• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scalia gets his facts wrong in EPA dissent

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court opinions are rarely susceptible to the kind of fact-checking that reporters usually employ on politics. But Justice Antonin Scalia's hearty dissent in an environmental case this week contained such a glaring error of fact — misreporting an earlier case in which Scalia himself wrote the majority opinion — that the justice changed the opinion. The court quietly posted the corrected version on its website without notice.
Click to expand...

Which goes to show you that people, even Supreme Court Justices, are not infallible. However, if Scalia changed the opinion he wrote, after voting based on another opinion, does that make his ground less tenable? Had his dissent from the majority been part of the majority instead, would that been grounds for a future SCOTUS overturning the decision on the basis that this was not settled law?

Finally, Scalia's misquoting his own case in his opinion does make me snicker a little. LOL.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 
danarhea said:
Which goes to show you that people, even Supreme Court Justices, are not infallible. However, if Scalia changed the opinion he wrote, after voting based on another opinion, does that make his ground less tenable? Had his dissent from the majority been part of the majority instead, would that been grounds for a future SCOTUS overturning the decision on the basis that this was not settled law?

Finally, Scalia's misquoting his own case in his opinion does make me snicker a little. LOL.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Of course it does....Make you "snicker" that is....Because if there is anything everyone knows, that is how "conservatives" love it when other conservatives make a mistake......Now that makes me snicker.....
 
j-mac said:
Of course it does....Make you "snicker" that is....Because if there is anything everyone knows, that is how "conservatives" love it when other conservatives make a mistake......Now that makes me snicker.....
Click to expand...

You realize that Dana is more consistently conservative than you are, right? I think alot of conservatives(the real kind, not the anti-liberal kind) are kinda embarrassed by Scalia.

But god damn that Dana for not basing his humor on what side made the mistake. That is just unforgivable. HOW DARE HE!
 
j-mac said:
Of course it does....Make you "snicker" that is....Because if there is anything everyone knows, that is how "conservatives" love it when other conservatives make a mistake......Now that makes me snicker.....
Click to expand...


Way to defend Scalia there....... Not!! :mrgreen:
 
Redress said:
Traditional anti-liberal defense though. Attack the messenger.
Click to expand...

Not traditional. William F. Buckley wouldn't have done it. Of course, Buckley had a brain. Yes, at one time, we had Buckley, Norman Podhoretz, and Russell Kirk. Now we have Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. What a difference a few years makes. LOL.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Which goes to show you that people, even Supreme Court Justices, are not infallible. However, if Scalia changed the opinion he wrote, after voting based on another opinion, does that make his ground less tenable? Had his dissent from the majority been part of the majority instead, would that been grounds for a future SCOTUS overturning the decision on the basis that this was not settled law?

Finally, Scalia's misquoting his own case in his opinion does make me snicker a little. LOL.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...



The prick must be removed from the bench this instant!

Howq dare he confuse the petitioners even though the result is the dame.


Duh
 
Fearandloathing said:
The prick must be removed from the bench this instant!

Howq dare he confuse the petitioners even though the result is the dame.


Duh
Click to expand...

You are confusing Scalia with Bill Clinton. :mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
Not traditional. William F. Buckley wouldn't have done it. Of course, Buckley had a brain. Yes, at one time, we had Buckley, Norman Podhoretz, and Russell Kirk. Now we have Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. What a difference a few years makes. LOL.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between a conservative and an anti-liberal.
 
Oh, another non-story of no importance to troll the "breaking news" section with. Scalia made a mistake, had it corrected. **** happens.

Is it "breaking news worthy"? No.

Is it nice to see hey "oops, my bad" and corrected? Yes.

I guess as long as the "right" people are trolling it' okay....
 
MrVicchio said:
Oh, another non-story of no importance to troll the "breaking news" section with. Scalia made a mistake, had it corrected. **** happens.

Is it "breaking news worthy"? No.

Is it nice to see hey "oops, my bad" and corrected? Yes.

I guess as long as the "right" people are trolling it' okay....
Click to expand...

It's amusing to see a Supreme Court justice misquote their own work. Sorry this is so offensive to you because it happened to one of your favorite justifies. If the Notorious RBG had done the same, I'd laugh. And she's one of my favorite people.

Also, it is extra amusing because Scalia is an asshole. I like when assholes get embarrassed
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
You realize that Dana is more consistently conservative than you are, right? I think alot of conservatives(the real kind, not the anti-liberal kind) are kinda embarrassed by Scalia.

But god damn that Dana for not basing his humor on what side made the mistake. That is just unforgivable. HOW DARE HE!
Click to expand...

Who asked you, and who cares what you think?
 
danarhea said:
Not traditional. William F. Buckley wouldn't have done it. Of course, Buckley had a brain. Yes, at one time, we had Buckley, Norman Podhoretz, and Russell Kirk. Now we have Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. What a difference a few years makes. LOL.
Click to expand...

This post made me so sad.
 
j-mac said:
Who asked you, and who cares what you think?
Click to expand...

The topic is Scalia. First you think the topic is me, then you think the topic is Redress. That's two strikes. Care for a strikeout? Or would you rather debate the topic? Yea, I didn't think so, so please stop trolling the thread. Either contribute to the discussion or leave the conversation. Thanx in advance.
 
danarhea said:
The topic is Scalia. First you think the topic is me, then you think the topic is Redress. That's two strikes. Care for a strikeout? Or would you rather debate the topic? Yea, I didn't think so, so please stop trolling the thread. Either contribute to the discussion or leave the conversation. Thanx in advance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's a nit picky attack that is in reality a non issue as the opinion was revised as is appropriate in the spirit of the disclaimer.

But, I look forward to you posting similar instances when it concerns libs of standing in our society...

Carry on
 
Scalia's almost 80. So perhaps it's a sign that he's getting too old to serve on the court.

fingers_crossed.gif
 
Last edited:
I give the guy a break. Still one of the best Justices to ever sit on that court.
 
Moot said:
Scalia's almost 80. So perhaps it's a sign that he's getting too old to serve on the court.

fingers_crossed.gif
Click to expand...

I agree. He seems to be suffering from memory loss. It was more than a typo.
 
danarhea said:
Which goes to show you that people, even Supreme Court Justices, are not infallible. However, if Scalia changed the opinion he wrote, after voting based on another opinion, does that make his ground less tenable? Had his dissent from the majority been part of the majority instead, would that been grounds for a future SCOTUS overturning the decision on the basis that this was not settled law?

Finally, Scalia's misquoting his own case in his opinion does make me snicker a little. LOL.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...
I think this lends credence to the idea that Scalia tends to frame his political beliefs in the guise of legal arguments rather than letting the legal arguments dictate his opinions. His judicial views are subservient to his political views.
 
Mithros said:
I think this lends credence to the idea that Scalia tends to frame his political beliefs in the guise of legal arguments rather than letting the legal arguments dictate his opinions. His judicial views are subservient to his political views.
Click to expand...

The court has long been politicized.
 
Redress said:
You realize that Dana is more consistently conservative than you are, right? I think alot of conservatives(the real kind, not the anti-liberal kind) are kinda embarrassed by Scalia.

But god damn that Dana for not basing his humor on what side made the mistake. That is just unforgivable. HOW DARE HE!
Click to expand...

You have to admit, and I'm sure Dana wouldn't deny that he's not exactly even-handed in who he goes after. No big deal. Besides, he did change his lean to independent once (IIRC) then changed it back probably to mess with folks he knows are bothered by it. (Would Dana do that? Naaaaw.) :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom