Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/14/2006 8:02:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2006 8:03:50 AM EDT by Zaphod]

Justice Scalia: Non-Originalists Are 'Idiots'

People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.

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."

"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.

According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.

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," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

Scalia was invited to Puerto Rico by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The organization was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who believed professors at the top law schools were too liberal. Conservatives and libertarians mainly make up the 35,000 members.





Preach it, Justice!

ETA: Link
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 8:06:13 AM EDT
Thats awesome!!!

I hope he lives up to OUR hopes
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 8:17:54 AM EDT
He always has.

You're thinking Alito.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 8:18:24 AM EDT

"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."


Its always been a disingenuous argument. The Constitution has a built-in mechanism for change, its spelled out in Article V and is deliberately difficult FOR A GOOD REASON. The "living constitution" exists because socialists were never able to gain a 2/3 majority in the Congress and the state legislatures.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 9:40:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 9:52:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TimJ:
I'd trade 700 Ruth Ginsberg's for one more Scalia (or Thomas, for that matter).



That's like saying, "I'll let you get rid of all the termites in my house if you'll give me a new car."
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 10:01:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:42:45 AM EDT
He is my wife's hero and one of the few jurists she strives to emulate. Gotta love the guy.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:45:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
He always has.

You're thinking Alito.



Not ALWAYS.

His vote in last year's medical marijuana case was NOT grounded in originalism. However, I can say he is ALMOST always on the right side of the issues.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:47:29 AM EDT
I have always like his opinions.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 6:49:16 AM EDT
Scalia T Shirt


I still need to get one of these.


96Ag
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 7:30:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Justice Scalia: Non-Originalists Are 'Idiots'

People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn't change with society are "idiots," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.

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."

"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.

According to his judicial philosophy, he said, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.

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," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided "not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court."

"They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable," he said.

Scalia was invited to Puerto Rico by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The organization was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who believed professors at the top law schools were too liberal. Conservatives and libertarians mainly make up the 35,000 members.





Preach it, Justice!

ETA: Link



Holy shit! does this mean that Scalia is the_neutral_observor?
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 7:49:07 AM EDT
The thing that the left/socialists/moonbats don't get is the Constitution is the FOUNDATION of our system of government, not some whiteboard that can be scribbled on and changed at the slightest whim.

Just like a house every system needs an unchanging foundation. You want to fuck with the plumbing or electrical, go ahead but once you start taking a jackhammer to the foundation of your house you may not like what it does to the rest of the structure built upon it.

It may not collapse right away but a few more changes down the road and suddenly your floors aren't level, the ceilings creak and sag, cracks appear in the wall and water starts leaking into your basement.

That's where we find ourselves now. I firmly believe that things are too far fucked up to simply keep patching it. Somewhere in the not too distant future the system is going to fall down and go "BOOM!". I only hope that those there at the fall have the good sense to realize the foundation was always good, the house was rotten and they need to go right back to the best document for government ever created... the United States Constitution when they pick up the pieces since there was NEVER anything wrong with it in the first place.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:24:00 AM EDT
I like Roberts, but i really would have loved Scalia as Chief Justice.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:34:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:39:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Does anyone recall how he voted on the Eminent Domain case last year?



Umm, he was in the dissent. The good side.

Quote wiki:


Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice O'Connor suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion—take from the poor, give to the rich—would become the norm, not the exception: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively [deletes] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment".
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:45:17 AM EDT
Good man.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 8:47:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/15/2006 8:48:12 AM EDT by thelastgunslinger]

Originally Posted By iamblades:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Does anyone recall how he voted on the Eminent Domain case last year?



Umm, he was in the dissent. The good side.

Quote wiki:


Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice O'Connor suggested that the use of this power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion—take from the poor, give to the rich—would become the norm, not the exception: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She argued that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively [deletes] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment".



I love throwing the Eminent Domain case in the face of the libs. I get them to admit that the decision was just wrong on so man levels, then I force them to confront that their beloved liberal justices were the ones who committed that atrocity.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 9:01:58 AM EDT
I <3 Scalia!
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 9:02:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MRW:
The federalist society is the last, best hope for freedom in America




Actually there is one more beyond that...
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 9:02:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WyattEarp:
I like Roberts, but i really would have loved Scalia as Chief Justice.



Too old. Roberts is in for the long haul.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 9:08:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Airwolf:
The thing that the left/socialists/moonbats don't get is the Constitution is the FOUNDATION of our system of government, not some whiteboard that can be scribbled on and changed at the slightest whim.

Just like a house every system needs an unchanging foundation. You want to fuck with the plumbing or electrical, go ahead but once you start taking a jackhammer to the foundation of your house you may not like what it does to the rest of the structure built upon it.

It may not collapse right away but a few more changes down the road and suddenly your floors aren't level, the ceilings creak and sag, cracks appear in the wall and water starts leaking into your basement.

That's where we find ourselves now. I firmly believe that things are too far fucked up to simply keep patching it. Somewhere in the not too distant future the system is going to fall down and go "BOOM!". I only hope that those there at the fall have the good sense to realize the foundation was always good, the house was rotten and they need to go right back to the best document for government ever created... the United States Constitution when they pick up the pieces since there was NEVER anything wrong with it in the first place.



Oh, they get it. Just like they get that gun control isn't about violence. They can't win any other way, so they'll implement their twisted schemes any way they can; through the courts, through amendments, etc. They just keep their attacks pouring in. We have to beat them every single time; they only have to win ONCE.
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 12:39:15 PM EDT
About 10 years ago I was flying around the country doing field service for some peculiar types of chem lab equipment (x-ray crystalography) and one of my accounts was Caltech. I was going to be there for most of the week, and on the first day one of the lab techs took pity on me as the guy from out of town and asked if I wanted to go out to lunch with a group of people from the school.

They were either upperclassmen or grad students, and it became apparent that they used these luncheons as an opportunity for intellectual discussions. No problem, I went to college and am an intelligent, technical guy. I won't have any trouble keeping up with these kids. And then things started to go bad.

One of the guys launched into the whole "the Constitution is a living document" bullshit. I mean, he went on and on for about ten minutes, obviously parroting the lecture of some libtard law professor. And worse yet, everyone else at the table was just smiling and nodding in agreement as this guy droned on and on about how as society changes the Constitution needs to be flexible and change along with it. That's when I lost it.

I was the New Guy so I sat there quietly taking all this and gritting my teeth, but now I had to say something. "The Constitution is not a 'living document.' It was written by people to be an absolute limit on governmental power to protect the citizens and was designed intentionally to be very difficuly and nearly impossible to be changed on the whim of prevailing political fashion.It is the very foundation that our government and society is built upon and should be CARVED IN FUCKING STONE!!!!

That was when I realized that I was shouting at the top of my lungs, and so did everyone else in the resturant, too. Everybody at the table was glaring at me in stunned silence. We finished lunch quietly and I don't think anybody said a single word until after we all go back to campus.

And for the rest of the week I ate alone.....
Link Posted: 2/15/2006 1:00:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JavaMan:
About 10 years ago I was flying around the country doing field service for some peculiar types of chem lab equipment (x-ray crystalography) and one of my accounts was Caltech. I was going to be there for most of the week, and on the first day one of the lab techs took pity on me as the guy from out of town and asked if I wanted to go out to lunch with a group of people from the school.

They were either upperclassmen or grad students, and it became apparent that they used these luncheons as an opportunity for intellectual discussions. No problem, I went to college and am an intelligent, technical guy. I won't have any trouble keeping up with these kids. And then things started to go bad.

One of the guys launched into the whole "the Constitution is a living document" bullshit. I mean, he went on and on for about ten minutes, obviously parroting the lecture of some libtard law professor. And worse yet, everyone else at the table was just smiling and nodding in agreement as this guy droned on and on about how as society changes the Constitution needs to be flexible and change along with it. That's when I lost it.

I was the New Guy so I sat there quietly taking all this and gritting my teeth, but now I had to say something. "The Constitution is not a 'living document.' It was written by people to be an absolute limit on governmental power to protect the citizens and was designed intentionally to be very difficuly and nearly impossible to be changed on the whim of prevailing political fashion.It is the very foundation that our government and society is built upon and should be CARVED IN FUCKING STONE!!!!

That was when I realized that I was shouting at the top of my lungs, and so did everyone else in the resturant, too. Everybody at the table was glaring at me in stunned silence. We finished lunch quietly and I don't think anybody said a single word until after we all go back to campus.

And for the rest of the week I ate alone.....



I once had a debate with a near hysterical lib, she kept refering to the constitution as a contract between the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. I had to explain that it was not a contract and that the constitution authorizes and assigns the duties and responsibilities of the three branches and further more places limits on the power of the federal government.

Then she went about guns, "why shouldn't I kill President Bush"?
"what?"
"he's the one who gave us the right to own guns, so why shouldn't I kill him?, may as well"
"well first of all, murder is agaisnt the law and two, he didn't give us the right to own guns, that's in the Bill of Rights from over 200 years ago"

debating liberals is an experience.
Top Top