Skip to main content

Justice Scalia is coming to my law school on Monday. They're holding a raffle to see who gets to speak with him; out of 600-ish students on campus, only a handful of us get to go throughout the day, and I'll find out on Friday if I'm one. More than a few of us are conspiring to ask him a few questions if we can; however, we're all aware of a few things going into it:

- The Hon. Antonin Scalia is many things we don't like, but stupid isn't one of them. If we have an opportunity to ask him a question, it's doubtful that any old saw lazily hurled his way will strike well.
- Each group of students is small, and it's a small campus to begin with. Not only do we typically prefer to conduct ourselves civilly as a matter of ethics, just throwing out heckling questions will likely have a very poor impact on our future careers.

These things said: what should we ask him, if one of us is chosen?

I'm only a first-year (as are most of my friends), so I don't really have a great depth of legal questions to challenge him with just yet, but I can try to bone up on specific ones if people point me to things.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I would review Citizens United and ask him (5+ / 0-)

    if the results of his reasoning have been borne out in reality and if he says he is pleased.  Ask him if a wealthy few should be more equal in our democracy than the rest of the citizens by virtue of their extreme wealth.

    •  I believe he actually gave an interview on that (5+ / 0-)

      a few weeks back. I'll have to look into it, but Citizens U will likely be difficult for me to broach; as I recall, his answer in the interview was pretty much "I believe the American voter is smart enough to overcome the value of money."

      My personal one is a bit of a burning vendetta - I want to know how he justified Bush v. Gore, but I really, really better read up on that one before I throw it out.

      •  here's the serious question I would ask: (5+ / 0-)

        And ask it in all seriousness, because I'd be interested in knowing how he deals with this in light of his "originalist" philosophy:

        1)  What if any developments in science and technology would be sufficient for you to have to make inferences and judgements that departed from the original text of the Constitution?

        2)  Given that present technology includes the means by which to ascertain a criminal suspect's guilty knowledge via computer analysis of brain activity, specifically the P-300 evoked potential signal, and given that computer analysis of brain activity is only likely to improve:  Where do you draw a line that cannot be crossed, between the collection of physical evidence from an unwilling person, for example fingerprints, and something that should be forbidden by the Fifth Amendment?  

        That is, would you regard the electrical activity of the brain as a form of physical trace evidence, or would you regard it as equivalent to testimonial evidence that cannot be compelled?

        ---

        Seriously:  Don't use this as an opportunity to badger, use it as an opportunity to learn something about how our opponents think about issues that will become critical in the years to come.  

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:52:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In that light (0+ / 0-)

          I think I will ask about how he feels about McCulloch v. Maryland and its use in support of an Air Force.

          •  huh? Say more... (0+ / 0-)

            I just looked that up and on the surface at least (gotta scoot shortly, don't have time to do this one in detail) it only seems to imply that states can't impede Congress in various ways such as by taxing a branch of the United States Bank.

            How does that apply to an/the Air Force?

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 02:31:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It goes a little further, and is the justification (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek

              for the existence of the Air Force when the Constitution only calls for an Army and a Navy. It allows the Congress to make use of logically implied powers.

              •  Aha! OK, excellent. (0+ / 0-)

                Yeah I'd say that could be an interesting topic, seeing as nobody in their right mind would argue we shouldn't have an Air Force, and nowadays an Aerospace Force or whatever they're calling the capability that exists when NRO et. al. put satellites up there.  

                As for putting the Air Force back under the Army, or putting it under the Navy, that ain't gonna' happen either.  

                And while we're at it, Cyberspace Defense.  That doesn't really belong under any of the existing branches, for now it's kinda' attached to the intel community, but some day it may be its own entity.  

                Just as long as the recruiting ads don't spell it "The F3w.  The Pr0ud. ..." ;-)

                "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 01:20:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I will look for the interview and if he said that (0+ / 0-)

        it is a tell for what a lying sack of shit he is.  He knows better, pacticularly since is does not believe that their are many people smarter than he is and he has been bought and paid for by these same people.  

      •  He said the more speech the better, without (0+ / 0-)

        any mention of time place and manner. But he applies t,p & m to protesters. Isn't the more protest the better?  

      •  Posted as stand-alone comment below (0+ / 0-)

        Ask:

        In Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, one of the plaintiff's arguments was that the fact that each country had different standards for counting under and over votes violated equal protection under the law since a ballot ruled valid in one county might be ruled invalid in another.

        The Court apparently ignored this argument and sent the case back to the Florida Supreme Court to settle the issues of Due Process and Article II of the US Constitution. Yet when the case came back to the Court as Bush v. Gore, the Court held for Bush solely on the Equal Protection issue it had ignored in the prior case.

        Can you explain that?

        Don't settle for "Get over it".

  •  Can only heckle at this moment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, sjburnman, kyril

    Will sleep on it though.

  •  Justice Scalia, do you think it's appropriate... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ConfusedSkyes, shaharazade, sjburnman

    Mitt Romney treats people like things. And he treats things - corporations - like people.

    by richardak on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:49:03 PM PDT

  •  In 2008, in a BBC interview, (8+ / 0-)

    Mr. Scalia said, "Seems to me you have to say, as unlikely as that is, it would be absurd to say that you can’t stick something under the fingernails, smack them in the face. It would be absurd to say that."

    I would ask him how, given those views, he thinks he can fairly judge cases surrounding the issue of torture.

    (Were I able to ask this, I would begin by explaining that my husband was a US Vietnam vet who survived torture. Dan suffered from his injuries for over thirty years until his death on June 12th, 2005. I would explain that when Dan returned to the US he had to have all of his toe nails removed to try to get rid of the bamboo poisoning from where they stuck bamboo shoots to inflict pain to try to get him to tell them what they wanted to know, so I know something, too much, about that kind of torture and it long term effects.)

                  Standing for justice and accountability,
                                For Dan,
                                Heather

    Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

    by Chacounne on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 10:50:43 PM PDT

    •  I'm really sorry to hear about that with your (6+ / 0-)

      husband, ma'am. Both his passing and his suffering.

      I'll start looking up any opinions he wrote on torture, that seems like a good one to start with. (I'm ashamed to say that I'm not aware of any SCOTUS cases like that off the top of my head - guess it'd relate to Gitmo?)

      •  (((((((((((((((((ConfusedSkyes)))))))))))))))))))) (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade, blueoasis, sjburnman, kyril

        Thank you very much.

        It's very late here (2am) so I'll look up some of the case names tomorrow. There are a bunch from Guantanamo.

                                With gratitude,
                                     For Dan,
                                     Heather

        Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

        by Chacounne on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 11:13:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sorry that Dan suffered what he did... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sjburnman, kyril, Nowhere Man

      ...and please accept my condolences on his passing.

      It's to our national shame that we have people like Scalia, Alan Dershowitz, Cheney and John Woo justifying and rationalizing torture.

      In addition to being morally repugnant, what makes it even more unconscionable (if that's possible) is that torture doesn't work, as any non-partisan intelligence officer or military man will tell you.

      Under torture, a man or woman will say anything to make the pain stop. As a means of getting the truth, it's as futile as reading chicken entrails.

      Equally grotesque is that it gives America's enemies license to use torture against our people. "What are you whining about?" they'll say, with perfect justification. "Your most senior legal people say it's justified because it works."

      The idea that people like Scalia are 'patriots' is infuriating; they aren't just enemies of decency and justice: they're enemies of the American people.

  •  For a second there, I thought the title was: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ConfusedSkyes

    Help me bugger Antonin Scalia!

    and that would be wrong, very wrong, on so many levels.

    Glad I was mistaken.

    I'll just go now.

    Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

    by sjburnman on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:32:01 AM PDT

  •  Judge Posner recently destroyed him. (5+ / 0-)

    He is likely on guard for this.

    One senses a certain defensiveness in Justice Scalia’s advocacy of a textualism so rigid as to make the ambulance driver a lawbreaker. He is one of the most politically conservative Supreme Court justices of the modern era and the intellectual leader of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Yet the book claims that his judicial votes are generated by an “objective” interpretive methodology, and that, since it is objective, ideology plays no role. It is true, as Scalia and Garner say, that statutory text is not inherently liberal or inherently conservative; it can be either, depending on who wrote it. Their premise is correct, but their conclusion does not follow: text as such may be politically neutral, but textualism is conservative.
  •  Ask him about Bush v. Gore (0+ / 0-)

    In Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, one of the plaintiff's arguments was that the fact that each country had different standards for counting under and over votes violated equal protection under the law since a ballot ruled valid in one county might be ruled invalid in another.

    The Court apparently ignored this argument and sent the case back to the Florida Supreme Court to settle the issues of Due Process and Article II of the US Constitution. Yet when the case came back to the Court as Bush v. Gore, the Court held for Bush solely on the Equal Protection issue it had ignored in the prior case.

    Can you explain that?

    Don't settle for "Get over it".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site