Showing posts with label justice scalia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice scalia. Show all posts

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Court respinds to Justice Souter's decision

May 1, 2009

Justice Souter announces retirement
barry re: Justice Souter’s decision to retire
Court responds to Justice Souter’s decision

Chief Justice John Roberts

Justice Souter has served with great distinction on the court for nearly 20 years. ... His desire to return to his native New Hampshire is understandable, but he will be greatly missed in our deliberations.

Justice John Paul Stevens

As Justice Blackmun accurately stated when Justice White advised us of his proposed retirement from the court, an announcement of this kind 'is an emotional occasion.' Because Justice Souter is such a good friend, my first reaction to his decision is one of real personal loss. Because I am confident that I know how his professional work will be judged by future historians, my more important reaction is that the court will suffer a far greater loss than many now realize. I wish he had postponed the decision that he has just announced.

Justice Antonin Scalia

David and I have served on this bench together for almost 20 years -- sitting next to each other at argument for all of that time. I will miss his always intelligent contribution to our work, but most of all I will miss his companionship. The only consolation is that I am sure he will be happy back in his cold and beloved New Hampshire.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

The two months remaining in this term now become all the more precious to us, for we know our splendid colleague Justice David H. Souter will soon leave here for the home and the state to which he longs to return. In our free moments David was one of the best raconteurs, one of the most adept and amusing storytellers, I have ever encountered. In our conferences and deliberations all of us knew we had the guidance of a powerful intellect and a fine, dedicated jurist. The nation should be grateful always for his integrity and absolute probity, and for his lasting contributions to our law and to the dignity of this court.

Justice Clarence Thomas

I have been privileged to serve on the court with Justice Souter for almost two decades. It is an honor to have been one of his colleagues at the court. Though deeply saddened by the departure of a friend and colleague, I am comforted by the knowledge that the bonds of friendship that have been formed during our toils here shall happily remain firm. Virginia and I wish him much happiness and contentment.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Among jurists with whom I have served, Justice David H. Souter is the very best. His level of preparation for the cases we consider is astonishing. He works so hard at getting it right. He is a genuinely caring man and a model of civility. Never have I heard him utter a harsh or unkind word. I count it my great good fortune to have known him as a working colleague and dear friend.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer

As a member of this court, Justice Souter has given nineteen years of inspirational service to the nation. David is a close colleague and a warm personal friend. I shall miss him here. So will we all.

Justice Samuel A. Alito

I was sad to hear of David Souter's decision to retire from the court. From my first day on the court, he has been a wonderful colleague. He has dedicated so many years to exemplary judicial service. We will miss him deeply.

Source: Boston,com

Monday, March 30, 2009

SCOTUS has time for movies and cigarettes but not barry

March 22, 2009

The Supreme Court is awfully busy these days with low-tar cigarettes and movies - too busy it seems to chat about whether barry is eligible to be president. They're looking at the "movie" Hillary and yet Justice Scalia doesn't recall Orly Tait's Lightfoot v Bowen case that he had supposed conferenced. What exactly has Danny Bickell done? I know I read something somewhere that he admitted he was a barry fan. Not that it isn't obvious.

David Bossie was hired as chief investigator for the Whitewater hearing and was then fired at the insistence of Newt Gingrich, who found that Bossie had demanded that certain film be edited so that it portrayed Clinton staffer Webster Hubbell in a negative light. Scumbags being scumbags. He went ahead anyway.

From Wiki:

Remarks that indicated Hillary Clinton did no wrong were left out of the initial release. In several instances the transcripts did not match the actual recordings, and these errors seemed almost willful, as if they were intended to unfairly implicate Hubbell and the Clintons.

His organization Citizens United inspired Rep strategist Roger Stone to establish the 527 group Citizens United Not Timid which of course means nothing other than CUNT. And you can figure out who it was directed at. These beasts have a lot of imagination, don't they?

Bossie was caught in his own hypocrisy when he went after Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 as violating McCain-Feingold (this is x and I approve this message) and then tried to use Hillary: The Movie during the election. And in a very sweet revenge of castration anxiety he told Politico last June:

We spent 18 months and millions of dollars making 'Hillary The Movie,' We're incredibly proud, but the problem is the film has no relevance anymore.

Hillary Clinton was out before he even got to release it. Foiled again.

The progression of the case:

After the project was denied the right to advertise its eventual release Bossie and Citizens United brought suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., arguing that the film (released Jan. 16, 2009) was exempt from McCain-Feingold restrictions on advertising since it was not released to influence the outcome of a particular candidate or election. They also argued that the free speech of Citizens United had been infringed upon. Ultimately the federal court ruled against them, issuing the opinion that the 90-minute film "is susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous plance in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her." Upon appeal, the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States.

The issue before the Supreme Court: whether campaign-reform laws unconstitutionally restrict ads for political documentaries. Is it just a nasty documentary or is it what it is: a political attack ad that has to be regulated by campaign finance laws.

Some of the Justices comments from AP's :

Justice Stephen Breyer:

It's not a musical comedy.

Justice Anthony Kennedy:

If we think that the application of this to a 90-minute film is unconstitutional, then the whole statute should fall.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Just for example, it concludes with: These are things worth remembering before you go in potentially to vote for Hillary Clinton. Now, if that isn't an appeal to voters, I can't imagine what is.

When questioned about the 22 previous decisions they've made on McCain-Feingold, John Paul Stevens responded:

Maybe those cases presented more difficult issues than this one.

Justice Scalia focused on the First Amendment:

Not only would the government be preventing the movie's producers from getting their movie out, they would be blocking someone who specifically wants to see that movie from getting it. Isn't that a heightened First Amendment?

Ginsburg countered that they never made that argument before the lower court, so they can't really consider it now.

Dick Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a Clinton critic said Hillary Clinton is:

the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist.

And barry?

David Bossie, leader of Citizens United and producer of

David Bossie (AP/EVAN VUCCI)

Just look at this crazy effer. It's a movie about "Hillary" and he puts his constipated, castration anxiety-enraged, gyne envy face on it. Looks like somebody's squeezing his micronads with a Hillary nutcracker.

Friday, February 6, 2009

body language: barry, biden and the Supreme Court Justices

=

February 6, 2009

I see I never posted this. It says a great, great deal. Now that I think of it I forgot to post the presidents in the Oval Office. That was extremely revealing.

On 1-14, barry and biden met behind closed doors with the Supremes. Missing was Justice Alito, which was no coincidence. Their meeting is discussed here. I just want to talk about the body language, which is remarkable.

.//cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0dTV3lP7Ev8P6/610x.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

(Photo) barry, Justices John Roberts, John Stevens, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Joe Biden

First off, the Justices do not seem grouped by political views. What is important is that there are five - what was needed to make the decision. barry and biden are holding on to the chairs like they have taken over - barry asserting his dominance by leaning over the chair with his two forearms. He is affable, but is embracing himself - separating himself from the group in a dominant way - he doesn't need any of them. I don't know whose chair that is but I would not be surprised if it was the Chief Justice's.

Biden is an excellent subject to watch. There is never any doubt what he is thinking or feeling - even before he says it. He must have spent a lot of time cleaning blackboards as a kid. It's what makes barry the most angry because he can't mask Biden like he tries to mask himself. Watch barry's reaction when Biden makes the joke about Justice Roberts' memory. You'll see a great deal of unmasking in barry's face: anger, embarrassment, bewilderment and ruined birthday party. Whatever happened in this room barry owes Justice Roberts and that is why he was so angry - because Biden should have known better.

Biden has claimed his spot - to the left and across the table from barry, facing him at an angle. His hands are placed modestly on the chair but they are at the peak of the chair. He knows his place and has a firm grasp on it and is not about to let it go. His dominant hand is covered by his non dominant one. It is a subtle sign that he is trying to cover something up but he knows that's what he needs to do to keep his position. The two of them are laughing and smiling at each other like we've got them now - we're set. There is a distinct look of conspiracy - one they have had for a while - one they knew they were going to win. They have the judges flanked - literally boxed into the corner. Biden has his back to the dissenters - to his right and behind him. He doesn't need them anymore. He has the Chief and the Senior Member in his and barry's circle. It's enough.

This is all quite fascinating really.

Now look at Chief Justice Roberts. He is to barry's immediate left, very close, and just slightly behind him. Barry is leaning forward to make sure of his dominance, while appearing to be relaxed. Roberts is standing erect, asserting his dominance in his environment. His hands in front of him and away from his body, showing that if challenged, he would be able to stand his ground. He usually commands the room, but today he had been inched over and is a close second. He also is smiling, fully engaged and complicit on an equal basis. He has made his decision but is still unsure. (May explain the oath - that was not in any way simple mistake.)

Next comes Justice Stevens. I don't know anything about seniority but I would guess he is the most senior. He is comfortable in the space that he has been respectfully afforded. He is the most relaxed, amused in a bystander type of way, having seen it all. He is leaning barry's way and has not completely closed himself off from the others - though he is in front of them. No one is a threat to him - nor does anyone find him threatening. He is the most intelligent person in the room, is curious, well-mannered and a very good listener. He's drawn himself in toward Biden. No matter his views - my guess is he allows the most latitude. I would pick him to present my case to and I would make sure I was impeccably dressed and respectful but not deferential. His (great) grandchildren probably adore him.

I don't know how the mechanics work, but I would guess he is the most hands on in actually writing his decisions. Here he has his left hand in his pants pocket but the jacket is still modestly buttoned. A sort of subtle collegial upper hand. Hands in the pockets is a distinct behavior of men of that generation. The elder Bush did the same but he had both hands in his pockets - very different.

Justice Thomas has made the loudest statement. He wants none of it. He is furthest away, and although boxed in, he is the focal point of the picture. The decision rested on him. Biden finds him threatening - he has his back turned directly at Thomas, who is directly in line with barry and looking right at him, waiting to take him on. This particular argument is not over. I bet Thomas holds a mean grudge. barry is protecting himself from Thomas with his right hand higher up on his arm. I wish I could see Thomas' face better - but more importantly his hands. I wouldn't be surprised if they were fisted. He is pretending to smile but is not looking at the one telling the joke. My guess that he never took his eyes off barry and barry didn't look at him.

Justice Ginsberg is extremely physically weakened - her abdomen looks swollen and it looks she is trying hard to stay upright. She is holding her own as far as her position in the group - she is in the center by choice - but has pulled into herself in pain. She doesn't even appear to be part of the proceedings - she is there because she is fulfilling a duty and knows her importance as a woman. Her face is a grimace and she is holding herself very rigid, tightly gripping her hands. When I first saw her, I saw pain, sorrow and impatience. I now know she has pancreatic cancer, which is very painful, and explains everything.

Justice Souter I know nothing about - well I don't know any of them - but he doesn't send off much of anything. Did someone put in a word for him or was he an alternative to someone? I see him as someone who can float but once he decides he is firm in his position. He was probably a loner as a kid and I would hazard a guess he doesn't have strong people skills or a wide range of emotion - like a Quaker or Puritan type. I wonder if he has ever been married.

He has taken a spot and is rooted in it - his arms crossed in front of him - left hand not completely tucked in. I sense this is a normal way of standing for him - more self-protection than defensive. He's looking down when a joke is being told - laughing despite himself and at odds with his posture. I sense he likes Biden and could easily be persuaded by him. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a damp ineffectual handshake to a woman.

Most interesting is the fact that the other Justices are not in the picture. There is no way to conjecture why. What is clear is they chose not to be in the picture. It would have been interesting to see them in the flesh because I've only ever seen their names on dockets.

After this meeting, barry's mood lightened - I noticed it before I was aware of the meeting. At the time, there were two cases before the Court (Lightfoot v Bowen and Berg v Obama/Biden), so the meeting was completely inappropriate and not at all required. Bush had not done it and Clinton and Gore reportedly made a production out of it, which I can't imagine barry wouldn't want to top.

There's one thing that I have been wondering for months. Mr Bill said in his anger and frustration that after the Inauguration he would sit down and tell what was really going on. I have to wonder if that was why Hillary was picked for Secretary of State - we know courtesy of Dr Biden that she was ever considered for either initially.