The single most frightening statement ever made by a Supreme Court justice

Particularly a Justice like Scalia who could wind up running the thing. In today's NY Times:

"The electronic media have in the past respected my First Amendment right not to speak on radio or television when I do not wish to do so," he wrote, "and I am sure that courtesy will continue."

First Amendment right not to speak? The man is confusing the First Amendment with the Miranda decision! Let's see exactly what the First Amendment says:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What is freedom of the press if not the right to publish what one has heard? The good Justice has the First Amendment right to speak. What he is asserting is a First Amendment right to constrain the press' First Amendment rights.

The article also has the second scariest thing ever said by a Supreme Court Justice:

In his letter, Justice Scalia said he did not have the power to "direct security personnel not to confiscate recordings."

If HE doesn't have that power, we damn well better find out who does, and insist they do so immediately.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is a blatant example that shows how his personal views and desires override any rational interpretation of the Constitution. And it's a Supreme Court justice, a potential Chief Justice, whose biases are overriding the law.

We may be in deep shit.

Posted by Prometheus 6 on April 13, 2004 - 9:59am :: News
 
Prometheus 6's blog | latest article | previous | next
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Some of Scalia's views are really frightening when you think about them. For a man whose very job is to uphold the Constitution, he doesn't seem to think much of it.

There's a lot that I could say about Kerry, but he won't be nominating right-wingers to the Supreme Court AFAIK and that's one of the more compelling reasons in my mind to vote for him.

Posted by  Al-Muhajabah (not verified) on April 13, 2004 - 2:26pm.

scalia, more so than any of the other clowns on the supreme court, makes quite the mockery of the constitution...and this, from the very clown who prattles on about what a sacred document he thinks it is. the "man" gives new meaning to the word "hypocrite".

Posted by  mark (not verified) on April 13, 2004 - 4:17pm.

There's a bit of overreaction here, I think.

If I read the text correctly, Scalia doesn't mind if he is quoted in the media, as long as his speech is transscribed or spoken with another voice. In a nutshell, Scalia doesn't want to hear his own voice on radio or TV.

As for his statement that he can't order confiscation of recordings, I read that only as a statement of fact, he does not indicate that he actually wants this power.

Posted by  dog of flanders (not verified) on April 14, 2004 - 8:13am.

When a constitutional lawyer misinterprets the First Amendment, that's bad enough. Whena Supreme Court justice does it, it's the worst omen imaginable.

Or do you really think there's a First Amendment right not to be broadcast?

Trust me, I have no problem never seeing or hearing from Scalia again. I just want it via retirement rather than because his security detail breaks the Fourth Amendment because of their interpretation of his whims.

Posted by  P6 (not verified) on April 14, 2004 - 8:47am.

The way I parse the sentence, Scalia does not claim a right under the first amendment not to be broadcast. Otherwise, why would he use the word "courtesy"? I do read:

- Scalia says he has free speech rights under the first amendment.
- Scalia says one of the ways in which he exercises this right is to choose not to appear on TV or radio.

From this, it is reasonable to assume that when Scalia is invited to talk somewhere, he will do this on the condition that he is not recorded.

Obviously something went wrong, but it is not clear who is to blame:

Either Scalia did not make this condition clear, the high school did not relay this condition to the public, or the two reporters ignored this condition.

I notice the Times only mentions that

"The policy had not been announced at the high school"

which leaves us guessing if the reporters were actually aware of this policy or not. If they did, they behaved poorly.

Posted by  dog of flanders (not verified) on April 14, 2004 - 11:22am.