Total Votes: 6,554

[tomp]

7. well, yes and no.

frankly, i think he should be impeached and removed, and possibly tried criminally. but i would certainly accept his resignation.

[liberalmuse]

18. My thoughts, exactly! n/t

[aquart]

44. I would, too.

He'll burn in Hell later.

[RKP5637]

8. "Yes" The SCOTUS needs to be cleaned up. n/t

[meow2u3]

9. Absolutely

Updated:

Yes - 81%

No - 19%

Total Votes: 6,668


I wonder who the 19% of crooks who voted no are.

[Leopolds Ghost]

10. It would be nice...

Not gonna happen though.
What'd he do this time?

[permatex]

11. He should, but he won't.

This is why it is so important to re-elect Pres. Obama, SCOTUS appointments.

[Javaman]

12. Yup, he will die on the bench before he retires. nt

[aquart]

45. I'm good with that. Send him a pizza.

[Javaman]

50. the problem is, guys like scalia live forever. :( nt

[aquart]

54. Yeah, it's the sold-his-soul-to-Satan perk.

[Blue_Tires]

13. I thought he should have resigned a LONG time ago...

[CTyankee]

14. never shudda been there in the first place...ugh...

[harun]

21. Dem's in the Senate should never have let him anywhere near a bench

[groovedaddy]

15. Yes, but hell will freeze over first. It would take a forced removal or impeachment.

If, god forbid, Romney should be elected and there's a republican congress (another god forbid!), Scalia might feel safe to "retire."

[ProfessionalLeftist]

16. Yes. And take Thomas with him. n/t

[Laelth]

17. No.

As much as I might like him to resign, I do not believe his dissent to the Arizona Immigration law opinion warrants a resignation.

All he did was write a dissent. I'll save my demands for resignation for those who betray the public trust and for those who promote treasonous policy (advancing the interests of foreign nationals over the interests of the people of the United States). To my knowledge, Scalia is guilty of neither of these offenses.

-Laelth

[HERVEPA]

20. Uh, he didn't just write a dissent.

He gave a speech tearing into Obama on the subject outside the court.

[Laelth]

24. Perhaps.

And perhaps that's unseemly for a Judge. But, he had already lost the argument, so who cares?

Besides which, his dissent makes it clear that he's talking about the majority opinion giving "the executive" the power to thwart the will of Congress by refusing to allow the states to enforce Federal law. Think about that for a moment. What happens when a Republican is "the executive"? Do you want that person to have complete control over immigration law and to take away from the states the power to enforce the will of Congress? Except where Congress expresses its explicit desire to give the Federal government complete control over an area of the law, the states also have the right to enforce Federal law. In its 1986 immigration law, Congress did not explicitly reserve to the Federal government the right to enforce immigration law. Thus, Scalia argues, Arizona ought to be allowed to enforce Federal law if and when "the executive" chooses not to.

It's a completely rational argument, and Scalia is right to note that the SCOTUS' recent ruling on this subject is unprecedented and, to put it mildly, odd.

-Laelth

[99Forever]

46. "Who cares?"

We the People care, that's who. That fucking, evil, criminal scumbag is an UnAmerican, AntiConstitutional piece of shit. A guillotine is too good for him.

[Laelth]

56. Some of us care (if it makes Obama look bad).

Others do not. Personally, I enjoy watching Justice Scalia throwing a temper-tantrum when he loses. I find that pleasurable in a guilty way.

-Laelth

[99Forever]

57. Well then..

.. you have a very different outlook on how members of the highest court in the Nation should conduct themselves. IMHO the crap this jerkwad pulls is nothing less than treason and he should be publicly hung, just like any other POS traitor.

[sinkingfeeling]

22. By his comments outside of a written dissent, this man has betrayed the public

trust of the court.

[Laelth]

26. I have a different understanding of judicial ethics.

As I understand it, judges are not supposed to speak publicly about a matter pending before the Court, but once a given case has been decided, that topic is fair game. Here, I think Scalia acted completely within the bounds of proper judicial conduct. He spoke out only after the case was decided.

In other cases, I have found his actions to be questionable, but not in this case.

-Laelth

[sinkingfeeling]

29. Really? You think his statements continue his 'appearance of impartiality'?

That's the issue. A supreme court justice is supposed to be or at least give the appearance of impartiality. Scalia does not do that even in is written dissent on this case.

[Laelth]

30. He's only required to be impartial while the case is pending.

Judges make judgments. Judgments are not impartial. It is in their opinions and in deciding cases that judges must be, decidedly, partial. They must rule for one side or the other.

That, as I understand it, is the way it's supposed to work.

-Laelth

[sinkingfeeling]

35. Not true. This is why now something like 80% have no respect for

the SCOTUS. Showing partially (like calling out the President as he did) is political activity and has no place on the court.

[Laelth]

38. I respectfully disagree.

Becoming a judge does not require one to become a-political. That's an impossible standard.

-Laelth

[sinkingfeeling]

39. Then let's stop appointing them and have them run, by party, for their positions.

[Laelth]

41. In my experience, elected judges are much less impartial.

They have to gather campaign contributions. Thus, they tend to favor the wealthy even more than appointed judges do.

-Laelth

[aquart]

48. This man is not a "judge." He is a Supreme Court justice.

If we cannot hold him to a higher standard than traffic court, there is no point in a nomination process at all.

[rhett o rick]

32. With regard to the public trust, doesnt Citizen United do exactly that?

Doesnt that ruling allow foreign nationals via global corporations to buy our Congress and President?

[Laelth]

34. Yes, it does, imho.

On the other hand, we highly value our 1st Amendment, so there are competing national interests in the Citizens United case. Personally, I want the SCOTUS to strike down the case that says money is speech. It was that ruling that ultimately spawned Citizens United.

-Laelth

[rhett o rick]

55. I agree. If money is speech, then those without money

arent allowed speech.

[sinkingfeeling]

43. Yes, it's another example of why the citizens have no respect for

the SCOTUS and its justices. They are lacking public trust because of their politically based decisions and comments when they speak.

[treestar]

51. Yeah but what about exalting his political opinion over the law?

BS right wing talking points have no place in a SCOTUS dissent. Don't be disingenuous. At least the ACA upholders quote the law, not resort to their personal opinions. (This is a right wing criticism of Roe v. Wade, too).

[Laelth]

58. Again, I respectfully disagree.

A dissent is exactly where political opinions ought to be expressed. The majority opinion is the one that has to be founded in solid law and should, generally, be devoid of political opinion. Besides which, our judges are people too. They have political opinions, and that's O.K., so long they consider each case on its merits and are silent about the case until it is decided.

I should add that Justice Scalia does cite law in his dissents. It's not all political ranting.

I am not being disingenuous here.

-Laelth

[treestar]

60. The dissent is legal though

It is supposed to be because the dissenter doesn't think the law should be interpreted the way the majority does. Not a place to rant and cite political opinion.

From what I've heard, some of the law Scalia cited was pre civil war law about slaves not being allowed into states.

[rurallib]

19. No - not just Scalia - Thomas and Alito and Roberts also.

[backscatter712]

23. I think Congress should investigate all of the conservative "justices".

Yeah, I'll say it. Hit them with a full Issa.

Dig through their records, subpoena every interaction they've ever had, call them before committees, hit them with contempt citations. Make especially certain to scrutinize all of Scalia's interaction with billionaires.

Make it clear that politicizing the SCOTUS has consequences.

[crazylikafox]

25. currently 80% yes, 20 no.

Moving in the wrong direction. Please vote.

[HereSince1628]

27. I believe that the court should have 19 members

and that Obama should nominate the next 10.

[Romulox]

31. Roberts is in the pocket of corporations. For Life! nt

[ancianita]

33. I don't LIKE Scalia, but the 19% might have a point.

From a friend: "...Why should the third branch of government be required to be silent? Sure, the Justices aren't supposed to be swayed by public opinion (though they may be) but nothing says they are forbidden from swaying public opinion. Their entire function is to sway public opinion. To iterate, re-iterate, outline, define, and opine what *justice* means in America. The reason they write majority opinions and minority dissents is to explain and sway.

The article says 'he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate' and maybe he did but with one amazingly significant difference. He isn't running for Senate or anything for that matter. His position is secured. There are no tea party votes and no campaign funds to be built. He's just being him and he has a right to be that."

[Doctor_J]

61. your friend is a right-wing teabagging liar

if a clinton or Obama appointee did such a thing, (s)he would be driven from office within a week. until we restore the balance in this country, by whatever means necessary, the fascists will continue to hold sway. You are not going to last long at Democratic Underground posting right wing lies and propaganda.

[bupkus]

36. I believe Scalia should be impeached before he has the opportunity to resign. nt

[mlevans]

37. absolutely

[samsingh]

40. yes, he must resign

in my opinion scalia is a thug and criminal. he should not be on the supreme court

[FreeBC]

42. yes

[Iwillnevergiveup]

47. As of 11 a.m. EST

8,888 total votes

81% YES

19% NO

[Iwillnevergiveup]

49. WHOOPS - Poll now removed

and changed to "Do you favor the SC's decision on health care?"

Hummina hummina hummina

[savalez]

59. and on that -->

Yes - 80%
No - 20%
Total Votes: 5,802

[hlthe2b]

52. They've already changed to poll to one on the health care decision.

[Maineman]

53. Are you kidding? Scalia and Thomas are improper and unethical.

Then there is Alito who is an arrogant fool.