mattpfl. Areyou saying that we have a activist supreme court? Surely not!! How can this be? Republicans have whined about an activist judiciary, and we have not heard a peep out of them. So you must be wrong!!

Correct, mattpfl.

Google the phrase "scalia womens rights" theres your proof of scalia`s comment that women arent guaranteed equal rights under the US constititution or bill of rights because it says MEN. Republicans have fallen to a level i cant believe. My father was a republican, my grandparents also, and some of my friends still are-but they are reasonable and arent hoodwinked by the koch brothers. dick armey and the rest of the GESTAPO that would and possibly WILL come and get you if this "fatherland 1st" movement continues on its natural path.

Justice Scalia saying that, "Women don't have Constitutional protection against discrimination."

Funny, I haven't seen anything on that anywhere, RCP etc. Got a liberal, biased out of context link for that one. Hope you are not a fraud and have a legitmate reference other than thinkformeprogress, etc.

Thomas's wife is a tea bagger. Yes a tea bagger, not a tea party member.

Wow. How did I ever give you credit for possibly being brighter than the Bevs, jomammas and Feistys?

and Judge Alito shaking his head at the last State of the Union speech because he didn't like being called out for his untra-conservative beliefs.

And what a classless, thin-skinned, chicken shyt thing for the President of the United States to do in a State of the Union when they respectively came for his address.

Please, bob-

Think about it...Ron is as bright as 90% of the First Read regulars.

And, just as classy, too.

Bob – I know you won’t like the source but here it is.

Justice Antonin Scalia: “In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both? Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html

Mixed Bag:

Thank you. I owe you a compliment for some future post.

Don't mention it, Ron.

Truth is...I meant every word.

Thanks Dennis.

Thanks once more Mixed.

Bob--Scalia's remarks have been widely reported--in fact, on this very website. The entire interview is available to read in the January, 2011 issue of California Lawyer. An interview--not a speech--not taken out of context. I think you owe Ron and Dennis an apology. And Scalia owes every woman (and me) who is a person (14th Amendment words, not mine) an apology. His rationale was that women were not intended to be protected by the 14th amendment. With that rationale, the Second Amendment would only protect the right to possess a musket and a flintlock pistol.

Bob, Jeez, they "respectfully" came for his address. The classless, thin-skinned, "chicken-shyt" act was Alitos. How can you think elsewise. No one else did it and he came prepared to do it. The President reacted as least as well as you or I would do. Mr Alito is a lawyer but not a Justice

Yall give SpongeBob a little credit for sitting behind a keyboard, & being a Classless, chickenShyiit, peice of garbage that he is.

are you,

Sorry, don't know what happened to my copy of the Jan. copy of California Lawyer. An apology to Dennis? Don't recall saying anything to Dennis other than to thank him for the link. Dennis is cool, I respect Dennis. Ron? Nah, Ron's been calling others a fraud needlessly, without provocation, or even part of a rebuttal. Just being another Feisty. My calling him a fraud was part of rebuttal with a warranted return shot. I can support/argue it if he wants. Ron's a fraud.

And Scalia owes every woman (and me) who is a person (14th Amendment words, not mine) an apology. His rationale was that women were not intended to be protected by the 14th amendment.

I don't think so. Isn't denying blacks and women the right to vote a form of discrimination?

If the 14th protects blacks and women against discrimination, if it really said that - why did they need to pass the 15th and 19th?

Ken,

Yea, they came out of respect. The State of the Union address by the President of the United States speaking to the American people before a joint session of the United States Congree in the chamber of the House of Representatives at the United States Capital ... How would Alito know Obama was going to take a cheap political shot in that venue. What President is that classless.

I'm sure you don't get it, though. You probably think mocking Americans for clinging to their guns and bibles is a demonstration of Presidential class also.

Rick,

Whatever. At least I'm not an ignorant piece of garbage that doesn't even know how to spell "peice" of garbage.

Grand Moff Joseph:

Excellent insight! I had not thought of it that way. But you are right.

Well said Bev:

Today's Justices are removing their blindfold, peeking, and allowing other countries to buy our elections. That too is a pity.

Why not just impose term limits for judges? I bet we could get congress to pass that.

I think they should be handcuffed, and thrown in prison, forever!

I think there is an economic element to it as well that does not get mentioned---Justice Thomas' wife is active in the Tea Party movement and gets fees for appearances---one step removed from giving the money directly to him.

Most judgeships across this land are elected positions except at the federal level and some state courts.

We tell attorneys / everyone that if they aspire to become a judge the must learn to play politics (not like in the corporate sense) by schmoozing, raising funds and running campaigns.

If we truly desire judges to not be political then all communities and states should require all judgeships to be appointed at all levels.

Easy there with the impeachment talk, Bev.

A disagreement over interpretation of law hardly rises to the level of impeachable offense. Otherwise, Earl Warren, that "activist" (from the conservative perspective) justice, would have been ousted right after Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainright, Brown v. Bd. of Ed. Topeka, Kansas, etc.

The Constitution rightly provides that a Justice of the Supreme Court "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." "Good behavior" inferred to be the same level as impeachable offenses for the president.

I often don't like the rulings of the Court on both legal and political grounds. However, such is not the stuff of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

I trust a thief if he tells me is a thief, more than I trust a conservative that pretends he is not a republican.

Geronimo, you mention term limits for judges, but term limits for the Senate and House should be adopted first. If 8 years is good enough for the prez, it should be good enough for the rest. That should really apply for all politicians at all levels. Then they won't take anything for granted and may actually do some work for a living. Plus their entitlements such as gold plated benefits and pensions should be cut too!

As for term limits for SCOTUS, all that would do is guarantee even more political interference forever, and would end up with even more gridlock than there is now.

There was a time when the Supreme Court didn't do something as stupid as tell you that a corporation was a person.

Ahh..

Disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision isn't a novelty for a President of the United States...I'm sure even you would agree it's happened before.

What President Obama did at last year's State Of The Union Address was most definitely unusual.

But then...President Obama's instincts just cost him 63 seats in the House, so no surprise there.

But...it's all good, Da Noid.

Can't wait 'till the Supreme Court deals with Obamacare.

I'm guessing the President starts out in-the-hole thanks to his behavior.

Love it.

I'm guessing the President starts out in-the-hole thanks to his behavior.

Any Justice of the Supreme Court who starts the President "in-the-hole" is not fit to serve.

53 incumbent Democratic House members were just judged "not fit to serve", Da Noid...

You don't hear me complaining about that.

When did it become the SCOTUS's job to rule in favor of the president's ideology? Last I knew, their job is to determine the constitutionality of the cases brought before them, not by whim of the Commander in Chief.

Mixed Bag,

The difference is that Congress faces re-election. Justices get a lifetime appointment.

Suzy,

It's not the job to vote in favor of or against the Presiden't ideology. What I object to is the concept that a Justice is going to hold a grudge based on the Presiden'ts public voicing his opinion that a decision was wrong.

Can we agree, Da Noid, that the President broke with tradition in publicly criticizing the Supreme Court for one of its decisions at an annual State Of The Union Address?

As I have said, thoughout the history of the United States, you and I both know that numerous Presidents have disagreed with any number of Supreme Court decisions, and somehow, found an appropriate way to make those disagreements known.

President Obama, unwisely...chose to break with tradition by choosing to vent at a State Of The Union Address.

He can do that...he can also face the consequences.

You continue to miss the point.

If you believe that it was inappropriate for President Obama to call out Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Kennedy (I leave out Thomas because, as usual, he did what Scalia told him to do) then you are entitled to your opinion. If they think it was inappropriate, again, they are entitled to that opinion.

However, you are advocating that the Justices in question should be allowed to let their own prejudices enter the equation. That simply will not do.

The justices need to grow up...this isn't the schoolyard and if they can't handle the criticism like adults and not allow the President's opinion to affect future judgements they need to either grow up or resign.

Oh my, Da Noid...

You seem to be suggesting that all the humans on the Supreme Court resign if they can't refrain from acting like humans.

Lefties are so naive...

You are aware that, at present...the pool of applicants for the position of Supreme Court Justice is restricted to humans?

Which humans that are you aware of (include yourself if you must),...are able to delete all of their own beliefs (and prejudices, if you will) in order to serve on the Supreme Court?

Do you think that Justice Warren or Justice Marshall did that?

I doubt that you believe that what THEY did "simply will not do"...

Hypocrite.

At least you've come to the right place to express your hypocrisy.

You, on the other hand, are suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable to bring one's personal prejudice towards an individual into a courtroom.

It's not.

Are Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas allowed to dislike the President and his ideology? Yes.

To allow that dislike to influence any decisions they make is judicial misconduct.

Ken, you've just described to a T what I've said is the problem with our health care costs- the insurance industry! 20-25% added in administrative costs is ridiculous! And that's just on the provider side! How much of our monthly health insurance premiums are pure administrative costs for the insurance companies? Then tack on the amount to cover the actual cost of claims and build in the profit for the insurance companies and it's rather obvious what needed to be fixed in the health care system. And unfortunately, HCR did NOTHING to address that issue. Instead it handed the insurance companies a cash cow in the form of millions of new subscribers to gouge. Yes, there are positives like removing the pre-existing conditions restrictions, helping seniors afford their prescriptions more easily, etc, it didn't touch the biggest culprit in the rising costs. So I can't agree that passing the bill that they did was better than doing nothing. It would have been better to work out the right plan instead of passing anything just to say we did it.

No, they don't do it for free if they're counseling medicaid patients. They get paid. They will continue to get paid. To avoid the absurd charge of this voluntary consultation being called a "death panel", it just won't be specifically included (but is already covered in the health care bill).

They took acting classes.