Justice Antonin Scalia Bans Media From Free Speech Event

[jahawkin]

Linky

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia banned broadcast media from an appearance Wednesday where he will receive an award for supporting free speech.

The City Club usually tapes speakers for later broadcast on public television, but Scalia insisted on banning television and radio coverage, the club said. Scalia is being given the organization's Citadel of Free Speech Award.

In related news, Antonin Scalia was quoted recently as saying link

"The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia said after a speech at John Carroll University in suburban Cleveland. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."

I guess we can't expect much more from a partisan hack of a justice.

 

[FoBoT]

it seems weird, but isn't exactly the same thing

The ban on broadcast media, ``begs disbelief and seems to be in conflict with the award itself,'' C-SPAN vice president and executive producer Terry Murphy wrote in a letter last week to the City Club. ``How free is speech if there are limits to its distribution?''

 

[Jmman]

You are accusing Scalia of being a "partisan hack", but you find time to post crap about every Republican you have ever heard of?? Talk about being a "partisan hack".......

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Jmman
You are accusing Scalia of being a "partisan hack", but you find time to post crap about every Republican you have ever heard of?? Talk about being a "partisan hack".......

But there's a big difference. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[CPA]

Saw this too, and found it odd.

And be careful, he's just as much a partisan hack as Ginsburg.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Jmman
You are accusing Scalia of being a "partisan hack", but you find time to post crap about every Republican you have ever heard of?? Talk about being a "partisan hack".......

But there's a big difference. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

so what?

 

[Moonbeam]

So what?

Like it isn't obvious?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Jmman
You are accusing Scalia of being a "partisan hack", but you find time to post crap about every Republican you have ever heard of?? Talk about being a "partisan hack".......

But there's a big difference. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

so what?

Well I think its fine if I'm a partisan hack. Hell, this place is littered with them (hint: look in the mirror 😉). I just think Supreme Court Justices should be above partisan politics. But not for Antonin "I'm a strict Federalist except when it comes to a state interpreting its own election laws" Scalia.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Jmman
You are accusing Scalia of being a "partisan hack", but you find time to post crap about every Republican you have ever heard of?? Talk about being a "partisan hack".......

But there's a big difference. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

so what?

This is an easy one. It deals with power. If some random citizen is a partisan hack, then it affects no one. If a supreme court justice is a partisan hack, then it affects the lives of everyone in the country.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Jmman
You are accusing Scalia of being a "partisan hack", but you find time to post crap about every Republican you have ever heard of?? Talk about being a "partisan hack".......

But there's a big difference. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

so what?

This is an easy one. It deals with power. If some random citizen is a partisan hack, then it affects no one. If a supreme court justice is a partisan hack, then it affects the lives of everyone in the country.

Good point... but we have to remember who picked the Justice.

 

[LH]

I completely back Scalia. And its just banning broadcast media. Which doesnt include photographers, newspaper writers etc.

For the reasons following.

He has the right not to be filmed or taped.

He probably said, I dont want broadcast media there, or I wont show. So they complied.

 

[Corn]

jahawkin's intellectual honesty is quickly becoming exposed for it's lack lack of, well, honesty.

The fact is that public figures have a right to their privacy. Most likely Mr. Scalia simply wishes his image and/or words to be used as he see's fit--as is his right.

The premise of this thread and some of the commentary of the linked article are flawed as they misrepresent the facts leading the reader to a conclusion that is false. Mr. Scalia is in no way abridging anyones right to "free speech" for anyone may comment and report on the events of this award--they just can tape record it.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Corn
jahawkin's intellectual honesty is quickly becoming exposed for it's lack lack of, well, honesty.

The fact is that public figures have a right to their privacy. Most likely Mr. Scalia simply wishes his image and/or words to be used as he see's fit--as is his right.

The premise of this thread and some of the commentary of the linked article are flawed as they misrepresent the facts leading the reader to a conclusion that is false. Mr. Scalia is in no way abridging anyones right to "free speech" for anyone may comment and report on the events of this award--they just can tape record it.

Where have I been intellectually dishonest??
I just find it odd that Scalia doesn't want any cameras around when he accepts his free speech award. Shouldn't he be proud of his award?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Corn
jahawkin's intellectual honesty is quickly becoming exposed for it's lack lack of, well, honesty.

The fact is that public figures have a right to their privacy. Most likely Mr. Scalia simply wishes his image and/or words to be used as he see's fit--as is his right.

The premise of this thread and some of the commentary of the linked article are flawed as they misrepresent the facts leading the reader to a conclusion that is false. Mr. Scalia is in no way abridging anyones right to "free speech" for anyone may comment and report on the events of this award--they just can tape record it.

Where have I been intellectually dishonest??
I just find it odd that Scalia doesn't want any cameras around when he accepts his free speech award. Shouldn't he be proud of his award?

In all honesty, except for Judge Ito at the OJ trial, I've never known a sitting judge to play for the cameras. They tend to prefer to keep their faces off the television screen especially outside of the court room.

 

[308nato]

Scalia doesn't like to appear on camera anywhere. So what. Its not like its a meeting of the Illuminati and you need your secret decoder ring to find out what he spoke about.

And like it or not, you ARE the definition of a partisan hack. I find it funny you even had the idea to call him a that like you are some kind of fence riding mush brained moderate.

 

[Corn]

Where have I been intellectually dishonest??

Gee, I dunno, how about in every discussion in which you participate? Sounds about right.

I gave a specific example in my previous post in this thread, evidently you are either in denial or are functionally illiterate.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Jmman
You are accusing Scalia of being a "partisan hack", but you find time to post crap about every Republican you have ever heard of?? Talk about being a "partisan hack".......

But there's a big difference. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

so what?

Well I think its fine if I'm a partisan hack. Hell, this place is littered with them (hint: look in the mirror 😉). I just think Supreme Court Justices should be above partisan politics. But not for Antonin "I'm a strict Federalist except when it comes to a state interpreting its own election laws" Scalia.

There's the problem, how do you, as a Supreme Court Justice, the person who decides whether the law is being applied correctly and in the context of the Constitution, make decisions without being partisan to somebody. If he agreed with everything you believed in then he would not be partisan to you or Moonbeam, but he sure would be partisan to me. Because he believes in the application of law differently from you makes him partisan. Well, duh, but again so what? His job is not to see everything the way you see it, his job is to interpret things under his pretexts.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Corn
jahawkin's intellectual honesty is quickly becoming exposed for it's lack lack of, well, honesty.

The fact is that public figures have a right to their privacy. Most likely Mr. Scalia simply wishes his image and/or words to be used as he see's fit--as is his right.

The premise of this thread and some of the commentary of the linked article are flawed as they misrepresent the facts leading the reader to a conclusion that is false. Mr. Scalia is in no way abridging anyones right to "free speech" for anyone may comment and report on the events of this award--they just can tape record it.

After reading this, I withdraw my first objection to him barring tv cameras. You hit it on the head, he is not barring anyone's free speech, rather he does not want his own free speech taped. That in itself is not a contradiction.

 

[yellowperil]

It's all part of the Supreme Court justice mystique. The Justices don't like to be photographed, only painted. It helps the public take legitimacy in what they say, along with frequent references to Marbury v. Madison.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Jmman
You are accusing Scalia of being a "partisan hack", but you find time to post crap about every Republican you have ever heard of?? Talk about being a "partisan hack".......

But there's a big difference. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

so what?

Well I think its fine if I'm a partisan hack. Hell, this place is littered with them (hint: look in the mirror 😉). I just think Supreme Court Justices should be above partisan politics. But not for Antonin "I'm a strict Federalist except when it comes to a state interpreting its own election laws" Scalia.

There's the problem, how do you, as a Supreme Court Justice, the person who decides whether the law is being applied correctly and in the context of the Constitution, make decisions without being partisan to somebody. If he agreed with everything you believed in then he would not be partisan to you or Moonbeam, but he sure would be partisan to me. Because he believes in the application of law differently from you makes him partisan. Well, duh, but again so what? His job is not to see everything the way you see it, his job is to interpret things under his pretexts.

I understand this, but I question a judge's actions when he has a consistent way of reviewing legal cases and then completly reverses himself for one particular ruling. Scalia always rules in favor of state's rights, but in the year 2000 he cites the equal protection clause and trumps Florida law.

 

[Corn]

I understand this, but I question a judge's actions when he has a consistent way of reviewing legal cases and then completly reverses himself for one particular ruling. Scalia always rules in favor of state's rights, but in the year 2000 he cites the equal protection clause and trumps Florida law.

Just another example of the inherent dishonesty of your comments. Scalia always rules in favor of state's rights? Always? What happens if a "right" excersized by the state is a violation of the constitution? Has he "always" ruled against the constitution in favor of the state?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Corn

I understand this, but I question a judge's actions when he has a consistent way of reviewing legal cases and then completly reverses himself for one particular ruling. Scalia always rules in favor of state's rights, but in the year 2000 he cites the equal protection clause and trumps Florida law.

Just another example of the inherent dishonesty of your comments. Scalia always rules in favor of state's rights? Always? What happens if a "right" excersized by the state is a violation of the constitution? Has he "always" ruled against the constitution in favor of the state?

Oh gosh. I'm assuming that the reader is intelligent enough not to interpret my comment as saying Scalia rules against the Constitution. No Supreme Court justice does this. I thought this was assumed.
Some cases in law are not clearly defined by the constitution. In these cases it us up to a judge to use his intrepret of law and precident to make a ruling. In these cases, Scalia always rules in favor of states rights. This is why he is called a federalist.

 

[Corn]

I'm assuming that the reader is intelligent enough not to interpret my comment as saying Scalia rules against the Constitution.

Oh gosh, and here I was assuming that you had a rudimentary understanding of the concept of sarcasm. By our previous conversations I should have learned to be more delicate in dealing with you when using methods that may require a certain amount of congency on your part.

Pointing out the obvious argument that Scalia would rule against states when they subvert the consitution is a given--and as such was his reason for his decision with regard to Bush vs. Florida.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Corn

I'm assuming that the reader is intelligent enough not to interpret my comment as saying Scalia rules against the Constitution.

Oh gosh, and here I was assuming that you had a rudimentary understanding of the concept of sarcasm. By our previous conversations I should have learned to be more delicate in dealing with you when using methods that may require a certain amount of congency on your part.

Pointing out the obvious argument that Scalia would rule against states when they subvert the consitution is a given--and as such was his reason for his decision with regard to Bush vs. Florida.

Right.....Exactly how did the counting of votes in Florida subvert the constitution??

 

[LH]

Right.....Exactly how did the counting of votes in Florida subvert the constitution??

By changing the rules after the fact.