By GINA HOLLAND
WASHINGTON (AP) - A defiant Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused Thursday to remove himself from a case involving his good friend, Vice President Dick Cheney, dismissing suggestions of a conflict of interest.
In an unusual 21-page memorandum, he rejected a request by the Sierra Club. The environmental group said it was improper for Scalia to take a hunting trip with Cheney while the court was considering whether the White House must release information about private meetings of Cheney's energy task force.
Scalia said the remote Louisiana hunting camp used for a duck hunting and fishing trip "was not an intimate setting" and that the energy case was never discussed.
The justice said he was guilty only of hunting with a friend and taking a free plane ride to get there. "If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," Scalia wrote.
"My recusal is required if ... my impartiality might reasonably be questioned," he said. "Why would that result follow from my being in a sizable group of persons, in a hunting camp with the vice president, where I never hunted with him in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation?"
Given the circumstances of the trip, Scalia wrote, the only possible reason for recusal would be his friendship with Cheney.
"A rule that required members of this court to remove themselves from cases in which the official actions of friends were at issue would be utterly disabling," Scalia wrote.
Many Supreme Court justices get their jobs "precisely because they were friends of the incumbent president or other senior officials," he wrote.
Supreme Court justices, unlike judges on other courts, decide for themselves if they have conflicts, and their decisions are final.
The Sierra Club is suing to get information about private meetings of Cheney's energy task force. The court agreed in December to hear the case, and three weeks later Scalia and Cheney flew together on a government jet to the hunting camp of a multimillionaire oil-services tycoon.
Pressure on Scalia to stay out of the case had mounted, with calls from dozens of newspapers for the conservative Reagan administration appointee to recuse himself to protect the court's image of impartiality.
The Sierra Club asked for Scalia's recusal in February, pointing to the "American public's great concern about the continuing damage this affair is doing to the prestige and credibility of this court."
There was no obligation for Scalia to explain his decision, but he did in the 21-page memo. He said he will recuse himself when "on the basis of established principles and practices, I have said or done something which requires this course." He said the hunting trip to Louisiana was planned before the energy case reached the court.
Those "established principles and practices" do not require or even permit him to step aside in the Cheney case, Scalia wrote.
The Supreme Court arguments in the case are scheduled for April 27.
In addition to the Sierra Club, Democrats in Congress and some legal ethicists have called on Scalia to stay out of the case.
Scalia noted in his memo that he has stepped aside in another case this term _ one testing the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. The decision came after he criticized the lower court ruling during a speech at a religious rally.
For the first time, Scalia revealed details of his trip with Cheney.
Scalia said he was the go-between to invite Cheney to hunt with a Scalia friend, Wallace Carline, who owns an oil rig services firm, Scalia wrote. Scalia and Cheney are friends from their days working in the Ford administration, Scalia noted.
"I conveyed the invitation, with my own warm recommendation, in the spring of 2003 and received an acceptance," Scalia wrote.
When the time came for the trip, Scalia and Cheney flew together, accompanied by one of Scalia's sons and a son-in-law, Scalia wrote.
The case is Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 03-475.
___
On the Net:Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
Scalia: "No, no, no. We won't discuss the case while were up there in the woods, depending on each other. Huddling together for warmth in a cramped log cabin in the woods... talking for hours on end... getting to know each other intimately... "
― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Thursday, 18 March 2004 19:14 (twenty-two years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 18 March 2004 19:18 (twenty-two years ago)
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 18 March 2004 19:46 (twenty-two years ago)
― bill stevens (bscrubbins), Thursday, 18 March 2004 19:52 (twenty-two years ago)
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 18 March 2004 19:59 (twenty-two years ago)
I do think its amazing that the supreme court nightmare that people were predicting on Bush's first term didnt happen. Its almost inevitable if he wins in '04, however.
― bill stevens (bscrubbins), Thursday, 18 March 2004 20:08 (twenty-two years ago)
― andy, Thursday, 18 March 2004 20:32 (twenty-two years ago)
Whether Scalia and Cheney never spoke on the hunting trip or whether they fellated each other nightly doesn't make any difference. In the first case there's a 100% chance he votes in Cheney's favor, in the second case the chance rises to 100%. Big deal. It's the same with Clarence Thomas, same with JP Stevens and Breyer. My guess is that O'Connor's the only one who needs to read this case beyond the title to decide how she's voting.
― yossarian, Thursday, 18 March 2004 21:11 (twenty-two years ago)
interestingly, this reminds me of my immediate thoughts after bush v. gore -- that justices breyer and souter were the only two justices who really approached the case in a non-partisan manner. (i've always been of the opinion that o'connor is just rehnquist in drag, anyway.)
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 18 March 2004 21:35 (twenty-two years ago)
Subsection (a), the provision at issue here (of 28 USC § 455), was an entirely new "catch-all" recusal provision, covering both "interest or relationship" and "bias or prejudice" grounds, see Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) - but requiring them all to be evaluated on an objective basis, so that what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice, but its appearance. Quite simply and quite universally, recusal was required whenever "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
haw haw haw
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 19 March 2004 02:46 (twenty-two years ago)
especially not in that order
― Dave M. (rotten03), Friday, 19 March 2004 04:35 (twenty-two years ago)
Is it just me or is Rehnquist's whole thing with the racing stripes a bit strange? It isn't a part of the standard chief justice appearal, William just thinks they look bitchin.
― earlnash, Friday, 19 March 2004 05:02 (twenty-two years ago)
(* -- we've gotta be optimistic, folks!)
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 19 March 2004 05:20 (twenty-two years ago)
― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 19 March 2004 05:24 (twenty-two years ago)
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 19 March 2004 05:28 (twenty-two years ago)
― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 19 March 2004 05:30 (twenty-two years ago)
You have a much higher opinion of Justice O'Connor than I have, and a higher one than the facts warrant.
Stories I have heard from a couple of his former clerks indicate to me that Scalia is truly, deeply weird, and my one brief ecounter with him was hardly impressive or pleasant.
― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 19 March 2004 07:28 (twenty-two years ago)
― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Friday, 19 March 2004 07:50 (twenty-two years ago)
his disregard of legal precedent is really audacious, and stupid
he's really the textbook example of an 'activist judge', you know, that kind bushco are always complaining about
sigh i wish more people cared about their country, if they did this guy's prescence on the supreme court would be enough to send his coconspirators packing
― !!!! (amateurist), Friday, 19 March 2004 10:12 (twenty-two years ago)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62514-2004Apr8.html
― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 9 April 2004 12:49 (twenty-one years ago)
― ModJ (ModJ), Friday, 9 April 2004 13:57 (twenty-one years ago)
the 1st amendment is for me, but not for thee.
remember, folks, that whatever john kerry's other faults may be ... at least he won't choose scalia to be the next chief justice, or put more scalia clones into the federal courts.
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Saturday, 10 April 2004 08:57 (twenty-one years ago)
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Saturday, 10 April 2004 08:59 (twenty-one years ago)
"She is always very careful in her remarks," Rodgers said. "I've never heard her address cases that are in front of the court. So I don't see any evidence of her violating her impartiality."
Um, yeah. I guess "impartiality" is a reliably liberal vote.
― don carville weiner, Saturday, 10 April 2004 10:59 (twenty-one years ago)
If Justice Ginsberg were taken on expenses-paid vacations paid for by NOW, or flying to her vacations for free on an airplane provided by NOW, I would demand that she recuse herself from any cases in which NOW figured as the plaintiff or the defendent. By gum, I surely would! After all, certain principles are far more important to uphold than the outcome of a single case.
― Aimless (Aimless), Saturday, 10 April 2004 15:29 (twenty-one years ago)
The point is that the goalposts are moveable for many, when they shouldn't be. I'm pretty certain that the only people defending Ginsberg's actions are those who are sympathetic or supportive of her votes on the Court. I am suspicious of this.
People like you point out that Scalia's refusal to recuse himself is not the same as Ginsberg's relationship with the NOW defense fund. I disagree. To me, there is either impartiality or there is not. There is no good reason for Ginsberg to associate with this group given her position. None. Why invite the appearance of impropriety?
Start switching names around...let's say change NOW with the NRA and Ginsberg with Scalia. Would you feel the same way if you read this quote?
"Two weeks before the event, the Supreme Court voted unanimously with women's rights advocates in a case that tested a state's duty to provide medical screening for low-income children. The legal defense fund filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on what turned out to be the winning side"
― don carville weiner, Saturday, 10 April 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)
― Girolamo Savonarola, Saturday, 10 April 2004 22:06 (twenty-one years ago)
Uh, yeah. Exactly. I'm not and didn't condone Scalia. He has no excuses. But neither does Ginsberg. Just because Scalia was more egregious doesn't mean I'm going to watch a pass be given out to Ginsberg. We should hawk over all Justices, not just the ones we are idealogically (or otherwise) opposed to.
― don carville weiner, Saturday, 10 April 2004 23:42 (twenty-one years ago)
Here's the lead paragraph from the linked article:
"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has lent her name and presence to a lecture series cosponsored by the liberal NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group that often argues before the court in support of women's rights that the justice embraces."
The crux here is "argues before the court". I suspect that means that NOW files briefs in cases that it finds of interest, rather than that NOW is the plaintiff, defrendent or official legal representative of either principal. My reaction is, so what?
If Scalia belongs to the Elks and a case against the Boy Scouts falls under his review where the Elks express an interest in the outcome and file a brief, I DON'T CARE if he recuses himself.
Large segments of the population have a stake in the outcome of most US Supreme Court cases, since they settle general precedents on broad legal issues. It would be crazy to expect a justice not to have predispositions and opinions already formed on these issues. We don't want idiots for justices.
Nor would I be bnothered by a social connection as simple as belonging to the Elks. Heck, I wouldn't care if Scalia had been a Boy Scout himself or a troop leader. In that case, he'd give a better-informed decision.
But, if Scalia were a board member of the Boy Scouts, or a close personal friend or relative of a board member, or was in the habit of getting substantial gifts from the Boy Scouts he had better recuse himself. The idea is that strong ties (family, money, close friendship) create such a strong partiality that society must presume it will affect one's judgement for reasons having nothing to do with social good and everything to do with personal connections.
This sort of article is just shit, don. It purposefully clouds what is a very clear issue. Impartiality doesn't consist of a blank mind. If Justice Ginsberg believes NOW promotes the good of society by strengthening values she believes in, that is not partiality in the sense of the Scalia case, and comes nowhere near to harming society.
― Aimless (Aimless), Sunday, 11 April 2004 16:43 (twenty-one years ago)
― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Sunday, 11 April 2004 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)
Scalia Apologizes for Recording Erasure
― bnw (bnw), Monday, 12 April 2004 22:26 (twenty-one years ago)
― Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Monday, 12 April 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)
― don carville weiner, Tuesday, 13 April 2004 01:47 (twenty-one years ago)
― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:32 (twenty-one years ago)
Now it all becomes so clear...
― Girolamo Savonarola, Tuesday, 13 April 2004 14:35 (twenty-one years ago)
new biography http://wamu.org/programs/dr/ (can't figure out how to permalink today's show!)i don't think i'd be interested in reading this though tbh
― harbl, Thursday, 17 December 2009 19:17 (sixteen years ago)
Scalia's novel interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 03:51 (fifteen years ago)
I think "die in a fire" is an overused expression, but Scalia should go die in a fire.
― not the sort of person who would wind up in a landfill (Nicole), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 03:59 (fifteen years ago)
Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.
Please go back to 1789 so that you can be dead by now, OK?
― sleeve, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 04:05 (fifteen years ago)
Funny argument upthread about Scalia duck hunting with Cheney. I cared less about it after learning how intimate FDR and William O. Douglas were (poker playing drinking buddies, and Douglas was one of FDR's picks for veep in '44).
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 04:08 (fifteen years ago)
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/tristero-not-shocking-at-all.html
by tristero
Apparently, some folks are genuinely shocked that a Supreme Court justice could so profoundly misread the crystal clear words of the Constitution. I don't see why. Scalia doesn't understand the Declaration of Independence either.
I realize that this flies in the face of widely held conventional wisdom but I can't escape the conclusion that when it comes to understanding the founding documents of the United States, Scalia is a mediocre intellect. If that.
On the other hand, if we were to agree that this man really is as brilliant as Everyone says. then that can only mean that Scalia is deliberately misreading these documents to make them say the very opposite of what Jefferson, et al, clearly wrote. Furthermore, it can only mean that a justice of the Supreme Court is, for reasons we can only guess at, consciously adopting a distinctly un-American, if not blatantly anti-American, bias both to his judiicial philosophy and to his rulings. In other words, to believe that Scalia really is smart enough to understand the founding documents, and therefore deliberately misread them, is to believe that he is an activist, a reactionary, and a royalist openly seeking the destruction of this country.
And I certainly wouldn't want to think that was possible of anyone with such authority or power.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:37 (fifteen years ago)
It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
Or at least two.
― it also takes hip-hip with it (Eric H.), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:42 (fifteen years ago)
can't we slip this asshole some arsenic already or something
― assorted curses (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 16:54 (fifteen years ago)
I friggin' dare all those grizzly mamas to call for the Republicans to pass one of those law things in those state legislature things in whatever number necessary add an amendment to the Constitution banning discrimination on the basis of gender so that Toni can start living in the early 20th century instead of the 18th.
― Please fetishize responsibly (Michael White), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:02 (fifteen years ago)
Um, he already does: he's got 10 kids, smokes in his SCOTUS office, and belongs to Opus Dei.
― Gus Van Sotosyn (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 17:15 (fifteen years ago)
I dunno what's worse, the loose canon arrogance of Scalia or the more insidious Roberts.
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 18:40 (fifteen years ago)
so tell me SCOTUS nerds, is Alito generally the most palatable four cons?
― my little pony prophecy (will), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 18:49 (fifteen years ago)
No.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 4 January 2011 19:47 (fifteen years ago)
I don't follow the Court as closely as I should to have an informed opinion but my kneejerk reaction of Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts is that by process of elimination Roberts has to be the least awful.
― Indolence Mission (DJP), Tuesday, 4 January 2011 19:51 (fifteen years ago)
Shakey!
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 13 December 2012 22:23 (thirteen years ago)
throughout the early half of the 20th century tons o' southern preachers invoked the Curse of Ham and the story of Phineas from the Bible to rail against integration, but also interracial marriage. so i guess...
“If we cannot have moral feelings against interracial marriage, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against these other things?”
how this fucking clown maintains his rep of jurisprudential genius is just beyond me.
― Still S.M.D.H. ft. (will), Sunday, 16 December 2012 00:44 (thirteen years ago)
or perhaps he's totally cool with states having anti-miscegenation laws?
i think he is actually
― k3vin k., Sunday, 16 December 2012 00:48 (thirteen years ago)
can someone really smart play devil's advocate here and please explain to me how that can scan as even remotely Constitutional?
― Still S.M.D.H. ft. (will), Sunday, 16 December 2012 00:50 (thirteen years ago)
you see anything about miscegenation in the constitution?
― k3vin k., Sunday, 16 December 2012 00:52 (thirteen years ago)
yeah i don't see anything about AR-15s either.
― Still S.M.D.H. ft. (will), Sunday, 16 December 2012 01:00 (thirteen years ago)
alfred can correct me but it's my understanding that even if scalia thought federal anti-miscegenation laws were not permissible, he wouldn't interpret the 14th as applying to the states and would let a state have such a law
― k3vin k., Sunday, 16 December 2012 01:08 (thirteen years ago)
so would Scalia view a federal law, eg DOMA to be unConstitutional? afaict the Constitution mentions marriage exactly 0 times.
― Still S.M.D.H. ft. (will), Sunday, 16 December 2012 01:11 (thirteen years ago)
if you believed Nino was the Strict Constructionalist he claims to be, sure.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 16 December 2012 02:26 (thirteen years ago)
haha yeah he has a strict and coherent legal philosophy it is called 'being a republican'
― iatee, Sunday, 16 December 2012 02:28 (thirteen years ago)
Slobbo is a stricter "constitutionalist.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 16 December 2012 02:33 (thirteen years ago)
^absolutely. so why all the grudging respect or outright genuflecting by folks who (should) know better?
― Still S.M.D.H. ft. (will), Sunday, 16 December 2012 02:43 (thirteen years ago)
They're Republican.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 16 December 2012 02:43 (thirteen years ago)
or they are just searching for a token republican to say something good about
― iatee, Sunday, 16 December 2012 02:49 (thirteen years ago)
why not say condoleeza rice can play the piano instead
― Nilmar Honorato da Silva, Sunday, 16 December 2012 02:50 (thirteen years ago)
Also: we're more willing to reward a Beltway veteran for outrage and confuse it for wit. I mean, we hear no stories of Breyer yuking it up in think tanks or Georgetown salons.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 16 December 2012 02:51 (thirteen years ago)
^yeah... it seems like i've heard more than enough moderate and even lefty types oh-so-nobly big up this clown
― Still S.M.D.H. ft. (will), Sunday, 16 December 2012 02:56 (thirteen years ago)
Still aggrieved, I see.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 17:27 (twelve years ago)
Can someone put some of his obnoxious quotes together and make it a book--"For Some Reason They Call Me a Genius--The Wit and Wisdom of Antonin Scalia"
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 17:40 (twelve years ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A79-IGry-ZQ
― Spectrum, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 17:44 (twelve years ago)
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, August 20, 2013
but he's smiling!
― first I think it's time I kick a little verse! (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 20 August 2013 17:45 (twelve years ago)
The rictus of propriety
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 17:50 (twelve years ago)
^^ future law review article title
― first I think it's time I kick a little verse! (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 20 August 2013 17:51 (twelve years ago)
xp Rictus mortis.
― Boven is het stil (Eric H.), Tuesday, 20 August 2013 17:51 (twelve years ago)
The one thing I did think, as [the pope] said those somewhat welcoming things to gay men and women, is, Huh, this really does show how much our world has changed. I was wondering what kind of personal exposure you might have had to this sea change.I have friends that I know, or very much suspect, are homosexual. Everybody does.Have any of them come out to you?No. No. Not that I know of.
Have any of them come out to you?No. No. Not that I know of.
― sktsh, Monday, 7 October 2013 11:18 (twelve years ago)
that's from this btw http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/index.html
― sktsh, Monday, 7 October 2013 11:19 (twelve years ago)
with this thread and the SCOTUS one groggy readers will think Nino died or retired
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 October 2013 11:20 (twelve years ago)
ah fuck, should have checked new answers first
― sktsh, Monday, 7 October 2013 11:22 (twelve years ago)
nah it's all good! We need the blood rush!
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 October 2013 11:23 (twelve years ago)
^^ this is genius, if Ned will pardon my saying so
― Aimless, Monday, 7 October 2013 18:01 (twelve years ago)
Has your personal attitude softened some?Toward what?Homosexuality. I don’t think I’ve softened. I don’t know what you mean by softened.
Opposite of hardened.
― Low down bad refrigerator (Dan Peterson), Monday, 7 October 2013 22:32 (twelve years ago)
that interview is solid gold. the stuff about the devil and posession is just cretinous.
― Hip Hop Hamlet (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 October 2013 20:12 (twelve years ago)
oh my goodness
― Hip Hop Hamlet (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 October 2013 20:14 (twelve years ago)
I can easily imagine Scalia asking someone who questioned his position or his reasoning, "if you're so smart why aren't you an associate justice of the Supreme Court?", then sitting back and looking smug. The man is tenured for life, has sycophants galore and doesn't even have to make sense if he doesn't feel like it.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 8 October 2013 23:04 (twelve years ago)
a Supreme Court justice seriously expends intellectual energy on why the devil isn't possessing herds of pigs anymore
― Hip Hop Hamlet (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 October 2013 23:10 (twelve years ago)
Oh my goodness. My God! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the Devil!
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 October 2013 23:19 (twelve years ago)
just joe average over here on the Supreme Court
― Hip Hop Hamlet (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 October 2013 23:23 (twelve years ago)
I am mostly appalled by Scalia and his wholly unjustified intellectual arrogance. The whole Devil thing is for people who cannot think abstractly to save their soul, but Scalia's belief in him is more pardonable than the shoddy intellectual habits he slips into his legal arguments.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 8 October 2013 23:25 (twelve years ago)
http://extremeliberal.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ginny_thomas_clarence_thomas_25.jpg
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 October 2013 23:29 (twelve years ago)
the shoddy intellectual habits he slips into his legal arguments
you mean like that whole "words have meaning!" schtick? I wonder if Scalia has ever slipped a "the Oxford English Dictionary defines ____ as..." into a legal argument
― Hip Hop Hamlet (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 October 2013 23:34 (twelve years ago)
using dictionary definitions (sometimes dictionaries from the period in which the legislation was passed!) is a pretty standard part of scotus jurisprudence now
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 8 October 2013 23:38 (twelve years ago)
Literally.
― midnight outdoor nude frolic up north goes south (Eric H.), Tuesday, 8 October 2013 23:40 (twelve years ago)
i'll give you a guess as to why they started doing this tho
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 8 October 2013 23:42 (twelve years ago)
does it depend on what the meaning of "is" is
― Hip Hop Hamlet (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 8 October 2013 23:45 (twelve years ago)
http://www.yardbird.com/images/Reagan_with_Meese.jpg
― the objections to Drake from non-REAL HIPHOP people (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 October 2013 23:47 (twelve years ago)
:)
― lag∞n, Sunday, 14 February 2016 00:52 (ten years ago)
too soo--- nah.
― wizzz! (amateurist), Sunday, 14 February 2016 00:57 (ten years ago)
Jars of applesauce and bouquets of broccoli were left on the steps of the Supreme Court on Friday as part of a makeshift memorial for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The unusual items became symbols of the ObamaCare debate following colorful comments from Scalia, who was the court’s leading conservative.
In his dissenting opinion last year in King v. Burwell, Scalia called the majority’s reasoning for upholding ObamaCare subsidies “pure applesauce.”
And in 2012, during oral arguments in the first case challenging the healthcare law, Scalia questioned whether the administration could force people to buy broccoli if it required people to have health insurance.
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/270032-applesauce-broccoli-left-at-supreme-court-in-memory-of-scalia
― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Friday, 19 February 2016 20:34 (ten years ago)
what about florets of broccoli?
― wizzz! (amateurist), Friday, 19 February 2016 23:24 (ten years ago)