LAW - Justice Scalia's 'Opinion' on Interpreting Law

My retitle: "How-to Guide for NOT Interpreting the Law"

"Justice Scalia Writes How-to Read Guide for Interpreting the Law" PBS Newshour 8/10/2012

Excerpt

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): And now to a rare and very inside look at the philosophy and practice of a hugely influential and sometimes provocative Supreme Court justice.

Margaret Warner talks with Antonin Scalia.

MARGARET WARNER (Newshour): Well, for 26 years on the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia has long grounded his opinions in the words of the Constitution and the law.

Now he and lexicographer Bryan Garner have issued a 567-page book laying out for other judges how and why they should do the same. It outlines nearly 60 must-do canons of interpretation and dismisses another 13 notions as wrong-headed.

The new book is "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts."

And Justice Scalia joins me now.

REMINDER: Antonin Scalia, VP of.....

OPINION - A Good Question, Republicans and Far Right Leaning Toward Fascism?

"Republican Fascism" by Dean Walker, aka Hurricane Dean 3/10/2011

Excerpts

Are the Republicans and the far Right leaning toward fascism? That sounds like a radical question, and certainly not all Republicans are fascists, but let’s consider past and current historical events.

We need to start with a little history. Benito Mussolini is recognized as the father of fascism. When asked how he would describe his movement Mussolini responded, “Fascism should more appropriately be called 'Corporatism' because it is a merger of state and corporate power”. Political scientists have long described fascism as a blend of state and corporate power propped up by authoritarian nationalism. Given Mussolini’s other comments on authoritarianism and nationalism, it is doubtful he would have objected to this characterization.

Without a doubt, Adolf Hitler was inspired by and replicated in his own early rise many aspects of the fascist movement.

Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting the Republican Party has a master plan in which they are plotting to build gas chambers to kill all the Muslims, socialists, and gays. However, Republicans have been behaving much like the Fascists and Nazis movements during their early rise to power. Essentially, I am suggesting the Republicans and far Right-wing are taking the first few pages out of the Fascist Party playbook.
----
Once again, I’m not saying that the Republicans are like the Nazi’s or the Fascists in their grand plan toward a “final solution”. However, what I am arguing is that they are embracing some of the same ideological beliefs and tactics that two of the most dangerous political movements the world has ever seen. What I am saying is the Republicans, Tea Party, and other elements of the far Right are creeping toward fascism. What I am also saying is that American’s need to seriously look back history in order to avoid repeating it.

Fox News, radical Right-wing radio, and extremist’s blogs have been purposefully misleading their sheepeople. They are have been propagandizing the flock to believe liberals and liberalism is related to fascism. A recent revisionist history book titled “Liberal Fascism” became a best seller amongst Right-wing ideologues. All the while Fox News stars and talk radio hosts like Laura Ingraham and Glenn Beck, along with a host of Tea Party speakers, have been sinisterly misquoting Niemoller’s profound poem with absurd quotes like, “First they came for the rich, and I did not speak out because I was not rich, Then they confiscated the property owners, Then they took away our right to bear arms, but I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t armed.”

I don’t know what is more perverse, the fact that the extremist Right-wingers are flipping history and Niemoller’s poem on its head, or the fact that the very folks misquoting history are all rich, property owners stockpiling guns?

Clearly demonstrated, and contrary to what the crazy Right-wing has been saying, Fascism is simply another word for “corporatism.” It is the empowerment of militant, rich property owners over minority groups like Socialists, unionists, teachers, and press. It is a movement that demonizes liberals and religious minorities, while propping up ardent militant nationalism.

So I ask you, does this sound anything like what we are seeing in America today? To repeat myself, I’m not saying Republicans are plotting out sites for mass graves. However, Republicans and the far Right-wing in America have been involved in an onslaught of verbal and violent attacks on socialists, unions, and minorities. The radicals on the Right have attempted to paint our school teachers and the press as simple pawns of “Chairman” Obama.
----
Imagine an America where the Commander and Chief manufactures a crises, declares a state of emergency, and then replaces all the democratically elected officials with corporate shills that support his own personal ambitions. That is how soft-core fascism works. That is also what has now been permitted to happen in Michigan, thanks to the corporate shill Repugs. Are the Republicans and the far Right-wing leaning toward fascism? There is certainly reason to believe this might be true. Nonetheless, only history will tell us if the Republicans will ultimately abandon democracy for the absolute power a fascist/corporatocracy.

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

- Martin Niemoller, German theologian

On a personal note: My brother-in-law lived through Nazi occupation in Europe (his mother and he came to the U.S. after WWII), and he has the same opinion on what he sees happening in America today. The same thing that happened in Europe in the years preceding WWII. Which is why I take his opinion to heart.

Readers, please consider Dean's article seriously.

POLITICS - Future of Democracy in America Rests on Avoidance of Fascism

The following is a very long article but is too important not to quote in full.

"Is Republicanism Fascist?" by David Briceno, YubaNet Regional Op-Ed

America's social and political climate today bears an uncanny resemblance to the F-word -- fascism. No, not the goose-step marching, swastika-displaying, "Heil Hitler" kind of fascism. Its signs are more imperceptible than that. It is unmistakably growing more prevalent in American government and society as a whole today. And currently, the U.S. is in the early stages of full-fledged fascism and certain of its characteristics prove the veracity of this claim.

For one thing, there has been, and is, a growing anti-liberal bias in America. Like republicanism, fascism attacks or condemns liberals. And both ideologies reject or abhor the ideology of liberalism, faulting it with all or most of the social, political and economic ills of the nation. It's through the vilification of liberalism and its adherents that republicanism and fascism use their ideological enemies as scapegoats not only to divert attention away from myriad, seemingly unsolvable social problems, but to also channel people's feelings of frustration, insecurity and resentment in their lives in living in modern society into hatred against liberals and their ideology. It is important to note that the Nazis gained power in Germany by mostly attacking liberalism, faulting it with the dismal state of economic affairs present there at the time, thus unifying most of the population against the evils of liberalism. Aggression then escalated into coercion and violence against all internal and external "enemies" of the state, such as the Jews, who were singled out and exterminated.

Secondly, there's an over concern with national security today in America, which is nothing new, but carried to its extreme can be dangerous to democratic freedoms, too. In fascist republics, leaders always used national security to justify control or oppression of the masses. Today, thanks to mass media, republicanism is able to spread near and far through its ideological spokesmen, which include (but are not limited to) Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage. Their brand of propaganda rivals that of Japan's past Tokyo Rose propagandists during WWII as well as the disinformation and lies of Germany's Nazi party. Undoubtedly, fascists of the past would be proud of today's Republican propagandists, of how advanced and sophisticated their spin is. (Incidentally, a few years ago, there were bumper stickers on Republicans' cars that stated, "Rush is Right." By the same token, during the fascist regime in Italy (1922-1945), Mussolini's picture was hung in every classroom in the country with the caption, "Mussolini is always right.")

The danger to democratic freedoms doesn't so much come from foreign powers, but comes from a republicanism which demonizes liberals and their ideas. It is the intolerance which characterizes both republicanism and fascism (although in differing degrees) that is inimical to freedom. Freedom of ideas that attack Nazi republicanism is Verboten, according to republicanism's national security mentality. For them, liberalism in the media should be dealt with immediately and attacked by these republicanism‘s media "spokesmen," since dangerous liberal ideas are deemed subversive to "national security," according to the current tenet of republicanism. To repeat again, it is Nazi republicanism that is a grave danger to the democratic freedoms that Americans enjoy today and not liberalism.

Third of all, both fascism and republicanism appeal to certain types of people more than others. This is obvious. What many Americans fail to realize is that Hitler didn't just appear out of nowhere and start ruling Germany immediately. When he joined the Nazi party in 1919, he was Member No. 7. Yet, within 14 years Nazism became the greatest mass movement in German history. Fascism gained widespread German support because people don't just desire material goods and the basic necessities of life; they also desire a sense of belonging. On the whole, people desire the sense of being needed, of being wanted and of being useful. It's the way we are as human beings. What both republicanism and fascism do is give many people a strong sense of belonging and gives them a sense of purpose in their lost souls. Being indoctrinated by insidious republicanism largely satisfies these human needs. Therefore, to gain members, all Nazi republicanism has to do is convince alienated people that they are a member of a great party, a superior race, part of an elect few, or a great nation. Without a doubt, to convince most of the populace that a certain cause, like a war, is necessary against a certain enemy channels societal frustration into mindless patriotism or unquestioning nationalism, and is thus able to commit horrendous atrocities against certain domestic groups legitimately. Furthermore, by building up an individual's self-respect, self-esteem or self-worth, fascism and its corollary republicanism is, thus, able to grow stronger in rank and file, which can culminate into a mass movement -- a strong enough populism which can successfully take over a government as the Nazis did in 1933 in Germany; the fascists in Italy did in 1922; as Japanese fascists did in the 1930s; and as the Republicans did in 2001,when Bush ascended to the presidency, thereby controlling all three branches of the U.S government. And the result of such governmental monopoly of republican power in America is not only the attempt to hush critics by resorting to all means of coercion -- from verbal threats and veto powers and gradually to torture and outright murder -- but also to sanction a national security apparatus that can operate in secret without oversight and beyond any constraints in the name of protecting the security of the nation from all enemies domestic and foreign even if its actions may be severely abusive, immoral and unconstitutional.

The fourth point is that republicanism and fascism both hold the view that the people are unable to rule themselves; that they need rulers to "guide" them; and that a republic is the ideal state in which government can totally control the "mob" best. After all, people don't rule; they can't rule; someone has to rule them in a republic. In fact, Republicans maintain Americans live in a republic and not a de facto democracy. So, both fascism and republicanism are both anti-democratic in that "mob rule" is anathema to order and stability along with the widely-held view that "the masses are asses." It may come as no surprise to learn that fascism means total allegiance to the state; that the state is supreme in all matters; and that republicanism maintains that the state reigns supreme too.

Through education by the media and family, children are generally socialized into the dominant political culture. It's natural. While this is common practice here in America, Republicanism takes it one step further by seeking to control all phases of the lives of people, whether political or not.. Republicanism espouses family and its values like fascism. Women in regimes are supposed to only be concerned with Kinder, Kuche, Kirche (children, kitchen, church) under fascism and staunch republicanism, which reduces the value of women to the status of second-class citizens. Notably, both republicanism and fascism are highly anti-abortion , homophobic and intolerant of all or most unorthodox lifestyles.

Contrary to common knowledge, fascism doesn't thrive in poor developing countries (actually communism and socialism thrive there the best), but it grows best in technologically more advanced countries and especially those that are wealthy. There is a great chance of full-blown fascism occurring here since America is both wealthy and advanced technologically. No one can deny that government is prevalent today and intrusive in more economic, social and personal matters than ever before in U.S. history thanks to technology. But even while statism in America is not as severe as in past fascist countries, still, freedoms are slowly eroding as technology progresses and as more and more people become disenchanted with modern life and lash out at others, such as liberals and their ilk.

And lastly, even though fascism is undemocratic, it needs democracy to gain power. In fact, it was democratic elections that brought the Nazis to power in Germany. People voted for totalitarianism, mostly unknowingly, in March of 1933 when 17 million Germans voted the Nazis into power. As in the case of Germany, fascism can occur here very easily as America moves more and more towards the Right of the political spectrum where fascism also resides. All it takes is someone like a Mussolini of Italy, Juan Peron of Argentina, Hitler and others, to take over a dysfunctional nation and bring militarism into the equation. The result can be economically devastating, as a disproportionate need for military actions zap whatever economic gains occur domestically. As a matter for thought, in fascist countries, the military is an extension of fervent nationalism, which people vicariously identify with to push nationalistic goals, push other countries around and the military is mostly used to aggrandize the leader, whose power and prestige increases as a result. The avid supremacy of the military can pose a danger to democracy as Latin America knows all too well.

When all is said and done, the future of democracy in America rests on the avoidance of fascism.

POLITICS - Latest from Gonzo World aka Bush Empire

"Gonzales Hospital Episode Detailed" by Dan Eggen & Paul Kane, Washington Post

On the night of March 10, 2004, as Attorney General John D. Ashcroft lay ill in an intensive-care unit, his deputy, James B. Comey, received an urgent call.

White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., were on their way to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to reauthorize Bush's domestic surveillance program, which the Justice Department had just determined was illegal.

In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.

The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that, according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several weeks without Justice approval, he said.

"I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."

The broad outlines of the hospital-room conflict have been reported previously, but without Comey's gripping detail of efforts by Card, who has left the White House, and Gonzales, now the attorney general. His account appears to present yet another challenge to the embattled Gonzales, who has strongly defended the surveillance program's legality and is embroiled in a battle with Congress over the dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

It also marks the first public acknowledgment that the Justice Department found the original surveillance program illegal, more than two years after it began.

Red emphases mine

I watched the testimony and was shocked at such behavior from people sworn to uphold our Constitution and self-professed practitioners of ethical behavior (which they have never been).

ABSOLUTE, TOTAL ARROGANCE! The Bush Administration is in fact Fascist Dictatorship, or very close.

Also very childish, like a child going to pop after mom has denied or said "no" to something the child wants.

POLITICS - "Living" Wage

This is a personal comment on just what a "Living Wage" is. I am tired of GOP Conservatives claiming not to know what this means. I am sure my readers know just what a Living Wage would be for them.

Living Wage: What you need to earn to purchase minimum goods and services in the area WHERE YOU LIVE.

This means that the implementation of Living Wage standards must meet specific requirements to be feasible:

• You CANNOT have a one-shoe-fits-all approach (aka the Federal Government cannot mandated fixed amounts nation wide)


• You must look at what the Cost of Living actually is in given locals, and we do have government statistics for this, both State & Federal.


• Let the States determine the just how to decide what the Cost of Living is for areas in their state and use this figure to be the base for a Living Wage.

All the above requirements are doable. The Federal governments job would be to gather the information (Living Wage amounts and areas they apply to) from our states and apply this to the Federal Tax Code as the basic deductible.

That is, you deduct the Living Wage amount FOR WHERE YOU LIVE from your taxes at the top, then any other deductions by tax code that apply, and you pay tax only on what remains, if any.

It could be that simple folks.

As for other standards, in conjunction with state input when such a law is written, the Living Wage Law could set standards for:

• The applicable area; Congressional Districts, the state's legislative districts, let the Census Bureau divide each state by population count, etc.


• Living Wage = COST_OF_LIVING + a small percentage, like using the current inflation rate.

In addition, this could be used to address the issue of the poor. Poor being, in this case, all people who DO NOT earn a Living Wage. You have a welfare program that pays them the difference between the Living Wage in their area and what they earn every year. Welfare$ = Earnings - Living_Wage

Side issue: It is my belief that one of the basic problems with tax codes (state & federal) is DEDUCTIONS MADE FROM THE TAX YOU OWE. My opinion is all deductions should be made only from your gross income. Think about it, this would be a much fairer way to tax. If you do this EVERYONE WHO EARNS TAXABLE INCOME WOULD PAY SOME TAX.

In the present system, the rich can get away from paying little or no tax because of deductions that are made from the amount of tax they owe.

Of course the GOP Conservative Fascists will howl about the nanny-state and the Free Market (aka make the super-rich more rich and to hell with everyone else) but, frankly they can..... well I'll be nicer than usual and let you fill-in the explicative.

The Mage

POLITICS - The Next "Unlawful Enemy Combatant" Could Be YOU

"Bush's Chilling New Definition of 'Unlawful Enemy Combatant'" by Elliot D. Cohen, BuzzFlash

George W. Bush has repeatedly warned, "Either you're with us or you stand with the terrorists." Now he has gotten through legislation that allows him to back it up. On Thursday, September 28, 2006, in a hastily drawn decision that will likely live in infamy, the Senate nodded assent to the Military Commissions Act (PDF).

According to this Act, an "unlawful enemy combatant" is to be defined as:

• "An individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant."

This basically means that if a person is not a soldier in the service of a foreign government, but is nevertheless engaging in "hostilities" against the United States, then this person is an unlawful enemy combatant. Notice that this definition does not require that such a person be an "alien," which accordingly leaves open the possibility that this designation could also be applied to an American citizen.

This definition as contained in the approved version of the Act, is substantially broader than that included in an earlier version (PDF), according to which a person so designated must also be:

1. Part of or affiliated with a force or organization-including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces-engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war.


2. To have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or....


3. To have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.

According to the definition approved by the Senate, you don't even have to be part of a terrorist organization. Nor does your "hostile" act have to be done to aid such a force; nor do you have to have supported such acts. Nor do you have to be in violation of the "law of war." Nor is there anywhere in the act where the term "hostilities" has itself been defined. For example, is an anti-war activist an unlawful enemy combatant? What about an American journalist who publishes leaked information damaging to the Bush administration? What about an anti-Bush blogger? In short, the definition is broad (and vague) enough to include any American citizen who is acting in a way the President deems "hostile" to the United States. As such, it is difficult to imagine a single piece of legislation with greater potential to undermine freedom and democracy in America.

Bold-blue emphasis mine

Aha yes, Fascist America at its peak. All hail El Douche!

POLITICS - GOP, Fascist in Power

"GOP takes scorched-earth attitude on domestic needs" by Margaret Krome, The Capital Times

Do we want our government to protect sick and elderly people or don't we? Do we want poor children fed, alternative energy supported, parks protected, or not? Is a war that has nothing to do with national security, except that it may endanger it, a sound justification for failing to fund veterans of previous wars?

It has become so predictable that the major media must have decided it's no longer newsworthy. In late June, Republicans on the U.S. Senate's Budget Committee passed another irresponsible bill. This one not only would continue the Republicans' steady deconstruction of the federal government of the past five years; it also proposes radical and dangerous changes in the way budgets get developed.

Budget Chairman Judd Gregg's bill has several dangerous flaws. First, it would result in sweeping cuts to domestic spending over many years. Instead of a program-by-program assessment of needs, it proposes dramatic across-the-board cuts in all domestic programs, except for Social Security. This bill proposes to meet the entire Republican-created deficit by cutting domestic spending on programs for veterans, the poor and unemployed, and Medicare. Needless to day, it would dramatically increase the number of uninsured and underinsured Americans.

The bill would also create a draconian standard for Medicare's and Medicaid's budget process that the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities predicts would result in dissolving Medicaid as we know it within a few years and instead inadequately meet health care needs with state block grants. It would dramatically increase premiums, deductibles and co-payments that Medicare beneficiaries pay or create major cuts in what Medicare would cover.

Despite setting in place a budget system that would slash a wide spectrum of domestic spending, the Gregg bill exempts tax cuts from such fiscal accountability.

In addition, the bill would set in place a dangerously undemocratic budget process. It would create a commission to propose eliminating programs, and its decisions could be achieved by a simple majority. Congress could then address the commission's proposals through a fast-track process that would preclude amendments and would require only a simple, partisan majority to pass them.

This travesty of democratic process would be bad enough, but the Gregg bill goes further and sets in place a line-item veto that would give the president power to eliminate funding for individual programs. In fact, the president would have power to override congressional decisions, even if Congress had specifically voted to disapprove his veto.

Does anyone else think this president and this Congress have forgotten the genuine democratic premises that our nation just finished celebrating Tuesday? Do others recognize an unconscionable power grab when they see it?

Well, do you?

Fascism: any program for setting up a centralized autocratic national regime with severely nationalistic policies, exercising regimentation of industry, commerce, and finance, rigid censorship, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary