Scalia on Constitutional Interpretation

[asleepathewheel]

I'm on Scalia.

Yes he's a brilliant jurist, that's beyond question. And he can be extremely persuasive at times if you actually read what's he's written.

I love him for Blakely and for his Apprendi/Ring concurrences (rather his vote, not his reasoning ) but loathe his social take on the Constitution. The Constitution is to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority, not force the minority to convince the majority they are right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, because I don't march to the drum of the hysterical left .

Scalia is a brilliant legal scholar. I don't think many legal scholars would argue if you said that Scalia was the brightest mind on the Court. Though he does tend to piss off people. He's the conservative Brennan .

[Agathon]

Scalia is a brilliant legal scholar.

That's entirely compatible with being a terrible judge, which he is.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah, because I don't march to the drum of the hysterical left .

because you think a massive racist and bigot is chief justice material

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon

Scalia is a brilliant legal scholar.

That's entirely compatible with being a terrible judge, which he is.

Actually I don't think so. Our judges should be good in legal scholarship. Their viewpoints on the law are irrelevent. I don't like the ideas that Brennan advanced, but I can't argue with his scholarship (even for those that were incredibly wacky). A good judge is one who is a good legal scholar, not one who agrees with me all the time.

[Berzerker]

Drake

I'm not sure I really understand what you're getting at, though, so it's a little hard for me to refute what you said. All the talk about Scalia being a supporter of a "living Constitution" confuses me...

He treats the Constitution just like it is a "living document" but he doesn't want to be associated with liberals who do the same because he doesn't support the rights they want, just the rights (or lack thereof) he wants. He's not as guilty simply because the left has really taken an axe to the Constitution, but he still does the same thing they do and condemns them for it.

Imran

Um... Scalia isn't a proponent of a living Constitution... did you even read the article?

I sure did read it...and I've watched Scalia. He's guilty of doing what he condemns. He re-writes the Constitution when it suits him just like the liberals...

You do realize he never said that.. that was Agathon making a joke, rigth?

Aggie put those words in quotes so I assumed Scalia made that comment "off the record".

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

American politics has been pretty virulently partisan at other times in our nations history. It would be interesting to see whether judicial appointments in those previous periods of intense partisanship were as contentious as they are today. If they weren't, then Scalia might have a point about the introduction of the living Constitution concept changing the stakes in judicial appointments.

You wonder how Scalia even sits on the supreme court- after all, where explicitly in the Consitution is the Supreme Court gven the power to do away with a law of Congress?

This is the relevant Section:

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

It says the Court has jurisdiction- it does NOT say the Court can void laws of Congress it thinks area against the Constitution- after all, Law making is the job of the Legislature.

Yup, don't you hate that whole "living Constitution" bit?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I sure did read it...and I've watched Scalia. He's guilty of doing what he condemns. He re-writes the Constitution when it suits him just like the liberals...

That doesn't mean he is a proponent of a living Constitution. He could be doing what he condemns, but he doesn't back the idea of a living Constitution.

Aggie put those words in quotes so I assumed Scalia made that comment "off the record".

No, Aggie made the statement up. Do you REALLY think he'd say that even off the record?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Whatever else you think of Scalia, his failure to recuse himself in Bush v. Gore -- when his sons were working for law firms being used by the Bush campaign -- is one of the great ethical lapses in the history of the court, and should tarnish his reputation forever.

[Drake Tungsten]

That doesn't mean he is a proponent of a living Constitution. He could be doing what he condemns, but he doesn't back the idea of a living Constitution.

Agreed. He may be a hypocrite, but that doesn't make him a proponent of a living constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Whatever else you think of Scalia, his failure to recuse himself in Bush v. Gore -- when his sons were working for law firms being used by the Bush campaign -- is one of the great ethical lapses in the history of the court, and should tarnish his reputation forever.

No it isn't. As long as his sons were not representing the party, Bush, in front of the court, there is no requirement of judicial disqualification. If that were the case, judges would have to disqualify themselves left and right.

[GePap]

If someone brought a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, how would Scalia vote, I wonder? The Constitution seems pretty clear on the obligation of states to honor gay marriages made in one state:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Unless he wants to claim that the power given to Congress would allow it to give the power to some states to ignore the lawful Acts accepted in another.... Living constitution, or NOT?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


No it isn't. As long as his sons were not representing the party, Bush, in front of the court, there is no requirement of judicial disqualification.

Normal people call this corruption... sigh Imran is just another partisan hack

[Imran Siddiqui]

Normal people call this corruption

Normal people are retarded. What do you do if you are a judge and your son joins one of the biggest law firms in the country? To require the judge to recuse themselves every time that firm brings a suit, no matter if the son has absolutely NO involvment in the suit, is moronic.

[OzzyKP]

I think we should just be done with it and appoint me to the bench. I will strictly interpret the constitution in such a way that will make liberals and conservatives happy, and alternatively pissed off.