Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
No comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

The fictional Judge Scalia

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Become a Fan
  (9 fans)

opednews.com

The best example of the Republican's strict adherence to their fictional ideology is the remarks by Judge Scalia about the fictional character Jack Bauer's actions in the fictional program, 24, as shown on the fictional Fox TV propaganda machine.

Here's what Scalia said:  "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles...He saved hundreds of thousands of lives.  Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?  Say that criminal law is against him?  You have a right to a jury trial?  Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?  I don't think so.  So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes.  And ought we believe in these absolutes."

Scalia shows in his remarks that he has not the slightest understanding that what he's talking about is pure fiction.  He's making statements as if they were fact.  He's talking about it as if it were real.  Here's that disconnect of Republicans who are unable to tell the difference between reality and fiction.  The Republicans are selective in picking the fiction they want to support their ideology.  They only pick the fiction that fits, rejecting everything else.  If you use reality to base your ideology on, you don't get to pick and choose.  There's only one reality.

Scalia asks is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?  Well, no, because Jack Bauer is a fictional character.  He doesn't exist.  Be hard to convict a figment of someone's imagination.  Here, Scalia goes to the fourth level of fiction by speculating about what a fictional jury would do in a fictional case about a fictional person.  He doesn't understand that it's pointless to speculate about fiction.  It's not real.  The scary thing is that Scalia takes this speculation about fiction with him to the bench to dispense his version of fictional justice.

Scalia says that if the criminal law is against Jack Bauer, do we believe in these absolutes, meaning the law.  You don't believe in absolutes.  You can't.  Absolutes exist whether you believe in them or not, just as the law exists whether Scalia believes in it or not.

A judge is obligated to dispense justice.  A good definition of justice is a feature of your word processor.  It's right margin justify.  It means to even thing up.  Everyone gets their just reward and just punishment.  Justice can only be found by considering the facts, all of the facts and only the facts.  Contrary to Scalia, justice cannot be found by applying fiction to a factual case.

We've had George Bush telling us about fictional weapons of mass destruction, fictional nuclear programs, fictional ties to 9/11, fictional ties to al Queda in Iraq, all to preserve his tenacious toe-hold on his fictional Presidency.

There was a fictional second-rate actor, Republican Ronald Reagan, who played the fictional role of Republican governor and Republican president.  There is a fictional, second-rate actor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who plays the role of a fictional Republican governor.  There's fictional, too low to rate, Republican George Bush, a fictional impostor playing the role of a fictional actor playing the role of a fictional Republican President.  Another second-rate fictional actor, Republican Fred Thompson, wants to play the role of a fictional Republican President.  More Republican actors.  More fiction.  Again.

Fiction has a new synonym:  Republican.

And now, we have a Supreme Court judge who prefers to use his beliefs instead of knowledge about the law and base his reasoning on fiction instead of fact to make his decisions about what's just.

We can use Scalia's method of using fiction to sort things out.  The inscription on the pediment of the Supreme Court building reads:  Equal Justice Under Law.  With Scalia on the bench, it would more accurately read:  Abandon hope all ye who enter here.  Of course, that was Dante's fictional inscription over the gates of Hell.  But, using Scalia's reasoning, it's appropriate.

 

Ed Martin is an ordinary person who is recovering from being badly over-educated. Born in the middle of the Great Depression, he is not affiliated with nor a member of any political, social or religious organization. He is especially interested in (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Conyers' year of tolerating contempt

You need to read this! Rob Kall's declaration of war

The worst is yet to come; foreclosure fraud is the banksters' least problem

Removal of the President from Office

Textbook descriptions of George Bush reveal psychopathy, and much worse.

Will we allow the Republicans to make the poor and the unemployed into the Jews of 1930s Germany?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments