Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Bachmann lands Scalia as teacher for Constitution class

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will be one of the first teachers for a constitutional law seminar Rep. Michele Bachmann is organizing for members of Congress, her office confirmed today.

Bachmann said she had been looking for legal experts to instruct members of Congress on constitutional law, arguing that bills like the health care overhaul were constitutionally unsound measures that might not have passed if Congress adhered more to the Constitution. And in her first announced speaker, she’s landed arguably the most prominent conservative jurist in America.

“Justice Scalia has agreed to teach a Constitutional Seminar after the start of the new Congress,” Bachmann spokeswoman Becky Rogness said.

Scalia, appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1982, is the most senior associate justice of the Supreme Court and is widely considered the leading conservative voice on the Court. A date, time and venue for his seminar are as yet unknown.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (7)

  1. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 12/14/2010 - 03:40 pm.

    We should learn from these “seminars” (a.k.a. right-wing tribal validation festivals) how Justice Scalia intends to rule on the health care law. He has a track record of telegraphing how he wlll vote even before oral arguments have been held.

    Any other judge in the country would be disqualified from hearing a case under those circumstances, but Scalia does not seem to regard himself as bound by ethical rules.

  2. Submitted by Charles Holtman on 12/14/2010 - 03:51 pm.

    Mr Wallbank, why do you refer to Mr Scalia as a “conservative” jurist? He is a radical activist jurist. Do words no longer have meaning? And a “conservative” jurist certainly would not appear as the guest of the most ideological new political grouping within the congressional orbit. Would one properly refer to Ms Bachmann as a “conservative”? No, of course not.

  3. Submitted by Karl Bremer on 12/14/2010 - 04:40 pm.

    What committee assignments has Bachmann requested or been given? What is she going to do for her district in her third term? What legislation is she proposing? How will these constitutional “classes” help her district’s many problems? Is Michele Bachmann even serving in Congress any more? When is the last time anyone has written about something she’s actually done for anyone but herself?

    So many questions, so few reporters left to ask them anymore. Better to just rip and run with press releases, I guess. You get to keep your precious access that way.

  4. Submitted by Jeremy Powers on 12/14/2010 - 05:34 pm.

    Pot, meet Kettle.

  5. Submitted by Jon Kingstad on 12/14/2010 - 07:58 pm.

    If you’re going to teach a class on “Conservative Constitutional Principles”, you certainly want the guy who helped to write the Supreme Court opinion that made the 2000 Presidential election turn out his way. Some suggested topics: “waterboarding: the Founders never envisioned the 8th Amendment to apply”; “suspending the writ of habeas corpus to advance your agenda”; “using warrantless wiretaps to promote political freedom and defeat liberals,and “protecting the power of money under the First Amendment.”

  6. Submitted by Hénock Gugsa on 12/14/2010 - 10:01 pm.

    Let me guess … this is going to be a seminar where all you’d hear would be cheers, and loud convention-style applause. I’m thinking there will hardly be any challenging questions from any “devil’s advocate” types. At the end of the seminar, do you think they will issue some kind of “manifesto” that will set right (pun intended) any undesirable interpretations of Constitutional matters.

  7. Submitted by Patrick Wells on 12/14/2010 - 11:28 pm.

    First, to state my bias. I support the middle class.

    I think that ruling Democrats, like Amy, voted for the bailout against our wishes. Amy did not say anything about the obvious criminal fraud by bankers, which even Greenspan acknowledged. Amy did not want to make waves like Paul Wellstone did. Wellstone was considered radical for supporting the middle class.

    Backman may win because Amy played it safe and said nothing to support the middle class, which has clearly been exploited by the banking fraud and by the bailouts.

    What would Hubert Humphrey say?

Leave a Reply