Sunday, February 14, 2016


When it came to Guantanamo Justice Scalia not only thought that every man at Guantanamo should stay there until the military decided otherwise-- but he also thought that the attorney's representing the men should not be provided any information (discovery is the legal term) that the military collected regarding the men...(or as more accurately described-- the information that the military fabricated about the men).
To Scalia we (the attorneys) were as much the enemy as the men being held.
In his dissent in Bush vs. Boumediene Scalia stated:
  "But even when the military has evidence that it can bring forward, it is often foolhardy to release that evidence to the attorneys representing our enemies."

Scalia was of course suggesting that the attorneys representing the men could not be trusted to maintain the confidentiality of the "classified information." However the irony is that it was foolhardy to let us have that information not because any of us would break the law but because we then fought to have the information made public so that the world could see the fabrication and lies by the military to justify holding these men.

Scalia's criticism did not stop with the attorneys who represented the men at Guantanamo- he went so far as to claim that the majority's opinion in Boumediene-- allowing the men to challenge their detention--"will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." He was of course wrong about that- just like he was wrong about so many things.

And let's not forget torture. When it came to torture Scalia's view was as lawless as those who engaged in the torture. Unfortunately, like many of his views, they seemed to stem from TV shows- instead of legal principles. You can get a glimpse of his lawless views on torture here.

Scalia was the quintessential enemy of the common person and his decisions not only ignored decency and compassion, which he felt did not have a place in the law or in interpreting our constituion, but actually ridiculed those who advocated for those values. Unfortunately his decisions also ignored well established legal principles if those established legal principles did not comport with his dogma. As a country we could and should demand better from our Supreme Court. Hopefully we will not have any more like Scalia added to the bench.

The talking dog has more on Scalia here.

1 comment:

Richard Lightner said...

So true. I never understood the belief that Scalia represented intellectual conservatism; that he was bright! He was cruel and dumb!!