Scalia's Headgear At Inauguration

[Kathianne]

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/21/scalia-wears-martyrs-cap-to-inauguration/



http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/a7474383b5a383d0a05858b6fc837f7b_521x675-1.jpg (http://pics.lockerz.com/u/Panger2013/photos/278479922/after_the_inauguration_justice_scalia_wi)







Kevin Walsh of the University of Richmond School of Law writes (http://walshslaw.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/about-justice-scalias-headgear/):


The twitterverse is alive with tweets about Justice Scalia’s headgear for today’s inauguration. At the risk of putting all the fun speculation to an end . . . The hat is a custom-made replica of the hat depicted in Holbein’s famous portrait of St. Thomas More. It was a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia. We presented it to him in November 2010 as a memento of his participation in our 27th annual Red Mass and dinner.


Wearing the cap of a statesman who defended liberty of church and integrity of Christian conscience to the inauguration of a president whose policies have imperiled both: Make of it what you will.

[ConHog]

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/01/21/scalia-wears-martyrs-cap-to-inauguration/

IF it was a political statement, very improper.

[Kathianne]

IF it was a political statement, very improper.

That's your interpretation and judgment. Carry on.

[ConHog]

That's your interpretation and judgment. Carry on.

so you feel a supreme court justice should be making political statements? Just the ones you agree with, or all of them?

Myself, I think they should all be apolitical.

[Kathianne]

so you feel a supreme court justice should be making political statements? Just the ones you agree with, or all of them?

Myself, I think they should all be apolitical.

Uh huh. Sow, reap.


http://youtu.be/k92SerxLWtc

[aboutime]

Who among us would like to prove that the headgear Scalia wore was political?

Personally. He wore that "whatever it is called" to keep his head warm. Hat's prevent the loss of body heat through the head.

Why does it have to be such a big deal?

Obama didn't wear a hat to protect his Vacuum.

[glockmail]

Judges shouldn't be political? What planet did you arrive from?

[ConHog]

Uh huh. Sow, reap.


http://youtu.be/k92SerxLWtc

I also think Obama is wrong for that.

See how that works............

[ConHog]

Judges shouldn't be political? What planet did you arrive from?

I didn't say they weren't political. I said they shouldn't be.

[Kathianne]

I also think Obama is wrong for that.

See how that works............

Yea, got it at the time and posted that it would result in blowback. Same with Reid and all his nonsense, it will come back to haunt.

[ConHog]

Yea, got it at the time and posted that it would result in blowback. Same with Reid and all his nonsense, it will come back to haunt.



so you're okay with the Supreme Court stooping to such childish games as "got you back"


I'm not.

[Kathianne]

so you're okay with the Supreme Court stooping to such childish games as "got you back"


I'm not.

Of course you're not. Yep, I am. Republicans should fire back when they can, all that has been dealt. Same with Scotus.

[ConHog]

Of course you're not. Yep, I am. Republicans should fire back when they can, all that has been dealt. Same with Scotus.


yep, which proves you put politics above the integrity of the scotus.

Disgusting. The SCOTUS was separated from the political arena for a reason.

[Kathianne]

yep, which proves you put politics above the integrity of the scotus.

Disgusting. The SCOTUS was separated from the political arena for a reason.

Not after the Obama put down. Sorry, can't play that both ways.

[aboutime]

Not after the Obama put down. Sorry, can't play that both ways.


Not to mention how often Obama, and Holder have all but...ignored the law, and constitutional mandate their Oath was designed to protect.

Like the 1st amendment. Some Americans honestly believe...the 1st amendment is only good as long as they agree with the person who is speaking, or making a statement. Likewise. The same has been shown by Obama that following the Constitution CAN be done, as long as He, and his fellow Democrats agree with parts, and disagree with other parts.

It's called BREAKING THE LAW.

[ConHog]

Not after the Obama put down. Sorry, can't play that both ways.

Sure you can. The Supreme Court should NEVER lower themselves to that level. Holy shit they are well Supreme Court Justices, Obama is well only Obama.

Would it be okay with you if one of the more liberal judges showed up wearing an abortion t shirt? No of course not.

Judges are supposed to be about decorum and no one thinks that about politicians.

[Kathianne]

Sure you can. The Supreme Court should NEVER lower themselves to that level. Holy shit they are well Supreme Court Justices, Obama is well only Obama.

Would it be okay with you if one of the more liberal judges showed up wearing an abortion t shirt? No of course not.

Judges are supposed to be about decorum and no one thinks that about politicians.

Again, disagree. Indeed, there are reasons for concluding that Roberts ruled as he did regarding intimidation by Obama. Plenty of precedence regarding FDR and court packing. As in this case, not taken to mat, the court backed off and what Executive wanted got through.

[logroller]

IF it was a political statement, very improper.

It was a statement alright, but since when is gaudy political? Thing just looks stupid.

Never would I look at that and say, that's a political statement against the president's take on religion etc. But even if we (over)read into its reference, More is hardly considered a controversial political figure. He's remembered as a dedicated statesman; who famously quipped before his execution for treason, "the king's loyal servant, but God's first". Pretty sure the founding fathers would have agreed with that statement (except the king part, substitute:constitution). Indeed Supreme court precedent has defended "One nation under God" and the Supreme court (as well as lower courts) opening with a secular prayer mentioning God and prayer for guidance. Not to mention, didn't he hold a Bible upon which Obama swore?
Is it possible it was some rib against Obama? maybe, but Scalia is excellent jurist and has consistently shown poise in the face of scrutiny and demonstrated the highest character. He's deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

[ConHog]

It was a statement alright, but since when is gaudy political? Thing just looks stupid.

Never would I look at that and say, that's a political statement against the president's take on religion etc. But even if we (over)read into its reference, More is hardly considered a controversial political figure. He's remembered as a dedicated statesman; who famously quipped before his execution for treason, "the king's loyal servant, but God's first". Pretty sure the founding fathers would have agreed with that statement (except the king part, substitute:constitution). Indeed Supreme court precedent has defended "One nation under God" and the Supreme court (as well as lower courts) opening with a secular prayer mentioning God and prayer for guidance. Not to mention, didn't he hold a Bible upon which Obama swore?
Is it possible it was some rib against Obama? maybe, but Scalia is excellent jurist and has consistently shown poise in the face of scrutiny and demonstrated the highest character. He's deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

that is why I put a big IF in my statement.

But for the sake of argument, your stance on supreme's making political statements?

[logroller]

that is why I put a big IF in my statement.

But for the sake of argument, your stance on supreme's making political statements?

Suppose we'd need to examine the differences between judicial philosophy and politics. Approaching such through the lens of political interests would surely muddle the two. I'll start a thread on that later.

[ConHog]

Suppose we'd need to examine the differences between judicial philosophy and politics. Approaching such through the lens of political interests would surely muddle the two. I'll start a thread on that later.

See, I'm of the opinion that judge who is judging should show no bias, be it political or otherwise.

They aren't like lawyers who represent one side or the other in a debate. They are free to show bias.

A judge however is supposed to let the scales of justice work, how can the scales work if the judge has a bias towards one side or the other?

And even if they DON'T actually let their bias play into their decisions, making those biases public certainly casts doubt on whether they do or not.

It would be like going to a Yankees versus Red Sox game and there is the Umpire sitting there in his Yankees cap. Yeah that's gonna be a fairly called game I'm sure.

Justice is supposed to be blind.

[Kathianne]

It's so much easier to begin with prosecutors:

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/01/22/chairman-paul-ryan-meet-doj-lawyer-daniel-freeman/


Chairman Paul Ryan, Meet DOJ Lawyer Daniel Freeman (http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/01/22/chairman-paul-ryan-meet-doj-lawyer-daniel-freeman/)
Dear Representative Ryan:
I thought you might like to learn more about the fellow who boasted he started that wave of boos at your inaugural appearance (http://cdn.pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/paste/doj-voting-section-lawyer-marred-inauguration-by-booing-rep-paul-ryan): Department of Justice Voting Section lawyer Daniel Freeman. Here at PJ Media we’ve been covering Freeman’s partisan enforcement of federal election laws for years (https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=PJ+Media+%22Daniel+Freeman%22+%22Voting+Section% 22&oq=PJ+Media+%22Daniel+Freeman%22+%22Voting+Section %22&gs_l=hp.3...2757.9626.0.9841.42.39.0.2.2.0.229.445 7.13j24j2.39.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.FmllB4xcbYk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,o).


We understand, however, that your duties setting spending levels for federal agencies like the Department of Justice often leave you too busy to keep up with the partisan rot deep inside the civil service at DOJ. If your duties as chair of the House Committee on the Budget permit just a few minutes, PJ Media thought you’d like to learn a bit more about the man who started the wave of boos against you, as well as how his office is corrupting the enforcement of federal election laws.
Come budget time, maybe your committee can boo back.


Mr. Freeman was hired as part of an unprecedented ideological hiring blitz inside the Department of Justice Voting Section (http://pjmedia.com/blog/every-single-one-the-politicized-hiring-of-eric-holder%e2%80%99s-voting-section/?singlepage=true) soon after the 2009 inauguration. Freeman had all the right credentials for a job as a career civil servant inside Eric Holder’s Justice Department – membership in the Yale Law Democrats and experience with the ACLU attacking Bush administration national security policy. For good measure, he sought out representation of al-Qaeda terrorists at Gitmo.


http://cdn.pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/files/2013/01/freeman1.jpg (http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/files/2013/01/freeman1.jpg)DOJ’s Daniel Freeman



You’ll note that he didn’t have any experience in federal election law. No matter. Experience in the activist trenches as a radical leftist is the top qualification at Eric Holder’s Civil Rights Division. You can read the biographies of the hundreds of radical leftists hired from 2009-2010 in the Civil Rights Division here. (http://pjmedia.com/blog/%E2%80%98every-single-one%E2%80%99-fallout-justice-dept-in-turmoil-from-pjmedia-series/)
Stay tuned, because PJ Media hasn’t even reported on the ones hired from 2011-2012 yet.


Once Daniel Freeman was hired, he became a trusted soldier to Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez. He was assigned to politically important voting cases even though he had no experience in election law. One such politically important case was Eric Holder’s battle against South Carolina voter ID.


That case was politically important for two reasons. First, in 2011, President Obama’s base was asleep and unenthused. Blocking South Carolina’s voter ID under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act became part of a political strategy to reawaken his base – a base the president used against you in the fall.
Second, and most importantly, Freeman was assigned to the South Carolina case because of a pesky political problem – other more sensible career lawyers inside the DOJ Voting Section actually recommended in a detailed memo that DOJ approve South Carolina’s voter ID administratively.

(http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/01/05/federal-court-doj-must-reimburse-south-carolina-for-voter-id-folly/?singlepage=true)

You won’t hear much about that memo because reporters in the tank for the administration like McClatchy’s James Rosen (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/james-rosen/) have never informed readers that the memo exists. If the memo from the career lawyers had been followed, South Carolina and the federal government would have saved millions of dollars by avoiding a lengthy federal court trial.


But what does taxpayer money matter when a president is up for reelection?

...

[ConHog]

It's so much easier to begin with prosecutors:

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/01/22/chairman-paul-ryan-meet-doj-lawyer-daniel-freeman/


If your goal is to convince that Holder is a shit bag and hired a bunch of idiotic cronies you are preaching to the choir LOL

[red states rule]

Uh huh. Sow, reap.


http://youtu.be/k92SerxLWtc


Game

Set

Match

[red states rule]

Sure you can. The Supreme Court should NEVER lower themselves to that level. Holy shit they are well Supreme Court Justices, Obama is well only Obama.

Would it be okay with you if one of the more liberal judges showed up wearing an abortion t shirt? No of course not.

Judges are supposed to be about decorum and no one thinks that about politicians.

Or in your case, a white hood would be acceptable

It shows you how damn bias the media has become when they have to comment on what a conservative Justice of the USSC is wearing

Well, it beats talking baout the lousy Obama economy, the debt and deficit, poverty, and unemployment

[fj1200]

so you feel a supreme court justice should be making political statements? Just the ones you agree with, or all of them?

Myself, I think they should all be apolitical.

BO opened the door... and keeps walking through it.


so you're okay with the Supreme Court stooping to such childish games as "got you back"


I'm not.

It's a hat.

[ConHog]

BO opened the door... and keeps walking through it.



It's a hat.

Supreme Court Justices should be above retaliating. Frankly, I wonder if they even really are Supreme Court Justices when they behave that way. :poke:

I qualified all my statements with a big IF it was a political statement

[red states rule]

Supreme Court Justices should be above retaliating. Frankly, I wonder if they even really are Supreme Court Justices when they behave that way. :poke:

I qualified all my statements with a big IF it was a political statement
First you want to ditch the the 2nd Admendment now you go after the 1st. Conman approved dress codes for the USSC when they are out in public? Well we all know where you want to take Amercia

[fj1200]

Or in your case, a white hood would be acceptable

Aw geez.

[fj1200]

First you want to ditch the the 2nd Admendment now you go after the 1st. Conman approved dress codes for the USSC when they are out in public? Well we all know where you want to take Amercia

:rolleyes: It's not a 1A issue, it's a decorum issue.

[red states rule]

Aw geez.

His previous post using the "N" word justifies the question - and he did not try to back track in the least

[fj1200]

His previous post using the "N" word justifies the question - and he did not try to back track in the least

You didn't ask a question, you trolled... IMO.

[red states rule]

You didn't ask a question, you trolled... IMO.

The truth seems to bother you as much as it bothers Conman. You did not step up and call him on his racist post but would rather waste time coming after me

[fj1200]

The truth seems to bother you as much as it bothers Conman. You did not step up and call him on his racist post but would rather waste time coming after me

What "truth"? And yes I did but I don't agree with any racist intent.

[ConHog]

What "truth"? And yes I did but I don't agree with any racist intent.

and RSR knows my stance on the word nigger. The mere use of it is not racist. I don't call people niggers, i just have the balls to type the word out when discussing it rather than typing n*****r. BIg deal.

Calling me a racist for that is akin to calling him a racist for disagreeing with Obama. Both are stupid.

[mundame]

Well, I think the hat is great. Good for Scalia, he's a fun Justice. I looked at the photo in the OP for the first time today and realized the Thomas More portrait was sitting right in front of me to the right of my laptop! I'm reading the Ackroyd "Life of Thomas More."

I don't like More (he wrote Utopia about religious freedom and then later he personally had heretics burned alive? I know we all get more conservative as we get older, but....darn.). But I have to read this one before I can get to Cromwell, who is much more interesting.

Here is the hat in question:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/515wHSyXMHL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA278_PIkin4,BottomRight,-67,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Note that More is wearing the earflaps DOWN and Scalia clearly wore them up; you can see the earflaps folded up on the original photo.

[Marcus Aurelius]

He could have worn one of these for all I care about his choice of headgear.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2GiDJZSJwwg/UMTJIaAVP_I/AAAAAAAABHQ/RouTZ4hhV5E/s1600/tumblr_me2x2rKLDx1qg3v43o1_400.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

wouldn't it be ironic if the people charged with protecting the freedom of speech weren't allowed to exercise it?........

[ConHog]

He could have worn one of these for all I care about his choice of headgear.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2GiDJZSJwwg/UMTJIaAVP_I/AAAAAAAABHQ/RouTZ4hhV5E/s1600/tumblr_me2x2rKLDx1qg3v43o1_400.jpg

How did that show only last one season?

[mundame]

wouldn't it be ironic if the people charged with protecting the freedom of speech weren't allowed to exercise it?........

I simply cannot understand how anyone could object to Scalia wearing a replica of a hat worn by a mid-16th century lawyer. I mean, darn. I think it's pretty cool of him; best thing I've heard about Scalia.

[Marcus Aurelius]

How did that show only last one season?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ConHog again.

It was a leaf on the wind.

[glockmail]

I didn't say they weren't political. I said they shouldn't be. That's dumb, of course they should be.

[ConHog]

That's dumb, of course they should be.

Huh? No they shouldn't .

It's called impartiality. Pretty impartial if a judge is running around supporting a political party, or view.

They should be absolutely 100% beyond that. That is why they are appointed lifetime terms. To avoid situations where we have judges being impartially influenced.

When a judge is ruling on a matter they should let the law and ONLY the law determine their decision.

[Kathianne]

Huh? No they shouldn't .

It's called impartiality. Pretty impartial if a judge is running around supporting a political party, or view.

They should be absolutely 100% beyond that. That is why they are appointed lifetime terms. To avoid situations where we have judges being impartially influenced.

When a judge is ruling on a matter they should let the law and ONLY the law determine their decision.

So when was this 'non-partisan' courts in action? Not 'back when:'

http://www.ushistory.org/us/20e.asp

[ConHog]

So when was this 'non-partisan' courts in action?

Uh, that's kind of my point Kath, our Court is NOT non partisan as it should be.

I fail to see why so many of you are willing to say "hey that's not the way it is, so let's just deal with it" on this point.

I think if the shoe were on the other foot and a guy was say demonstrating for Obama you same posters would be agin him.

No, don't bother denying. It's a fact.

MY position is for or against Judges need to shut up and judge, they should NOT be making political statements nor should they be publicly voicing their opinion on matters which may some day come before the court.

And I'm pretty sure that at at some point the Obama Administration will at some point be making an appearance in front of said Court.

[Kathianne]

Uh, that's kind of my point Kath, our Court is NOT non partisan as it should be.

I fail to see why so many of you are willing to say "hey that's not the way it is, so let's just deal with it" on this point.

I think if the shoe were on the other foot and a guy was say demonstrating for Obama you same posters would be agin him.

No, don't bother denying. It's a fact.

MY position is for or against Judges need to shut up and judge, they should NOT be making political statements nor should they be publicly voicing their opinion on matters which may some day come before the court.

And I'm pretty sure that at at some point the Obama Administration will at some point be making an appearance in front of said Court.

Wow, they're human. How do judges 'rise up' through the ranks? By either elections or appointments. Never has and never will be non-partisan. Wish all you want, but it's been true since the beginning, reason I went for Marshall Court.

[Marcus Aurelius]

other assorted hats people would be annoyed with Scalia for wearing...

http://www.mickeysplace.com/images/Thunder.jpg
Trenton Thunder, as he was born in Trenton



http://www.capitate.co.uk/MLB%20Caps/baseball_caps_mets_5950.jpg
Mets cap, as he moved to Queens as a child (home of Mets at Flushing Meadows)


http://c-product.images.fansedge.com/42-22/42-22423-J.jpg
He went to Georgetown.



My point....


It's just a freaking hat, people.

[Abbey Marie]

So when was this 'non-partisan' courts in action? Not 'back when:'

http://www.ushistory.org/us/20e.asp

You cannot cite a more radical court than Marshall's, imo.

[Kathianne]

You cannot cite a more radical court than Marshall's, imo.

Activist courts seem to come during times that the social fabric is fraying. Same during Depression and again in the 60's, 70's.

[bingster]

Uh huh. Sow, reap.


http://youtu.be/k92SerxLWtc

"Citizen's united" institutionalized bribery and pratically made campaign finance law a moot point. Not a fair comparison. And, by the way, Justices should be apolitical, not politicians.

[bingster]

I agree with just about everything Conhog has said, but I also agree with most of you that it was pretty subtle. I don't think it was a big deal.

[mundame]

I agree with just about everything Conhog has said, but I also agree with most of you that it was pretty subtle. I don't think it was a big deal.


Subtle???!! Nothing HAPPENED! The guy wore a hat he'd been given by a religious group. Cute idea, the Holbein hat from the Thomas More portrait. More was executed in 1535 and I'd like to see someone make a Democratic/Republican fight out of that. There was nothing remarkable about his execution: Henry VIII executed EVERYBODY. About religion or not about religion, didn't matter, he zapped 'em all. "He never made a man but he unmade him," was a saying at the time. Henry VIII was a serial killer. He killed all his friends and two of his wives and was lonely in his old age and known to have missed some of them.

Really, it's interesting to see that people will try to make trouble and conflict out of the most innocent gesture these days, such as wearing a cool hat; it's not a good sign for the stability of the Republic.

[fj1200]

"Citizen's united" institutionalized bribery and pratically made campaign finance law a moot point. Not a fair comparison. And, by the way, Justices should be apolitical, not politicians.

That's ridiculous. CU institutionalized that speech is free regardless of money spent in distribution.

[Missileman]

See, I'm of the opinion that judge who is judging should show no bias, be it political or otherwise.

They aren't like lawyers who represent one side or the other in a debate. They are free to show bias.

A judge however is supposed to let the scales of justice work, how can the scales work if the judge has a bias towards one side or the other?

And even if they DON'T actually let their bias play into their decisions, making those biases public certainly casts doubt on whether they do or not.

It would be like going to a Yankees versus Red Sox game and there is the Umpire sitting there in his Yankees cap. Yeah that's gonna be a fairly called game I'm sure.

Justice is supposed to be blind.

They get a spot on the court BECAUSE of their political biases, not in spite of them.

[aboutime]

Will everyone who was bothered, insulted, offended, twisted, demolished, upended, squirted, and pissed PLEASE tell us how important this thread was with reference to the security, safety, economy, health, welfare, and morals of our nation...because a man wore a HAT?

[ConHog]

Will everyone who was bothered, insulted, offended, twisted, demolished, upended, squirted, and pissed PLEASE tell us how important this thread was with reference to the security, safety, economy, health, welfare, and morals of our nation...because a man wore a HAT?

No surprise that a theoretical discussion passed over your head. NO ONE is saying this hat was a big deal. I started the conversation with an IF and for the most part others have also spoke of generalities rather than this specific hat.

[red states rule]

other assorted hats people would be annoyed with Scalia for wearing...

http://www.mickeysplace.com/images/Thunder.jpg
Trenton Thunder, as he was born in Trenton



http://www.capitate.co.uk/MLB%20Caps/baseball_caps_mets_5950.jpg
Mets cap, as he moved to Queens as a child (home of Mets at Flushing Meadows)


http://c-product.images.fansedge.com/42-22/42-22423-J.jpg
He went to Georgetown.



My point....


It's just a freaking hat, people.

and it gives the liberal media an excuse not to talk about the Obama economy, rising gas prices, inflation at the grocery store, and the unemployment rate