Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 12, 2008

Scalia et al: We Fear Because Bush Told Us To Fear

Circular reasoning:

Supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - Nos. 06–1195 and 06–1196

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting (pdf, page 110ff):

America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: ..
It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one.

Shorter example:
Because the President says we have to fear, we do fear.

Why are such idiots allowed to judge?

Posted by b on June 12, 2008 at 18:58 UTC | Permalink


Well blow me a new asshole; David Davies blows New Labour outta the park on a similar issue (which means, the Tory project as well, Cameroon is Blair II with a vengance) so beware a David Kelly demise;;;;;;;

Posted by: Cloned_Poster | Jun 12 2008 19:14 utc | 1

Why? Because the Dems in our senate are basically spineless. They were incapable of simply saying 'No deal' when it came to Roberts and Alito, two men who are nothing more than party operatives.

Posted by: mikefromtexas | Jun 12 2008 20:38 utc | 2

Why do party operatives remain party operatives after they have gotten life tenure on the bench?

Posted by: lysias | Jun 12 2008 20:53 utc | 3

there was a time, i suppose, when gentlemen of leisure took great pleasure in the configuration of laws, of imagining a jurisprudence - of trying to construct a notion of justice completely without meaning

there have been great jurists in the 20th century - but hidden behind their abstracted ideas was a fundamental truth - the protection of property

justice was always an illussion

the jurisprudence of the empire is a construction of fools & brigands. it has become under the cheney bush junta a very blunt instrument. that people are cheering the sudden 'return' of habeus corpus is in & of itself a very sad testimony

only in an epoch as impoverished as our own - would scum like scalia & alito be considered important or even intelligent jurists. they are nothing of a kind. their kind of 'leagal scholarship' is revealed today where instead of using precedent as you normally would in an appelate decision - the scum scalia uses an op ed from the washington post. the next time perhaps he will use page 6 of the new york post

rupert murdochs nights must be full of dark laughter - where the culture he singlemindedly created represents rerun after rerun of 'cops' - we are that level - clearly the commentary on the decision today is on that level. so black & white it gives me chills thinking of the fifties science fictions series we have come to populate -& demented & deranged twilight zone

in brief, the popes are dopes. even the 5 who created this decision are only a shadow removed from the darker recesses of scali, alito, thoms, roberts - the devil himself rehnquist is absent of course - but his dead body stinks to high heaven still

what the decision has done though is reveal what a mockery the democratic legislature actually are

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 12 2008 23:52 utc | 4

You speak everything I feel here brother r'giap. They do indeed make a mockery of justice by the simple but over looked fact that first, out of the gate, jurisprudence is lost. And because of that, everything that follows is a sham.

Perversion becomes the norm and the rule when the system, like a baby, starts out retarded, and with no moral guidance then becomes willfully ignorant and then methodically indifferent, bored even, and then contemptuous, and righteous. Sewn together wrong, from the start, it sees itself as exulted; blind to it's greatest character flaw.

A narcissistic system controlled by arrogant and piety filled men. Men whom often, let their calvanist pants down, so to speak, and we then sometimes get a glance behind the curtain to see how justice in their minds really works, sort of like last Wednesday, and how the chief judge of the country's largest federal appeals court was forced to suspend an obscenity trial he was presiding over after sexually explicit images posted to his personal Web site became public known.

Judge in porn tempest has distinguished career

"distinguished career"? hahaha, that title? yeah posting bestiality sexual material in his spare time on the internet is a hobby and habit of a fellow with a "distinguished career"...

How they decide that their are rules for them (the elite, Calvinists ) and an altogether other set of rules for us is beyond me. The only way to explain it is that 'they are blind in one eye and can't see out of the other', as my old Southern bred grandfather would say.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 13 2008 1:29 utc | 5

right on, r'giap. what disgraceful times we live in.

from uncle's link, this makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever

The computerized cache included a picture of two nude women on all fours painted to look like Holstein dairy cows, images of masturbation, a video of a man being pursued by a sexually aroused donkey and a slide show featuring a striptease with a transsexual.

"If you found this kind of thing in your kid's bedroom you would wash your kid's mouth out with soap. We expect more from a judge," said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at Loyola University Law School.


Posted by: b real | Jun 13 2008 2:24 utc | 6

Not to be TOT, but you have far more serious things to fear. Largest up-move day.

If you can't see what's wrong with this picture, ask a judge.

Posted by: Naut Ilus | Jun 13 2008 4:41 utc | 7

It's the same atmosphere that prevailed after the Columbine High School shootings: if something like that happens again, everybody wants to be able to cover their asses by maintaining they did everyting in their power to prevent it, no matter how asinine or counter-productive.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 13 2008 9:00 utc | 8

the judge is one of the few libertarians on the Bench and what he does legally in his private life is of no relavance. He is one of the best judges in following the constitution and ruling in favor of civil liberties.. he would have been great on the supreme court (for which he was being put forward as a possible candidate)

So i'm not sure why he is being lumped in with the fascists currently running the judiciary pretending to be on the moral high ground like Scalia for example..

Posted by: Sam | Jun 13 2008 10:03 utc | 9

Unfortunately for that judge he made his personal life private by putting the images on the web. I haven't seen the images so it is difficult to tell if they are obscene whatever obscene is but, by the sounds of the two naked women painted as holstein cows, the images degrade women by presenting them in sexually demeaning environments and that has to rule him out as a judge. Whatever his politics are is irrelevant and in fact one of the reasons the left got into the state it is currently in is because corrupt hypocrites like Clinton were allowed in positions of power. These guys don't bellieve in anything really apart from their right "to do what thou wilt" as aleister crowley put it.
It's not the pictures per se just as with clinton the number of his sexual encounters were never at issue, it is the lying and deliberate risk taking behaviour which tells us that these people are men with feet of clay - unfit for their jobs, who are trying to absolve their guilt by putting everything on the line rationalising that if they can get away with what they do then they can't be doing anything wrong. I haven't explained it particularly well but it's similar to many other mad and seemingly suicidally (career suicide) self destructive behaviours of traitors who are at burn out, be they spies, spooks or politicians.

When Roberts and Alito were given a greased run through Congress and ordinary amerikan dems expressed outrage and bewilderment, an ugly hypothesis began to develop from the depths of my cynicism about the 'left' political parties in western democracies, amerika in particular.

About a hundred years ( well just short of a century) ago, the english had a spy by the name of Sydney Reilly who had been given the task of bringing down the bolshevik govt in Russia. He organised a coup in 1918 with local 'resistors'. Part of this was the hit on Vlad Lenin which left him so wounded he never really recovered.
That was about the peak of reilly's achievements. After escaping russia, Reilly made contact with a great many russian counter revolutionaries back in russia.
lots of messages, plots, plans and conspiracies were dreamed up and were passed backwards and forwards between london, reilly's MI6 and the 'bourgeois counter-revolutionaries in russia.
By 1925 reilly had decided the time was ripe for a real counter revolution so he went back to russia to help with the final touches, completely ignoring the death sentence which had been passed against him after the Lenin assassination attempt.
reilly was arrested within days of arriving back in russia and executed. The resistance movement which reilly had been conspiring with all that time was an invention of O.G.P.U. (NKVD's preseccesor just as KGB was once nkvd.)
OGPU had reasoned that humans being what they are, someone is bound to form a resistance movement against the bolsheviks, so the best way to control what happens is to create a resistance themselves.

Well the same is true of the dems. The easy run edwards and scalia had the the supreme court tells us that the dems political platforms are not something that dem leaders subsctribe to.
The party platforms are just something to attract all opposed to corporate capitalism and 21st century imperialism. By controlling the major opposition to untrammelled corporate power democrat leadership ensures that the corporates can't be beaten. Deep down most of the slick, shiny suited, pink faced dem pols believe in the same inhumanly cruel political and economic agenda as the slick, shiny suited, pink faced rethug pols. The is the chief legacy of the clintonite DNC. A cardboard cut out opposition has been moulded to ensure that no matter who the citizens vote for they always lose.
It would be easy enough to prove.
Next year there will be a dem congress, senate and his 'prezness', yet if one were to ensure the piece of shit Alito did get his karma ie someone organised a piece of lead to enter his brainpan, you can be sure that the dem house, prez and senate would give the newly opened vacancy on the supreme court bench to a conservative, using the old "we can't let the terrorists win" cop-out to excuse their pandering to corporate capitalism.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 13 2008 12:18 utc | 10

@Debs - I agree with your analysis on the 'fake opposition' party.

But on the supreme judge election I disagree. There will be likely three judges that will have to be selected by the next prez. So we will see how they do it, but I don't believe that the Dems will select further Alitos. Yesterdays decison certainly emphazised the possible damage.

Posted by: b | Jun 13 2008 14:22 utc | 11

"Why are such idiots allowed to judge?"

Scalia is a very smart man. He is also very ignorant. These be Dubya's kinda judger.

Posted by: DonS | Jun 13 2008 16:13 utc | 12

PDF 25 pages:> Boumediene vs. Bush

Some striking details:

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

extradordinary? I interpret this as a veiled reference to the State of Emergency proclaimed (7463) by Bush on 14 sept. 01 and never (afaik) rescinded. There were precedents, though. See Clinton on terrorism (wiki) :>Exec. order 12947


“If, as some fear, terrorism continues to pose dangerous threats to us for years to come, the Court might not have this luxury.”

no comment.


"Because our Nation’s past military conflicts have been of limited duration, it has been possible to leave the outer boundaries of war powers undefined."

?? Hmmm. Vietnam, ww2? There are many ways to interpret this sentence. So .. for unlimited war other approaches might be needed? See the sentence above.


"Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. "

The second reconciled is very weak, meaningless, really. This is law PC stuff. The opposition between liberty and security is in any case a false one and rests on the presuppositiion that being submissive to jackboots is for one’s own (the nation's!) good. The law can either accept this nonsense, or refute it. Here it is openly accepted. 

Posted by: Tangerine | Jun 13 2008 17:05 utc | 13

We fear because They need security all in place, for when The Fear really begins.

And you thought it was billions....

"The Gokhale and Smetters measure of the (US budget) fiscal gap is a stunning $65.9 trillion! This figure is more than five times U.S. GDP and almost twice the size of national wealth. One way to wrap one’s head around $65.9 trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately
and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143 percent."

Wake up! Time to die!!

Posted by: Anton De Lauden | Jun 15 2008 7:23 utc | 14

One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes.

Yes, that's right. What I don't understand is why anyone has a problem with that.

Posted by: b | Jun 15 2008 12:27 utc | 15

If the U.S. can't afford to rule the world, it can certainly afford to destroy it.

Posted by: Pyrrho | Jun 16 2008 20:20 utc | 16

The comments to this entry are closed.