Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!)

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm not the only person on the planet who thinks Scalia is crooked:

On the eve of oral argument in a key Supreme Court case on the rights of alleged terrorists, a group of retired U.S. generals and admirals has asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself, arguing that his recent public comments on the subject make it impossible for him to appear impartial.

In a letter delivered to the court late yesterday, a lawyer for the retired officers cited news reports of Scalia's March 8 remarks to an audience at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland. Scalia reportedly said it was "crazy" to suggest that combatants captured fighting the United States should receive a "full jury trial," and dismissed suggestions that the Geneva Conventions might apply to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Source

Now this is a judge saying casually at a meeting that someone doesn't deserve a full jury trial.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Now this is a judge saying casually at a meeting that someone doesn't deserve a full jury trial.

No. He is saying that a captured military combatant is not deserving of a jury trial.

I personally think Breyer should recuse himself of all cases, because he advocates citing foreign law, but that's beside the point.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, saying that O'Connor was Reagan's nominee is like saying Souter was Bush Sr's nominee. Yes, but that does not mean that the justices are bound to any sort of philosophy or view of the constitution.

We can each complain all day about what we think should make the big story that doesn't.

Ever notice that its Republican nominees who seem to be the most independent thinkers on the Highest Court?

[Alex]

O'Connor said on NPR that the US is showing signs of the beginnings of a dictatorship under Bush. But, hey, we didn't hear that in the news either.

I did, and it was on Fox News even. Maybe you just don't watch enough news.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I did, and it was on Fox News even. Maybe you just don't watch enough news.

No, I think I watch too much news. And I don't consider Fox 'News' a credible news source.

[Alex]

Apparently not because you keep saying "such and such a story is being ignored by the news" and they are almost all stories that I have seen covered on the news.

I saw the Sandra Day O'Connor quotes on Fox News, CNN, The News Hour and in both the San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News. So I don't know what you require that this have been covered in the news. I only mentioned Fox News because if there was any media outlet that would have most stereotypically ignored the story about Sandra Day O'Connor's comments it would have been that.

The very reasons for why you don't consider Fox News to be credible is the reason that even them talking about it shows that this story was covered.

Now, whether it was covered to the detail or hysteria you think it warranted is a completely different issue.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Is this any more important than, say, Ginsberg falling alseep during arguments before her court the other day? Did you hear about that? I would guess not, but as I do not watch any evening news programs perhaps it was on. Hell, I'd probably fall asleep during some of that stuff too.

Actually, I did hear this story. What they failed to report however is that Ginsberg is currently under treatment for colon cancer. Those undergoing treatment tend to tire easily. This sort of ties into the double standard argument. When Renhquest had his problems with illness, people were understanding. Ginsberg, not so much.

[scaeagles]

I didn't know that. However, I pointed out that I would most likely fall asleep during some of those arguments being presented as well.

What I find to be interesting is that Ginsberg and Scalia are practically best buddies. I guess their families spend lots of time together.

[Gemini Cricket]

I find O'Connors statements completely interesting. Here's someone who was appointed by Reagan saying that Bush is leading our country into a dictatorship. That's important to me. I think she's right.

Histrionics may be silly, but contrarians are just as comical.

When a news source is non-objective and is a mouthpiece for one way of thinking it should be discarded. I don't listen to Air America either.

[Alex]

Out of curiosity, which news sources do you find to be sufficiently objective for your consumption? I personally don't think any of them are so I just take in as much as I can, try to be aware of the biases and conflicts and sort it out from there. The only two "sources" I exclude out of hand are Al Franken (because his voice grates on me like almost no other) and Michael Savage (because I don't think he even believes what he is saying).

I'm not trying to be contrarian for the sake of contrariness. I just disagree with you on these two particular issues. A) I'm fine with the level of coverage O'Connor's comments received and B) I don't think that everything the Bush administration has done has been bad, though some of it has been. I find the latter to be true of pretty much every presidency I've experienced directly, except maybe Carter who didn't really get a chance to do much of anything, unfortunately.

I wouldn't have even become involved in this thread except you said something that wasn't true. I'm not trying to throw out the baby (your concerns about the validity of O'Connor's comments) with the bathwater (your inaccuracy in saying tha the story wasn't covered). You are free to continue discussing the first point; I'm just not so interested in it since it is purely subjective opinion.