dependable renegade

points us to a lil' story about one of my favorite (if not my ABSOLUTE favorite) justice
N O T
Ah-HAHAHA! Vaffanculo, Nino!

What's good for the goose is good for the shithead:

Last year, when law professor Joel Reidenberg wanted to show his Fordham University class how readily private information is available on the Internet, he assigned a group project. It was collecting personal information from the Web about himself.

This year, after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made public comments that seemingly may have questioned the need for more protection of private information, Reidenberg assigned the same project. Except this time Scalia was the subject, the prof explains to the ABA Journal in a telephone interview.

His class turned in a 15-page dossier that included not only Scalia's home address, home phone number and home value, but his food and movie preferences, his wife's personal e-mail address and photos of his grandchildren, reports Above the Law...........

dependable renegade

oh my goddess scalia

just stfu already! you wouldn't know bias (well i think you WOULD know it, i think you're choosing to IGNORE IT) if it hopped on up and smacked you right in the kisser.

if there is any more CLEAR case than this one, i don't know it. judge benjamin not only should have recused himself, he should be punished for NOT recusing himself.

Supreme Court Divided Over Judicial Bias Case

By Robert Barnes

Washington Post Staff Writer
The Supreme Court seemed divided on familiar ideological grounds today when it confronted the question of whether a judge should recuse himself in a case where one of the parties spent millions of dollars supporting his election.

The justices struggled with whether an "appearance" of bias was enough to mean a judge should recuse himself from a case and, if so, how they would write a standard that defined it.

But Justice John Paul Stevens said it was clear that the case at hand -- in which West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin refused to recuse himself and eventually cast the decisive vote in favor of a coal company whose chief executive spent $3 million to help elect him -- offered the chance to say when the line had been crossed..........

c'mon now

you're being a too gloomy-greta! the violence wasn't THAT bad. it was committed against a WOMAN after all. it's not like he hit another MAN or anything...................

let's arm 'em all. and while we're at it let's make sure 8 year olds are allowed to fire weapons too. THAT'S important to their education!


(although domestic violence transcends all races, religions, sexual orientations, beliefs, etc)
a GIANT fuck you to scalia


Justice Scalia: Domestic Violence is "not that serious an offense"
Dahlia Lithwick at the XX Factor highlights the assholedom that is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who thinks violence against women is "not that serious an offense."

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard a case about the reach of the Federal Gun Control Act and whether it includes someone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

...Courtesy of the LA Times' David Savage, here's a report of oral argument, which evidently went poorly for the proponents of disarming wife beaters. Of note in the transcript is the following exchange between Justice Antonin Scalia and Nicole Saharsky, the Justice Department lawyer arguing for the stricter interpretation of the law.

JUSTICE SCALIA: And this was misdemeanor assault and battery, wasn't it?

MS. SAHARSKY: Yes, that's right. I mean, I really--

JUSTICE SCALIA: So it's not that serious an offense. That's why we call it a misdemeanor.

MS. SAHARSKY: Well, I mean, certainly the offense is this particular case was serious. The charging document reflects that Respondent hit his wife all around the face until it swelled out, kicked her all around her body, kicked here in the ribs--.................