Third Party & Independents: Archives

I’m not sure how to feel on this one.

On one hand, I share your strong dislike for Scalia.

On the other hand, you can’t go to, say, a stand-up comic’s routine, record it, and post it on the internet for everyone to listen to. Movie theaters can kick you out for videotaping the movie. Bands often ban recording of their live concerts. Et cetera, et cetera.

Is what Scalia did the same thing? Does he, as a public figure, lose the right to decide how his intellectual property - that being his speech - is used?

Hmm…me thinks this is a whole bunch of nothing… Read from the article:

“The deputy’s actions were based on the justice’s standing policy prohibiting such recordings of his remarks,” said Marshals Service spokesman David Turner.

Several lines letter is this little gem:

“His policy is similar to that of his colleagues on the bench.”

So Scalia has a standing policy of not wanting his remarks recorded. And the press that follows him and the other justices don’t know this?

ceejayoz:

You’ll note that none of the examples you use of things not being recorded involve the press.

There is such a concept as fair use, and recording public statements by newsworthy figures is certainly fair use for journalists.

On the other hand, you can’t go to, say, a stand-up comic’s routine, record it, and post it on the internet for everyone to listen to. Movie theaters can kick you out for videotaping the movie. Bands often ban recording of their live concerts. Et cetera, et cetera.

ceejayoz,

The motives of the persons you describe here, are purely financial and the right to income from their work. The Stones are rich, but there are a lot of their bootleg live shows being bought and sold.

Brian,

I agree, that from the news segment I saw, this policy is utilized by his fellow judges.

However, prior to this incident, this policy was not publicly known, cited in any Supreme Court press releases, known to the media pool covering the Court, etc. This may be common knowledge among the judges and the Marshall Service, yet no official documents or procedural manuals were offered up to support this policy.

Edward,

The ABC News segment I saw, cited a previous incident where Scalia’s speech was taped and made public, which then forced him to recuse himself from a case.

Lastly, is there a pattern here among the Conservatives?

-Rush Limbaugh refuses to appear on broadcast television programs, unless strict requirements are met designed to shield him from direct questioning.

-Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly have a problem with footnotes, annotations and detailing sources.

-Fox News Channel does not offer transcripts of their programming (as oppose to CNN and MSNBC), on their web site.

ceejayoz,

The journalists weren’t recording the speech to make a bootleg copy or to post it on Kazaa. They were recording a news-worthy event in the public sphere.

In addition to the part of the fair-use doctrine that Jarin noted, there’s also the fact that journalists may use part of recordings for legitimate reports. For example, movies critics can show clips from movies as part of reviews, and music critics can play parts of cds on the radio as parts of reviews. There is no copyright violation in recording a public speech by a public figure for legitimate journalism.

It’s one thing to have a posted policy and prohibit taping. I’m not to happy with it, but I guess there’s a lot of precedent. It’s quite another to have law enforecement officials forcibly deleting recording despite a lack of posted policy.

This is ugly.

It’s one thing to have a posted policy and prohibit taping. I’m not to happy with it, but I guess there’s a lot of precedent. It’s quite another to have law enforecement officials forcibly deleting recording despite a lack of posted policy.

But here’s the deal. If you see what was posted above, Scalia is trying to prevent another situation where he would have to recuse himself from a case. If one justice can’t hear a case, that means only eight judges can decide something that could have significant consequences in our government.

Were the tactics of the US Marshall service heavyhanded? No, they first asked both reporters to stop and delete the remarks. One did, one didn’t. When that reporter refused, the US Marshall service did not arrest her, did not drag her off into a black helicopter to get dropped off into a UFO stuck in the ice in Antarctica. They took the recorder and deleted it for her.

Who do I blame for this? Scalia’s team should have annouced that no recording was allowed. The AP should have warned the reporter that Scalia doesn’t allow recording of his speeches. Both sides could have done things different, and honestly I don’t think it’s a heavy-handed approach by the Justice’s team to subvert free speech or freedom of the press. It’s more a misuderstanding blown up by a group looking for news where it doesn’t exist.

Next AP story “Cheney silent on questions about Iraq while visiting local personal waste management facilty”.

Translation “Cheney wouldn’t answer questions while on the can”.

Scalia is trying to prevent another situation where he would have to recuse himself from a case. If one justice can’t hear a case, that means only eight judges can decide something that could have significant consequences in our government.

If that’s his motivation, isn’t that a Bad Thing?

If his speeches mean he should be recusing himself in certain cases, then trying to conceal his bias by not allowing the press to record his statements is severely unethical.

This is a case where Justice Scalia wants free reign to rant unabashedly on some spiteful right wing topics and not get questioned on it or be recused for doing so(dang liberals). His bias is an embarrassment to both himself and the bench.

That’s what I’m reading here, this is’nt The Grateful Dead at Altamont this is a man trying to cover his butt as he partakes in biased punditry. And speaking to an assembly of white Christian Mississippians on the views that white Christian Mississippians hold.

***This is also a case of a man of distinction talking to a group of the most gullible people on the planet fundamentalist Christian Highschoolers. What the hell was he doing there?!! is this a justice’s target audience anyway, acne ridden teen-agers pondering over the note they got passed in math class and whether tater tots were on the school lunch menu or not. Tell ‘em how to think Scooter! Them kids need that! Stay in school, Crack is Whack!

Why is it that so many republicans have to make sure they inculcate kids with their philosophies. If their philosophies were worth a damn they would’nt need to take it to highschoolers and schoolkids. They ultimately fear anyone questioning them, that’s why they do it. They fear anything other than a room full of nodding heads and a hive mind they can’t correct and keep in place. ‘How dare your sentiments deviate from mine’ and other such horsecrap.

Thank you V.Edward, I’m having fun with this topic already.

ceejayoz, dead on target on this issue. 1) Courts have long established in civil suits that public figures by virtue for their choice to become public figures are not subject to the same privacy rights in public venues as ordinary citizens who are not public figures.

2) Justice Stephen Bryer and Thomas often make public appearances in venues which invite the press. I have watched them and they demonstrate the ability to refrain from questions or discussions in public which may have relevance on a current or future case coming before the court.

3) If Scalia cannot exercise the same judgement as Breyer and Thomas, it brings his judgement on the bench into question, but more importantly it demans that he recuse himself from speaking in public venues, rather that trample the rights of American citizens to be informed of what their government officials are saying and doing in public venues.

A lot can be said about lifetime appointments, but Scalia’a actions certainly seem to make an argument for a removal mechanism. What do you do with a justice who goes on vacation with someone who has a case pending before him? No mater how craze he gets there is nothing to done. I halfway expect him to start mooning the crowds in front of the Supreme Court building.

Does anyone know of any mechanism for dealing with justices that go wacco?

Does anyone know of any mechanism for dealing with justices that go wacco?

Sniper rifle? *g*

More seriously, I was under the impression that justices could be impeached…

Bert—I believe there is a pattern; conservative would like the American populace to do as I say, not as I do.

Brian—let us not forget that although Justices of the Supreme Court are not elected, they are nonetheless public officials, a part of the federal government, and answerable to the public. I agree with Mr. Remer, if Scalia do not want to have to recuse himself from future cases, he has three choices; 1. do not give any more public speeches which deal with subject matter before the Court; 2. meter his words as to not announce his bias before the world, or—and this is my desire; 3. do not give any more public speeches.

I’m sorry, but Justices of the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, should not make it matter of policy to subvert the very document they have a duty to interpret and uphold. Like I state in my article, Scalia either believes in the foundational principles of the Constitution or he doesn’t. And if he doesn’t it is high time he excuse himself from the bench. As American citizens how can we demand anything less?

Skunkbud—My pleasure; I am always willing and able to “out” conservative hypocrisy.

A sitting Justice can be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, and if convicted, removed from the bench. To whit:

…The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 6

…Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 7

…The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4

…The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. U.S. Const. art. III, § 1

and this is my desire; 3. do not give any more public speeches

Ahh yes, this is the best idea overall. Let’s make sure we have no idea what these guys are thinking before we appoint them to a bench. Or see if they have changed their minds afterwards. Or possibly pass on some knowledge to a younger generation, inspiring those to serve in public office. Yes, that’s bad icky bad. :-P

Does anyone know of any mechanism for dealing with justices that go wacco?

Sniper rifle? *g*

I understand that you don’t like Scalia, that’s fine. But just joking about that IMHO, destroys any credibility that you might have built.

I believe there is a pattern; conservative would like the American populace to do as I say, not as I do.

My pleasure; I am always willing and able to “out” conservative hypocrisy.

You know it’s funny, I’m a pretty tolerant leaning towards the right dad. I don’t go to church, I live my life trying to do what’s best for my kids and make sure what I do is not only beneficial to me but to society as a whole. But since I’m a righty, I’m intolerant and hypocritical.

The intolerance that people screech about on the religious right also exists in loony left. Both sides are just too blinded by rage to see it…

Brian - I think you’re just finding that we in the Left are finally fed up with the accusations of “traitor”, “commie” and the like, and have started hitting back.

But CJ, some of the people on your side ARE Communists. Look at A.N.S.W.E.R who is the voice behind most of the protests against the war. Where are they getting their funding from? It isn’t the Girl Scouts. They are the extremely vocal end of the left. They are the ones on CNN every week.

Seeing as how you were in the last thread, I also think the throwing around of the term “traitor” is getting old. Honestly, I only really think that when people are rooting for the terrorists to win.

But I also think our representatives not only have a responsiblity to their parties, but a responsibility to their country. I’d love to see what you guys think of Zell Miller…

BRIAN, (commie comment)I agree, but you also have to agree that those are not the majority of us hence we probably shouldn’t be labelled as such. As well as’traitor’ as a label. As if there are no democrats serving in our nations armed services.

To speak up is not treasonous activity nor is to deride.

To speak up is not treasonous activity nor is to deride.

Let’s take that to the other thread. If you read through the comments, you will see what I think of the whole debate.

but you also have to agree that those are not the majority of us hence we probably shouldn’t be labelled as such…

Then don’t label me as a hypocritical righty. While there is a minority inside the Republican party that want to see a return to the inquisition, they do not speak for the entire party. They are just the group that tends to be more vocal, just like ANSWER.

I agree entirely, your thoughts on ‘traitor’ being hackneyed was well taken. My thread was perhaps too glib to reflect that and badly directed. It wasn’t meant as a personal smear just indicative of the sort of stuff that is out there in mainstream think.

And no I don’t have hostilities to the right as much as I see that ‘moderates’ are not being adequately represented in their own party as the mod. dems are rarely represented by the left.

I didn’t mean to get P.C. all up in dat’

> But CJ, some of the people on your side ARE
> Communists.

Maybe 1%. Remember, nearly half of all Americans are on “our side”.

What percentage of people on the right are radical Christian Fundamentalists? Probably a larger percentage than there are Communists on the left, I can tell you that. There are radical Christian fundamentalists *in the Bush Administration*! There were no Communists in the Clinton administration.

> Look at A.N.S.W.E.R who is the voice behind
> most of the protests against the war.

That’s not a fair characterization, although it is based on a kernel of truth.

Anecdotally I can say without reservation that everyone I know who opposed the Iraq invasion (which is pretty much everyone I know) also oppose ANSWER’s radical agenda.

A sad thing about anti-war protests is that they almost always give folks like you plenty of ammunition to paint all of us who oppose the war with the same image as those who are most the most vocal and the most controversial. Even so, even a cursory glance at the faces in the crowd at almost any anti-war protest will show you that most people who oppose the war, even those few who attend protests, are just regular people.

It’s true that ANSWER did the bulk of the organizing of the protests. This says three things to me:

1) That even though when polled a huge number (what was it, like 30 percent?) of Americans opposed the Iraq invasion, the politicial pressure from the pro-war movement was so strong that it caused the bulk of those who opposed the war to keep their mouths shut lest they be branded a traitor. “Watch what you say”, said Ari Fleischer. The public anti-war protests, thus, were populated mostly by those with the most courage or the deepest sense of idealism - and, as the right so gleefully points out, by those with the most radical agendas.

2) That the left is so disorganized that only the radical movements can get their shit together to actually organize a protest.

3) That most people, left and right, don’t think that protests are the most effective means of opposition to bad policies (even so, the protests were rather large, weren’t they?).

-Cf

But CJ, some of the people on your side ARE Communists. Look at A.N.S.W.E.R who is the voice behind most of the protests against the war. Where are they getting their funding from? It isn’t the Girl Scouts. They are the extremely vocal end of the left. They are the ones on CNN every week.

And some of the righties are extremely vocal neo-Nazis. What’s your point?

Anyways, don’t they have a right to advocate communism if they want? Seems to me it falls solidly under freedom of speech.

***One thing I find interesting within the left is that largely there is no concensus ‘we’. I am more entrepreneurial as my poli-standpoint and there are those that are for higher taxes. Whereas I tend to be in favor of streamlining it so I can make an honest buck. The left is anti- smoking, I don’t care what you do with your damn lungs there is no reason to sue smokers for it or let them take upon their shoulders the costs of state. I am of the libertarian bent with minimal gov. involvement and there are those who want to create more bureaucracy.

So I think the term ‘WE’ might be a little strong.

‘WE’ aren’t that organized but the communist factions are so they could do the marches effectively but it also represented some of ‘us’.

Although it doesn’t surprise me that Ayatollah Scalia apparently had the legal right to delete the recordings, he should be ashamed of himself if he actually approved the action. In a democracy, leaders shouldn’t be afraid of their words being on the record. Since we are talking about Communism, this incident reeks of a Stalinesque system where leaders are free to revise history as they see fit. If conservatives want to find a totalitarian splinter in the eyes of leftists, they should pay attention to the logs in their own eyes named Scalia, Ashcroft, and Cheney.

***Something off the cuff might be enough to recuse him from the bench on certain cases. But exactly, why should it be hidden the way he thinks, these statements reflect motives and from that if proven contrary to allowing him to preside on certain cases, would this not be a good thing? The secrecy is rather stasi-like.

It’s really a matter of public responsibility to allow such transcripts to emerge for public record. And especially when talking at a religious school shouldn’t knowledge of what was said be documented and be available as public record?

(Aaah there’s the topic again)

***I mean to say if this man is a liability to the bench and to certain cases this is’nt good for the Supreme court itself If he is so back asswards that he can’t figure out what to say versus what should be stricken from the list of conversational options, get a brain filter.

Perhaps the action is a means of certain questions from an audience possibly sparking something? But really his job is as a moral judge. He’s not a company owner doing crap product, in his line of work he is the product and should know how to conduct himself to reflect that audience querries or no. Am I asking too much?

***After all this is The Supreme Court and he should know that he has a public responsibility to reflect the institution. That’s why they call it public service because it is in the interest of the public.

***Must our laws be there to hold his little hand! Mr. Scalia if you can’t keep your (expletive) together this may not be your line of work.

I think the most gullible people in the world are the whacky environmentalists, although the fundamentalists are a close second.
There is no first amendment right for the press to go anywhere and do whatever it wants. Any person has the right - in their private pursuits - to limit the press. As I recall, Scalia did not totally eliminate the press, just determined how they operate - similar to rules courts use now. Typically, trials aren’t televised or recorded. You just get to see those goofy drawings. First amendment arguments are more applicable to that scenario than a private speech given to a private group even if by a public figure.

Todd—

Ummm, I do believe a speech on the Bill of Rights given at a captive audience at conservative high school by sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is a little different then say Gorge the milk man giving the same speech to the local Rotary Club.

Like it or not, the good Justice is public official and he works for me, and you, and every other American citizen; less we forget this is OUR government, and it officials are answerable to US. And if he (and you) thinks that his speeches should be private, then he is bigger fool then I originally thought. Again, how dare he give a speech on the virtues and protections of the First Amendment, and then feel free to violate them.

I might as well sound off on this too.

I would dog-pile onto the collective dismay at a holder of such a high office as Justice Scalia, in further eroding people’s confidence in the openness, fairness, and democracy of our System. If he isn’t violating the letter of the Constitution, he is certainly besmirching the spirit of it.

I consider myself a Social Justice Capitalist—the “Social Justice” part gives me some problems with the Right; and the “Capitalist” part gives me some problems with the Left. I don’t know if that makes me a true “Centrist” or not. On most issues, “Libertarian” comes pretty close, but I still believe that public assistance should be there for those who either work, or are of retirement age, or handicapped, if their income falls below the poverty line. Those who refuse to work, screw them (that line makes me personna non grata at the big Leftist conventions, where refusing to work seems to be some sort of a Constitutional right).

Yes, there are Communists on the Left. But most of them are Socialists of a Western European sort, that is, government ownership of the means of production, but elections to democratically determine what that government comprises and how they run what they run. I think that with the exception of Sweden, where work for its own sake persists as a cultural feature of the nation, Europe is ironically starting to turn away from Socialism just as most American so-called “Progressives” are wanting to embrace it.

I don’t think Capitalism and Social Justice are incompatible. As long as there are regulations and boundaries on the Capitalism, and “working poor” are technically oxymorons, then beyond that let Capitalism be all that it can be.

In fact, as much as the Right wing these days is emphasizing military buildup and social regulation as its main causes, it’s possible for the Left to steal their ground on Free Market economics, if they play their cards right. Then they’ll have such a tidal wave of support, I think, that they’ll pretty much rule Washington for the next century or so. But with the leadership they currently have, out of touch as they are, I doubt they’ll seize that opportunity. They’ll continue to try to plead for what has failed in all cases but one in human history, not understanding the mechanics of why it failed.