Sorry, Please forgive me if I’m not planning to "Get over it"

[kpete]

Wednesday, May 07, 2008
On not getting over it

Andrew Koppelman

A few days ago, Justice Antonin Scalia, asked again about the charge of partisanship in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore to hand the presidency to George W. Bush, declared, “Get over it. It’s so old by now.” I’d like to examine the logic of this epigram, which has become something of a mantra among the decision’s defenders.

...............

There are times when “get over it” is kind and friendly advice. If I was talking to a close friend whose child had died a year earlier, for example, I would do what I could to help him get over it, and might even tell him that that’s what he needs to do.


The same words, though, would have a very different resonance if I were the one who had killed the child. Then it would not only be hideously inappropriate; it would be positively odious, showing a remarkable moral obtuseness. It might seem like a strained comparison. But I hope it isn’t too impolite to notice that tens of thousands of parents, here and in Iraq, actually have buried their children (casualty counts here, http://icasualties.org/oif/ here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003 and here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html) because the Court, in its wisdom, decided that the man who had been rejected by a margin of half a million Americans, and who might well have lost the election if the Florida vote count had been allowed to proceed, ought to be president – and that man then recklessly plunged the country into an unnecessary and disastrous war.


The other problem is that “Get over it. It’s so old by now.” isn't even accurate. More Americans and Iraqis are going to die next week because of the Court’s astonishing abuse of its power. It would be nice if it were so old. But it’s not. So if you’ll forgive me, I’m not planning to get over it.

more:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/05/on-not-getting-over-it.html

[Richard Steele]

1. K&R

[nichomachus]

2. I'll get over it

when they pronounce a sentence on Fat Tony Scalia in The Hague.

[greenbriar]

3. K and R

again

[dweller]

4. i'll get over it when

you can pry that thought from my cold, dead consciousness.

not until then, NGU.
dp

[Beregond2]

5. I don't know why,

but this made me think of Theoden saying to Saruman:

"We will have peace...when you hang from a gibbet for the sport of your own crows."

[Hekate]

14. Excellent. Excellent image. nt

[LaStrega]

6. insta- k&r edit typo n/t

[patrice]

7. Never Forget!! nt

[Stinky The Clown]

8. Fuck you, Nino

And fuck that imbecile you put in power.



And this one's from me (who will NEVER get over it) to you.

[malaise]

43. Perfect

I'll never be ready to make nice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucGPGGB9zRA

[eagertolearn]

52. Thanks for reminding us that The Dixie Chicks came out protesting

before most people. Why haven't we all been that brave? Why have we not all been hitting the streets in protest of this administrations wrongs? I live in an Eastern Oregon town where a small group has been protesting the war for the last several years every Wednesday night. Good for them. But we all should be out there!!!!

[malaise]

68. Yes indeed

The Dixie Chicks rock!!! Brave young women.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

9. Scalia's a pig

A disgrace to the Court. He's just an embarrassment.

[Fovea]

10. Impeach the SCOTUS 5

There is a difference between a bad decision and malfeasance.

[kaygore]

26. Can we impeach them? That would be great.

I thought they were untouchable.

[rasputin1952]

30. They can be impeached...but the logisitics would be ponderous...

Federal Judges have been impeached and removed, but essentially, the USSC has been left alone, even during the FDR years when FDR wanted to "pack the court", he didn't go near the impeachment process. It is far easier to get better judges...but dath/retirement are the two options you pretty much have to wait on. You'd have a tough time proving treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors...sometimes they can be readily seen...but proof at a trial in the Senate is a whole nother matter.

[Usrename]

32. I think Scalia can be easily impeached. And he should be.

Not over this, but because he refused to recuse himself in the Cheney energy task force case, even after it was made public that they had a sleepover together while Cheney's case was under review.

I think this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that judges are impeached over. There is not an American out there that would be comfortable knowing that the judge hearing their case was having sleepovers with their adversary. Everybody can grasp this basic, in your face, unethical behavior.

I'd like to see a single Republican try and come to Scalia's defense if he were really impeached over this. I'd love to see it. They would be forced to hurl him quickly under the bus. Especially since Cheney's approval numbers are even lower than Bush's. An impeachment would force them to try and defend this cabal and all of it's criminal cronyism.

Am I wrong about this?

[Hart2008]

36. Impeachment requires a Speaker of the House with cajones...

Pelosi is too concerned with playing nice with the devils.

Now if we had Dennis Kucinich as our Speaker, then things would really happen.

[Fovea]

38. BING BING BING BING!!!!!

We have a winner!

Speaker of the House, Dennis Kucinich.

[Hart2008]

41. Dennis Kucinich needs to raise his profile for that to happen.

He needs to go and campaign for candidates who share his beliefs.

[Fovea]

46. Or

He could build a strong Cheney impeachment consensus in the House.
That would, in my mind show that he can do the job.

[H8fascistcons]

45. Think Again....

I think we have to reexamine how we view Nancy Pelosi, too concerned about playing nice or something more insidious. Nancy Pelosi is in it up to her eyeballs in a cover up, she is purposely protecting the criminal Fascist republicans and I think it is time to recognize this fact. Nancy Pelosi is just as guilty as the criminal Fascist republicans and needs to be held accountable, not just at the ballot box but held accountable as a conspirator in war crimes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rasputin1952]

71. Realistic documnetation of those charges?...

Pretty heavy stuff you're just tossing out there w/o backing it up. Just asking.

[Usrename]

73. I think they may be talking about her responsibility to investigate.

The Convention against Torture, which is US law, states:

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Also, if she were informed about this move to torture people (like she was informed about the warrantless wire-tapping), then she would run afoul of this part:

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.



She might also be considered an accomplice to war crimes, in accordance with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles">Nuremberg Principles. I would think so.

[rasputin1952]

37. I think he could be impeached and tried, and I think he should be...

tossed out of the Court and into prison, but in all honesty, sadly, I can't see it happening.

People like Scalia have either no morality, or a "morality" that is self generated to ensure they gain at whatever cost to the people around them or the public at large.

Any person that has even the possibility of a conflict of interest, and a moral base, would recuse themselves where their bias might come into play in a decision; Scalia, and his colleague Thomas appear to have no qualms what-so-ever about allowing their personal biases enter the realm of judicial decisions. To me, this makes them unfit for such positions as judgeships at any level, but for them to be on the USSC is the very essence of "activist judges" that the RW constantly claim to be the "greatest horror since the Constitution was ratified". (Which brings up the notion that if Congress did it's job, and enacted laws that served the people, the Court system would not have to make decisions on antiquated and absurdly worded laws. Decisions about "intent" are what Courts are all about, and they evolve as necessary, hence we have decisions coming down from benches on old and new laws alike, often by biased jurists.)

When I look at the Constitution, one of the greatest things about it is it's brevity and straight to the point, in your face, wording. It is open to interpretation as society evolves, (who could honestly say that some people are 2/3 the human value of others today, or that only male landowners have the right to vote for a government that is to serve all of it's citizens?). But most things are pretty well straight in your face, and this is a good thing. Some of the things that give us our Rights are so cut and dried, it is hard to find how some people sidestep them. A prime example:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How anyone can misinterpret that is beyond me, and most other people, yet there are those who scrap it in an instant if they could, (they have been eroding it for many a year, but since we are really the government, so far, we've held on to it, but barely). We can make a difference...but most people today are trying desperately to keep food on their tables and a roof over their heads, they have little time to watch what is happening, and if allowed to proceed, people like Scalia would destroy every Freedom Americans have enjoyed, if for no other reason other than they can. He is that far from a moral base.

In my opinion, there will be vacancies in the USSC over the next 4 years, it would be far easier to appoint judges that have a fair and knowledgeable aspect in how the deal with Constitution situations. The best bet is to outnumber the RW radical "activist judges" and make their views moot. But to do that, we need a president and Congress that will do the right thing...that is where We, the People come into play...and we better work hard to make sue we destroy neo-conservatism this time around.

[Usrename]

69. I don't know. I think we need to try and take back some lost ground.

All the forseeable vacancies favor the Scalia side of the court. Roberts replacing Rhenquist was no great loss, but having Scalito installed in O'Connor's place was devastating. She used to be the tie breaker, and she was pretty mild compared to these new fascists.

Pelosi doesn't seem to have the stomach for it, but I still believe he could be, and should be, impeached over the Cheney matter.

[rasputin1952]

70. I can foresee a possibility of perhaps 2 appoinments...

Scalia would be neutered, Thomas and Alito w/him, Roberts has brains, but little as far a spine. Scalia is a real piece of work, and should never have made it, he was a failure all the way around, and his was a particularly noxious addition...(as well as Thomas, who is about as stupid a SC Justice as ever served). Thing is, if Congress did it's job, not all that much would go before the Court that would have an effect on a national level. States would still pass ridiculous laws, like Creation only "science", but the lower courts would deal with that.

I'd be happy if Scalia's robes were torn up and made into mudflaps for garbage trucks, he's a worthless piece of crap.

[Usrename]

74. Those two appointments, hopefully, won't change the composition of the court.

I think Ginsburg(75) and Stephens(88) are the two that everyone is concerned about. They are both on our side.

Replacing them won't neuter anything. They still have us down 5-4, with Kennedy being the swing vote.

We should take Scalia out. I don't think it would be difficult at all. A small thing, really. He's a crook.

[rasputin1952]

77. But impeaching a Supreme Court Justice would be a precedent...

and while I'm not opposed to it, others most certainly would be, and perhaps w/validity.

Scalia is an oaf, and not a very bright oaf at that, what he lacks in brain power, he makes up for in boorish behavior based on a philosophy born of Machiavelli. Bravado, in his mind, trumps sensibility.

In any case, until there is a heavy majority in the Senate to convict, impeachment is a moot point. the #'s are not even close, so it is, in effect an act of futility that would make a scoundrel of a man an even bigger threat. As it stands now, he has shown he cannot/will not see beyond his nose, imagine the same person being exceptionally aggravated and having the mindset of "revenge".

[Usrename]

79. I think that's pure pessimism. The numbers would be there in the Senate.

The case is too simple. Who is going to stand up for him in the Senate? All of Dick Cheney's close friends? Hahahahaa!

He went hunting with the Defendant, while the Defendant's case was being reviewed by him!

Which senators do you think would argue that his behavior was in keeping with a Supreme Court Justice?

I can think of maybe three or four, and that's all. And a couple of them might lose their seats this fall. This is the kind of thing that would politically kill anyone who was on the wrong side of it. And there's only one right side. It's completely inexcusable and indefensible. What kind of excuse do you think they would use to defend his actions and vote for his acquittal?

Can you think of a single judge or legal scholar that would argue this case in Scalia's favor? Seriously. Is there one?

Do any names come to mind? You are wrong if you think anyone would defend him in on this and that he would win. It is not possible.

[HughMoran]

90. Him saying something so politically charged is incredibly inappropriate

I so wish Scalia could be impeached - I love for him to have to live with "common" folk - he'd find out quickly how utterly despised he is.

[lonestarnot]

11. I will NEVER get over it. And sadly neither will this country in more ways than one.

[Agony]

12. I SPIT in your general direction, scalia.

I will not and cannot get over this, ever.

(and FUCK YOU too, Agent Mike)

[Night_Nurse]

13. Not only will I not get over it, but...

neither will my children,
or their children,
or their children's
children.

BushCo caused major, long-lasting damage to this country, and her people.

No, Tony - we won't fuhgeddaboutit.

[calimary]

15. Welcome to DU, addreamgirl! And as for you, tony,

You are an arrogant fuck. And I have NO INTENTION of getting over it. EVER. Particularly if it's you telling me to do so. You can go cheney yourself as far as I'm concerned.

[Night_Nurse]

80. thank you :-)

[Indi Guy]

16. I saw the interview when it first aired..

I was impressed most with Scalia's dismissive smugness. The tone was so overwhelmingly condescending that it filled the air waves with the stench of abject arrogance.

What Clarance Thomas doesn't say from the bench is echoed and amplified by Scalia's brazenly flatulent undertones.

[Beam Me Up]

17. Yeah. There are a lot of things I'm not ever going to get over and that one

made a lot of the others possible.

We're all going to be lucky if we don't pay with this maleficence with our very lives -- and that is no exaggeration. Untold numbers have so far and is there any sign it is going to relinquish? They certainly don't want this war to end -- on the contrary, they want to enlarge it.

No, I'm not going to ever get over any of this.

[bonito]

91. Me thinks your right about that

Someone posted here the other day NWO for dummies, I guess this is whats going down in the ME.

[FlyingSquirrel]

18. A fuckin men

[Indi Guy]

19. ??? n/t

[timtom]

20. I believe that is "amen" with a fucking in it.

So: "A-fucking-men"

A strong agreement with the sentiments on this thread.

Sentiments which I emphatically share, one and all, by the way.

[Indi Guy]

21. Thanks for the translation --

-- I get it now. Sorry for my ignorance; but my thanks is sincere,

[timtom]

66. Printed word doesn't always convey

the character and emotion of the spoken word.

Cheers.

[Perry Logan]

22. We'll see you on the street, Tony.

[muyojoe]

23. John Stewart is right on this one,

How can we get over it, HE'S STILL HERE!

[Festivito]

24. I'll be partly over it when he resigns or dies.

I'll be over it when the rest of his five leave in disgrace.

They're still there, any questions?

[stubtoe]

42. Rehnquist died.

He should be impeached post-mortem IMHO.

[Festivito]

82. Bravo! /nt

[The Wizard]

25. What Tony The Fixer

means when he says get over it is that he can't defend his immoral decision to hand Bush the Presidency.
Since his written opinions and decisions say the Exclusionary Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only should apply in cases of racial discrimination, his use of it as reason to prevent all the votes from being counted in Florida is an indictment of him as a Supreme Court Justice.
He is obviously an adroit liar and arrogant to the point of reprehensible.
When challenged by legal scholars and others who can critically think, Nino falls apart. He's never been a successful lawyer, and made his bones as a Republican political operative.
Sadly, he's the model John McCain would use given the opportunity to appoint future Justices.
He always refers to original intent, yet called the Constitution a dead document, quite the opposite of what the founding fathers intended when they made the Amendment process part of it.
Tony The Fixer is more like a character out of The Sopranos rather than a symbol of "Equal Justice Under The Law."
By not recusing himself from the Bush v Gore case he violated conflict of interest as his son worked for the law firm representing Bush. Thomas also should have recused himself as his wife was on the Bush transition team. Then there's that issue of going hunting with Cheney just prior to hearing a case involving Cheney's secret energy meetings. Cheney hunting with a Supreme Court justice, hmmmm......
We have a criminal Administration put in place by a corrupt Supreme Court, and "Get over it" is the best we can expect from one of the primary conspirators.

[Baby Snooks]

27. Scalia

Scalia is what you call a "good" Catholic which means he is a "bad" Supreme Court justice. Sorry but he bows to the bishops so to speak.

He is rabidly homophobic, anti-women's rights (and abortion is the most fundmental of women's rights), anti-equality (the Catholic Church has always danced around the Curse of Ham question) and anti-affirmative action and based on his comments through the years he believes in biblical chattel law. Everything belongs to the man and no court has the right to intrude - if the man wants to beat his wife and children, that is the man's right. Most states in this country had laws based solidly on the concept of chattel law until the latter part of the last century. Slavery in fact was legal under the concept of chattel law. Everything belongs to the man. As long as the man happens to be a White Anglo Saxon Protestant aka WASP. Of course that would exclude Antonin Scalia and four other justices but why nitpick?

By the same token, he is supportive of oligarchy and the oppression of oligarchy. Read above. (The Catholic Church has always danced around the Curse of Ham question).

He also believes in the Noble Lie. Enough said.

[Echo In Light]

28. "Get over it!" = Conform to establishment propaganda so we can feel more secure in our denial

K&R

[rasputin1952]

29. Just like people were supposed to just "get over" the Dredd Scott

decision?

Some things are just plain wrong, and they should never just be forgotten because of the convenience it brings.

Were citizens just supposed to "get over" the Alien and Sedition Act? It took a USSC decision , when the USSC was far less partisan, to overturn it...where would we be, if people just "got over" the Act being in place?

"Separate but Equal" facilities...oh yeah, just "get over it"...right.

Scalia is an asshole, always has been, always will be...thing is, he's an asshole w/power.

The decision that was made gave us 8 years of disaster...I don't think we'll ever, "get over it".

[Sam Ervin jret]

31. Another MWB, Megalomaniac Without a Brain

Unlike WMD's the republican party doesnt seem to have any trouble finding MWB's.

[Greybnk48]

33. Sorry Scalia, this is not going away.

I'll never, ever, get over it, and I have a lot of company.

[WritersBlock]

34. I don't "get over" enabling treason. n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

35. I've determined that the only way to send a message to a Republican,

one which he'll actually feel and understand that we're not taking it anymore, is to kick him when he's down. If he understands that he can't talk his way out of his lies by asking for sympathy when things go bad for him, only then will he understand that there were real consequences to the decisions he made when he thought he was invulnerable.

[Hart2008]

39. Tony "The Hitman" Scalia

When he first got to the court, Mad magazine did a parody of Scalia as the hitman for Rehnquist and company. (Rehnquist's first order of business as Chief Justice was to demote Thurgood Marshall to his personal chauffeur.) Rehnquist then tells "Fat Tony" to "go dig up Miranda", referring, of course, to Miranda v. Arizona and what are now known as Miranda rights. Scalia then goes out and digs up Carmen Miranda's body, complete with decomposing fruit on her head...

The problem is that 20+ years later, it isn't really funny how much mischief this group has done being "narrow constructionists" and all.

:puke:

[ThatsMyBarack]

40. BOOM!

:kick:

[Annces]

44. He is an awful person

Who does he think he is anyway, because he seems to be so full of baloney. And he went hunting with Cheney too. He is a person this world surely does not benefit from.

[ToughLuck]

47. Scalia is an arrogant prick, but please offer your opinions as to why you

think Scalia did this interview at this point in time. I found it very odd and troubling, its been years since Bush/Gore, why does he talk about it now?

[kpete]

49. xlnt question

but,
I do not think like they do,
so I cannot answer
and when I try to guess,
I am, as usual, horrified,kp

[ToughLuck]

51. I know kpete, me too. I just wondered what others thought. The Bush/Gore

decision will have a detrimental effect for years to come. Our nation is stuck with Roberts too..he is the judge who picks the judges for the secret FISA court. His radical view of the Executive Unitary theory is frightening. He is a young chief justice and will be choosing judges that would see our constitution through this horrid perspective.

With Scalia, I find it troubling that he gave this interview because I can't find a solid benefit for him to do this, other than purely political. What lies beneath that motive, I am highly suspicious.

[emald]

48. get over it yourself, you self absorbed floatsam on the tide of life

the ussc deserves, all of them, to be hung for sedition against the constitution. They empowered this current cabal. They decided, against the wishes of the people to enshrine the criminal in office now. A coup, very real, occured in 2000 and the ussc was it's principal actor. A coup against the constitution of the poeple of the United States of America has occured, and most of us slept soundly thru it.
I WILL NEVER GET OVER IT YOU FUCKS. !!NEVER!!

[Time for change]

50. Scalia should be tried for treason

And then, when he's found guilty and waiting to be executed or rotting away in jail, we should all write him letters telling him to "get over it".

[tabasco]

53. But we must accept orders from our Supreme Leaders without question!!

This is America, where we never question our leaders and just "get over it" like we did with the Stamp Act.

[garthranzz]

54. Marginalize him - he laughed when Colbert did it once, but...

if the media sees him as an immoral conniver, instead of as a bright, conservative thinker, things change.

Conflict-of-interest - Two of Scalia's nine children are connected with law firms representing Bush.

• Eugene Scalia, 37, is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where Bush lawyer Theodore Olson also is a partner.

• John Scalia, 35, has accepted a job offer with the Washington office of Greenberg Traurig. Another Bush lawyer, Barry S. Richard, is a partner in that firm's Tallahassee office.
(from a CNN analysis where legal ethics folk said it was ok, since Gene wasn't working on the case and wouldn't share any money the firm made from Supreme Court cases. BWHAHAAHAHA!)

Hypocrisy - whatever happened to states' rights?

Unconstitutional - "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

He should be impeached, but if not, make him a laughingstock.

[speedoo]

55. K&R, and bookmarked. nt

[natrat]

56. actual democracy, get over it

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

57. omg...

over 12 hrs. have passed since you posted this kpete, I have nobody on Ignore. Amazing to me the quality of intelligence and the intensity of passion in this forum when it comes to things that really matter, it is what keeps me coming back.

Thank you kpete, you have added so much to my knowledge of, as you say in your Journal, The Atrocities.






on edit: skinner really ought to put kpete in the spell check. I really hate hitting the ignore button.

:hi:

[kpete]

58. thank you

"action is my duty, reward is not my concern"

but, kind words are ALWAYS appreciated, kp

[Vidar]

59. k&r.

[pnwmom]

60. Good post, kpete, except

never EVER tell a parent who has lost a child that he or she should "get over it."

[JerseygirlCT]

61. Yeah, I'm not planning to "get over it" anytime soon, either

I'd rather get over him, frankly.

[Joe Chi Minh]

62. Quite apart from the odiousness of such a mantra in that specific connection,

it reflects a kind of idiotic lack of a sense of proportion, particularly in a man with the worldly intelligence of a lawyer - never mind a top lawyer.

Does he imagine that any European counterpart would adopt such a cavalier attitude concerning the deliberate annulment of, in the US, at least a theoretically democratic election, in favour of an arbitrary designation by their good selves of the party to form the next Government? I mean it was entirely gratuitous. Counting and arithmetic are well within the range of normal adult competencies. Indeed, would a European counterpart of the Supremes have dared to arrogate such a right to themselves? Of course not. Only in the US could the right wing have been so despotically lawless. And what's more, got away with it! That just tops the lot.

However, in the US, elections are the red-headed stepchild of the law. Anything goes. Just so long as it favours the wrongful right.

[Peggy Day]

63. me either-I'm NEVER going to "get over it"

[Raster]

64. I will NEVER "get over it." The day the SCOTUS illegally stopped the vote count in Florida...

is the day democracy officially died in this country. Get over it? Not hardly.

[Presidentcokedupfratboy]

65. Don't think I'll ever get over it.

It was a sham decision. And it has cost our great nation dearly, in blood, prestige, and our good name.

And Ralph Nader should be ashamed of himself for his role in the 2000 election.

[catrose]

67. Not. Getting. Over. It

They killed my country. And over 4000 of my countrymen-and-women. Not to mention the economy and way of life. Gas prices have severely limited mobility.

[Wapsie B]

72. So he'd be in favor of a Dem taking office under those circumstances?

He needs to be tried for treason. That's not too strong a charge in this case.

[lligrd]

75. Me Either! nt

[emmadoggy]

76. Fuck you, Scalia. I will NEVER get over it.

You can shove it up your fetid, rotting, disgusting ass.

[Uncle Joe]

78. I couldn't agree more.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.:thumbsup:

Kicked and recommended.

[ooglymoogly]

81. Just one more of the ruthless thugs who have taken over our

government.

[MasonJar]

83. Impeach Scalia NOW!!!!

[northernlights]

84. I may get over it...

after democrats win back executive branch and a massive majority in the legislative branch. And use their power to 1. try w, cheney and company for treason and 2. impeach scalia and thomas if they can. When those bastards are rotting in jail, then, and only then, will I consider getting over it.

I'm holding off on judgements re: Pelosi and any others that have "failed to perform" until after they are veto-proof. "Making nice" may be a temporary way of keeping your enemies close and off-guard so you can slip in the knife when the moment comes. The moment will be sometime after November.

[RevCheesehead]

85. Al Gore is still my president!!!

And I will NEVER concede that!

[FourScore]

86. There is a special place in hell for people like Scalia. n/t

[petepillow]

92. he should know... doesn't he report directly to the landlord?

"get over it." ha!

conservatives, get over roe v. wade

evangelicals, get over separation of church and state

"dixiecrats" and confederate flag lovers, get over the civil rights act

by scalia's definition, the statute of limitations has certainly expired on all those repuke pet issues, and many many more. hypocritical scum has no business "serving" in the United States of America's highest of offices.

he's an obnoxious P.o.S.

[bleever]

87. Roger B. Taney on the Dred Scott decision: "Get over it."

Nino Scalia's fabulous legal mind has a precedent in history: Roger B. Taney.

(T)he case that destroyed Taney's historical reputation and indirectly led to the Civil War (was) Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Despite the willingness of five members of the Court to dismiss the lawsuit by Dred Scott seeking his freedom on grounds situated in Missouri law governing who could sue and be sued, Taney wrote what became regarded as the opinion for the Court, presenting Taney's version of the origins of the United States and the Constitution as substantiation for his holdings that Congress had no authority to restrict the spread of slavery into federal territories -- and that such previous attempts to restrict slavery's spread as the 1820 Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney

High-minded principles that result in massive suffering are poor principles indeed.

[SanchoPanza]

88. He means it quite literally.

Bush v. Gore entailed one of the few (perhaps only, though I would defer to Constitutional Law scholars) SCOTUS decision in which the signatories of the majority opinion explicitly commanded that their decision should not be used as legal precedent. So they REALLY want people to forget about it.

[HughMoran]

89. Thanks for posting this. I remember posting "Antonin Scalia is a Shit Head" a while back

Antonin Scalia is a shit head.

[Anarchy in Detroit]

93. Get over: Iraq, New Orleans, ruined economy, job loss, patriot act

Yeah get over it you pansies. So what? Your kid was shot in Iraq, you lost your job, and the dollar is a piece of crap now, and we're watching your internet activity and listening in on your phone calls. Big deal. Its SOOO old. This is the problem with you liberals, that and you have no flag pins.


What a fuckin dildo. Fat wop douchebag.