yet one more reason to impeach the asswipe
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia emphatically rebutted the notion that the Constitution is a living document in a lecture at Southern Methodist University on Monday.
“It’s not a living document,” Scalia said, according to a report in the Dallas Morning News. “It’s dead, dead, dead.”
Scalia also told the crowd that sometimes the decisions he arrives at are not in concert with his political convictions.
“The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge,” he said.
Scalia shared the stage with SMU law Professor Brian Garner. The two recently published their second book together, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Text.
For a minute I thought the headline was "Scalia is dead". Got my hopes up!
He's unfit to be a judge. Period.
Me to, r2.
He's a very bias and anger person. Man when you can't get it up no more you turn into a fat anger old man like this asshole.
Angry I meant
i wish he would take his own words to heart.
"dead, dead, dead"
I was hoping the headline said Scalia is dead.
I hope he dies on the bench before Obama's term is up so that he can be replaced.
He should be disbarred and removed from the bench. By force, if necessary. He is a disgrace.
He's apparently never heard of Constitutional Amendments.
That's an incredibly misleading headline, OP.
As much as I detest Scalia, he wasn't saying the Constitution is useless or irrelevant. He was dramatically contrasting his preferred method of interpretation (Originalism) with the popular liberal view that the Constitution is a "Living Document."
Originalism. Look it up.
R12 is right. Enough with the liberal conceit that the Constitution means whatever we (always fellow liberals, of course) think it should mean.
Well, considering there have been 27 amendments to that "dead" constitution over a span of 200+ years, it is safe to say that the document is a work in progress.
If they are going to construe the Constitution according to original intent, then they will have to go back and declare the war against the Confederate States of America to be unconstitutional. Originally the states were intended to be free and independant sovereign states, and each of them had a constitutional right to secede from the union. The second amendment which has become so controversial in this era was intended to guarantee each state the right to its own well regulated militia to defend its sovereignty from the domination of the federal government. These are the simple facts of history, and Scalia is being dishonest when he makes these statements about original intent. Rightwingers and leftwingers both construe the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean, but neither of them are going by original intent.
[quote]Well, considering there have been 27 amendments to that "dead" constitution over a span of 200+ years, it is safe to say that the document is a work in progress.
And amending the Constitution was wisely written into the document itself. This is wholly different from the discussion at hand.
A dead constitution is otherwise known as a bible.
Originalists are all such morons.
He's like biblical literalists who are always whining about liberals abusing the bible to support their agendas but are perfectly willing to use it to support their agendas. Except of course they know what original "author" intended.
Originalism is retarded. Every other intellectual discipline except this weird right wing Tory corner of law has left behind the idea that a text can have one single original intended meaning that can be universally and objectively derived. Original ism IS interpretation, just like anything else. And Scalia doesn't even consistently apply it. How could one imagine that the writers of the Constitution intended corporations to be understood as "people."?
For some reason, origanilism mostly comes into play when minorities are seeking civil rights. And people who are excusing this as some statement about his legal philosophy.... Well, whatever. Can you imagine if Obama stood up and said " The Constitution is dead, dead, dead." The right would freak out. Scalia says it and no one blinks.
r15 is right.
How do r12 and r13 care to spin that?
You'd be cool with no one but white males being allowed to vote?
Thank God for the past justices of the court who "legislated from the bench" (as the conservatives love to call it), resulting in the striking down of Jim Crow laws, among other positives toward civil rights.
On the other hand, look at the most (in)famous rulings handed down by originalist/strict constructionist types: Dred Scott v Sandford, Plessy v Ferguson, to name a couple. What a proud legacy they have.
R12? OP didn't write the headline you stupid piece of shit.
You know you can't impeach a Supreme Court Justice right? They are appointed for life.
r23? Overly sensitive OP-much?
R24 Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life but yes, they can be impeached. I think there has only been one case of it and the justice in question was acquitted.
R24, you can't be that ignorant of the Constitution. All federal judges, not just Supreme Court justices, are appointed for life, but like any other federal official they can certainly be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Quite the collection of ignorance and attitude here. R24 takes the cake.
Of course Scalia is a horrid, nasty, wrong-headed judge. And still you manage to attack each other about it and at the same time display a woeful lack of knowledge about our system of government?
Wow, Thank You r20.
That's the best analysis of so-called "originalism" I've ever read.
Scalia also told the crowd that sometimes the decisions he arrives at are not in concert with his political convictions.[quote]
Of all the bullshit things he has said, that is the bullshittiest. His political ideology is the only thing that drives his logically inconsistent, Contitutionally wrong decisions.
I think you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of decisions Scalia has signed on to that were not in accord with his political convictions.
Can't stand Scalia, but let's look objectively about one thing he says that is irrefutable:
“The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge,”
Anyone who understands American law would have to agree with that statement. Judges have to interpret the law and make decisions based on controlling authorities. No judge agrees with all of those authorities. Judges often write opinions explaining that they are ruling the way they are because they are constrained to do so by precedent or legislation; sometimes going further and expressing their displeasure with those constraints.
A good example of this are sentencing restrictions in criminal cases. Judges may feel that the result required by those restrictions is not appropriate, but they are constrained to follow them.
Judges have to obey many other statutes which they may or may not agree with and only have the authority to go against those statutes by finding them to be unconstitutional, which often, try though they might, they are unable to do with any degree of intellectual honesty.
Even U.S. Supreme Court judges can't overrule each and every lower court decision or piece of legislation they disagree with. They might not like upholding rules they find wrong, but they may have no other choice.
Higher courts can sometimes only overrule lower court judges when those judge's rulings, distasteful or infuriating to those higher court judges though they might be, are "an abuse of discretion," which, try as they might, the higher court judges may not with integrity be able to label them.
Lawyers constantly have to advise clients that a particular motion will not succeed because the law is against them and the judge, even if he or she wanted to, is bound by the law.
In fairness to you, I know that you don't write in your post that their are never exceptions to the legal reasining judges apply to the decisions they make, so allow me to do so with 3 words:
Bush versus Gore.
All of the so-called controlling decisions/precedents regarding the application of the Equal Protections Clause were tossed by the conservative majority.
Scalia's so-called originalism is really just so much nonsense. Potential conflicts among various articles of the Constitution exist. Since the founding, someone, that is usually the Supreme Court, has resolved those conflicts when they arise. Amendments have also been made. The conflicts arise as new laws are enacted and demands placed upon the people and our government change.
Scalia is willing to take on the role of Constitutional referee, a task not described in the Constitution. Of course he claims in doing so that he relies on the original intent of document. On this alone, Scalia's hypocaust smells to high heaven.
The notion that the Construction has only one possible correct original meaning, if carried to its logiocal conclsuion, would require unpreecidented social stagnation on the part of everyone inh the country. That's not going to happen.
Too bad Scalia isn't 'dead, dead, dead'
Thank Reagan for this pos.
They should rule according to the Constitution. Anything that's out of date/line should go through the proper processes to be changed. The issue would deserve that proper respect to be cemented in the Constitution, anyway. This isn't a banana republic.
F&F this entire thread. You are talking about a sitting judge on the US Supreme Court. Whether you agree with his opinions or not he is to be accorded respect.
R32 misses that Scalia sits on the controlling authority and isn't bound by shit. The Supremes regularly overrule themselves.
R12 is correct.
Why don't we just F&F you, R39?
An amazing number of people who think like you have had no problem at all with showing outrageous disrespect to Obama but somehow Scalia deserves respect.
Respect? That fucker is corrupt, sells his votes for money, stupid, and a compulsive liar. He lies about history, he lies about facts, he's just a big fat turd of prejudices and the sooner Antonin Scalia shuffles off this mortal coil, the better off the world will be. His mother ought to be charged with a capital crime for not aborting him.
r39 is literally mentally ill.
Poster boys for what's wrong with this country.
The article doesn't say, but I'm sure the equivalent of fat envelopes stuffed with cash were passed to them.
Well, r42, I disagree with those people as well and would tell them so if I could.
Since I am on DL and since I am looking at this amazingly offensive thread I am telling YOU that as long as I am here threads like these will not be tolerated.
There's pointless b&$%hery and then there's just ugliness.
This man is a Supreme Court Justice and there is a respect and power that needs to be acknowledged.
Scalia tries to legislate from the bench without consulting the other justices.