Every time I turn around Scalia is doing something political when he is supposed to be doing something judicial.

Isn't that enough to get the bugger impeached and removed from office? On a bipartisan basis, of course?

Dahlia? Anybody?

For what? He is stating his OPINION. He believes, with good reason, that the majority in this opinion will have blood on their hands for no other reason than to satisfy their egomania.

He sincerely believes in strong war powers for the executive. Although I strongly disagree with many of his opinions, it is one way of looking at the Constitution. In my opinion, an erroneous one, but it doesn't rise nearly to the level of an impeachable offense.

And I certainly disagree with harld66's characterization of the majority. To say that Scalia is merely expressing his opinion while the majority was simply trying to satisfy their egomania is pretty ridiculous. This is particularly true when all the Bush administration has to do is show that these "enemy combatants" are actually "enemy combatants." This isn't a high hurdle to cross.

For what? For doing something political when he is supposed to be doing something judicial. Malfeasance of office. Not doing what he was put there to do. Using his position to do something he's not supposed to do.

Like that.

The rule of law cuts both ways. You can't impeach someone because you don't like the way they think.

You go and impeach Scalia, and when the time comes, we will impeach all liberal judges. Go ahead do you stuff, but don't forget that payback is a bitch.

Scalia's viewpoint is not new:

it has existed amongst empires for eons.

It is: empower the ruler to whatever end for security and preservation of the [ insert empire's name here] way of life.

It is without honor, virtue, principle.

It has existed amongst rulers of the Muslim world as well. The Usurper Yazid employed it when he sent an army to kill Hussein bin Ali, the beloved grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (saaw). Yazid replaced several of his commanders until he found one who shared his view that preservation of the ruler's power at all cost regardless of the violation of the highest and most noble value. So Yazid's commander led an army to kill one man and took his head back to Yazid. But Yazid's trophy brought shame and debasement upon him and his family for 1000 years whereas as Hussein is revered and loved by millions for 1000 years.

When Czar Peter was defeated in battle by Sultan Sulieman, if Sulieman adhered to Scalia's view, he would have executed him. Instead, he released him, allowing for Peter to return to Russia and build it which in turn centuries later was strong enough to conquer Central Asia and threaten Istanbul.

As well, when Salahudeen was battling King Richard of England and Richard's horse was brought down and Richard was fighting from his feet, Salahudeen sent horses for him to mount. If he adopted Scalia's view, he would have thought of ways to trip Richard so he'd fall to his knees.

Scalia is not new.