Not the onion, but may cause tears

March 19, 2003 11:27 AM

The Onion keeps getting funnier In this week's edition, Antonin Scalia bans the media from covering his acceptance of a free-speech award, and also tells Americans "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires." Haw-haw! Get it? Oh, wait a second...
posted by soyjoy (22 comments total)

Most of us who've followed Scalia's career aren't shocked. His hyper-conservative views on civil liberties are well documented.
posted by darren at 11:34 AM on March 19, 2003

It's a "Punonion" (a pun on the onion). When life imitates the Onion.
posted by stbalbach at 11:40 AM on March 19, 2003

you mean broadcast media
as the second link shows, print media is not excluded from his appearances.

not much of a story.
posted by probablysteve at 11:41 AM on March 19, 2003

yeah yeah yeah ... are
posted by probablysteve at 11:46 AM on March 19, 2003

In response to a student's question, Scalia said it was "a wonderful feeling" to have led the Supreme Court's rejection of a recount of the Florida vote, thus handing the election to Bush.

Disgusting.
posted by thewittyname at 11:49 AM on March 19, 2003

As the representative "crusader" against fundamentalism here's one of my favorites from capo Scalia:

"The mistaken tendency to believe that a democratic government, being nothing more than the composite will of its individual citizens, has no more moral power or authority than they do as individuals has adverse effects in other areas as well. It fosters civil disobedience, for example, which proceeds on the assumption that what the individual citizen considers an unjust law—even if it does not compel him to act unjustly—need not be obeyed. St. Paul would not agree. 'Ye must needs be subject,' he said, 'not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.' For conscience sake. The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible."
posted by nofundy at 11:52 AM on March 19, 2003

Not to defend Antonin Scalia, who sounds too much like Savoranola for my comfort, but if he refuses to permit the broadcast of HIS speech, is that really a repression of free speech?
posted by orange swan at 12:12 PM on March 19, 2003

I do agree with Scalia about many of our rights going way beyond what the Constitution requires. There are a lot of cases, especially in the area of civil rights, where I would agree with the result but would disagree that the Constitutional grounds on which it was reached really allowed that decision to be reached.
posted by gyc at 12:18 PM on March 19, 2003

..broadcast media, right. No, not much of a 'story' story, but an excellent Onion story.
posted by soyjoy at 12:22 PM on March 19, 2003

The real irony here, of course, is that Scalia is often much less speech protective than many of the other Justices. On the other hand, it is quite common for public figures to request that their speeches not be rebroadcast. The reason is that many give a canned speech, and rebroadcast reduces the novelty to future attendees of these kinds of events.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:33 PM on March 19, 2003

I do agree with Scalia about many of our rights going way beyond what the Constitution requires.

Yes and no. It really depends on what "the Constitution" means to you. To Scalia "the Constitution" is what is what the plain texts states and what 200+ year-old white guys thought it should mean. To me, and likely most here on MIFI, "the Constitution" is a document with incorporates and implies rights found by many, many judges in numerous case all as well as the plain meaning of the text.

It also true that the Constitution merely provides the floor of right. It depends on how you define "the Constitution" to define what rights are protected by the Constitution.

Does Scalia hate civil liberties? It's a lot more likely that his strict constructionalist views just don't have room for an expansive view of civil liberties. Then again, his dissent in Romer v. Evans might lead you to believe otherwise...
posted by Bag Man at 12:42 PM on March 19, 2003

actualy, I've found the onion has been going way down in humor value
posted by delmoi at 1:09 PM on March 19, 2003

Even the Onion can't compete with reality. Even drugs can't compete with reality.
posted by orange swan at 1:44 PM on March 19, 2003

Not to rehash the 2000 election, but I would be interested to see a transcript of the Q&A that Scalia did.

The tone of the article and this quote:

In response to a student's question, Scalia said it was "a wonderful feeling" to have led the Supreme Court's rejection of a recount of the Florida vote, thus handing the election to Bush.

leads me to believe that Stephen Koff and James McCarty don't care much for Justice Scalia.

1. The SCOTUS didn't reject the recount, it said Florida Supreme court couldn't change the rules while an election was in place.

2. No one handed Bush the election. Though many here will debate it, every recount done after the fact shows Bush winning, including the recount that Gore wanted.

Like I said, I don't want to debate the 2000, election, but lets not make too much of his comments based on the quote a "wonderful feeling" and a reporters interpretations. A transcript would be helpful.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:45 PM on March 19, 2003

Personally I find his quote horrifying...

"Most of the rights that YOU enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."

Maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me but why would he (consciously or unconsciously) exclude himself from the rights applied by the Constitution?
posted by aaronscool at 1:48 PM on March 19, 2003

Personally I find his quote horrifying...

"Most of the rights that YOU enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."

Maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me but why would he (consciously or unconsciously) exclude himself from the rights applied by the Constitution?

Well, as a Supreme Court Justice, he does get to decide how he wants the Constitution to be applied to himself.
posted by gyc at 2:20 PM on March 19, 2003

Steve I have to disagree. The election was surely handed to Bush. If the state of Florida couldn't figure out how to resolve the situation then the Constitution makes it quite clear what the next steps should be and none of them involve the Supreme Court.

Dennis Hastert is the real president as far as I am concerned and the moron in office should be tried for treason.

But thanks for asking.
posted by filchyboy at 3:35 PM on March 19, 2003

S@L:
I will not disagree that if a full recount had concluded in the manner Gore had asked for he would not have won the election.

I will say that the gross disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters (mostly minorities), along with the evidence that overvotes (not the undervotes everyone was focusing on) suggest that the majority of Floridians intended to vote for Gore and were either not allowed to or not counted.
posted by aaronscool at 3:35 PM on March 19, 2003

scalia is a vile swine. His fat ugly face has ruined many a meal for me by its appearance on the television information screen. I bet that he sweats alot. Also, I have a good source who tells me that he often masturbates under his robe while hearing evidence. What a fat and disgusting ugly pig.
posted by mokujin at 2:20 AM on March 20, 2003

S@L,

Not to rehash the 2000 election but if you truly want to understand Scalia's role try reading Vincent Bugliosi's book on the subject. That is if you can stand an unimpeachable argument that would appear to conflict with your established opinion. Willing to hear the other side?
posted by nofundy at 4:55 AM on March 20, 2003

"Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."

Uh, yeah, except that the Constitution requires that those rights not be assumed to be limited. (Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.)

Thanks to Charles Pierce on Romenesko's letters page for the reminder.
posted by soyjoy at 9:20 AM on March 20, 2003

nofundy, I would suggest that you do some Equal Protection and remedies analysis before you spin your fundamentalist theories. S@L makes all valid points and anyone with an ounce of understanding of the 14th Amendment knows that. I can't agree with the ultimate outcome of Bush v. Gore, but the decision was not illegitimate and not conflict with good law.

I guess that's the difference between the fundys and the nofundys: A fundy can never accept an outcome contrary to his or her belief, while a nofundy can accept an outcome contrary to his or her belief if that outcome rests on a correct factual basis or good legal analysis. Nofundy your dogmatic adherence to dogma, even in the light of overwhelming countervailing evidence (as suggested by most of your posts and threads) is the definition of fundamentalism.
posted by Bag Man at 10:08 AM on April 11, 2003