Scalia: The Constitution is dead, you idiot.
By on Feb 14th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Scalia: The Constitution is dead, you idiot.
“In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society…Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the ‘living Constitution.’ ‘That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that.’”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Graham
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
F*** Scalia
February 14th, 2006 at 3:38 pmAmendment (n) -
1. The act of changing for the better; improvement: “Society may sometimes show signs of repentance and amendment†(George G. Coulton).
February 14th, 2006 at 3:38 pm2. A correction or alteration, as in a manuscript.
(a) The process of formally altering or adding to a document or record.
(b) A statement of such an alteration or addition: The 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote.
speaking of idiots...pot, I'd like you to meet kettle.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:38 pmScalia ought to go hunting with his o'l buddy Dick Cheney again.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:40 pmQuestion for Scottie:
Has Cheney been to the hospital to visit his friend that he put in the hospital by shooting him?
My guess: no.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:42 pmScalia makes the real agenda of the Bushistas clear, complete tyrany over the country and the American People.
These guys are not constructionists, they are facists plain and simple and they must be not only removed from positions of pawer, but prosicusted for their crimes against our democracy. The sooner the better.
Impeach Bush and his cabinet and install an internationally monitored caretaker government until new elections can be held.
This would be in keeping with the same provisions we suggest for other tyranical governments, so it should be good enough for us.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:46 pmScalia's still pissed off over that whole Thirteenth Amendment thing....
February 14th, 2006 at 3:46 pm"The Constitution is simply a dead legal document,
February 14th, 2006 at 3:48 pmto be only interpretated by people roleplaying as
18th century White Christian Quakers."
Well, shit, I guess it's time for all of us to join our local well regulated militia.
Oh, and screw ALL those Amendments, The damn thing was just fine, even without that pesky Bill of rIGHTS.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:52 pmCan't people understand that they're stupid and need to be trained to follow?
You would have to be an idiot if you can't understand that concept.
'We hold these truths to be self-evident'
February 14th, 2006 at 3:52 pmI'd like to hear our resident trolls' opinions on this. Do they agree with Scalia? And is it Scalia's opinion that the amendments shouldn't have been added, if he's that strict a constructionist?
February 14th, 2006 at 3:54 pmWow, so like, the English language that the Constitution was written in is the same language we speak today, and the meanings of the words haven't changed.
I wonder if Scalia is against the principal of Constitutional Amendments.
February 14th, 2006 at 3:56 pmYou do not have to be an idiot to believe the Constitution is an evolving document. You can call yourself a textualist, like Scalia, allowing you to defer to the Constitution when you disagree with congressional acts, and defer to congressional acts when you disagree with state laws all the while avoiding the nasty political connotations of judicial activism.
Case in point, Roper v. Simmons, the SCOTUS opinion that outlawed juvenile executions and Gonzales v. Oregon, the SCOTUS opinion upholding Oregon’s assisted suicide law.
In Roper a major reason why Scalia blasts the majority is because instead of deferring to the states individually the majority adds up the number of states that allow juvenile executions and conclude that, since fewer states allow juvenile executions since the Supreme Court tackled the issue, it should be outlawed. And then in Oregon, instead of following the Tenth Amendment to the letter, Scalia adds up the number of states that do not allow assisted suicide (49 to 1), and concludes it is unconstitutional.
Problem solved! By carefully screening his phraseology, Scalia gets to sneer jurists without getting called on the same rationality he detests in his colleagues.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:09 pm#12 Only those that displease his masters
February 14th, 2006 at 4:10 pmForgot to add: Scalia avoids like textualist interpretations when the conclusion gnaws at his conscience.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:12 pm"Everyone is just doing such a heckuva great job, why change anything?"
February 14th, 2006 at 4:14 pmIt is the societies which were unable to change and progress, ok, I really mean EVOLVE.... that collapsed in ruin, were overwhelmed and are no more.
By the way, does anyone know what junior's nickname for Chertoff is?
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I understood the term "living constitution" to mean that you have to fit the intent of the founders with the realities of today. You can't simply say, "The framers never mentioned roving wiretaps, so they are not unconstitutional." Instead, you have to look at what the framers had in mind and answer, "In today's world, how does the prohibition against unwarranted searches and seizures apply to roving wire taps?" That's why we call it a "living" document, because the concepts and ideals are not outdated and are adapted to the times. By his reasoning, the FCC that thought my mind was permanently ruined by a glimpse of Janet Jackson's nipple wouldn't exist because the Constitution is silent on the matter of suppressing erotic speech that offends a small few.
Again, full disclosure, no legal training, but that should be obvious to the lawyers out there.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:14 pmOMG--I hadn't realized Antonin Scalia looked so much like Rove. Noch ein Doppelganger, bitte.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:16 pmTwo points to make.
First, am I wrong or am I correct in recalling that Jefferson acknowledged somewhere that future generations would need to fit the Constitution to their own times?
Second, Scalia's argument, as # 12 implies, rests on the notion that a person in the 21st century can magically re-enter the mentalite of the 18th century. This would involve more than understanding language use. It's perhaps debatable, but, nonetheless, we most likely don't think, reason, comprehend, feel, etc. the way those in the 18th century did.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:20 pm"All in all it's just another brick in the Wall." -- Pink Floyd
February 14th, 2006 at 4:20 pmI have no ideal what he is talking about. Can someone break it down for me... I'm a "Joe beer can" type of guy.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:28 pmIs he talking about the Constitution or the interpretation of the Constitution?
February 14th, 2006 at 4:28 pmFrankly I find it kind of ironic that Mr. Scalia would be raising his profile at a time when his ol' huntin' buddy Cheney is in such a pickle. Too bad Scalia wasn't hunting with his buddy Dick that day, right Ann Coulter?
Oh wait, that's right, Scalia is the conservative Justice. We wouldn't want anything to happen to him, after all.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:29 pmI guess that since the original Constitution enshrined slavery, and it required an amendment to "change" the "original document" that Justice Scalia is a proud supporter of slavery.
Taking his arguments as an "originalist", this is the only conclusion that can be reached. If, on the other hand, he believes that slavery was rightly outlawed by “changing†the “original documentâ€, then he’s really not an "originalist".
Who woulda thunk it! Justice Scalia is either a liar (not REALLY an "originalist") or supports slavery. Pick one here!!!
February 14th, 2006 at 4:29 pmSpeaking of idiots...
February 14th, 2006 at 4:38 pmWhat would a white christian Quaker think of 'waterboarding'? Sufficiently Jesus, or not?
February 14th, 2006 at 4:40 pm#6)
Yes their agenda is clear and followed by a borg like mass of sheep trailing behind. The other day I posted one message over at Free Republic reminding them that Reagan didnt trust neocons...and they banded me and deleted my free speech. They can't even follow the things that have been there since day one (like the first amendment) let alone understand the need for changes over time.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:42 pmThese guys make me sick. I don't even recognize this country anymore. My Grandmother used to talk about Germany during the 1930's (prior to her escape). Things are not much different here in the US now.
In the meantime, WashDC remains thick with thieves:
Three former associates of Jack Abramoff say the now-convicted lobbyist frequently told them he had strong ties to the White House through presidential confidant Karl Rove.
The White House said Monday night that Rove remembers meeting Abramoff at a 1990s political meeting and considered the lobbyist a "casual acquaintance" since
President Bush took office in 2001.
New questions have arisen about Abramoff's ties to the White House since a photo emerged over the weekend showing Abramoff with Bush...
[from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rove_abramoff ]
These greedy lying bastards MUST be driven from office! Impeach Bush NOW!!!
February 14th, 2006 at 4:52 pmIsn't the entire concept of a 'living Constitution' embedded in that Constitution through the provision for Constitutional amendment? To say the Constitution is inflexible and as such shouldn't be changed nullifies a very important provision contained therein.
As Scalia said, "But you would have to be an idiot to believe that."
But thats what the masses want. It might be time to move.
February 14th, 2006 at 4:58 pmAnton does not really believe what he said. I do recall a decision that he participated in back in 2001 where he essentially said that the decision being made was more important than what was written in the constitution. I believe the constitution is very clear about when election results get certified etc…
Also Bushie likes to think he is a strict constructionist and that rights such as privacy do not exist because they are not written directly in the constitution, yet he has no trouble finding presidential privileges, such as his broad interpretation of the presidential powers even when these privileges are not written into the constitution.
Scalia also needs to know that the framers, those guys who wrote the constitution made it clear that new rights might be determined as time passes and that times change and the constitution should change with the times. The framers intent is all I heard from the right for years, and now their hero of a judge is tossing the framers intents out the window for his own personal ideology, or idiotology.
Once again they show how willing they are to betray our country and its ideals.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:01 pmSuppose we should just go back to the Code of Hammurabi as well.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:02 pmthe bible is over 2000 years old and the neo-cons site this book all the time as a living, fully applicable book. it is a living document and can be applied to most if not all things that go on today. these people will say anything to justify their own opinions and self worth.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:03 pmwhat a dick.... cheney
As a loyal Federalist, Marshall saw in the Constitution the instrument of national unity and federal power and the guarantee of the security of private property. He made incontrovertible the previously uncertain right of the Supreme Court to review federaland state laws and to pronounce final judgemnet on their constutionality. HE VIEWED THE CONSTITUTION ON THE ONE HAND AS APRECISE DOCUMENT SETTING FORTH SPECIFIC POWERS AND ON THE OTHER HAND AS A LIVING INSTRUMENT THAT SHOULD BE BROADLY INTERPRETED SO AS TO GIVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE MEANS TO ACT EFFECTIVELY WITHIN ITS LIMITED SPHERE.http://www.bartleby.com/65/ma/MarshalJ.html Also check out bench memos over at the National Review ala matthew Franck. http://bench.nationalreview.com/
February 14th, 2006 at 5:03 pmSo it's JOHN MARSHALL , YOU IDIOT.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:04 pmPerhaps another way of looking at this might be to start assembling the pieces that exist? Consider that what we’ve seen up to now, is most extreme behavior from our Federal Government! Extreme, because they are “out stepping†their boundaries in many areas. Along with this is also what appears to be “out of control†corruption in many areas throughout the Federal Government plus it seems to include “tainting†the decision process!
Go back to a speech given by Bush Sr. where he talked about a ONE WORLD Government. It’s around the Internet, go check it out!
The Constitution came out of a time where we wanted to be free from a “controlling†Government and to put into place laws that would guide us to maintain our Freedom. By “talking†in ways, as they appear to be doing, that labels the Constitution as document that needs to be modified to be “living†as society changes, they in fact are trying to MANIPULATE us into thinking that our LIVES and GUIDANCE NEEDS to be changed. But into what? Maybe some of the answers are in what Bush SR said?
If we are smart, we might want to start looking more at the corruption and who’s behind it. Then add this so called “movement†towards changing our Constitution into something that will most certainly benefit them, OR MAYBE I NEED TO SAY “Those who are involved in the Corruptionâ€!
One thing for sure, expect those who are involved to start coming out of the woods!
February 14th, 2006 at 5:05 pmSince the Amendments were added by following the Constitution,and the Bill of Rights was added prior to ratification by the states (in fact the Bill of Rights was added in order to get the states to ratify it) an "originalist" hasn't any problem following them.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:24 pmAs to Scalia being an originalist,it makes a nice sound bite,but if he was a real originalist he wouldn't have participated in overturning 33 laws passed by Congress during the Rehnquist court.
Of course, that could just mean they were doing their job,but didn't Mark Levin's book claim judicial review (Marbury v Madison) was bad law?
It's confusing, so if I were him,I'd just take the cases as they come and just make up some overarching theory.
Pisastratus (Disasterous?=)
is kinda like the Bush Administration in Reverse, maybe they will soon realize....
Pisastratus: returned to Athens conquered and established a tyranny when he realized that Aristocrats were the problem he reduced their power and supported the common people.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:54 pmIt appears that Justice Scalia is having trouble distinguishing the Constitution from the Ten Commandments (i.e., he thinks both are set in stone -- but when you consider how many neoconservatives are under the impression that the Constitution was based on Biblical principles rather than British common law, it's clear that he's by no means the first or the only one to make this mistake...
February 14th, 2006 at 6:05 pmBetter bring back the slaves and subtract sufferage. What a loon. He cleary needs psychiatric help.
February 14th, 2006 at 6:07 pm5 F*CKING Catholics on the Supreme Court. Is this justice for all?????
February 14th, 2006 at 6:08 pmA Catholic politician can lie to you until he's blue in the face as long as he fesses up to his F*CKING priest. What a total freaking shame of a judicial system. Total joke.
February 14th, 2006 at 6:10 pm#40, #41 - not exactly progressive opinions Mr Brownie. Not impressed.
February 14th, 2006 at 6:22 pmBrownie,
February 14th, 2006 at 6:28 pmIt has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with morality. Those were some mighty strong words...
In a speech Monday sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society, Scalia defended his long-held belief in sticking to the plain text of the Constitution “as it was originally written and intended.â€
“Scalia does have a philosophy, it’s called originalism,†he said. “That’s what prevents him from doing the things he would like to do,†he told more than 100 politicians and lawyers from this U.S. island territory.
[snip]
Is it just me or did he just refer to himself in the third person? Does he always do that?
February 14th, 2006 at 6:29 pmTime to impeach Scalia: he's making remarks that unlafwully support a Presidential rebellion.
Here's the caselaw: [ 487 U.S. 781 ] Scalia: "fraudulent
misrepresentation of facts could be regulated". Why isn't the President's fraudulent statements about the AUMF, DSM, and Iraq WMD any different? No answer from Scalia.
OT OT
1. HASC meeting on Able Danger: 15 Feb 2006
2. Meeting announcement on Able Danger: Click
3. The case law showing Able Danger and AUMF are illegal; and the President and Joint Staff are in rebellion against the Constitution:Click
. . . hand flappers on "HIGH"
February 14th, 2006 at 6:38 pmSo if Bush argues before Scalia that FISA is an old law and should be ignored, Scalia will call him an idiot.
February 14th, 2006 at 6:41 pmA Catholic politician can lie to you until he’s blue in the face as long as he fesses up to his F*CKING priest.
Comment by Heckofa Tasty Brownie — February 14, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Not quite true. Depending on the nature of the lie, it can be a capital, or a mortal sin -specially if it's done wantonly.
A good Catholic must confess their sins, repent, and seek absolution, which can be withheld if the confession is not sincere. He must also do penance.
At any rate, an unrepentant sinner risks eternal hell and damnation in the after life.
What a total freaking shame of a judicial system. Total joke.
Whah? Are you saying Catholics should not be allowed to be Justices?
February 14th, 2006 at 6:42 pmWhen he talks about the "living COnstitution" theory, Scalia is not refering to the amendment process. He has stated many times that amendments are the proper way for the Constitution to change, rather than the thinking that the courts should read into it, things that are not explicitly there. The admendments are part of the Constitution, and are therefore held in the same regard as the original articles. Scalia's philosophy is exactly how Judges should think. It leaves it to elected representatives, and the people to change the law, and make new laws. That is exactly how our system of government is suposed to work. If judges do that, then we no longer live in a representative democracy, we live in an oligarchy.
February 14th, 2006 at 7:02 pm4- Evil doesn't die that easily.
February 14th, 2006 at 7:28 pm#48 As opposed to the neo-con theocracy we live in today?
February 14th, 2006 at 7:36 pmScalia does not fairly represent the idea of what the idea of a "living constitution" is all about. It's not simply in terms of changing words; but in the ability of the document to adjust to new situation. New laws may or may not find constitutional foundation -- that remains up to the people to decide what is or is not constitutional, if that is something the people want to assert through voting, proclamations, or other lawful conduct.
Ultimately, the people can choose to change the Constitution into something new regardless what the government says on the matter. The Constitution still has a heartbeat; Scalia is the one that is stuck.
I'm not clear what you're trying to say: Scalia is clearly making comments that say he's not going to enforce the law; and that the Constitution -- how he interprets it -- is up to him whether he does or does not follow. How can he use the Constitution in opposing ways: First as a benchmark of "what to ignore" then as a benchmark of not to be held accountable for? This is an argument that defeats itself.
Here is the case law warranting review:
"A denial of constitutionally protected rights> demands judicial
protection; the oath and office of Justice of the Supreme Court of
the United States require no less of that court. [377 U.S. 533 ]"
The problem with Scalia's position is that he defers to the legislature over some issues as to what is or is not permissible to regulate. But there are new situations where the legislature may pass unconstitutional legislation, compelling the Justice to defy the law, and throw the tablet back at Congress, not the people. Scalia’s version of the “living constitution†would have us forfeit judicial action where it may be required; and assent to strict terms of power – which may be clear – but are irrelevant when considering individual rights which trump that power.
For example, if the Constitution is treated as a "static document" -- as he would -- then how does he explain the unmentioned power of the court to exercise what the Constitution does not explicitly confer onto the Supreme Court: The right of constitutional review?
There are things in the Constitution which do not exist -- and await the right time to discover. Those powers are simply within the framework of the document; but where the power is not explicitly, it belongs to the people. And the people -- if they choose -- can defer power back to the Federal Government with an Amendment. But efforts by an Executive -- to grab power or assert that an Amendment is or is not real or to be respected -- is not something that can be deemed as lawful. Rather, when it occurs, one must assert the law, not simply suggest the law takes no position on that unlawful document.
February 14th, 2006 at 7:59 pmI'm just so tired of this neocon, pseudo fascist horseshit I'm ready to puke. When will this nation wake up and see that all these people want is absolute power to do as they see fit. They get to steal and use our money as they see fit. Their children get to commit crimes and walk away. They want to control women's reproductive rights. They want to control our personal rights. They want to turn our public schools into Christian madrassas. Basically they want to have it all and have us be nothing blind, ever-following automatons.
Some of these nutjob wackos worry if we leave Iraq too soon it will spiral into a civil war. I could care less. I'm worried about the impending civil war here. I hope that is not what it will take for Americans to wake up and reclaim their bill of rights, their constitution, our freedom.
February 14th, 2006 at 8:24 pmScalia got it exactly right, as he often does. It constantly surprises me (though it shouldn't) how leftists intentionally ignore the obvious fact that a "living" Constitution is tantamount to not having one.
There's nothing "neocon" or "fascist" about living within the terms of a contract, including a social contract as the Constitution is, in a way.
I'm enjoying reading all the very angry comments from you "progressives" out here. You clearly have never studied constitutional law, nor the history of our founding. You're so eager to impose your socialist views on the world that you lose site of the fact that there is precious little difference between a leftist tyranny (which you would impose) and fascism. Hitler and Stalin seemed about identical to their victims.
It is people like Scalia, honoring our Constitution, that prevent you leftist wingnuts from destroying the very foundation of our great nation.
February 14th, 2006 at 10:11 pmwhat a jack ass. if the constitution was frozen in 1776, what is fat tony's reasoning for the ability to amend the Consititution. That slob is a national disgrace to have on the SCOTUS. Those "F"ker federalists will contort anything, ANYTHING to suit their vile purpose.
February 14th, 2006 at 10:32 pm.
#53 Rossputin: You make it sound like constitutional law is required study in high school. Most people have never studied constitutional law. So you don't want the bill of rights or any of the amendments?
I'd take most any form of government than the what ours has been perverted into by this administration. If you are happy with a corrupt government, a lying government, a deceiving government and a criminal government then you have gotten your wish and I'm sure you're happy. You probably can't wait for the days when we have a total police state and Gestapo-like stormtroopers can and do enter any home or business and arrest anyone for anything they wish.
You say we leftists don't have any understanding of constitutional law and that may be true, but you obviously are having trouble with only one word... freedom!
February 14th, 2006 at 11:06 pm#44, yeah the whole third person thing weirds me out too. apparently "scalia pity the fool who believes in a living constitution".
February 14th, 2006 at 11:26 pmMr. Evil,
We probably agree a fair bit about this government. There is a lot about it I don't like, and I did not vote for Bush in either election (nor did I vote for Kerry, but I did vote.)
As for police state and stormtroopers, as I said before they are tools of both the far left (like most commenters on this site) and the far right.
Both sides want to strip us of our rights and our FREEDOM, which is what I value more than anything.
It is Scalia's view which protects that freedom, whereas the idea of a "living document" threatens it by allowing the majority of the court at any given time to say the Constitution means whatever they want it to. Unfortunately, this is how the Court has behaved since FDR threatened to pack the Court with "liberals".
The far right wants to impose their views on our personal lives, and I find that threatening and annoying, but nowhere close to as dangerous as the way the left wants to effectively eliminate capitalism, private property, and the economic underpinnings of the USA which, at least in part, made us great.
The left wants the Constitution to be a "living document" because there has been a left-leaning Court. Just imagine how bitter you would be if there were a Court made up of James Dobson devotees who believed it is a living document. No, our only protection against tyranny is to understand that the Constitution means what it says. No less and no more.
To the straw man argument that this would preclude the Bill of Rights and other amendments, that's just stupid. Those have become part of the constitution, through the very high thresholds required for that to take place. I don't like necessarily like every amendment we've had, but clearly they're of a much higher quality on a consistent basis than rulings of the Court and far better than the workings of Congress.
Leftists don't understand "freedom". I doubt you do either. Read some Ayn Rand and get back to me.
Read my blog at http://www.rossputin.com, especially the section about the Supreme Court. You might learn some things.
February 14th, 2006 at 11:52 pmScalia is apparently unfamiliar with the long established precedent of judicial review (does he even know who Justice Marshall was?) and keeps insisting that the Constitution is carved in stone. Something like the Ten Commandments. However, he has absolutely no compunction about violating all sorts of laws and amendments including engineering the installment of out current Caligulaesque monarch. Happy hunting with Dick Cheney, Mr. Scalia. By the way, Rossputin, anyone who tries to buttress any argument with Ayn Rand is obviously a complete moron.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:31 amRemember that after the fall of Nazi Germany, many German justices were also put on trial for crimes against humanity. They were enablers of Hitler's racism, discrimination, sterilization, and extermination after all. WE must beware of not being too pure to the old ways. Society does learn/evolve; Law also evolves.
Beware of those leaning too far right.
Likewise, I would not be suprised if Scalia is a supremicist in principle and rues any amendment (including the 13th). The Constitution needed amending to protect the minority from the majority rule. The founders were not so arrogant as to think they got everything right. It was a consensus document to support the Union.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:39 amScarpia's last chance to be a big loud blabber-mouth.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:49 amthe doo-doo's should hit the fan soon, and the pendulum is swinging the other way.
It is sooo annoying that this group calls itself the federalist society. If you read the Federalist Papers, you can't help but realize that the real Federalists are rolling in their graves over the notion of having these butt heads in charge.
Of course our founders saw the consitution as a living document otherwise they wouldn't have given us The Bill of Rights.
Doi. And not to mention setting up all those means for changing things around laid out in - why of all thing - the constitution!!
February 15th, 2006 at 1:14 am#44, yeah the whole third person thing weirds me out too. apparently “scalia pity the fool who believes in a living constitutionâ€.
Comment by snuh — February 14, 2006 @ 11:26 pm
HAHAHAHAH that made me laugh WAY out loud.
February 15th, 2006 at 1:52 amThe first change then is to repeal the notion of corporate personhood, and strip the multinationals of all the civil rights that they have acquired over the past century, such as "freedom of speech." This would strip them of the right to contribute to political campaigns, because that right could be legislated away if they no longer enjoyed "personhood."
h, Justice Scalia, the path you are taking is frought with danger for all sides, right, left and center.
Annette
February 15th, 2006 at 3:15 amyeaaaaaa Annette....no more of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.
.
February 15th, 2006 at 5:54 amThere is something not quite right about this article.If the quotations are correct,his originalist stance is contradicted by the idiot part.It makes no sense.Of course when these neofools make speeches they repeat the key words so as to get a better reaction from the crowd no matter what they say.Personally,as a lifelong Democrat and liberal I am tired of being blamed for abortion and gay marriage as the cons glorify the opposite,the death penalty and divorce(s).I'm tired of ideology and dogma and the use of force.And especially the hypocracy,thats the real killer.So what channel will the revolution be on?I'm only asking because the frustration from this atrocity in Washington needs an outlet.Impeach and convict them all.
February 15th, 2006 at 5:58 amGood morning. MARY, check out this link I posted yesterday. It might explain the issues with the sentence construction that you so keenly noticed. http://bench.nationalreview.com/
February 15th, 2006 at 7:04 amIf Scalia were attempting to project himself and his jurisprudence back to 1789, that might not be so bad. I fear his mentality is essentially pre-Magna Carta.
Aside from that, where does Scalia come off using words like 'idiot' to describe other justices? Does this man have any class at all?
February 15th, 2006 at 7:05 amBeen reading a bit on the federalist society...Its an Odd Bird with many feathers the predominant color being Green.
Federalists consider themselves intellectual giants, so Scalia is smarter than the 'Idiots' or so he thinks...
February 15th, 2006 at 7:31 amDanton, I believe this is the quote you meant. It's carved into the Jefferson Memorial and has been an inspiration to me.
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
February 15th, 2006 at 7:47 am#There is something not quite right about this article.If the quotations are correct,his originalist stance is contradicted by the idiot part.It makes no sense.Of course when these neofools make speeches they repeat the key words so as to get a better reaction from the crowd no matter what they say.Personally,as a lifelong Democrat and liberal I am tired of being blamed for abortion and gay marriage as the cons glorify the opposite,the death penalty and divorce(s).I’m tired of ideology and dogma and the use of force.And especially the hypocracy,thats the real killer.So what channel will the revolution be on?I’m only asking because the frustration from this atrocity in Washington needs an outlet.Impeach and convict them all.
Comment by Mary — February 15, 2006 @ 5:58 am
ww.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html
snip~
The Society¹s executive director Eugene Meyer recalls of his experience at Yale Law School that "someone was writing Œfascist¹ on our posters, or taking them down. Then cooler faculty heads [such as Bork] channeled our angers and frustrations into organizational activity." Keen self-promoters, they made a mascot of James Madison (on the debatable grounds that he favored decentralized government in his later years) and took the name of Madison¹s 18th-century Federalist Party as their own.
For the Reaganites running the federal government in the 1980s, the Society was a godsend. Here was a group of hard-charging legal minds committed to a set of principles that could not have been better suited to the judicial implementation of a Republican agenda if Ed Meese had drafted them himself. The Federalists were (and remain) "originalist" in their approach to the Constitution--meaning that they favored strict textual readings that tended to shear back constitutional principles developed during the more liberal Warren Court era. In terms of substantive law, they promoted the conservative mantra of states¹ rights to leach power away from "big government" in Washington.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:54 am~~~~
Pretty good article above.
Which brings me to think of the Coneference of States and Gingrich
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0003.landay.html
February 15th, 2006 at 7:55 amCharles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, Abigail Thernstrom, author of America in Black and White, and Dinesh d¹Souza of the American Enterprise Institute. Leaders of right-wing activist organizations also travel the campus circuit, the Federalist cover softening their right-fringe reputations
So as everything else related to the Neo-Cons, AEI, Perle, Kristol Media, 'Conservative' Federalist Society is turd polishing 101.
'K Street' for Judges.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:27 amSeems that Scalia thinks Jefferson an idiot:
February 15th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Scalia is a dangerous anachronism.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:45 am[...] See if you can reconcile this one (Scalia comment courtesy of Think Progress): [...]
February 15th, 2006 at 9:53 am#12 He would have to be upset about any amendment whatsoever. By his rationale, we have been beating a dead horse. Unpatriot pig!!
February 15th, 2006 at 11:39 amScumlia should be impeached, and if necessary removed in any way possible...
...he's a traitor who hates America and our way of life...
...just like ALL of his "conservative" and "neoconservative" co-conspirators...
...with people like these TRAITORS in power...
...civil war in Iraq may be the least of our worries...
February 15th, 2006 at 12:00 pmThe Constitution is dead. Didn't Bush with his brilliant legal mind in a fit of rage declare, "THE CONSTITUTION IS JUST A F-----G SCRAP OF PAPER." Why would anyone, supreme court justices included, comment on any article or amendment in the document after this brilliant analysis of the law of the land. In other words, this court packed with neocon appointees will interpret the constitution any damn way they want to support the regime in power.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:05 pmWhy worry about the court. Congress has abrogated its responsibilities in declaring war, oversight of the various departments that congress must regulate, investigative powers due to partisan control and protection of the status quo and a disinterest in controlling reckless spending. The government envisioned in the Constitution is just a sham of itself. The tripartite arrangement of the executive,legislative and judicial branches are in the hands of a single entity. Whether you like it or not, the White House's current incumbent is the law.
February 15th, 2006 at 2:18 pmIt looks "His Holyness" the all knowing High Hog on the High Court, Antonin (Nino fat ass..fat ass Nino...your pick)Scalin knows EVERYTHING...just ask him..! But you don't have to ask ol' Scrapple-Head, he'll TELL you that everybody else is just plain wrong.. people that don't AGREE with this surly sage are just plain idiots..looks like ol' fat-ass ate too much drug laced slop that they feed him these days.! Somebody should tell this prickly porker, that contempt breeds contempt.
We all know that Scrapple-Head's Most BRILLANT moment was, when after going duck hunting with that cyborg, "Dead -eyed Dick" Cheney, the "Haughy Hog" mocked his distractors, saying that any conflict of interest is okay, if HE does it..and if you don't like it, well then, just kiss his very fat ass, Quack! Quack! Now, for a hog that squeaks, to be able quack like a duck, that's brillant!
ONLY an IDIOT would not be able to see that this "Lord of Lard" managed the coup d' etat in 2000, and knew of (and probably )encouraged the RIGGED election of 2004. Knowing he was part of the CABAL who put that moron, Emperior Dumbya, who is dumber that a bucket of dirt, back on the thrown for another four years, is beyond me. So if ANYBODY is an IDIOT, Scrapple-Head, it's you..you put us on this slow moving night-mare we're living in..thanks for nothing, Scrapple-Head...I hope you live long enough to regret the forces he put in motion.
Gene Campbell
February 15th, 2006 at 9:37 pmCentral Florida
This is the best laugh I have had in a long time. Its great to see so many great minds in the same place. If only you would have all been in New Orleans and the wave was larger.
February 15th, 2006 at 11:40 pmDitto 81. Is this the best the left wing wackos can come up with? Of course Scalia doesn't have a problem with amendments as long as the procedure for amendment in the Constitution is followed! I wonder how long liberals would continue to support the "living Constitution" idea if conservative wackos got on the Court and decided that in our modern age, and given the imperatives of terrorism, and the power of computers, that no one has any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore the 4th Amendment no longer applies to searches of our homes. There are many other possible examples, but conservatives and originalists would equally appalled as such nonsense.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:21 amIf I wasn't conservative already, this thread would make me one. The level of spite and unbelievably foolish reasoning is truly wondrous to behold.
Are the readers here so ignorant of the other side that they have no idea what Originalism actually believes? Or do they just prefer attacking straw justices?
The amendment process is IN THE CONSTITUTION. That's the whole point of original approaches -- if you want the Constitution to change, you actually CHANGE it. You don't just make up new provisions whole cloth, you go through the amendment process.
This preserves one the genius of the American system -- the rule of law. Instead of being ruled by the whims of life-tenured judges, we're judged by a stable body of constitutional law. The Constitution changes, but in a way which is transparent and accountable to the people. They have a chance during the amendment process to pressure their legislators at both the state and federal level. That's democracy.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:37 amLooks like the lefties have never read the constitution. Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution? LOL. The arguments (and spelling) on this site are abysmal. You have to love that "imperial judiciary", at least when they are on your side.
February 16th, 2006 at 2:14 amOh yeah, number 62, what exactly is the Federalist society in charge of? Federalism?
February 16th, 2006 at 2:17 amDitto 83. The Amendments ARE a part of the Constitution. And anyone who knows anything about Scalia knows that he supports the Amendments. Why? B/c they are voted on widely through a representative democracy in each state. Therefore, the will of the poeple (freedom, anyone?) govern.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:12 pmWhat all you liberals want is what we as Americans fought against (Revolutionary War, anyone?)...tyranny. Why? Because you want to be governed by a few people (5 Justices) in order to gain abortion and homosexual rights. I am not necessarily against those, by the way...and if they are democratically voted on, I support them.
The question is: who governs? The people, or a tyrannical oligarchy composed of a few people. And furthermore, what if those 5 people have different views in a few years? Do you want them deciding those same issues? Oligarchies create chaos and oppression. Why want it?
If you want certain laws passed - go vote for it! And go live in that jurisdiction. In fact, why don't all homosexuals move to a state, and vote for homosexual rights in every way. Then we'll we'll wait a few years for all of you to [not pro-create] and die out.
By the way, I am not mad at homosexuals. I think the lifestyle is sad...and not being able to procreate disallows the joys of bearing children, among other things. And the simple logical fact is that you will die out. It's actually sad. That's all.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:24 pmI was making my previous point logically, not in anger.
Some of you on this site must have hit a nerve with the radical right-wing cornballs who come over to comment on this site. They're like annoying flies...they eat shit (getting thier talking points from radical right-wing think tanks) and coming over here to bother PEOPLE..why don't they buzz off, and be a pain in the ass womewhere else?
Gene Campbell
February 16th, 2006 at 3:46 pmCentral Florida
Well Gene, why don't some of the regulars on this forum post a logical argument. It annoys you when you are wrong, doesn't it? I guess great minds think alike, and weak minds, well, think alike.
February 16th, 2006 at 5:28 pmI'd rather go hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney, than ride in a car with Senator Ted Kennedy.
February 16th, 2006 at 11:10 pmTo @89, Well I guess I must be in good company with your boy, fat-ass Nino. HIS "logical argument" in the 2000 election, was VERY WEAK indeed..! No-body could figure how (for a while) WHY he stopped the Florida recount! And indeed, a WEAK MINDED bunch of nonsense that he wrote. Here, your aloof, arrogant, snooty, smug, overbearing asshole, Nino, pulled a fast one. A believer in "States Rights" , (we're told) he uses the heavy hand of the Federial Government to crush the WILL of the Florida Supreme Court..what a guy..! The only thing that annoys me is that you guys are NEVER WRONG about anything, I'll admit I"m wrong when I'm proven wrong. You guys, even when your WRONG, will say that your RIGHT, no matter what..Your probably typical of the elitist, "entitled" member of the radiical right wing to the "Imperial Republican Party..I've wasted too much engery on the likes of you, your not worth it...
Gene Campbell
February 17th, 2006 at 12:35 pmCentral Florida
Funny thing is Gene, Scalia did not stop the Florida recount. It takes a majority vote of 5. The will of the Florida Supreme Court is not what an election is based on.
Your guy lost. Deal with it. You cannot reinterpret the rules just because you did not win the game.
Learn a little about Federalism, just because someone is a Federalists does not mean that everything should be deferred to the States. The Supreme Court has the power to review decisions by the state Supreme Courts. It is that simple.
Of course, your a liberal, so it is all about the way you "feel" about something or someone. Grow up.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:24 pmOh yeah, Gene, I think that it is highly likely that a lot of things annoy you. I guess "entitled" is lefty speak for wealty. The 60's are over Gene, sorry.
February 17th, 2006 at 11:27 pmTo #92 your right,it did take 5, and right again on the decisions the court has make, I stand corrected, It in my opionon, thu, THEY shouldn't have gotten involved in THAT case. It shold have ran it's course in Florida until the re-count was done.
And yes, I do lean liberal to moderate, and to both of you (#93) I did "grow up" and in the 60's and 70's. I "grew up" very fast. In a family of 7 kids of working class parents. When I was 17, one of my older brothers was murdered, he was 19 , married and had a son. I had to go to where my dad worked and tell him what happened. My dad, as an Iwo Jima marine, to see his reaction, wasn't pretty. I had another older brother, he couldn't get drafted (flat feet) guess who did? My lottery # 70..year 1971, this was a year after my other brother died. My dad didn't want me in the Army, for ovious reasons,( a higher chance of dying in Vietnan)so at 18, I joined the Navy, either way I was going. At 19. like hundreds of thousands of others, I went to the far east, including Vietnam. Two years later, I was in the north Alantic serving on a missle carrying submarine. I served 3 years 11 months, and 27 days, and earned a honorable discharge. Oh, and the guy who killed my brother, he got less then 3 years in jail..! I served more time "doing the right thing" he got a better deal then I did..! Annoyed and angry, you bet your sweet ass.! Still a liberal and still patriotic !
Why tell you this, because, it's the poor and working class who are asked to give the greastest sacafice, and have the LEAST to lose, as far as wealth and status are concerned. Even in the volinteer military, it's still working class and poor who join, to get "a leg up" with benefits, such as education. It ANNOYS me, that those in power, (for the most part), found ways to hide, avoid, and run away from their PATRIOTIC duty. You'll say the prez, I don't think so, a easy way in, didn't want to serve anymore, and writes up his own discharge papers..what a guy! Cheney, a waste. The worst comptempt, thu, is for Congress-thing, Turd DeFly, IT bragged that "minorities and others wanted to take IT's place during Vietnam...a gutless shit-eating pest. IT lost it's power base, good riddance..! The prez's own mother, didn't want to "waste her beatiful mind" on such trivial things such as the wounded, dead, and dying fighting in the Afghan, and Iraqi wars...what a gal..!
What's all this have to do with Scalia, and the Court? They installed the most corrupt admin. in modern history. They ENABLED this gang to bankrupt the nation, both in reckless tax cuts, that benefit 1 percent of the most wealthest people in the country, and for reckless imperial war in Iraq (the Afgan War in the only legal war we shold be fighting). They have put this country on a radical conservtive course that most of us DO NOT AGREE with ! When the prez says he's "working for the American people" he's talking about the 1 percent, or about 6 million Americans..what a guy..! As a patriotic American, I believe, that if we don't make a historic change direction, a once great nation, will be a second rate world power. This, I blame on the "gang of five" who put His Royal Highness, Dumbya, in the White House. I guess I just didn't grow up, being a lefty product of the '60' and all.
Gene Campbell
February 18th, 2006 at 5:48 pmCentral Florida
Come on Gene, learn a little about:
1. Supreme Court
2. Electoral College
3. Economics
Your irrational Bush hatred is showing. BTW, your life history is irrelevant to me. If Hitler said 2+2=4, and Ghandi said 2+2=95, I would agree with Hitler. Your might be a good person and a patriotic American, but that does not mean that the Supreme Court "installed" the current President.
February 18th, 2006 at 8:26 pmLet's put it this way, your contempt for me is fine, I really don't give a shit what YOU think of me. MY contempt for you is equal. Insult me all you want, but Dumbya's numbers are down, and will stay down...most people don't like the way the direction the country is going. So keep deceving yourself that Dumbya, and the Republicans in congress are the greatest thing since sliced bred... oh, by the just keep kissing Dumby's ass, he'll love ya for it...
Gene Campbell
February 18th, 2006 at 10:37 pmCentral Florida
Gene, you keep calling George W. Bush "Dumbya" (obviously implying that he's dumb and stupid). But let's look at your comments and evaluate your intellect...
1. comment 80, paragraph 1 - you failed to hyphenate the word "drug laced"; you end the next-to-last sentence with both a period and an exclamation mark, and you inexplicably added a comma where one is not needed in the last sentence (you generally only add one where the part after the comma is an independent clause).
2. comment 80, paragraph 2 - I assume you meant to write "detractors" instead of "distractors," and the last sentence does not use any parallel sentence structure.
3. comment 80, paragraph 3 - I assume you meant to write "Emperor" instead of "Emperior"; in the sencond sentence, you should have written "than" instead of "that" after the word "dumber." In fact, the second purported sentence is not really a sentence at all - it has no subject (like in the subject/verb/object sentence structure). In the third sentence, "night-mare" should not be hyphenated.
4. comment 88, next-to-last word - you should have written "somewhere" instead of "womewhere."
5. comment 91, sentence 1 - the @ symbol should have been a #; there should be no comma in the second sentence; in the third sentence, "no-body" should not be hyphenated; the third sentence is not clear because you have "how" and "why" directly next to each other with the parenthetical between them; the fourth sentence is not a sentence either - it has no subject (as in subject/verb/object structure), and "weak minded" should be hyphenated; in the sixth sentence, the comma should go inside the quotes, as in "States Rights,"; the sixth sentence is also not a sentence because there is no subject again - the parenthetical negates the subject of the sentence; and also in the sixth sentence, "Federial" shuld be "Federal." In the seventh sentence, there should be no comma - it should be a semicolon or hyphen (by the way, you mention that you will admit when you are wrong in that sentence...do you admit to all of these?). In the eighth and ninth sentences, the words "your" should be "you're" - a contraction, because you really mean to say "you are," not the possessive "your." Finally, in the tenth and final sentence, "engery" should be "energy"; and there should be no comma - it should be a hyphen, and the "your" should again be "you're."
Comments 94 and 96 are way too bad...I'll stop while I'm still sane. By the way, I failed English one semester in high school, so don't say I'm an English teaher or anything. MY POINT IN ALL OF THIS - who needs an education - Dubya or Gene Campbell. By the way, how's that Central Florida education anyway? If it is a decent education, and I am affiliated with CF in anyway, I'd kick you out so as not to taint my school...
February 19th, 2006 at 12:42 amGo easy on Gene, bigballa. Gene, I was making a point, sorry if I insulted you. Listen, my whole point to you has been to think about things and not resort to emotions to help you make decisions.
Look at your positions, write them down. I will bet that every one starts with "I feel." Even if you did not write it, I would guess that your thought process started that way.
Example: Oil companies (I feel they charge too much for gasoline, therefore, they are bad), etc.
I am sorry that you feel you must have contempt for me, that is quite weak. You are really quick to stereotype, think about that tomorrow as you go about your day. Come on, I am a wealthy person because I am conservative. I must work for Haliburton too...
BTW, GWB is not dumb. He is at about the 95 percentile of American adults. He is no Ben Stein, but he is far from an idiot. He is a bad public speaker, however.
February 19th, 2006 at 3:38 amGene - my apologies...I guess I was just making a point. It seems liberals tend to "name-call" more than debate the issues, and I get a little impatient with those who do it too much.
February 19th, 2006 at 6:15 pmGoing back to this Scalia/living Constitution issue - one can be an originalist (such as Scalia) and relevantly apply the principles of the Founding Fathers to today's times through correct methods instead of throwing away old principles and arbitrarily coming up with new ones a la "substantive due process."
For example, the best way to apply old principles is through "exegesis" and "hermaneutics." Basically, exegesis is the art of understanding a text in its historical context to derive the meaning of a word correctly. The meaning/principle is then "extracted" from the historical context (because principles are timeless truths that can apply to new facts and circumstances), and (here comes the hermaneutics) are then applied to new facts not yet envisioned by those back in history. This process does seem similar to the living Constitution idea; however, this method does not change the principle, whereas the living constitution allows principles to change when one arbitrarily feels like it.
Justices like Scalia and Thomas tend to use this "exegesis" and "hermaneutical" approach when interpreting the Constitution (thus keeping principles and the rule of law consistent over time...stare decisis), instead of actually changing the principles over time to fit the (ultimately arrogant) whims of the justices when they apply this "living Constitution" idea. Basically, the justices who do not do the work of exegesis and hermaneutics are basically lazy and disrespectful (to the forefathers), and even arrogant (in thinking that their temporal notions of justice is supreme to hundreds of years of time-tested and refined law).
This is why I like Scalia, and why his jurisprudence is still relevant today. He applies the Constitutional principles to new facts through the humble and submissive method of exegesis and hermaneutics, and not by arbitrarily and even arrogantly changing the Constitution through the "living Constitutional" method talked about today in liberal circles.
Good analysis bigballa. This is why Scalia calls himself a textualist. James Madison argued for this approach long ago.
February 20th, 2006 at 10:02 pmWhere are all you liberal bloggers? Did Holy Crap and I shut you down? That's not fun!!
February 25th, 2006 at 9:15 pm