[SCOTUS]-Souter Out.

[Johan]

It will sure be tough to get the votes together for a replacement! (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193)

It will be interesting to see how liberal Obama's choice is. I think he'll give Ginsburg an ideological run for her money with whomever he chooses.

Judges aren't supposed to be ideological? Do tell...

[Generation ABXY]

I just want to know how much in back taxes they are going to owe. :D

[Ox]

Although he served nearly two decades on the high court, he made no secret of his preference for the lifestyle and pace of his native rural New Hampshire.
In the sense of mentioning, in virtually every oral argument, how much he missed New Hampshire. The guy was as reliable as Thomas's snoring or Scalia's mugging.

[Ink Asylum]

And now the fun begins!

Chances are anyone Obama will end up replacing in the next four years won't change the ideological layout of the party anyway. The only expected retirees are all reliable liberal votes.

[BlackPete]

Too bad it wasn't Scalia who's on his way out. Although in reality, I think he'll literally desperately hang in there with his last dying breath until the next Republican president is voted in.

[BlackPete]

This didn't seem like it was worth creating a new thread for, but it's still pretty amusing...

Scalia (who questions the need for privacy) is pretty steamed over the loss of his privacy: (http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/fordham_law_class_collects_scalia_info_justice_is_ steamed)

Last year, when law professor Joel Reidenberg wanted to show his Fordham University class how readily private information is available on the Internet, he assigned a group project. It was collecting personal information from the Web about himself.

This year, after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made public comments that seemingly may have questioned the need for more protection of private information, Reidenberg assigned the same project. Except this time Scalia was the subject, the prof explains to the ABA Journal in a telephone interview.

His class turned in a 15-page dossier that included not only Scalia's home address, home phone number and home value, but his food and movie preferences, his wife's personal e-mail address and photos of his grandchildren, reports Above the Law.

And, as Scalia himself made clear in a statement to Above the Law, he isn't happy about the invasion of his privacy

I'll take some red wine with that schadenfreude, please.

[Ox]

Scalia (who questions the need for privacy) is pretty steamed over the loss of his privacy: (http://www.abajournal.com/weekly/fordham_law_class_collects_scalia_info_justice_is_ steamed)
Actually, I think Scalia framed his objection well:
"Professor Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any," the justice says, among other comments.
It's perfectly legal to be an asshole, and I think we can all agree that being an asshole ought to be perfectly legal. But you're still an asshole.

[alienmastermind]

I just want to know how much in back taxes they are going to owe. :D

I'd worry more about their terrorist ties, and criminal background. ;)

[alienmastermind]

Actually, I think Scalia framed his objection well:

It's perfectly legal to be an asshole, and I think we can all agree that being an asshole ought to be perfectly legal. But you're still an asshole.

Yeah it was a dick move to invade the privacy of a man who seemingly doesn't care about the privacy rights of citizens. Wait, what?

I think proving that there's a problem to the man who does on occasion mug for the cameras and posture a bit, and apparently sided against privacy rights is fine.

I do agree, it was assholian to get every scrap of readily available information, though.

[Ox]

Yeah it was a dick move to invade the privacy of a man who seemingly doesn't care about the privacy rights of citizens. Wait, what?

I think proving that there's a problem to the man who does on occasion mug for the cameras and posture a bit, and apparently sided against privacy rights is fine.
This is a misstatement of what Scalia said (http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/justice_scalias_1.html).
Scalia said he was largely untroubled by such Internet tracking. "I don't find that particularly offensive," he said. "I don't find it a secret what I buy, unless it's shameful."
He added there's some information that's private, "but it doesn't include what groceries I buy."

Data such as drug prescriptions probably should be protected, he said, suggesting areas off-limits to data gatherers could simply be listed for legal purposes.

What has been proven to him? That lots of information, including stuff like his home telephone number and address, is readily available on the Web? Perhaps Scalia didn't know that, but it seems as though he did:
Considering every fact about someone's life private is "extraordinary," he said, noting that data such as addresses have long been discernible, even if technology has made them easier to find.

So what has been proven? That it's unpleasant to have political enemies distribute your home address? Scalia's a clever guy, I imagine one could simply say that to him and he'd understand the argument. But it certainly doesn't seem to have changed his mind on the law, as his current statements have revealed. So I'm not sure what has been accomplished except to share photographs of his grandkids with strangers -- not necessarily private data, but also something that would probably give most decent people pause before doing.

[alienmastermind]

So what has been proven? That it's unpleasant to have political enemies distribute your home address? Scalia's a clever guy, I imagine one could simply say that to him and he'd understand the argument. But it certainly doesn't seem to have changed his mind on the law, as his current statements have revealed. So I'm not sure what has been accomplished except to share photographs of his grandkids with strangers -- not necessarily private data, but also something that would probably give most decent people pause before doing.

Sorry, Ox. I didn't actually read quotes, I was commenting on the paraphrasing above about Scalia's stance.

But, he doesn't regard information that's not shameful as private.
The article you linked to mentions a BIG issue; namely your Social Security Number isn't shameful, but most certainly should be kept private, due to the risks involved.

Again, distributing pictures of the guy's grandkids is one thing, but if they were posted on MySpace, as part of the Scalia Family's "Ain't My Grandkids Cute" album, they've been disseminated into the public.

On the other hand, that case in CA about the kid who died in a car wreck and people stole the crash scene photos and mailed them to the family...seems like there's a line there.

[Ox]

But, he doesn't regard information that's not shameful as private.
The article you linked to mentions a BIG issue; namely your Social Security Number isn't shameful, but most certainly should be kept private, due to the risks involved.
I think we can probably presume this is once again an example of someone paraphrasing Scalia wrong. The only indication we have that Scalia supposedly views all non-shameful data non-private is the paraphrase, and as the SS number example points out, that would lead to a pretty absurd conclusion. One might not agree with Scalia very frequently, but I can't imagine he thinks one's Social Security number is unprotected data.