Scalia on Constitutional Interpretation

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
So Scalia is a hypocrite. Again, why does anyone care what this guy thinks?

Every Supreme Court justice... hell, every judge, is in some ways a hypocrit. No one is 100% consistent and change their views on close questions. I don't think it is something you can use against just one Supreme Court justice.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Every Supreme Court justice... hell, every judge, is in some ways a hypocrit. No one is 100% consistent and change their views on close questions. I don't think it is something you can use against just one Supreme Court justice.

1. Scalia is the one giving talks touting his principles. The worst sort of hypocrites are the ones who tout themselves as being Oh so moral in public. I don't see Stevens out there yaking about his principles.

2. I don;t give a **** what ANY of the "Supremes" think. Not Renquist, not O'Connor, not Kennedy, Not Ginsburg, not Scalia, and most definitely NOT Thomas.

Talk about snooze fest

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, your posts are a snooze fest.

Supreme Court justice views are very important in the future of the law. It influences young lawyers and politicians and becomes the way the law goes. Holmes' views, Brennan's views, Warren's views, Rehnquist's views, and Scalia's views are important. Perhaps someone like Stevens or Breyer, who hardly ever command a majority, doesn't have views that influence the future of law, but they influence some people, that's for sure.

[GePap]

Influence the law? I thought Scalia's whole point was that judges should not "influence the law", that only the legislature can do that....his hypocrasy continues.

As for your meta-point, I don;t think judges are seperate from the times they live in at all, not significantly. I look at all the "mayor" decisions, and the fact is that things were building up to them one way or another. In many ways, big Court decsions that get all the attention are inherently as much political, if not more, than legal.

Oh, and since when can Scalia "command a majority"?

Oh, and for the other posts- you read them? How nice, never would have known, seeing how you ignored the points made there about Scalia's hypocrasy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought Scalia's whole point was that judges should not "influence the law", that only the legislature can do that....his hypocrasy continues.

Judges decide who wins in cases. The views of judges in deciding who wins the case are highly influencial for future judges in deciding who wins the case.

There is a difference between 'the law' and the laws. One deals with the system of jurisprudence, the other with specific laws passed.

I don;t think judges are seperate from the times they live in at all

Influential judges have influenced the future of jurisprudence for a long time. Positivism was in vogue after Holmes' tenure on the bench. Natural Law was important during and after the Warren Court. neo-Federalism has been in vogue during the later period of the Rehnquist court. Their views matter because people take them up.

Oh, and since when can Scalia "command a majority"?

He's written more than a few majority opinions, and plenty of very important ones.

Oh, and for the other posts- you read them? How nice, never would have known, seeing how you ignored the points made there about Scalia's hypocrasy.

I make it habit of ignoring ignorant troll posts.

[Drake Tungsten]

Every Supreme Court justice... hell, every judge, is in some ways a hypocrit.

Most thinking people are hypocrites at one time or another. That doesn't make the good ideas or views they have any less valid, IMO at least.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Every Supreme Court justice... hell, every judge, is in some ways a hypocrit.

Most thinking people are hypocrites at one time or another. That doesn't make the good ideas or views they have any less valid, IMO at least.

I agree with you there. Not everything 'fits' all the time. The ideas though are seperate from the person and should be evaluated apart from whatever personal failings exist (which Berzerker has pointed out).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Judges decide who wins in cases. The views of judges in deciding who wins the case are highly influencial for future judges in deciding who wins the case.

All decisions can be overturned later.

Influential judges have influenced the future of jurisprudence for a long time. Positivism was in vogue after Holmes' tenure on the bench. Natural Law was important during and after the Warren Court. neo-Federalism has been in vogue during the later period of the Rehnquist court. Their views matter because people take them up.

And they get left behind later. Law changes. Just mroe proof how off Scalia and the "strict interpretation" guys are.

I make it habit of ignoring ignorant troll posts.

Riiight...

ie. you don;t have answers. What ARE they teaching you in law school? How to back down from an arguement? Stay out of courtrooms, for your client's sakes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All decisions can be overturned later.

With much struggle, especially when a good number of future judges have agreed with the reasoning in the precedent. Not to mention the power of precedent itself.

And they get left behind later.

If you think positivism and natural law have gotten 'left behind', you are nuts and totally off your rocker. There is reason, the Rehnquist philosophy is called "neo-federalism". It means it came back in vogue.

you don;t have answers

No, I have the answers (and they are quite simple to answer), but it wouldn't matter, because you have obviously demonstrated no clue on Constitutional law or historical practices. It's like discussing sex with a 3 year old, you have no idea what the Hell is going on.

Hint: when Congress is said to have the power in the text, saying they have the power isn't deciding a 'living document'; and, two, perhaps you should try to under what 'the judicial power' means.

[Odin]

I get annoyed when conservatives b*tch about "activist judges. The justices the conservatives love are just as activist as the rest of them.

Scalia and Thomas are not conservatives, they are reactionaries, which by definition makes them scum.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Scalia was one of two justices (with Stevens) who argued in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the government either had to charge Hamdi with a crime or let him go (the plurality argued that the government could keep Hamdi, but he could have a hearing to determine whether he was an enemy combatant). Does that sound reactionary to you?

[Odin]

I wish my American Government professor, who was a Law degree coul see this thread, he could pwn Imran in no time. He is a conservative and even he thinks Scalia is nuts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd like to see that. Liberal law professors I've had have acknowledged Scalia's brilliance of legal scholarship, even when they disagree with his views.

He probably thinks Scalia is nuts because Scalia really isn't a conservative. He'll switch sides when he feels he must. You don't have to agree with him to think he's highly intelligent.

Btw, I'm probably more of a Kennedy person anyway, so if you think you can 'taint' me by calling me a Scalia person, it ain't going to work.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Scalia was one of two justices (with Stevens) who argued in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the government either had to charge Hamdi with a crime or let him go (the plurality argued that the government could keep Hamdi, but he could have a hearing to determine whether he was an enemy combatant). Does that sound reactionary to you?

He does when he thinks gays are distroying America.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So he's only reactionary some of the time? Is that your position?