Scalia: Non-Originalists Are 'Idiots'
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Pikesville, MD
Scalia: Non-Originalists Are 'Idiots'
Originally Posted by foxnews.com
PONCE, Puerto Rico — 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.
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.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Article. V. of the United States Constitution:
”The Congress, wherever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be propose by Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
That there IS the living document clause in the Constitution…
The Constitution, for all practical purpose with few limitations, can be changed in any way one wishes to change it. The founding fathers knew there may be a need to change it and were bright enough to understand that and write it into the Constitution.
They were also bright enough to know that if our country “really” wanted to change parts of the Constitution that more then a “simple” majority (51%) should be the standard.
There is ABSOLUTELY no reason for any judge to make changes to current laws because they “believe” the Constitution needs to be changed. I do not think abortion is protected by the Constitution and thus think Roe is an unConstitutional ruling.
It’s not a matter of me agreeing or disagreeing with abortion but rather if it was truly wished by the country to be Constitutionally protected there is a method rather then trying to read between the lines that have nothing but white space…
Same goes for gun ownership. If enough people wish to make it illegal then great, simply READ and COMPREHEND and there is a method to “officially” and “Constitutionally” make gun ownership illegal…
Current gun laws are unconstitutional plain and simple. Anyone that would argue otherwise hasn’t read or can not comprehend what the Constitution states in plain, easy to read, English, the official language of our forefathers…
”The Congress, wherever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be propose by Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
That there IS the living document clause in the Constitution…
The Constitution, for all practical purpose with few limitations, can be changed in any way one wishes to change it. The founding fathers knew there may be a need to change it and were bright enough to understand that and write it into the Constitution.
They were also bright enough to know that if our country “really” wanted to change parts of the Constitution that more then a “simple” majority (51%) should be the standard.
There is ABSOLUTELY no reason for any judge to make changes to current laws because they “believe” the Constitution needs to be changed. I do not think abortion is protected by the Constitution and thus think Roe is an unConstitutional ruling.
It’s not a matter of me agreeing or disagreeing with abortion but rather if it was truly wished by the country to be Constitutionally protected there is a method rather then trying to read between the lines that have nothing but white space…
Same goes for gun ownership. If enough people wish to make it illegal then great, simply READ and COMPREHEND and there is a method to “officially” and “Constitutionally” make gun ownership illegal…
Current gun laws are unconstitutional plain and simple. Anyone that would argue otherwise hasn’t read or can not comprehend what the Constitution states in plain, easy to read, English, the official language of our forefathers…
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
From: Wisconsin
I think every legal document is a joke. They are purposely written so that the powers that be can twist them around to suit whatever feeling they have at that time.
Is there something wrong with writing a law that says.....
You have the right to own a gun. If you use it to kill someone for any reason other than self defense you give up that right for the rest of your life. If you use that gun for other unlawful purposes you give up that right for XX years.
Just think of all the paper we could save. There is probably an entire book written some place on gun laws. I just sumed it up in a couple lines. Thin of the tax dollars that could be saved with simple laws like this. You could get rid of 3/4 of the pencil pushing govt. jobs where people sit around for weeks trying to figure out how to write one sentence. Billions would be saved.
Is there something wrong with writing a law that says.....
You have the right to own a gun. If you use it to kill someone for any reason other than self defense you give up that right for the rest of your life. If you use that gun for other unlawful purposes you give up that right for XX years.
Just think of all the paper we could save. There is probably an entire book written some place on gun laws. I just sumed it up in a couple lines. Thin of the tax dollars that could be saved with simple laws like this. You could get rid of 3/4 of the pencil pushing govt. jobs where people sit around for weeks trying to figure out how to write one sentence. Billions would be saved.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Pikesville, MD
The idea behind a living constitution is not that it is amended...which is fine by me....it that is is reinterpreted by the current supreme court based on today's beliefs. That is wrong and that is what is meant by a living document...not the ability to amend it.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 705
Likes: 42
Originally Posted by vader716
The idea behind a living constitution is not that it is amended...which is fine by me....it that is is reinterpreted by the current supreme court based on today's beliefs. That is wrong and that is what is meant by a living document...not the ability to amend it.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Pikesville, MD
Its difficult for me to see how the definitions of words change over time.
For instance precedents regarding eminent domain have been ignored in order for the court to hand down its latest ruling that taking private property and giving to to another private owner is constitutional. Exactly how and why does that need to be reinterpreted?
I have a problem with judges who desire an outcome and then reinterpret the meaning of words and ignore precedents to get the result they want.
And Scalia is generally considered to be one of it not the most intelligent constitutionally well-versed justices on the bench and his opinion is quite important.
For instance precedents regarding eminent domain have been ignored in order for the court to hand down its latest ruling that taking private property and giving to to another private owner is constitutional. Exactly how and why does that need to be reinterpreted?
I have a problem with judges who desire an outcome and then reinterpret the meaning of words and ignore precedents to get the result they want.
And Scalia is generally considered to be one of it not the most intelligent constitutionally well-versed justices on the bench and his opinion is quite important.
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Originally Posted by vader716
...And Scalia is generally considered to be one of it not the most intelligent constitutionally well-versed justices on the bench and his opinion is quite important.
Well, if anyone who holds an opinion opposite of his is an "idiot" then, he would have to be an opinionated jackass.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Pikesville, MD
Originally Posted by Raoul
Oh, really?
Well, if anyone who holds an opinion opposite of his is an "idiot" then, he would have to be an opinionated jackass.
Well, if anyone who holds an opinion opposite of his is an "idiot" then, he would have to be an opinionated jackass.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 873
Likes: 1
From: Somewhere in the EU
Originally Posted by serotta
. . . (although I'm sure we can get pretty close to a unanimous decision for certain forms of idiocy.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I was going to respond to this, but I'm still laughing . . . . just a moment . . . . .
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
Originally Posted by vader716
maybe.....but he is still a very intelligent opinionated jackass
First, I have to say I haven't located a another source for the 'idiot' quote.
I'll just assume for argument it's factual.
A Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should readily have at his disposal a more robust, less flammable descriptive word than 'idiot'.
IDIOT is a word thrown around Truck Forums, not used by Chief Justices during public addresses.
Just as the Secretary of State would choose diplomatic langauge when discussing foriegn policy not Truck Forum phrases such as, 'glass parking lot', 'kick some ***', and other foolish schoolyard phrases uttered here.
I hope the 'idiot' quote is indeed, untrue.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Pikesville, MD
http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2006/Feb...30a71163c.html
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=7623
Just to give you some other sites referencing the story.
I find the fact that someone is willing to speak candidly refreshing. The Constitution is not a "living" document. That assertion to me is idiotic. To say someone is an idiot does not mean the person making the comment is unintelligent. Perhaps that was the perfect word to describe a person who believes a 200 year old document is alive.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=7623
Just to give you some other sites referencing the story.
I find the fact that someone is willing to speak candidly refreshing. The Constitution is not a "living" document. That assertion to me is idiotic. To say someone is an idiot does not mean the person making the comment is unintelligent. Perhaps that was the perfect word to describe a person who believes a 200 year old document is alive.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Pikesville, MD
Originally Posted by wstahlm80
All living things must come to their own end.....
Certified Goat Breeder
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 6,182
Likes: 19
From: the moral high ground
I think you been had.
The best internet scams use a piece of truth here and a piece of truth there to spin their lie.
The Federalist Society did meet in Puerto Rico in 2005 but, Scalia wasn't there.
They are meeting next week in Milwaukee WI and Scalia will be there.
The links you posted above are 'suspect' at best.
Here is a better one:
http://www.fed-soc.org/
The best internet scams use a piece of truth here and a piece of truth there to spin their lie.
The Federalist Society did meet in Puerto Rico in 2005 but, Scalia wasn't there.
They are meeting next week in Milwaukee WI and Scalia will be there.
The links you posted above are 'suspect' at best.
Here is a better one:
http://www.fed-soc.org/
Last edited by Raoul; Feb 15, 2006 at 02:13 PM.
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
From: Pikesville, MD
Originally Posted by Raoul
I think you been had.
The best internet scams use a piece of truth here and a piece of truth there to spin their lie.
The Federalist Society did meet in Puerto Rico in 2005 but, Scalia wasn't there.
They are meeting next week in Milwaukee WI and Scalia will be there.
The links you posted above are 'suspect' at best.
Here is a better one:
http://www.fed-soc.org/
The best internet scams use a piece of truth here and a piece of truth there to spin their lie.
The Federalist Society did meet in Puerto Rico in 2005 but, Scalia wasn't there.
They are meeting next week in Milwaukee WI and Scalia will be there.
The links you posted above are 'suspect' at best.
Here is a better one:
http://www.fed-soc.org/
Well could be....I didn't really investigate it deeply but several legitimate news sources quoted the story. I googled Google news for Scalia Living Constitution Idiot and hit a lot of sources for the story
Edit
Here:
http://www.fed-soc.org/studentdivision.htm, check feb 13th
Last edited by vader716; Feb 15, 2006 at 02:24 PM.