Associated Press
Last week, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia announced in a new book that he'd changed his mind about everything he ever believed about the Commerce Clause -- just in time to ignore his own precedents and rule against the Affordable Care Act.
This week, as Sahil Kapur notes, Scalia used the court's ruling on Arizona's anti-immigrant law to condemn President Obama and complain about the administration's enforcement policies. Consider this gem from Scalia's dissent in the 5-3 decision.
It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities -- in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate "scarce enforcement resources" -- is not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30. [For certain illegal immigrants] immigration officials have been directed to "defe[r] action" against such individual "for a period of two years, subject to renewal."
The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conduct¬ing as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the nonenforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is "the right thing to do" in light of Congress's failure to pass the Administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
Remember, Obama's decision to implement many of the goals of the DREAM Act wasn't at issue in this case. Scalia didn't agree with the president's move, though, so he made it part of the case anyway.
For that matter, Scalia complaining about lax enforcement of existing federal immigration laws -- another element that really wasn't at issue in this case -- it itself bizarre, given that Obama deporting more undocumented immigrants than any modern president.
Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA, told Kapur, "Scalia has finally jumped the shark. He claims to respect the founding fathers, but his dissent channels the opponents of the Constitution."
Adam Serwer joked, "If you put Scalia on Fox and Friends you'd have to squint to notice the difference."
That's a great line, but it's important to appreciate how accurate it is. As Glenn Greenwald added, Scalia is always the justice who complains the loudest about the "politicization" of the court, but Scalia is also "the most politicized justice" we've seen in a very long time.
While we're at it, this tweet from @nycsouthpaw was rather brilliant.
Leave a Comment:
Can we impeach a judge? This unjust man is after all working under the table writing books, that noone will read.
Yes. Refer to Samuel Chase, Associate Supreme Court Justice, served with articles of impeachment in 1804. After trial by the Senate, Chase was acquitted.
http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_timeline/images_associates/007.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20070713052523/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_timeline/images_associates/007.html
Don't miss the point that the attempt failed. He may have been impeached, but he continued to serve on the court and continued to act politically.
The Chase impeachment was an early volley from the Executive and Legislative branches of our fledgling government to limit the autonomy and power of the Judicial branch:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande02.html
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5152/Chase-Samuel.html
Scalia may be impeachable. Thomas IS impeachable for serious offenses and conflict of interest. The moment the President is re-elected and a 113th Congress with enough of a majority in each chamber to enact legislation sensibly is sworn in...it will be time to clean house at the Court.
Just another example of how SCOTUS has become the Board of Directors for the Republican Party.
Supremes are virtually untouchable. For life.
-Untouchable, except by the Hand of God. (Who has been known in the past to prematurely call some to His bosom. . .)
if there was a god, justices like Scalia wouldn't be a problem
Comment of the month.
Angel, certainly it's legally possible to impeach a judge; however, it's the same requirement as for impeaching a president, meaning you have to have a majority in the House (and to remove him, a 2/3 majority in the Senate). Lots of luck on that.
The court has long history of crazy old coot justices. I am not so worried about Scalia as I am Roberts and Alito. They are young and Roberts is smooth. Roberts seems to get up every morning wondering how he can best help his corporate overlords deny freedoms to the rest of us.
Scalia is confirming that this SC is corporate owned and operated, the best court corporate money can buy!
he jumped the shark long ago. you just weren't watching.
Do you think he is simply feeling his oats, basking in his Koch-fueled decision-making power? Or is this indicative of something else?
Someone who acts out now as much as he is doing, dropping all pretense of fairness and impartiality as well as respect for tradition, strikes me as someone who is becoming unbalanced, but for what reason?
Does he feel at the peak of his powers and wants to crow (yet he didn't win the decision on this one), or is he feeling that something is slipping away from him and his backers?
Anyone care to guess?
Maybe this is out of bounds, but I wonder if he really isn't experiencing some mild age-related loss of inhibition, if nothing else. He seems to feel free to use oral argument and judicial opinion alike as an excuse to rant about anything tangentially related. Some basic restraint function in his brain seems to have gotten undermined.
I think he is experiencing some appointed for life related loss of inhibition.
I think Scalia may have a mood disorder, or maybe it's more serious. Maybe he's manic. Or he could be suffering mild dementia. I think Kennedy may be a little demented as well. Alito, in an earlier life, was one of the cruelest, most feared judges of the Spanish Inquisition, Torquemada. Thomas is a disgusting POS. I'm not sure about Roberts, yet, but I'm not optimistic that he's any better than the other four injustices.
Is Scalia revealing his ruling's on future SCOTUS cases.What a sad day in this country when judge's not only legislate from the bench but give their personal opinions of how the President is running the country.Scalia and company dividing the country even further. How much was Scalia paid for his deriding comment?I would like to see his offshore bank account.
I tend to think that Scalia is either becoming somewhat mentally impaired or is just taking advantage of the near-invincibility of a SC Justice.
Addressing issues outside the purview of the case is obvious judicial activism. I remember when the right cared about that.
Said the same thing on another thread this morning. His behavior and thought have become noticeably intemperate and injudicious. His questions have become less incisive and far more like half-assed rants copied from a "Crazy Uncle" World Net Daily email. This dissent is just profoundly kooky.
Of course you remembered when the Right cared about that - it was when they didn't have a majority on the court. That's the ONLY reason they ever gave lip service to caring about it.
He's a rich, white, older man which makes him believe he has the inherent power over all. Throw in the fact that he's a Supreme Court justice for life.....well, there you have it.
Robert E...That's why Obama came to the conclusion that the US gov. should pay for those who could not afford to buy it on their own. Get real. Obama wanted to raise taxes on those making more than $250k/yr to pay for it.
One only needs to watch Scalia to see he is like a tantrum throwing brat to know his 'screeds' are far from legal opinions based on law or precedence. He is a pathetic SC judge and more a right wing tea party activist who is extremely detrimental to our democracy.
I find this as a sample of why the SCOTUS is now out of favor to the tune of 40% support. It is interesting that at the same time as we went from a nation at peace under Clinton, to a nation at war under an appointed president to a debtor nation with corporate money funding our elections, SCOTUS has fallen out of favor. Roberts should be pleased.
and btw...Obama has given the largest tax break to the MC in history but sadly those making more than $250k/yr have been paying a lower amount that is why it is fair to raise taxes on those who can most afford to pay especially since they use such a greater portion of the commons like a public educated work force the courts, the police and firemen and public transport and air traffic. Go back to raving about Bush 'cause Liberals are just too bright for you.
If it's 5-4 against an individual mandate, how will that affect Romneycare?
No one is suing Massachusetts at the moment, but certainly if the USSC says it is unconstitutional, then Mass. cannot enforce it.
RomneyCare without the mandate is what Mass. had before. Healthy people did not buy coverage so the premiums went up on sick people. Universal coverage without a mandate just doesn't work.
Indeed - I'd like to see someone ask Romney why he supports the repeal of "Obamacare," but not the repeal of "Romneycare."
So MikeinMichgian why can't MA enforce it's mandate? The challenge to the mandate in the ACA is that it violates the commerce clause which only limits the power of the federal government does not limit (except in the context of the dormant commerce clause theory which obviously is not applicable to any state mandate) the power of the states.
Forget politics as I expect every decision to be based on the view (political or otherwise) of the offeror of the opinion. However, what happened to the requirement that the opinion apply only to the pleadings and arguments before the Court and that extraneous matters not briefed or argued can not be a basis for the opinion. How can a party believe that there is any semblance of fairness from such an opinion when they were not even asked to respond to the facts alleged or the conclusions drawn which became a basis for the opinion. EVERYTHING is political, but the inherent abdication of any attempt at fairness truly disturbs me.
"Jumping the Shark" implies he EVER gave a damn about intellectual integrity & judicial ethics; Someone needs to prove to my satisfaction he did.
In terms of his complaint that the enforcement resources argument would be a wash because they'd have to spend time/money on background checks for the 1.4 million expected to be impacted by Obama's decision, don't they do background checks anyway to some extent on suspected illegals before they deport them? I'd sure like to think so.
I think he's just not used to being in the minority these days, so not surprising that he'd throw a little tantrum. Not every day can be Bush v. Gore Antonin.
Scalia's remarks read less like a legal opinion by a member of the SCOTUS and more like the partisan talking points of a FOX News commentator.
You are so right with your analysis about Scalia. The Supreme Court is the last hope for a democracy to work. I Pray that the Justices of our Supreme Court show pride in their appointments and in the fairness and equality of the United States of America.
We must lead by example!
R oberts
A lito
T homas
S calia.....
The United States
SupremeCourt??? What a joke!!! What an embarrassment....the RAT PACK needs empeachment!!!! HELL, half of the American officials need to be FIRED with no BENEFITS........
I'm not a lawyer, but aren't judges, up to and including the Supreme Court, only allowed to rule based on the facts as presented to them? The question of whether Obama's DREAM decision has implications for enforcement priorities is clearly a factual one (and not at all obvious) - how does Scalia get away with basing his decision on conclusions of fact that were not presented and reviewed by the full Court, and subject to challenge by plaintiffs and/or defendants?
It is my understanding that the Supreme Court is a unique governing body established to represent the best interest on all citizens. (Our last avenue for hope and stability). If this court has affiliation with any political party if should be terminated. If the people can't rely on the Supreme Court to be fair and impartical does the citizens have an avenue to terminate this court? I'm really concerned about the radical course this country is heading and that our Supreme Court has become part of the problem instead of the solution. We need a Supreme Court that rules in the best interest of all Americans based on the constitution of the United States of America not one that makes decisions based on their political affiliation. How can we influence the governing of other countries when our Supreme Court, Senate, and House of Reporsentatives is flawed? America, I have faith that we can get this right!
Real Democrats (who consider Social Security and Medicare a hill to die on) need to win the House and Senate in large enough numbers to enact legislation to change the composition of the court from nine to seventeen; and to change their lifetime appointments to three or five year terms. The current court has made it clear that SCOTUS needs a written code outlining acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a SCOTUS justice.