Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
Will, on the punitive damages hypothetical, there was a series of three cases. BMW v Gore was decided in 1996 and held 5-4 that the Const restricted punitive damages awards. The dissents (esp Scalia and Thomas) said the Const is silent on the issue, and if the corp gets socked, well, that's a question of state law and none of the US Sup Ct's concern. Here is the lineup (lifted from the Sup Ct opinion): "STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which O'CONNOR and SOUTER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., joined."
|
This kinda reminds me of when Jinnkai would occasionally post obscure articles about violent crime in order to demonstrate that we're all in danger from violent crime.
Show me the website that outlines their various decisions and rationalizations and I'll go through them one by one and tally them up.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
As for the duck-hunting-with-Cheney case, you might want to read the opinion Scalia wrote in response to the motion for him to recuse.
|
I did, actually.
I part one, Scalia and Cheneys friendship dates back to the "years serving together in the Ford administration", which establishes that the duck hunting trip was only the latest example of friendship. This means a well established friendship, which is worse than just being hunting buddies one time. On page 3, he makes the argument that if he were to recuse himself, no one would replace him and it could be a tie. Oh nos! In that case, the decision of the lower court stands. So that's not a massive deal. But a tie is also kinda rare. Scratch that, it's VERY rare.
The best part, though, was this:
Quote:
Moreover, granting
the motion is (insofar as the outcome of the particular case is concerned) effectively the same as casting a vote against the petitioner. The petitioner needs five votes to overturn the judgment below, and it makes no difference whether the needed fifth vote is missing because it has been cast for the other side, or because it has not been cast at all.
|
Following this statement to it's natural conclusion, his argument is basically that he will be voting in support of the petitioner (his long time friend, Dick Cheney). If he recuses himself, he won't be voting for the petitioner. So of course he can't recuse himself!
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...-475scalia.pdf
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
I don't expect laymen who read mainly newspapers for their sources to know the ins and outs of this stuff, but if you do go out on a limb with pronouncements about things like this, it helps to really know what you're talking about.
|
I'm a layman, yes, but that doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong.