Don't Budge Scalia!

Don't let "them" push around a Supreme Court Justice! Stand up to the liberals that want you off the Cheney case, don't budge an inch!

After all, if all it takes to purchase a Justice of the Supreme Court is a little hunting trip between buddies, then America is sad shape, right?

Please Antonin, do NOT back down! Stand Up! Be a MAN!

That's exactly where we need you to stay. Visible and immoveable.

A Perfect Target.

You see, we don't want you to sit down. We want you to go away.

Forever.

Your attitude is an open door to impeachment hearings.

So please, oh please, Justice Scalia, don't you dare back down now!

[chelsea0011]

1. Damn activist judge

[DRoseDARs]

2. Sadly, this is my feeling in most things...

...I want all of these slimy waste-of-skin scumbags to keep f*cking up and getting away with it. Eventually, critical mass will be reached and NO ONE will be able to ignore it any longer, not even the staunchest of their deaf, blind, and dumb supporters. A few eggs may be broken along the way, but this seems to be the only way ANY generation learns any lasting lessons...though whether they pass those lessons on to future generations is debatable.

"It's darkest before the light" seems to be the most fitting of adages these days...

[BOSSHOG]

3. dick really needs tony the fixer on that case

BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY DICK HAS SOMETHING REALLY BIG AND EVIL TO HIDE. LIKE SECURING NO BID CONTRACTS FOR HALLIBURTON BY CAPTURING IRAQI OIL FIELDS BY FORCE IF NECESSARY. THAT MISSION HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AND TO YOUR AVERAGE RUN OF THE MILL CONSERVATIVE RUBE THAT WOULD BE FILED UNDER FIGHTING TERRORISM. POOR CHENEY, THE COUNTRY ISN'T FILLED WITH DUMBASS CONSERVATIVE RUBES.

[9215]

12. Excellent post Boss.

:thumbsup:

[dusty64]

4. A perfect example of why

unqualified and insane extremists have NO business in the courtroom except as defendents. When fat tony votes to allow the WH complete secrecy the last shred of credibility will be stripped from this court. He has given many reasons why he is unfit for the bench and why we ALL must question his credibility. It'd like to see the Democrats begin calling for his removal, but don't expect to see it.

[ExPat_ExTRA]

5. Scalia cannot self-define 'appearance of impropriety' etc!

"I'm not stealing this car ..." the man said, smiling, sitting down, and driving away with my car, my keys jingling in my hand.

As the tires squealed, and rubber burned, I thought to myself, "Well, surely it had the appearance of being stolen?"

And my car was gone.

Scalia is deciding for himself, what is best for the continuation of the power structure that is the US Government, in making his 'impropriety' a self-defined 'innocent victim of political partisans.'

What would his opinion be, if Justice Bader-Ginsburg had gone to spend the weekend bicycling with Al Gore (let's pretend they're old friends for this?) prior to deciding the Bush v. Gore case?


The forecast calls for dark clouds, people, for the next six months! I'm going to hammer on one point this summer, however:

Don't lose sight of the Bush enablers! CONGRESS.

I'd rather work 100% to ensure Democratic House and Senate majorities; without those, an ex- or pResident Bush cannot be impeached, or tried for treason after the fact!

DON'T LOSE TRACK OF YOUR CONGRESS-people: "We, THE" have the last word still, until further notice. If you carry any fear of the fairness of this fall's elections, you will understand my message.

Congress MUST ACQUIRE a Democratic majority!
Congress MUST BE DEM-friendly!

Peace2005,
DemocracyinExile

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Worst case scenario with an upside: Scalia writing the DISSENTING

OPINION because of the 5-4 majority ruling that will compel Dick Cheney to turn over the names and information. And no chance of appealing his case to a higher court. Checkmate.

7. Look for Cheney to lose the paperwork

have it destroyed in a fire, theft, etc...

No way this shit gets out.

Still, I want Scalia in the spotlight. I hope his pride and ego get the best of him and he thinks he's untouchable.

I want that Justice served up on a plate of impeachment, maybe a little side of imprisonment.

He deserves no less, and America deserves much better.

[spanone]

8. A Justice who can't see impropriety when it's in his own pants.

Another slap in the face to American jurisprudence from another arrogant asshole.

[YIMA]

9. F him

bowing down to his corporate masters

[Solomon]

10. Scalia has a job to do if he wants to be Chief Justice.

Look for a 5 to 4 split with Scalia in the majority. Talking about stench. Whew!

I'm taking bets right now that if Bush gets in again, Scalia becomes Chief Justice.

11. Of Course, Payback in kind is the name of the game

Give Bush the Executive Branch, he gives the Scalia the Judicial.

Please, oh PLEASE, inJustice Scalia, do not budge!

Imagine multiple impeachment hearings, first Scalia, then Cheney and Bush!

Uhmmm, imPEACHment... /Homer Simspon drool-voice

If we can't get a 50 year Dem majority out of that then we don't deserve it.

[9215]

13. A book .....

Nows the time to get Bugliosi's book about the Supreme Courts role in Selection 2000. Scalia's son had some business relations with the Bush's as well.

The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President

[forgethell]

14. Of course, the downside

of going after Scalia, the R*s will go after Ginsburg, on the old what goes around, comes around principle. You can't say the Republicans don't have priniples.

15. Let them go after Ginsberg! BWAHAHA!

Sorry. Uhmhm.

What I meant was , if they want to waste their time going after Justice Ginsberg, let them. She's done nothing to make her even remotely close to impeachable.

And remember, if we take Scalia, we hobble Thomas as well.

[forgethell]

16. Impeachable???

Not without a majority in the House and 2/3 of the Senate. He'd have to kill someone otherwise. Of course, the Republcans don't have 2/3 of the Senate, either, so Ginsburg is probably safe, but you misinterpret what impeachment is actually about, at least as it will be used, not 'high crimes', but political crimes.