Woman cryingDo you think Justice QUERY on an appellate court has the right to ask one side to comment on the assertions of the other side?  For instance, if I allege in my filings that evidence shows that lowering the legal age for consuming alcohol will save lives; can Justice QUERY ask the other side “what do you have to say about lowering the age of alcohol?”  

What would you say if after Justice QUERY asked that question Mothers Against Drunk Driving petitioned the Legislature to impeach him because he was for lowering the legal age to buy alcohol? What would you say is the Senate President and the Speaker both spoke out to condemn Justice QUERY for holding such an opinion?

Here is what the Minority Leader of the Democrats in our nation’s House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said about a question asked by Judge Scalia of the Supreme Court: “It’s so disappointing to hear that statement coming from a justice of the Supreme Court. It clearly shows a bias. I think that the justice should recuse himself from any case that relates to discrimination in education, in voting, and I’m sorry that he made that comment.”  

Not to be outdone, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: “The idea that African-American students are somehow inherently intellectually inferior from other students is despicable. It’s a throwback … to a time that America left behind a half a century ago. That Justice Scalia could raise such an uninformed idea shows just how out of touch he is with the values of this nation. It goes without saying that an African-American student has the same potential to succeed in an academically challenging environment as any other student.”

Both were lying about what Justice Scalia had done. My question is why would they do that? Are they more interested in dividing America than making it work. I recently wrote to a smart person who followed the line the Democratic leadership is spinning. He suggested Scalia step down. I wrote:

“There have been certain people on the far left and some leading Democratic politicians who have wrongly twisted the statement and intent of Justice Scalia. You do know that appeal judges asking questions are not stating their views but are trying to determine how counsel will answer questions that the opposition raises.

Justice Scalia was inquiring based upon an issue contained in another brief.  Here is what he said: There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas.  They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them. I’m just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some — you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks, admitted to lesser schools, turns out to be less.”

Scalia was trying to explore the idea that it is not in the best interest of a college just for the sake of making a quota to take in people who are black, Hispanic, ethnic whites, Asians, or whatever. Some may not be qualified at a top tier school whereas they may do better at a less demanding college. He wanted to hear what counsel would say about that.

The idea that a Supreme Court Justice is not to have a chance to explore that issue makes little sense to me.” 

 Geoffrey R. Stone, the  former Dean and Provost at the University of Chicago, now teaching at the Chicago Law School who noticed that he often disagreed with Justice Scalia wrote: “the outrage and condemnation sparked by this comment is completely unwarranted. Justice Scalia’s comment, which asked about the merits of an argument frequently made against affirmative action, and which was made specifically in briefs before the Supreme Court in this very case, was perfectly appropriate.

Here we have seen two demagogues leading a major political party lying about what was occurring This is a big danger to our nation. They show no integrity when they deliberately lie and seek to separate the American people. What kind of leaders have the Democrats produced who seek to stir up racial animosity rather than working to make us better Americans?


  1. No different than the demagogues in the GOP except they are at least twisting Scalia’s words in support of minorities, and not trying to oppress and disenfranchise them.

  2. Pelosi and Reid lying to further a Democrat Party agenda?

    I am shocked, shocked to read this…. again.

  3. Good point.

    Context is everything. Statements taken out of context can be made to serve any interest. Without context, the truth value in a statement can’t be tested.

  4. Pelosi and Reid are merely following the lead of the Big O, that dangerous fraud who has sought to “transform” our nation. Let us hope and pray that our next President is actually pro-America, as we have been without such a President for nearly 7 years. Nobel Prize, my a**.

Comments are closed.