is there any procedure for removing Justices from the Supreme Court?
I'm really asking here. My knowledge of this stops at "appointment for life" but surely there is SOME recourse for such stupidity?
and for those that aren't following: it is a direct quote from Justice Scalia
torture is not always punishment...sometimes you do it just because you can. you know, like when you stick a ball of tape on a kittens paw and the poor thing goes nuts trying to shake it off.
i don't know where this quote is from or the context, so hard to understand what is being implied.
i would doubt this is what i am understanding is what Justice Scalia means, but i would agree that torture is not punishment.
punishment is a act of retribution for an offense that has been committed. you punish someone (with physical or non-physical techniques) in order to instill in them a sense that more offensive acts will result in more retribution and therefore punishment is to act as both a consequence and as a deterrent.
torture is an act of physical or non-physical pressures that seek to gain access to information or insights into previous or future actions that might be considered a threat to the one producing the torture.
or torture is a system of gaining coercive control over someone else by use of such actions. it is defined as torture when the pressures exceed recognised standards.
punishment is consequential to a proscribed action; torture is to prevent or gain insights into past or future actions - it seeks information or intimidation.
one can easily elide into the other, but i think there are definitional differences.
It doesn't matter if it is punishment or not, it denies them of their due process rights. You assume they know something and are hiding it from you, guilty until proven innocent through pain or death. Sounds like the Salem which trials, where they pressed the guy to death, because it was the only way he could be proven innocent.
j
I watched this interview with Scalia ... for a guy with about 8 children and a really long, and what seems to be close, marriage to what appears to be a delightful woman, I'm pretty sure he's not gay.
As I understood his point about "torture" and "punishment" he seemed to be linking the absence of a conviction to the idea of punishment -- i.e. if somebody's not been convicted of a crime, then how can they be punished by the criminal justice system. and, in that context, how can torture be "cruel and unusual" punishment, which is what I think was being argued before the court.
I don't think the guy's advocating - or even defending - torture. I do think he takes a very literal view of his responsibility to interpret the constitution in a strict constructionist way - he doesn't seem to be the sort of guy who ever would want to legislate from the bench.
Here is a comment I just found online regarding Scalia's statement:
"The second most senior associate justice on Mr. Bush‘s Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, on TV now repeating in essence what he said earlier, that torture is not really as the Constitution prohibits, cruel and unusual punishment…
So you can torture the innocent or not yet proved guilty but you can‘t punish the guilty with torture? You don‘t see any logical inconsistency in that idea? The concept of punishment being in and of itself, torture or vice versa, that isn’t very pretty obvious to you? You, still there, Justice buddy? OK. Not only do I want to see your diploma, now, I want to see your grade point average."
again ... his point was not to condone torture, but to say that the specific case in which he was making a ruling was based on the claim that torture of an unconvicted suspect was "cruel and unusual punishment" ... I suspect he might have argued in a different vein had the case been about the constitutionality of "torture" independent of the connection to "punishment".
you cannot easily interpret a ruling outside the context of the case on which it was rendered.
Amendment VIII to the Constitution reads, and I quote; "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted."
...nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted
where in that does it state that "nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted" are connected with a conviction??
it is a slippery slope ... and one that concerns me.
but we have three branches of government for a purpose. congress can legislation outlawing torture if they have the will to do so. the court's role is to evaluate that law against the constitution and the executive branch's job is to administer the law.
Scalia is refraining from doing the job assigned to congress -- that doesn't mean he condones torture. based on the interview I watched, I don't believe he even remotely condones torture.
Please, please, please, don't come around with "Supreme Court Justices just interpret the law and make specific rulings on a specific case and don't bring any political bias or personal prejudices to their decisions" mantra...just please don't...just don't.
Not exactly, but close. They also judge whether a law is constitutional, and thus are supposed to judge whether legislation is up to muster. If congress passes a law that contradicts the constitution, and the president signs it. The SCOTUS is the court of last resort of the people to have such laws removed. If the president acts contrary to the constitution, in applying or superseding a law, the SCOTUS or Legislature is responsible for countermanding the practice, subject to the previously mentioned judicial review.
Beyond that, there is much arguement (Scalia deep in it) about how the Courts determine whether a law or practice conforms to the Constitution.
I'm pretty sure if you torture anyone enough, you can make them say anything you want. If I waterboard Scalia enough, I can make him say that torture is unconstitutional and that we need to uncategorically outlaw its practice in this country and by its agents. Of course, that won't mean he believes it.
Torturing is about getting the answer the torturer wants to hear, its not about getting the truth. The reason this administration is so enamored of torture is because they only listen for the answer they want to hear, regardless of whether or not its true.
scalia's argument is specious because he knows there are other prohibitions to torture besides cruel and unusual punishment.
there is already a law in place that outlaws torture: the geneva convention.
the us govt is a signatory to the geneva convention and must abide by the protocols of the convention.
the principal convention signed in 1865 deals with non-combatants and enemy prisoners, hence bushco's smarmy attempt to define their way out of the convention by inventing 'enemy non-combatants' or having john yoo write tortured legal prose redefining torture to specifics that ruled out current interrogation procedures as torture.
scalia's acceptance of invented categories such as 'enemy non-combatants' (very orwellian) signals his ability to place politics above justice and his keen desire to legislate from the bench.
torture is not punishment
really? really.
is there any procedure for removing Justices from the Supreme Court?
I'm really asking here. My knowledge of this stops at "appointment for life" but surely there is SOME recourse for such stupidity?
and for those that aren't following: it is a direct quote from Justice Scalia
Feisty and argumentative pedants can always get milage from extreme literalism. . .
A justice can be impeached by congress and removed by a vote in congress. It is unlikely, but possible.
there are other methods...
torture is not always punishment...sometimes you do it just because you can. you know, like when you stick a ball of tape on a kittens paw and the poor thing goes nuts trying to shake it off.
i don't know where this quote is from or the context, so hard to understand what is being implied.
i would doubt this is what i am understanding is what Justice Scalia means, but i would agree that torture is not punishment.
punishment is a act of retribution for an offense that has been committed. you punish someone (with physical or non-physical techniques) in order to instill in them a sense that more offensive acts will result in more retribution and therefore punishment is to act as both a consequence and as a deterrent.
torture is an act of physical or non-physical pressures that seek to gain access to information or insights into previous or future actions that might be considered a threat to the one producing the torture.
or torture is a system of gaining coercive control over someone else by use of such actions. it is defined as torture when the pressures exceed recognised standards.
punishment is consequential to a proscribed action; torture is to prevent or gain insights into past or future actions - it seeks information or intimidation.
one can easily elide into the other, but i think there are definitional differences.
If you had read your Foucault, you'd know that torture is a method of discovery, not a method of punishment.
I thought Scalia was gay?
I didn't know a gay guy could be such a hardass.
Torture is punishment for refusing to tell the interrogator what he wants to hear.
Whew ! Never heard that . . .
. . .about Scalia.
ya, it's extraction...
how do you impeach a justice for being against what he was put to defend?
it is cruel though no arguement about it. and often times unusual
but not punishment
because (as Scalia asked) what are you punishing him FOR ?
ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put!
765 just answered that above...
It's nice to split hair over semantics, isn't it?
Paraphrased dialogue from the the movie "Dr. Zhivago":
Zhivago: Why did you destroy the whole village?
Revolutionary: We had to make a point.
Zhivago: Your point, their village.
it still fits the definition of Cruel OR unusual punishment.
only IF it is punishment
it says OR
not if and's about it
unless you are thinking it is ordinary and compasionate
Torture is punishment for refusing to tell the interrogator what he wants to hear.
^bingo.
that reminds me of birch trees
yes OR as in:
cruel punishment OR unusual punishment
but IF it is not punishment then it is NOT punishment
jasoncross nailed it on the head Allio is a scum and needs to be impeached for what he said.
i think MoveOn will get the ball rolling on that and the new congress will take that wanna be neoconnazi fool out.
It doesn't matter what the victim of torture tells the torturer, the truth is not the point; destroying the victim's "world" is the point.
It doesn't matter if it is punishment or not, it denies them of their due process rights. You assume they know something and are hiding it from you, guilty until proven innocent through pain or death. Sounds like the Salem which trials, where they pressed the guy to death, because it was the only way he could be proven innocent.
j
doh! ...WITCH
I watched this interview with Scalia ... for a guy with about 8 children and a really long, and what seems to be close, marriage to what appears to be a delightful woman, I'm pretty sure he's not gay.
As I understood his point about "torture" and "punishment" he seemed to be linking the absence of a conviction to the idea of punishment -- i.e. if somebody's not been convicted of a crime, then how can they be punished by the criminal justice system. and, in that context, how can torture be "cruel and unusual" punishment, which is what I think was being argued before the court.
I don't think the guy's advocating - or even defending - torture. I do think he takes a very literal view of his responsibility to interpret the constitution in a strict constructionist way - he doesn't seem to be the sort of guy who ever would want to legislate from the bench.
Here is a comment I just found online regarding Scalia's statement:
"The second most senior associate justice on Mr. Bush‘s Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, on TV now repeating in essence what he said earlier, that torture is not really as the Constitution prohibits, cruel and unusual punishment…
So you can torture the innocent or not yet proved guilty but you can‘t punish the guilty with torture? You don‘t see any logical inconsistency in that idea? The concept of punishment being in and of itself, torture or vice versa, that isn’t very pretty obvious to you? You, still there, Justice buddy? OK. Not only do I want to see your diploma, now, I want to see your grade point average."
again ... his point was not to condone torture, but to say that the specific case in which he was making a ruling was based on the claim that torture of an unconvicted suspect was "cruel and unusual punishment" ... I suspect he might have argued in a different vein had the case been about the constitutionality of "torture" independent of the connection to "punishment".
you cannot easily interpret a ruling outside the context of the case on which it was rendered.
very slippery slope...opening all sorts of doors for americans to be treated the same abroad.
digger, digger, digger...
Amendment VIII to the Constitution reads, and I quote; "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted."
...nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted
where in that does it state that "nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted" are connected with a conviction??
it is a slippery slope ... and one that concerns me.
but we have three branches of government for a purpose. congress can legislation outlawing torture if they have the will to do so. the court's role is to evaluate that law against the constitution and the executive branch's job is to administer the law.
Scalia is refraining from doing the job assigned to congress -- that doesn't mean he condones torture. based on the interview I watched, I don't believe he even remotely condones torture.
For better or worse, that's correct. Don't blame the messenger; fix the law.
Please, please, please, don't come around with "Supreme Court Justices just interpret the law and make specific rulings on a specific case and don't bring any political bias or personal prejudices to their decisions" mantra...just please don't...just don't.
Well -- that IS what they're supposed to do -- can we at least agree on that ?
(Believe me, if I could get rid of Scalia and Thomas, I would. . .)
Not exactly, but close. They also judge whether a law is constitutional, and thus are supposed to judge whether legislation is up to muster. If congress passes a law that contradicts the constitution, and the president signs it. The SCOTUS is the court of last resort of the people to have such laws removed. If the president acts contrary to the constitution, in applying or superseding a law, the SCOTUS or Legislature is responsible for countermanding the practice, subject to the previously mentioned judicial review.
Beyond that, there is much arguement (Scalia deep in it) about how the Courts determine whether a law or practice conforms to the Constitution.
I'm pretty sure if you torture anyone enough, you can make them say anything you want. If I waterboard Scalia enough, I can make him say that torture is unconstitutional and that we need to uncategorically outlaw its practice in this country and by its agents. Of course, that won't mean he believes it.
Torturing is about getting the answer the torturer wants to hear, its not about getting the truth. The reason this administration is so enamored of torture is because they only listen for the answer they want to hear, regardless of whether or not its true.
see above...
read this book http://www.amazon.com/Body-Pain-Making-Unmaking-World/dp/0195049969 i have...truly informative.
scalia's argument is specious because he knows there are other prohibitions to torture besides cruel and unusual punishment.
there is already a law in place that outlaws torture: the geneva convention.
the us govt is a signatory to the geneva convention and must abide by the protocols of the convention.
the principal convention signed in 1865 deals with non-combatants and enemy prisoners, hence bushco's smarmy attempt to define their way out of the convention by inventing 'enemy non-combatants' or having john yoo write tortured legal prose redefining torture to specifics that ruled out current interrogation procedures as torture.
scalia's acceptance of invented categories such as 'enemy non-combatants' (very orwellian) signals his ability to place politics above justice and his keen desire to legislate from the bench.
plutocratic ideological crony fascist basically, who just happens to be "right"
as well as intellectually bankrupt
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.