(no subject)

[catsittingstill]

Really disturbing event here you might want to take a look at.

Apparently Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set a US marshal to seize and erase 2 reporters' recordings of a speech (about the importance of the Constitution, no less) that he was giving in a public venue. What is he up to that he's afraid of being accurately quoted?

I have to go to work and don't have time to figure out how to put in a link, but here's the URL.

http://nytimes.com/2004/04/12/opinion/12HERB.html

Comments

[tnatj.livejournal.com]

Once again, we see my brother Bob's theory in action: the recording and publication of facts (even true facts -- my brother would argue especially true facts) is seemingly less protected by the First Amendment than opinion. In this case the facts are the verbatim transcription of Mr. Scalia's speech

Well, here's an opinion: Mr. Scalia, a public official speaking at a public forum, sets an awfully poor example of public behavior. He should be ashamed of himself.

Unfortunately, there's only one constitutional remedy for this sort of bad behavior done at the behest of (and presumably approval by) Mr. Scalia: Impeachment and conviction by Congress. I mean, how do you judicially censure a Supreme Court associate justice?

Sadly, under the current political atmosphere, this is unlikely to happen. There is always the future however, and Mr. Scalia's chickens may eventually come home to roost.

For myself, and others that I may influence: when I've been denied access to the facts otherwise, I can only presume that Mr. Scalia, in his speech, advocated the selected enforcement of the Bill of Rights to the advantage of the individuals and political parties that agree with his personal, judicial and political philosophy, that he further advocates the abridgment of those rights to those individuals and groups otherwise, and that he espouses fascistic and totalitarian ideas as a means to fulfill this cockeyed point of view. I already know he was a loose cannon.

Unless he can prove me wrong through reporters I trust, that is my correctly held opinion, and the opinion of a number of others I know and respect.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

He's proven otherwise, in a lot of cases, in his published opinions. I'm no fan of Scalia, and he's got all of Warren Burger's paranoia about public review of his personal actions, but I know his *judicial* record on the first amendment, and it's pretty good. Not perfect, but good. His personal behavior's another matter.

If you want to pick on Scalia, there are a lot of other reasons to do it. Start with the fact that he never met an excuse for illegal search and seizure he didn't like.

[tnatj.livejournal.com]

But how do you know what he did or did not say in that speech? The recordings were confiscated. All we now have are the opinions of the reporters.

When a public figure, particularly a high public official, behaves badly in such a manner, I have the privilege to assume the worst in what he tried to suppress.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I don't know what he said in that speech. I don't have to care what he said in that speech. His speeches are not law. His published opinions are. His published opinions are solidly protective of first amendment rights. Nothing about him besides his vote on cases and his writing in opinions matters much to me.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

:-) Okay, this article had a strong effect on me. I guess I wasn't expecting it to have such a strong effect on others, which is silly. If I didn't expect people to care, why would I put up a link?

Anyway--combined with the whole duck-hunting thing, I have to admit that this is giving me a bad opinion of Scalliwag--I mean, Scalia. Oh, I should be fair; I had a bad opinion of him before.

Though I agree with Naomi that his published opinions and Supreme Court decisions have more effect on First Amendment rights than his behavior, I also think it's a very bad sign that he's abusing his power to trample on First Amendment rights. On the other hand, this is one incident--contributing to SC decisions that weaken the First Amendment would precipitate a rash of incidents all across the country. On the other other hand--actions speak louder than words.

And it's not like this is some kind of musical performance where, oh dear, people might sell bootleg copies and destroy his market.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

The Scaly One ("scalawag" is not strong enough for me) is indeed a creepy authoritarian.

LA Times article on legalities of the event; it is probably illegal--only somehow I doubt that John Ashcroft will bring charges:
http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-na-scalia9apr09.story

Article by Konz' own paper on the event:
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040409/localnews/202798.html

US Marshal defends Marshals's action:
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20040410/localnews/205257.html

Konz' own article on the subject:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001899379_scalia09.html

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

The following note I wrote about Scalia in the wake of Bush v Gore is perhaps also relevant; nrivkis is ignoring the rest of Scalia's legal positions, many of which are repugnant--and if you don't want to take my word on it, look up Lani Guinier's article on The Scaly One's legal philosophy.

It's worth noting that Scalia (I cannot bring myself to
grant him his proper title here) once wrote an opinion permitting
mandatory drug testing of a high-school athlete on the grounds that
the plantiff had no expectation of privacy in his body chemistry
because--I am not making this up--of locker-room nudity!

I am very glad Scalia is not close to anyone I personally know; he
does not seem to respect anyone's personal boundaries.