It’s Probably Nothing

30 Replies to “It’s Probably Nothing”

1. Nice.
   “Wearing the cap of a statesman who defended liberty of church and integrity of Christian conscience to the inauguration of a president whose policies have imperiled both: Make of it what you will.”

2. I’m surprized Danny Devito was even at the inauguration.

3. Good and Justice Scalia. As a Supreme Courst Justice it is improper for him to make an audible statement. I believe that his head gear visual makes a very powerful statement. Interesting that Obama can criticize the Court from his bully pulpit but the Justices can’t respond. Great way to make his point.

4. If he had any guts he’d say what he meant, rather than be a drama queen about it.

5. That was very subtle. I’ll bet that 99.9% of the audience attending and watching on TV didn’t pick up on that, unless someone pointed it out to them.
   I made a point of ignoring the whole exercise. I felt better for doing so.

6. Since the staffing of the Supreme Court might possibly be the most important thing, long term, that a president has available to fiddle around with, and since Barack-an-Aten (I like that one) has gone out of his way to spit directly, in person, into the face of the Court when some of its members have had the effrontery to displease him –
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiDiHX50zT4
   – then I can only honour Justice Scalia’s protest.
   God, do you people remember 9/11? I bet you do. I do. Who would have thought this kind of cr@p would be happening a decade later?

7. At least More said what he meant. And he didn’t need another man’s cap to do it.
   Just drama queen stuff.

8. A Man for All Seasons (Robert Bolt):
   More: …The law, Roper, the law. I know what’s legal, not what’s right. And
   I’ll stick to what’s legal.
   Roper: Then you set man’s law above God’s!
   More: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact – I’m not God.
   The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain
   sailing, I can’t navigate. I’m no voyager. But in the thickets of the law,
   oh, there I’m a forester.
   Roper: …You’d give the Devil the benefit of law?
   More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after
   the Devil?
   Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
   More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on
   you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? The country’s
   planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and if
   you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think
   you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the
   Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
   Cheers
   Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
   1st Saint Nicolaas Army
   Army Group “True North”

9. Yeah, man’s law will protect you, kinda like dial 911 and die.

10. Rupprecht:
    That’s a great quote, and it reminds me of those who would restrict individual freedom in order to prevent some social injustice or other.
    These people fail to look ahead. For what happens when they curtail our freedoms, and then the “wrong” politicians come to power? What will protect us then?

11. Typical lawyer, knows what’s legal, not what is right.
    Luk 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers annulled the counsel of God as to themselves, being not baptized by him.

12. Strad,
    At least three posts critiquing Justice Scalia?
    Methinks thou dost protest too much…
    Nice to see he gotcha so bad with this sublime gesture!
    Go Scalia!

13. Upholding the dignity of the Court would not be served by behaving like a legislator “saying what he meant”. The Court speaks in the form of opinions. The Court is one of three co-equal branches of the government down here, so Justice Scalia is also upholding separation of powers by refraining from “saying what he meant.” Not engaging in a verbal dispute is one way to reassure the country know that at least one branch of the federal government is alert to maintaining its’ station. There is no reason to expect you to know this, but Justice Scalia is actually treading a pretty fine line here.
    Forgive me, Kate I know better than to feed trolls.

14. I forgot the most important part:
    The hat really does match the robe quite well.

15. Not engaging in a verbal dispute is one way to reassure the country know that at least one branch of the federal government is alert to maintaining its’ station.
    If he was alert to ‘maintaining it’s station’, he wouldn’t have worn the goofy hat.
    Maybe he could have burned the flag as well, he’s in favour of that.

16. The hat really does match the robe quite well.
    Not too many know where the tradition of black robes descends from. They descend from the pagan priests who usurped Israel’s priests, who were to have white robes.

17. strad is not a troll. He’s a regular commenter, and an independent thinker.
    We don’t all have to conform around here.
    Stale crowd following should be discouraged imho.

18. re: “Not too many know where the tradition of black robes descends from. They descend from the pagan priests who usurped Israel’s priests, who were to have white robes.”
    Uh, nope. Sorry. That’s just damn silly. The Internet is a very bad place to learn history.

19. Thanks, but I really don’t care what people think of me. There’s facts and there’s opinion. Everyone is welcome to their insignificant opinion. Not so their own facts.
    The fact that Scalia might be among the best of a bad bunch doesn’t obviate the fact he’s part of a bad bunch. Allowing the burning of your own standard, within your own camp, is treason.
    Thomas More lost his head for his principles. Now we have some lawyer wearing a goofy hat. Quite a wide gap there…

20. Than again. It could be just a hat to keep warm.

21. The Internet is a very bad place to learn history.
    You might want to try the scriptures. In the original language. Specifically Zephaniah 1:4.
    Chemarims = Kemarim = black-robed, or cassocked. From Hebrew. Kamar, to be black. Used of idolatrous priests because so clothed; not Kohen, as appointed by Jehovah. Occurs only here; 2Ki_23:5, and Hos_10:5.

22. Antonin Scalia being interviewed by Peter Robinson at the Hoover Institute / Stanford University. Worth the 48 minutes.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaoLMW5AF4Y
    * I think Scalia wore the cap with full knowledge and intent.
    As for being silent? even the word silently mouthed, “liar” is forbidden at such hoady-toady events… remember the outcry?

23. hey strad….U sure do like waving the STUPID flag, don’t U
    first it have been stated the Scalia because of his position can not speak, secondly if he did adress matters verbally he would only be lowering hisself to Obumble’s level, and that’d be one h3ll of a drop, and thirdly, and most importantly, an act such as he pulled can not be countered with words without giving that very act credibility….kapeach?????

24. Scalia is that rarest of Supreme Court justices: one who refuses to participate in the ruling class’s nullification of American citizens historical, God-given liberty. He speaks for the common man.

25. …an act such as he pulled can not be countered with words without giving that very act credibility…
    Oh, you mean like the ‘Stop Harper’ sign stunt by the Senate page? 🙂
    Copying leftist drama stunts now, are we?

26. Scalia contradicts himself, on the one hand he says he wants to apply the Constitution within the meaning of the words when written.
    On the other hand, he supports precedent (Stare Decisis), judging one case based on some other judge’s opinion in another case. The case isn’t decided according to law, but some other judge’s opinion of the law.
    The worst effect in precedent being used as general law rather than law in a particular case, is the judges become legislators. Something Scalia says he opposes.
    He took an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet would allow precedents to stand which are clearly unconstitutional. A thoroughly mixed up man…

27. Aye.
    And his decisions haven’t exactly rocked the Liberal boat, have they?
    More likely he’s wearing the hat for reasons other than protest.

28. Whether most of the folks even know why he wore the hat is not important here. What is important are two things. 1. It caused discussions like this one to happen all over the web, and 2. whether Obozo knew the history of the hat on inauguration day or not – he surely knows it now. Point made! Well done Scalia!

29. ??? Am I caught in the spam filter? Or is my response to NME666 and Jamie MacMaster intentionally blocked? It is your blog, so I’m not complaining. Merely asking. Thanks!

30. Hans,
    I thought I was the only one who knew of it. Did you ever see the film of the same name? Scofield does an awesome job and the writing’s still better than 99% of anything you can find in the theaters today.