Justice Scalia on C-Span

[justin]

Con Law. My 2nd lowest grade in law school. Last place went to Ethics 8)

 

[Martha]

Con Law. My 2nd lowest grade in law school. Last place went to Ethics 8)

Got an A in Con law. Took the final doped up on codiene after suffering a kidney stone. And I smoked a jay the night before.

 

[JB]

Scalia is refering to the philosophy that Justice Breyer calls 'Active Liberty'. I'd like Scalia to explain what 'Arms', 'Liberty' and 'Equal Protection' mean. I think he's on the wrong side of many issues, most recently the Texas law prohibiting private homesexual sex among consenting adults, and Oregon's assisted suicide law. Regarding the Texas law, Scalia likes refer to the 'culture wars' and gay groups/agenda. What is it about individual rights and liberty that he doesn't understand?

 

[vinhmen]

To be fair,

"Scalia criticized those who believe in what he called the "living Constitution."

"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."

The very definition of a hypocrite - one that has the gall to insult others for something one preaches or does.

Take the Oregon assisted suicide law that Scalia wanted struck down.  Wasn't it a "matter decided by the people" via referendum, as opposed to being "decided by the Justices of the Supreme Court" as Scalia wanted? 

Let's face it - the Constitution's text can only cover so much literal ground.  To apply it to thousands of cases requires (gasp!) human interpretation of its text and unavoidable personal bias.  

To claim otherwise is like ... claiming one's sh*t don't stink.    

 

[setab]

I agree with Martha. There is no such thing as a strict constructionist. There are only those who strictly construe the Consitution to fit their particular bias. I am, however, okay with that, because it is more honest than deluding ourselves with the notion that we can discern what the founding fathers really meant. And what difference does it make anyway? The Constitution was never meant to be absolute truth. It was a statement of fundamental principles reached after a series of debates and compromises in the 1700s. Interpretaion was inevitable and probably desireable.

setab

 

[mickeyd]

When discussing the Consttiution, we need to remind ourselves that this documant was drawn up by relatively uneducated folks, many of them being farmers (yes, farmer framers). What kind of document would current farmers and printers and surveyers be able to draw up?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

When discussing the Consttiution, we need to remind ourselves that this documant was drawn up by relatively uneducated folks, many of them being farmers (yes, farmer framers). What kind of document would current farmers and printers and surveyers be able to draw up?

Uhh...actually most of them were lawyers, with several teachers and doctors thrown in. A few were 'farmers' or 'merchants'.

Most were quite well educated even by modern perspective.

 

[HFWR]

The Commerce Clause has certainly been streched beyond recognition. What was the Ga. case where a motel was discriminating against "African Americans"? It was found unconstitutioanl on gorunds that it violated the Commerce Clause. Good decision, wrong amendment...