Scalia on Constitutional Interpretation

[DinoDoc]

They are quite easy to read. I enjoy his dissents.

[Sava]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
honesty

not exactly a great source, but I have no reason to think its manufactured: http://www.ifrl-pac.com/e-mail_nwsltr/010226/

I believe the source to be accurate... despite the collection of other crap I found there.

Actually your interpretation of his statement is. Gay marriage (which effects a minute percentage of the population) vs the 4th amendment (which effects every single American).

actually, I find the disparaging of a minority more of a moral outrage because they have a more difficult time fighting for their interests. At least if the 4th amendment were to be **** on, we'd have right-wing gun nuts calling for revolution.

bigot: yes
unfit to be a judge: no

IMO, the former has everything to do with the latter.

Sava, have you ever actually read a Scalia opinion? Not just a cut/paste job on someone's blog, but the actual text?

no, I've not read an opinion from any of the Justices... I have no doubt that Scalia might make some sense on some issues. As Imran pointed out, he did side correctly on the Hamdi case. But that is moot.

I'm not questioning Scalia's understanding of the law or his intellect. I'm questioning his moral values.

And I happen to disagree with his view of the constitution. The judicial branch exists in order to interpret the constitution and make decisions that might be unpopular. I'm not of the belief that the majority should rule everything. There needs to be a balance between Democracy and judicial review. If the consequence of that is legislation by judicial review, then so be it.

The best way to guard against unjust judicial decisions is to have people with the highest quality of moral character behind the bench. That doesn't mean I only want judged that agree with me. It means that extremists shouldn't be on the bench. And Scalia has proved with his ignorant statements regarding homosexuality that he is an extremist.

[Berzerker]

Berz is probably all hung up about a decision or two that did not go his way, while the vast majority of the man's decisions, plus his written decisions, plus his public statements all support a non-activist viewpoint.

Try dozens based on the "living Constitution" expansion of federal power. Thomas isn't much better but at least he has called into question the notion the ICC applies to intrastate commerce and non-commerce.

I bet Berz is still mad about that one spanking for something his sister did...

You called me stupid for missing a "joke" while my jokes fly right over your head.

I disagree. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

You prefer hypocrisy over consistency? If two people commit murder, should one walk while the other is punished? Is it the small-minded person who asks both be punished because he is consistent?

" A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. "

Having nothing left to do is called success. I've never seen "little statesmen" striving for consistency, they make the rules up as they go along because its easy, and if people dont like their hypocrisy, those people are the ones with small minds.

It's implied, isn't it? I wouldn't be criticizing wise consistency, would I?

So Emerson allowed himself the position of being wisely consistent while the targets of his scorn are foolishly consistent? I suppose there is such a thing as wise and foolhardy consistency, but without Emerson's examples of both, that quote is meaningless.

[Drake Tungsten]

You prefer hypocrisy over consistency?

I prefer thinking people over partisan hacks and believe that some amount of hypocrisy is inherent to coming to reasoned conclusions on a variety of disparate issues. Complete consistency in one's actions and words is usually a good indication that one is blindly following a rigid ideology...

[Berzerker]

They are quite easy to read. I enjoy his dissents.

Then try reading him when he agrees with the "living Constitutiion" expansion of federal powers.

[Sava]

partisan hacks

which is exactly what Scalia is...

but it's for "your" party, so it's okay, right?

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not Republican. And I don't really like Scalia; I'm a Kennedy/O'Connor kinda man...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm not Republican. And I don't really like Scalia; I'm a Kennedy/O'Connor kinda man...

[Berzerker]

I prefer thinking people over partisan hacks

Partisan hacks are consistent? Just the opposite, its their inconsistency that exposes them as partisan hacks.

[Berzerker]

Sean Hannity is an example of a partisan hack. During the campaign he referred to an incident in Vietnam when Kerry jumped off a swift boat and chased an enemy soldier armed with an RPG into the woods and shot him as he ran away. Similar incidents were common and took courage, but Hannity repeatedly referred to Kerry shooting a kid in the back and he meant it in a derogatory manner. Hannity then claims to extoll the virtues of being an American soldier and how he supports the troops. What was Kerry supposed to do, ask the enemy soldier to stop running and turn around?

Now, what appears throughout Hannity's partisan sniping? Inconsistency? Yes...

[Drake Tungsten]

Sean Hannity consistently states positions that are supportive of the Republican Party and its interests, even if said positions fly in the face of reason. That's why he's a partisan hack...

[Berzerker]

When Hannity "blindly" supports the GOP elite he adopts their inconsistencies. One inconsistency is how they trash war veterans like Kerry and McCain while portraying themselves as pro-military. Hannity is consistently inconsistent

[TCO]

I haven't made any jokes about you, Berz. Oh...ok. I was joking. I love your little rants (in moderation). To the point, I really do think you are abusing your (in Reagan terms) 90% friend. Do you at least have public statements from the man, that show him citing the living consstitution favorably?

[Berzerker]

He doesn't use the phrase when he's supporting an expansion of federal power and I'd have to spend a couple hours tracking down his decisions. But hell, just think of how many alphabet soup agencies there are and he supports damn near all of them. Education dept? FDA, BATF, DEA, the list goes on and on...

[TCO]

I still think you are gigging the man for some occasional disagreements with you when he is in line philosophically. There is a good story in today's WSJ on him. He spoke out against conservatives regarding flag burning even though he thinks those who do so are scum, because the first amendment comes first. He is not just a conservative. He spoke out against conservative activism as well as liberal.