Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Scalia: Constitution is ‘dead, dead, dead’

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.

by Anonymousreply 5801/31/2013

Send that trash back to Sicily!

by Anonymousreply 101/29/2013

For a minute I thought the headline was "Scalia is dead". Got my hopes up!

by Anonymousreply 201/29/2013

He's unfit to be a judge. Period.

by Anonymousreply 301/29/2013

Me to, r2.

by Anonymousreply 401/29/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 501/29/2013

Too

by Anonymousreply 601/29/2013

Angry I meant

by Anonymousreply 701/29/2013

biasED.

by Anonymousreply 801/29/2013

i wish he would take his own words to heart.

"dead, dead, dead"

by Anonymousreply 901/29/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1001/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1101/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1401/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1501/30/2013

[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.

by Anonymousreply 1601/30/2013

A dead constitution is otherwise known as a bible.

by Anonymousreply 1701/30/2013

Originalists are all such morons.

by Anonymousreply 1801/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1901/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2001/30/2013

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?

by Anonymousreply 2101/30/2013

Exactly, R17.

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.

by Anonymousreply 2201/30/2013

R12? OP didn't write the headline you stupid piece of shit.

by Anonymousreply 2301/30/2013

You know you can't impeach a Supreme Court Justice right? They are appointed for life.

by Anonymousreply 2401/30/2013

r23? Overly sensitive OP-much?

by Anonymousreply 2501/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2601/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2701/30/2013

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?

by Anonymousreply 2801/30/2013

Wow, Thank You r20.

That's the best analysis of so-called "originalism" I've ever read.

by Anonymousreply 2901/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3001/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3101/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3201/30/2013

Blah,blah,blah, r32.

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.

by Anonymousreply 3301/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3401/30/2013

Hateful man.

by Anonymousreply 3501/30/2013

Too bad Scalia isn't 'dead, dead, dead'

by Anonymousreply 3601/30/2013

Thank Reagan for this pos.

by Anonymousreply 3701/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3801/30/2013

R32 misses that Scalia sits on the controlling authority and isn't bound by shit. The Supremes regularly overrule themselves.

by Anonymousreply 4001/30/2013

R12 is correct.

by Anonymousreply 4101/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4201/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4301/30/2013

r39 is literally mentally ill.

by Anonymousreply 4401/30/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4501/30/2013

Scalia tries to legislate from the bench without consulting the other justices.

by Anonymousreply 4701/30/2013

I hope hell is hot enough for Ronnie. He is to blame for this shitstain Scalia, one of many disasters he's responsible for.

What a fucking disaster the Reagan administration was for all of us.

by Anonymousreply 4801/30/2013

Scalia socializes with litigants before their cases are heard.

by Anonymousreply 4901/30/2013

As part of the majorit in Bush v. Gore, he should be charged with treason and hung.

by Anonymousreply 5001/30/2013

r46. You are in the wrong place for such serious sanctimoniousness.

This is a GOSSIP board, and a snarky and bitchy one. You sound deranged. Mentally ill.

by Anonymousreply 5101/30/2013

Offices deserve no respect, only people deserve respect and Scalia does not deserve any. Tell me, R46, do you worship your landlord?

by Anonymousreply 5301/30/2013

Would you worship your landlord if he or she refused to make plumbing repairs and told you it was yours to fix?

by Anonymousreply 5401/30/2013

Damn. Every time I scroll past this thread, I first think it says "Scalia, dead, dead, dead."

by Anonymousreply 5501/30/2013

Cray cray

by Anonymousreply 5601/30/2013

R52 -- 98 percent of us agree with R48. You freepers are the outcasts here. Go back to your freeper board and leave us alone.

by Anonymousreply 5701/30/2013

o

by Anonymousreply 5801/31/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.
×

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed


recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!