During the revolution mob rule lead to the torture, exile, and murder of many a loyalist and those suspected of loyalist leanings. So Two Fisted Judge Scalia might not be that far off his rocker on this point, at least as an originalist.

Something within Scalia's mind that I find a bit more interesting however was his recent discussion on what cruel and unusual punishment means.

His take, that it means just punishment, and as such, things done to you prior to punishment are not prohibited by the consitution. There for, since interigation is not punishment, it can be as cruel and unusal as necessary. Now at the same time he didn't comment on the notion of unreasonable search and seizure or on self incrimination, which one might imagine also prohibit torture to obtain a confession, but that's old Scalia for you.

That's pretty much the way all conservaitves are!

Hate to be pedantic, but, actually, the proper address is "Justice Scalia" not "Judge Scalia" since he is on the Supreme Court.

Is pure September 10th mind set :P

Keep thinking like such, and we lose a city. Yeah, right.

Do us regular Shmo-citizens get to waterboard and electrify somebody???.....I've got Scalia in my Top Ten list, and surely there's something he's DYING to tell us, if he only had just a little incentive......

No, actually it sounds like you LOVE to be pedantic, actually.

so I would call him "Judge Scalia" too.

Clearest case of the Peter Principle ever...

"Keep thinking like such, and we lose a city. "

You one funny dude!

Has anyone seen Detroit lately? It was just here a minute ago!

Oh, there it is! I hate it when I lose things.

The cartoonist is all wrong on one VERY important point: The right of habeas corpus is NOT a limit on executive power. It is basic to common law as an essential hallmark of a free individual, as opposed to a slave or a serf. The Constitution does not grant habeas corpus; it assumes it as the right of free people. It limits habeas corpus in time of war only. But of course the Constitution says that war must be declared by Congress, the voice of the people, thus it is only the people who can limit a right basic to their own inherent freedom. The evolution of US politics and Constitutional doctrine is clearly heading in a false direction. To wit: 1) Habeas corpus is granted to us by the government; 2) War is declared by the executive branch, which can take away that grant when inconvenient. Both are dead wrong, but the fact that the cartoonist accepts #1 is not encouraging.

Actually, the guys in the wigs would have thought that YOU had flipped yours! They were in the business of making a constitution for a federation of states , not for the whole bloody world. Your thinking is more in line with frogs like the Abbe Sieyes,(see anything by Crane Brinton) whose constitutions were firmly planted in abstractions like "the rights of man." As for habeas corpus, I am sure that Eisenhower is looking up from his putter in at the Elysian fields golf course and thanking his lucky stars that he didn't have to instruct his troops to read SS troopers their rights.

I know I have trouble putting "justice" and "Scalia" in the same sentence, much less adjacent to each other...

@ RobbySh: "read SS troopers their rights"

Judging by that absurdity, I'm left to assume no one has ever explained the difference between "prisoner of war" and "accused of a crime" to you. That's okay, just call them "enemy combatants," or some other ridiculous construct, lock them (anyone) up forever, and don't worry your pretty little mind...

The reason General Eisenhower never gave those orders is because SS were members of an opposing army in a time of declared war.

We haven't declared war on al-Qaida. We've branded our actions a war, but Congress didn't declare it.

Also notable: Eisenhower is probably missing an easy putt when he frets about how his once-proud army became infested by rapists and torture apologists because recruitment standards were lowered to include such people.

RobbySh, I need not go to the Abbe for this doctrine. Look at the text of the Constitution:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it..."

That is the only mention. The Constitution does not create the privilege, but recognizes its status under the English common law and only grants the right to suspend it in certain circumstances. "Privilege" here refers to "the special advantage or right" of free people, as opposed to slaves. (Look up the history of the word.)

BTW, reading rights to prisoners is done under the Bill of Rights, not this clause, and would not apply to POWs in a declared war, which WWII was (as opposed to every war since).

The only thing left to debate are 1) whether prisoners, including American citizens, picked up on foreign soil in an undeclared war could be considered in the context of Invasion or Rebellion. (I wouldn't try.) Or 2) Is the case of, say, Padilla, who was picked up in a criminal action on US sil "rebellion." (Before you say yes, research the case.It's not so simple.)

Don't have a Constitution either. The EU is trying to pass a bill to lock up people w/o charge for up to 18 months.

Charlie Rose recently interviewed Justice Antonin Scalia on Rose's late night PBS spot. The Justice has appeared on several interviews recently to put a friendly face on his unfriendly past decisions. He needs a bit of image repair, because it was his majority that gave us the Bush presidency in 2000 and the devastating consequences thereof.

How little we need to hear from the defenders of privilege, such as Scalia. We live their decisions in our daily lives as we suffer from the corruption of Congress and the usurpations of corrupt presidencies, from Ronald Reagan down - though the prior ones were also bad, for the most part.

No wonder Scalia holds to the original intent view of our basic law! The original intent of the framers was to have a government that was selected by the wealthy for the protection of great wealth: plantations, financial institutions. That is what the wealthy want today, and Scalia is their water-boy. Just stay with original intent and the disparities of income will grow, and there will be plenty of low cost workers to make the beds of the rich.

Charlie Rose is one of those bed-makers, but he is at the top of that scale.