I think it is awesome that Wesleyan would invite him, and that he would come. While Justice Scalia is not exacty reading from my playbook, he is a brilliant jurist, and Wesleyan puts its money where its mouth is by inviting someone with views likely not shared by a majority of students to talk at a freedom of speech lecture.
Actually, if Wesleyan students are familiar with Justice Scalia's decisions, they will know he is an ardent defender of the first amendment and a fierce advocate of all forms of free speech. He voted to allow the burning of the American flag, struck down a ban on the sale of violent video games to children, and even in a decision that I am sure most Wesleyan students would disagree, he argued that corporations have a right to free speech in the first amendment. I would think most Wesleyan students should appreciate the principled stands he has taken in all first amendment cases.
I wonder if the girl in the picture ever heard of the accounting firm, Arthur Anderson. It was forced to close after it had been indicted by the govt. If you talked with the thousands of employees who lost their jobs, I bet they would see it as an execution. Anyway, I am sure the Wesleyan students will have fun with Scalia regarding the Citizens United case.
Of course, there's no difference at all between a government-ordered execution of a living human being and the incidental death of a corrupt corporation by fraud-averse customers voting with their feet.
Texas should be able to issue government orders to kill people directly (even many innocent people), but we have to leave it up to "market forces" to execute corporations.
Because corporations are, apparently, "superior persons," entitled to MORE rights than living, breathing human beings, like the right to avoid government-ordered execution.
Scalia appears at Wesleyan. That's good! [Applause]
When we hear Ralph Nadar speak at BYU (complementing right-wing war criminals like Dick Cheney), then we'll know that the left and right in America share the same commitment to intellectual honesty.
Chris, your post is somewhat innaccurate and not exactly clear. Believe me, when an accounting firm is indicted by the govt that is tantamount to a death sentence, not an incidental death. The govt could have fined the firm or done a number of other things short of indictment, but chose this action. You don't seem to have much sympathy for the thousands of people who had nothing to do with this particular fraud and who lost their jobs. BTW, the appeals court subsequently overturned the charges, but it was too late for these employees. You may not realize that corporations are legal entities that consist of employees and shareholders, people like your parents, siblings, relatives and friends. For example, the retired fireman, who is receiving a paycheck from a pension, is a shareholder of many corporations in which the pension fund has invested his/her hard earned money.
For some reason I didn't hear much protest from death penalty opponents when Lawrence Russell Brewer was recently executed in Texas. Apparently, the Governor received no pleas for mercy on Brewer's behalf. No protests, no outrage.
I guess you are not pleased that BYU invited Cheney to speak at the school's commencement in 2007. Apparently, a few students created a facebook page and tried to organize an alternative commencement with Nadar as the speaker. They got around 25 BYU graduates to attend. Not exactly a mandate. Incidentally, the "complementing Cheney remark" in your post does not compute.
^^Perhaps a little background information would be helpful, here. Arthur Andersen was indicted in 2002 for its part in the Enron scandal (thus, its Texas nexus.) The indictment was delivered by Michael Chertoff, a life-long Republican who was later appointed by President Bush as the first Secretary for Homeland Security. Their indictment was overturned after a jury verdict because the Supreme Court found (unanimously) that the judge's instructions to the jury were innacurate (Andersen argued that they did not believe they were breaking the law -- the oldest excuse since Adam gave Eve the apple -- and the Supremes sided with them.)
Finally, if a thousand accountants could not find jobs in the run-up to the biggest economic bubble in American history, then, I feel sorry for them on more than one level.
Well JR, I would think when 9 Justices across the ideological spectrum expressed great skepticism about the prosecution of Anderson, it would not be dismissed so cavalierly by you. The Justices indicated that Anderson did not have consciousness of guilt (meaning they did not know they were breaking the law). The govt generally has to prove intent, if they want to indict and convict you.
28,000 employees lost their jobs, many of them were not accountants.