Was that only in regard to Bush? Bush/Cheney? Cheney? Anyone else in the admin?

"I thought you not long ago said that you think there is sufficient reason to impeach? But it's too late in your opinion to do so?"

This thread was talking about Supreme Court justices, not the president. They're not all one in the same

And I said that I no longer believed that Bush et al had to have committed actual crimes, and that an impeachment investigation was warranted because of the phone tap issue. But again, there's no grounds to impeach any of the justices.

"Its only a matter of time before an organized Left emerges that uses the same thuggish tactics."

They already have had decades of such leftist behavior on the courts

Torture is not right wing.

Torture is not a value.

Torture is a criminal act.

Supporters and justifiers are aiding and abetting. Or in language they can understand, "providing aid and comfort" to the enemies of the Republic.

When done by those in high places, it should be treated as an act of treason, punishable by a humane and quick death.

No Ron, really you've totally lostit here. What is it with "conservatives" nowadays? Are you just going nuts as the entire edifice of your political beliefs are crumbling around you or what?

<Kelly, given how left you are, everyone to the right of Obama must look like a right wing lunatic to you.>

Bullshit, Ron. Up until now I'd respected you as an intelligent moderate who could make an decent argument in support of your beliefs, though I disagree with many of them. I've even defended you as such when some of the REAL far leftists on this tribe attacked you and you've thanked me for it. But this bullshit is way over the line.

<But I am a conservative when it comes to constitutional interpretation, I admit. I don't like it when a handful of left wing activists on the courts have seen their personal values so superior to others that they think they can rewrite the Constitution in their own image, even though the Constitution only provides for one democratic means for changing it, and doesn't provide for rule by a committee of lawyers appointed for life appointing themselves the nation's moral guardians. >

Yeah, your so-called "originalist" views of the Constituion and your declaration that Scalia was you favorite Justice have always made me wonder about your self-declared "moderation". Scalia, Thomas, and folks like you who support their views have a very narrow interpretation of what the Constitution means - one that supports your rightwing, generally anti-libery views, and then like the religous fundies you loudly proclaim that your view is the only valid one. And also like the religious fundies, you cherry pick the parts of the Constitution that support your views and ignore the others - for instance, no where in Scalia's pro-torture argument does he mention the fact that the Geneva Convention forbids torture and coercive interrogation, and Article 6 of the Constituion clearly and unequivocably states: "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

<"What left-wing "judicial activism" are you so fucking upset about? "

Substantive due process theory and the general privacy doctrine (particularly the abortion decisions); the idea that affirmative action by the government is legitimate, even though it clearly contradicts the 14th amendment; allowing the shredding of the 10th amendment by an ever expanding federal government. How's that to start? >

You think those things equal giving an AOK to torture, do you? Making an effort to correct previous effects of discrimination and declaring that people have a right to privacy - which is completely legitmate under the 9th Amendment, another part of the Constitution rightwingers wish didn't exist - is some horrible impostion on our collective liberty, is it? So after such horrible tyrrany, liberals should just "suck it up" when the righties take their turn by declaring the constitution doesn't prohibit using torture to interrogate people, hm?

<Something non-lawyers need to realize when it comes to legal analysis is that legal authorities like judges, etc., (unless they're a political activist who embraces every possible argument that supports their political agenda), don't assume that because it's wrong, it's covered by every random legal principle you can cite. Just because Scalia doesn't think the 8th amendment per se applies to torturing people to gather information, doesn't mean he necessarily thinks there's NOTHING legally wrong with torture, particularly when there are other laws that prohibit torture explicitly (such as treaties). Just because Scalia doesn't think the 8th amendment doesn't apply, doesn't mean he doesn't think American law and treaties that explicitly ban torture don't apply. In the same interview, Scalia said he opposes torture. >

Smokescreen and bullshit Ron. Has Scalia pointed to ANY legal reason why using torture in interrogation isn't legal? Of course he's going to declare he's against torture - that's not something he could come right out and say without being universally castigated and condemned. He just dodges and says, 'Oh, I'm against it, but my hands are tied, there's nothing legally that can be done to stop it, gee that's rough' - just like Lawrence vs Texas - 'Oh, WE don't approve of laws that discriminate against gay people, but we still believe there's no legal reason to prohibit them'.

Oh and by the way, anyone who claims the 8th Amendment doesn't apply to interrogations is being willfully blind. For chrissake, of course torture is 'punishment' in this context - it's punishment for not telling the interrogator what they want to hear ,and the threat of further punishment is what's supposed to coerce the victims into saying what the interogators want.

<Looking at other comments he's made, Sclaia just doesn't think the torture issue is that simple a legal issue:

“Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited under the Constitution?” Scalia said, according to a transcript posted at Think Progress. “Because smacking someone in the face would violate the Eighth Amendment in a prison context. You can’t go around smacking people about. Is it obvious that what can’t be done for punishment can’t be done to exact information that is crucial to this society? It’s not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth.” >

Looking at the above comment, Scalia shows that he's either a moronic jerkwad or a sadistic fascist lookiing for excuses to justify the Dubyistas attempts to legalize torture - in either cae, he demonstrates he's totally unfit to be on the Supreme Court.. Average people who watch too much "24" and haven't spent much time thinking about how the law works might be excused for making such a claims, but anyone who claims to understand the law is supposed to know better. Laws are not written to accomodate incredibly rare, one-in-a-million chance scenarios. By Scalia's reasoning, we should make murder legal - after all, there are many scenarios in which killing someone is regarded as both legal and morally correct - in self defense, or to save the life of another. But being a sane society, we don't do that. If someone kills someone and claims they were justified, there is an investigation, the DA decides whether or not to press charges, and if charges are pressed there's a fucking trial. The same applies quite easily with coercive interrogation - if some Hollywood scenario occurred where somoen really did need to resort to such methods to gain information, let it be determined by the same process. Anyone who claims that people need to be given a pass to torture 'just in case' is full of shit.

<"That the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishmenty has essentially no meaning whatsoever?"

He neither said nor implied that. He said the 8th amendment applies to punishment, not to police interrogations to gather information. >

He most certainly did - and again, anyone who so wants to parse words to such an extent is obviously not interested upholding the Constitution and what it's supposed to stand for. Scalia is not an "Originalist" any more than John Hagee is a real Christian - they are both protofascist fundies who couldn't care less about the real meaning and intent of the words they twist to justify their evil bullshit. Fuck Scalia and fuck his fans.

<< insist "but I disllike the Bush presidency" - all the while straining to defend evil - and lionize its pawns - at every conceivable opportunity. >>

This is yet another sorry attempt to rescue far-right ideology from the consequences of its many, many failures, fuckups and childish emotion-based reasoning. As if wingnuts' so-called "ideas" haven't comprehensively failed at every single trial, with each new Herbert Hoover-manque worse than the last one.

those are good points robin. . .if it's okay with the USA, then it must be good for us!

i can't wait for the tabloid headlines. . .

Waterboarding Improved My Posture!

Waterboarding Helped Penelope Get Pregnant!

Waterboarding Can Help You Lose 100 lbs in 2 Weeks!
( that's right, in just 2 weeks you can weigh 45 lbs! )