From CBS News:
The justice has been explaining his positions publicly more and more, and even delving into some thorny issues, like torture.
“I don’t like torture,” Scalia says. “Although defining it is going to be a nice trick. But who’s in favor of it? Nobody. And we have a law against torture. But if the – everything that is hateful and odious is not covered by some provision of the Constitution,” he says.
“If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the expression ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ doesn’t that apply?” Stahl asks.
“No, No,” Scalia replies.
“Cruel and unusual punishment?” Stahl asks.
“To the contrary,” Scalia says. “Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.”
“Well, I think if you are in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody…,” Stahl says.
“And you say he’s punishing you?” Scalia asks.
“Sure,” Stahl replies.
“What’s he punishing you for? You punish somebody…,” Scalia says.
“Well because he assumes you, one, either committed a crime…or that you know something that he wants to know,” Stahl says.
“It’s the latter. And when he’s hurting you in order to get information from you…you don’t say he’s punishing you. What’s he punishing you for? He’s trying to extract…,” Scalia says.
“Because he thinks you are a terrorist and he’s going to beat the you-know-what out of you…,” Stahl replies.
“Anyway, that’s my view,” Scalia says. “And it happens to be correct.”
Ohhh Lesley, next time, just kick him in the nuts.
HYSTERICAL RAISINS 
scalia and thomas together are scary: thomas is an original constitution guy, and scalia seems to lean that way, esp in the above quote.
i never thought i would be pinning my scotus hopes on anthony kennedy.
stewart raked scalia over coals, and aasef mandi helped him.
rock on, nonnie!
jenn’s late night hot tip
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0408/Lurita_Doan_forced_out_at_GSA.html
a small victory 😆
on 60 minutes, scalia described himself as an originalist. sounded like a convenient excuse when he wanted to vote against one thing, but doesn’t hold water when it comes to other things. where in the original constitution does it say that the supreme court gets to decide who the president will be? i was working on american street stuff for tomorrow, and i had the daily show on, but i wasn’t paying attention. good thing i record it.
it is a small victory that lurita finally got the boot. however, she will be allowed to live among people who will completely ignore all her law-breaking and who will congratulate her for doing the party’s business so well. she will suffer no shame at all. she will simply ignore those who scorn her. too bad she, as well as her cronies, are not walking in chains in orange jumpsuits. sickening.
p.s. thanks for the heads up, jenn! i already have tomorrow night’s poster done, but you never know if lurita might show up later on! 😉
thomas is especially disdainful of “precedent” – i think originalist is a copout for everybody who doesn’t like what the supreme court has done lately.
after all, the originals were a bunch of deists, and white landowning males had the vote.
the bastard should be forced to walk around in tights, short pants, brocaded vests and a powdered wig. in the middle of summer.
He’s trying to make “punishment” equivalent to “sentence,” which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. As long as you haven’t been tried yet, it’s okay to beat you? Or, as long as it’s not part of the sentence, it’s okay to do whatever? Huh?
I was once an admirer of Antonin Scalia, to be honest. I don’t know if he’s lost his mind over the past decade or if I’ve just had more things come to light about what he thinks. But lately I find that Justice Scalia is crazy enough to be part of the Bush administration. (Of course, he goes hunting with Dick Cheney … which is a brave thing for a lawyer to do!)
wickle,
his torture not being equal to punishment argument was laughable. yes, there is legalese, but there is also common sense. does he honestly think that the founders, whom he supposedly idolizes to the point that he thinks their every idea should still be honored without question today, would not have thought that torture was punishment? his real argument for just about everything is: it is so, because i say it is so!
forgot to add that his definition of punishment is much too narrow. has he never heard of a baseball pitcher’s arm taking a lot of punishment? how about car tires that have to drive on rough terrain? how about an exercise regimen that is so tough that it is described as punishing? punishment refers not only to retribution for a crime but as stress that is physically endured.
Hi all my unhinged raisins! Just wanted to make sure you were all still defending spineless, liberal appeasement policies of peace and love when dealing with animals who deserve nothing but our boot to the neck…… good job!
Hugs?
🙂
Wickle you going sift?
trm!
i see that you changed your name. nothing else, just your name. what a shame. 😀
😦
Scalia said in recent interview that actual guilt or innocence in a murder case would not affect his ruling on the matter. The usual cookie/race analogy might be considered unfair against Thomas so I just use his nickname “double stuff”.