Scalia Calls “Duck Dynasty” Decision Unconstitutional
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, January 5, 2014 23:34
VIEWED: 3644
PAGE 1 of 3
And I, for one, applaud his opinion!
Quote:
WASHINGTON —Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia lashed out at the cable network A&E today, calling its decision to suspend Phil Robertson, the star of the TV series “Duck Dynasty,” unconstitutional, and demanding that it be overturned at once.
Speaking at a press conference with fellow Justice Clarence Thomas, a visibly angry Scalia told reporters that Robertson was “exercising his First Amendment right to express an opinion—an opinion, I might add, that many other great Americans agree with.”
He warned that the suspension of the “Duck” star would have a “chilling effect” on freedom of speech in America: “If Phil Robertson can be muzzled for expressing this perfectly legitimate view, what’s to prevent the same thing from happening to, say, a Justice of the Supreme Court?”
He added that, while he was a huge “Duck Dynasty” fan who never misses an episode, his objection to Mr. Robertson’s suspension was “purely on Constitutional grounds.”
Declaring that A&E’s decision “will not stand,” Justice Scalia said he would ask the Supreme Court to meet in an emergency session to overturn it: “This offensive decision by A&E is a clear violation of the Constitution, and I’m not the only one on the Court who feels that way. Right, Clarence?”
Justice Thomas had no comment.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/12/scalia-ca
lls-duck-dynasty-decision-unconstitutional.html
So if I work in a Catholic hospital, I can voice pro-abortion opinions w/o worrying about getting fired. Or if I'm broadcast by FOX news I can make pro-gay statements to my heart's content. Gone the days when your employer could muzzle your free speech!
Right, Antonin?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I seriously had to look and make sure this was not fake.
How can a Supreme Court Justice not have a basic understanding of the first amendment?
...edit, DAMN FOOLED AGAIN!
I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought the First Amendment started off with the words, "Congress shall make no law..." Even under an "activist, interventionalist" judicial opinion, I don't see how a private business suspending, or even firing, an employee for comments he made publicly, can be unconstitutional. The government, no government, no branch of government, no level of government didn't do it. ( oops, got my negatives mixed up there for a moment. But the gov't didn't.) Ol' Phil can sue, and then the courts COULD rule that his rights had been violated; the decision ordered to be reversed.
E-T-A: I fergot. The FCC might have some jurisdiction: they do regulate the airwaves. But it's been a neat debating point for some years now: that applies to the broadcast networks and channels, not necessarily to cable networks, which are quasi-private, quasi-public services, not subject to the same standards or regulations. Sometimes it do, and sometimes it don't.
But that's pretty sloppy use of language for a Supreme Court justice, and a guy who gets to set binding legal precedent for the entire country as his everyday job. Might make ya wonder just how good a legal scholar, or even lawyer, he is. Hell, he might be the Robert Bork or Helene Myers who slipped thru the system for political reliability rather than smarts or a sense of justice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Read the very last line from the article:
Quote:
Declaring that A&E’s decision “will not stand,” Justice Scalia said he would ask the Supreme Court to meet in an emergency session to overturn it: “This offensive decision by A&E is a clear violation of the Constitution, and I’m not the only one on the Court who feels that way. Right, Clarence?”
Justice Thomas had no comment.
Get the Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox.
KEYWORDS HUMOR; POLITICS
It's satire people.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, who didn't figure that out after the first couple of sentences?!?! I'm actually kind of ashamed of you, Nick and NewOld, you're smarter than that! Sig, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and figuring you knew it was satire when you posted it, but be honest if you didn't... ;o)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Although, aside from the obvious satire, it might not be all that far from how he THINKS:Quote:
Scalia told Senior that he believes in heaven and hell and like "every Catholic," believes that the devil is "a real person." The devil isn't as conspicuous in society as he once was, Scalia said, because "he got wilier" and now advances his agenda by "getting people not to believe in him or in God."
Scalia bemoaned the "coarseness" of modern society, particularly when it comes to manners.
"You can't go to a movie--or watch a television show for that matter--without hearing the constant use of the F-word--including, you know, ladies using it," he said. "People that I know don't talk like that!" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/scalia-talks-about-the-devil-duck-dynasty-
and-knowing-when-to-retire/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, I'm sorry! I laughed my ass off thru the post!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, yup, I missed it.
It was mostly reported with a straight face, and I misread "NewYorker" as "New York ___", something or other . I took it as a right wing newspaper.
Careless of me.
And enough right wingers have stuck up for Ol' Phil. And Scalia -- that's exactly the sort of dumbth I would have expected out of him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aw, Hell, my second post vanished.
Over on
news.Yahoo.com/opinion/
are columns by Mona Charen, Michelle Malkin and Pat Buchanan defending Ol' Phil, and I saw one on CNN.com about "you gotta respect Phil because he's SINCERE in his beliefs."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What would a pro gay statement be, and why would FOX news have any issues with it ?
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME