The Wise Antonin Scalia Speaks
Supreme Court Justice and model for Republican judges Antonin Scalia:
In an appearance at the University of Arizona, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia “said he likely would have dissented from the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared school segregation illegal and struck down the system of ’separate but equal’; public schools,” the East Valley Tribune reports.
“He said that decision, which overturned earlier precedent, was designed to provide an approach the majority liked better.”
“I will stipulate that it will,” Scalia said. But he said that doesn’t make it right.
Scalia doesn’t get to pretend anymore that he’s all about adhering to precedent. The conservative wing of the court has overturned many, many precedents including ones on abortion and gun rights. The conservative wing is set to make a huge change to campaign finance laws. Scalia is a judicial activist.
Scalia is still a scumbag but it appears he was misquoted:
As I suspected, Justice Scalia did not say he would have dissented in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The newspaper account is incorrect and took his remarks out of context. The author of the article, Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services, owes Justice Scalia an apology.
And I apologize for quoting this incorrect article in my original post.
Here is the video of the event:
At 23:45 Justice Scalia is clearly misquoted. He says that he stands with Justice Harlan, who dissented in Plessy v. Ferguson. He argues that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits racial discrimination.
Comment by nemski on 27 October 2009 at 2:06 pm:
I was looking for an old photograph of a New York City shop with a sign in the window that said, “No Italians Allowed”. Scalia would be fine with that too, I guess.
Comment by Dana Garrett on 27 October 2009 at 3:12 pm:
This is what “conservative” jurisprudence results in: a segregated society that disenfranchises minorities. Justice Scalia is a throwback to an awful period in US history.
Comment by Scott P on 27 October 2009 at 3:23 pm:
The Reagan years?
Comment by Dave M. on 27 October 2009 at 4:31 pm:
I saw him at a law school function. He was supposed to be there to listen to students. Instead, we got 3 hours of him speaking about how smart he is. Not a big fan.
Comment by rhubard on 27 October 2009 at 9:33 pm:
But he is the answer to the question, “Who is the SCOTUS justice most likely to have hair on his back?”
Comment by liberalgeek on 27 October 2009 at 9:40 pm:
And which SCOTUS Justice is most likely to have a hair on his Coke can???
Comment by Rhymes With Right on 27 October 2009 at 11:43 pm:
You folks got it as wrong as some did on the Obama thesis last week.
What Justice Scalia ACTUALLY said was that he would have dissented from the majority in Plessy v. Ferguson, and would have joined in the elder Justice Harlan’s dissent in that case which presaged the decision in Brown by six decades.
I’m curious — will you folks be responsible and correct this post, or will you follow cassandra’s dictum that lies about your ideological enemies are just hunky-dory if they serve the political purpose of harming those opponents?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/scalia-on-brown-v-board-o_n_335591.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/10/27/scalia_would_have_voted_to_keep_school_segregation.html
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/10/justice-scalia-comes-clean-on-brown-v.html
Comment by Sharon on 28 October 2009 at 1:38 am:
Better recheck the meme.
You need to post a correction…and an apology.
Comment by MJ on 28 October 2009 at 6:12 am:
UI – glad you cleared this up, but you did not need to apologize to The Don.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 28 October 2009 at 6:14 am:
Sharon and RwR,
Are you unable to read all the way to the end of the post? It’s corrected. That’s what the whole second part is about.
As far as being like Limbaugh – 1) I corrected it as soon as I knew and 2) it came from an actual newspaper account. Limbaugh’s story came from a satirical blog post.
Comment by Rhymes With Right on 28 October 2009 at 6:51 am:
It was not corrected when I made the comment, which was stuck in moderation over night.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 28 October 2009 at 7:51 am:
Yes, it was RwR. It had been the way it is now since 3 p.m. yesterday. According to this you didn’t comment until 11:43 p.m., at least 8 hours after it had been corrected. You need to admit that you didn’t read all the way and just made assumptions. You owe me an apology.
Comment by nemski on 28 October 2009 at 7:55 am:
Sharon moseys on over here once in a blue moon and tells UI that she needs to apologize. Laughable.
Comment by Rhymes With Right on 28 October 2009 at 6:41 pm:
I’ll offer an apology, but not exactly for what you think I should be apologizing for.
I had actually opened the window for this post at around 3:00, and it sat open on my desktop for several hours until I had a chance to formulate a reply (following research to find out if the quote had actually been said).
In retrospect, i should have hit refresh before comosing my response — and i apologize for not doing so.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 28 October 2009 at 8:57 pm:
Thank you for clearing that up, RwR. I appreciate it.