Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution'

[Tab]

Then how does one explain all the amendments? Or are certain amendments okay, like a gay marriage ban, while others are not? And it's interesting how he talks about himself in the third person

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.

...

"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."

...
"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.
More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060214/ap_on_go_su_co/scalia_constitution

[prole_for_peace]

1. egomaniacs refer to themselves in the third person.

he is a freak

[jobycom]

3. So do people who know they are frauds

They distance themselves from their own statements that way. Both descriptions may fit Scalia.

[Roland99]

16. Maybe he just saw The Jimmy episode

:D



Seinfeld for those of you who don't get it. ;)

[jobycom]

17. LOL! Is that the one where Elaine goes on a date with the wrong guy

because she things he's talking about someone else?

It always amazes me. I've seen just a handful of Seinfeld episodes, but somehow they are always the one people are refering to! :) Unless I got the wrong one this time...

[Roland99]

18. "Jimmy likes you"

:D

[FooFootheSnoo]

22. I thought of the Jimmy episode too!

[ShockediSay]

19. So where does it say states(Fla) can't decide for themselves

the right to determine their own electoral votes?

Hypocrisy, Thy name be Scalia.

BTW

Who paid what for these Conservative Theory Pronouncements of so-called constitutional law?

[mim]

35. Bob Dole did it too

and so did Julius Caesar, who killed the Roman Republic.

[Maeve]

2. Not a living document--one they're trying to KILL!

Let Dick have another shot at it...

[jobycom]

4. LOL! It's on life support and they want to remove the feeding tube!!

:rofl: :cry:

[henslee]

5. Name calling ("idiots") seems so beneath a SCOTUS judge.

[eppur_se_muova]

32. Can't have open discussion in a free society ?? WTF ??

Anyone who disagrees with us is a traitor...or at least an idiot...

[wordpix]

52. I say we impeach that bastard, too. After all, he's BFEE

[Surya Gayatri]

6. Well, there was the small matter of the 18th

Amendment--that "noble experiment" in a living, breathing response to passing social pressures, later to be repealed by the 21st. SG

[jobycom]

7. I don't think he's talking about amendments

I think he just means that sticks to the "original intent," rather than accepting that as situations change the interpretation of Constitution changes as well. That's more coded "states' rights" racist bullshit. The Constitution called for stronger states and a weaker federal government, and he's pretending that's what he believes, too.

Makes his ruling on Bush V Gore even more incomprehensible, eh? Not to mention the conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment.

[fasttense]

10. So when they are referring to the Original Constitution do the dancing

supremes include the first 10 amendments - the Bill of Rights? The original Constitution had provisions for slaves and return of slaves to their masters. It also had nothing against abortion. In fact when the constitution was written, abortion was legal. So how "original" do they want to go?

[jobycom]

15. They mean original wording and intent of whatever part they are using

So yes, they are talking about the original intents of the amendments, as well. That's all part of "the Constitution." An "original intent" or "strict intepretationist" judge includes the amendments that override the body of the Constitution. Their issue isn't with later changes to the COnstitution, it is, in theory, with interpretations of the whole Constitution that haven't been explicitly passed. For instance, the right to privacy. Some would see this as no in the Constitution, including the amendments. To them, it is only a Constitutional right if it was voted as such specifically into the Constitution, either the body or the amendments. If we passed an amendment now which gauranteed the right to privacy, it would be part of the strict interpretation of the Constitution, but until it is voted that way, it's an interpretation, and they consider that "judicial legislation."

That's just an explanation of what they would argue. I disagree with them completely, and none of them are consistent about it (ergo my comment on Bush v Gore), but that's the ideology they pretend to follow.

[tn-guy]

25. An contemporary example...

The recent Kelo decision is a good illustration of how "originalist" or "strict constructionists" view the Constitution vs. those who favor the "living Constitution" approach.

From the 5th Amendment: "....nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

An originalist or strict constructionist would assume that the phrase "public use" indicates that eminent domain is to be used in cases where the private property to be taken will be managed, held by, controlled and governed by the public at large through the agency of the state, that being the generally accepted meaning of "public" at the time the amendment was adopted. Likewise, the word "use" indicates that the property would be taken in order to be utilized in some fashion that benefits the public at large. Examples would be for the construction of a road, a military fortification or other form of government infrastructure.

In Kelo, the property to be taken was to be seized by the government from one private party and immediately transferred to a second private party. The theory being that the second private party would enhance the value of the property and thus increase tax revenues.

Most originalists would reject the Kelo decision on the grounds that the property was being taken not for "public use" but rather for "private use" since a private entity would own, control and financially benefit from the property. And in fact the originalist on the court did dissent. Those who favor a "living Constitution" would argue that it was sufficient for the plan which included the seizure of the property to serve a public purpose. Notice that the meaning of "public use" has evolved to "public purpose" or "public benefit".

The main argument for an "originalist" approach to legal interpretation is that it tend to keep the law fixed until and unless it is changed by the people's elected representatives and thus provides needed stability. The main argument against it is that it tends to keep the law fixed in the face of changing circumstance. To me the argument boils down to whether one considers the principles enshrined in the Constitution to be malleable or not.

[mim]

37. That was the weirdest SCOTUS decision in my lifetime, at least

Conservatives and liberals changed places. I'd never thought I'd side with Clarence Thomas against John Paul Stevens :crazy:

[tn-guy]

51. Not weird at all

It's only weird if you look at it in terms of "liberal/conservative". It's perfectly understandable if you look at in terms of "originalist/living document" interpretation philosophies. For those who are originalists the decision is a clear departure from the plain meaning of the actual words used in the text. Those who favor a living document approach put much less emphasis on the actual text and rely instead on societal norms and desired outcomes.

In Kelo, the outcome (urban renewal and increased tax revenue) were desirable, so individual rights be damned. The reason you (and I) side with Thomas and against Stevens on this is because in Kelo we have confronted the reality about a "living document" approach to judicial rulings - that it can be used to restrict and remove rights just as easily as it can be used to enhance and expand them. The only real constraint on judges appointed for life is their own sense of self restraint. An originalist approach, when honestly implemented, imposes more of a check on oneself than a living document approach.

[Uncle Joe]

26. I wonder how his original intent

of the Constitution squares with the War On Drugs?

[Canuckistanian]

70. I'm always amazed at some of the contortions they use

For instance, the "inter-state commerce" argument has been used as a justification for keeping automatic weapons legal.

But somehow, it never seems to be applied to prescription drug sales.

[dogfacedboy]

49. Do you mean when they

take the words 'the right to bear arms' out of context?

[sui generis]

8. "originalism" is a made up "philosophy"

it's an excuse for not allowing changes that you disagree with. "Originalists" are essentially the "fundies" of constitutional law.

The fact is that the world has had an industrial age, a transportation age, a communication age and now the age of the internet, all within a couple of hundred years. It HAS changed, and our social values have changed and the original constitution is a dated document. If the authors of the constitution had wanted it to be a fixed document, they would never have allowed amendments to the constitution. They themselves understood that it was imperfect and would be a stronger foundation if it was allowed to grow with the society it describes.

Scalia may be telling the truth about what he believes, but is full of shit, as usual.

[DBoon]

9. So the 13th amendment was illegitimate

and Scalia would have slavery legally recognized, as it was in the original constitution?

[Yupster]

21. No the "Strict Constructionist" interpretation

of the Constitution holds that if you want to change the Constitution, you should do it through the amendment procedure.

A strict constructionist has nothing against amendments.

They object to the Constitution changing through re-interpretation.

Therefore a strict constructonist would use the Thirteenth Amendment as the correct way to change the Constitution.

[Fovea]

34. Which means that justices on SCOTUS

could be replaced by a room full of ficus trees.

Because a fixed document, not subject to interpretation does not need a supreme court. And there is no need, or indeed purpose for any legislation that does not amend the constitution.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

48. It's already begun

We have Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and now Alito, and if those fuckheads don't have a root system growing out of their collective antedeluvian asses, I'd be mighty surprised.

Think of the Founding Fathers.

Think of the giants who've sat on that bench.

Then consider these shameful excuses for humans.

[Yupster]

60. No I don't agree with you there

This is an issue that has right on both sides of it and the real answer is somewhere in the middle.

It is a very important issue in American and it bothers me that apparently many of the posters here have no understanding of the issue at all. This is bothersome because we are probably a lot better informed than most voters.

Anyway, the question is should the Constitution be read with a strict constructionist view or a living document view.

A strict constructionist says the document should be read as it reads. If it is unclear, you should look at the debate when it was passed to see what it was meant to mean.

A living document proponent believes the document should be interpreted to fit into our modern world.

Who's right?

To me they both are.

In general, a clause or amendment should mean what it says. However, there are always going to be questions that come up because of changing times.

For instance the Fourth Amendment deals with searches. We there were no electronic searches or x-ray machines back then, so the court should interpret how those searches are to be treated by looking at how the Fourth Amendment treats other searches. That is an example of interpreting the Constitution in a necessary way.

However, you can take interpretation too far.

For instance when the Court looked at the Fourteenth Amednment which made freed slaves citizens and interpreted it to mean there is a Constitutional right to an abortion, to me that was stretching the Constitution beyond the breaking point as the amendment had nothing at all to do with the subject.

So it's a hard call. We want the judges to interpret, but we want them to impose a discretion on themselves to not go crazy with their interpretive powers.

If a Supreme Court wants to interpret the 21st Amendment (liquor sales legal again) to mean that people were banned from wearing socks on weekends, they have the power to do that, but we'd all agree that would be an abuse of their interpretive powers. But they do have the power to do that if they want to.

So it's a middle issue. We want judges to interpret. We all agree judges can stretch their interpretation too far. So when is too far, too far? That's where the fight is for each individual.

[fasttense]

67. It's not that I don't understand the issue

It is that I wanted to read how posters here "understood" the issue.

"It is a very important issue in American and it bothers me that apparently many of the posters here have no understanding of the issue at all. This is bothersome because we are probably a lot better informed than most voters."

I understand the arguments on both side I just think it is a load of crap. I asked the question to find out how others thought about the issue.

When the dancing supremes can select our president for us and at the same time say this does not apply to anything else, then they have lost my respect for their decisions.

[depakid]

43. There's no such thing as a "strict constructionist"

Never has been.

It's a jurisprudential fiction, invented by people opposing the Warren Court.

[rodeodance]

11. my my calling people idiots. tsk tsk

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.

[Gman]

12. When Fat Tony says "they're 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,..." it sounds like he's almost arguing that the constitution is flexible enough to snap back the other way when the right wing agenda takes hold.

[aquart]

13. Confused. Is he talking about himself in the third person?

[dave29]

14. Or: Scalia declares Constitution "Dead"

n/t

[fshrink]

20. This guy is one hair of

turning into an American Schreber (see Freud). And we owe him the violation of the Constitution which allowed and validated this idiotic nightmare we are living in since 2000.

[Mr_Spock]

23. Scalia "I'm told by my father, Satan, that Republicans are pure evil"

Scalia loves Satan - good 'ol pa.

[mom cat]

24. I thought that kind of thinking was "judicial activism"

[Spirochete]

27. Cheney's shooting accident

happened on the wrong hunting trip, IMO.

[antonialee839]

46. You took the words right out of my mouth.

[SoCalDem]

28. Puerto Rico in February, eh?? How junket-y

I guess all the meeting rooms in DC were booked up:shrug:

[tabasco]

29. The Constitution says you need a warrant to spy on Americans.

What does Scalia say about that?

[Occulus]

30. Holy Christ.

"or the right to homosexual activity"

He is waiting for a case that would again outlaw my sexual activities in the US.

I'm getting some gun training.

He wants to outlaw me. Is this the line in the sand, beyond which violence is acceptable?

I'm only asking because, at some point, with this crowd in power, just me, sitting here, having had or wanted to have or about to have sex with someone of the same sex, will be a crime if this fascist gets his way.

Me, sitting here, not threatening anyone.

He wants to tell me and people like me, "you can't have sex. It's a crime."

I've often asked here where that line is, between civil disobedience and required violence. Where is that line? At which point would you do violence to protect your way of life from your government?

Is this that line?

I'm asking, because Scalia's statements directly affect me. They scare me.

Who the fuck did I hurt? Who the HELL do I threaten?

Scalia appears to want to criminalize me.

What is my 'appropriate', 'approved' response? I don't want to break the law. But..... he apparently wants to criminalize me.

What do I and people like me do?

[TankLV]

40. You are not alone.

That would be MY line in the sand, since the rest of the country would have essentially declared WAR on me/us!

This is NOT an idle threat, either, but a promise. We are not alone on this by a LONG shot.

You either fight for your life when other do things to KILL you, or you just give up and die.

I choose not to give up.

[Alexodin]

57. Passive resistance is the most powerful weapon on earth

I am not an expert on Gandhi but I believe he was correct. I am not convinced that he felt passive resistance was practical in ALL cases. I believe the line in the sand is crossed when we have exhausted all options of passive resistance. Violence is the very very very last option. We have lost our right to vote through electronic vote rigging. We still have the internet and the Justice Dept and the truth on our side. I understand your frustration and anger but we still have many avenues available to us. Buy blue, remain active, engage in civil disobedience speak truth to power. You are far more powerful then you or they realize. Scalia is a walking regurgitation and a man bereft of integrity, laugh at his attempts to criminalize your love because it is a futile act committed by a dark ages mentality. Ignorance cannot prevail in the face of wisdom. When a building has no structural integrity it will fall it is this way with ideas as well. It simply requires a strong wind to blow it down. Become that strong wind.

[HockeyMom]

31. All MEN are created Equal

So, I guess by that standard, we women are no better than cattle?

[dogfacedboy]

50. Back in the day, 'men' meant white, land-owning males over 21 years of age

[Hosnon]

55. That's the best hole in his vision I think. Not only MEN but MEN WITH

PROPERTY.

Were we to use the original intent of the word "men," this country would not be very democratic.

[iverglas]

62. exactly how the Canadian "living tree" constitutional doctrine ...

... first came about.

The "Persons Case" was a challenge to the interpretation of the 1867 constitution that provided for the appointment of "persons" to the Senate that held that this meant "men", and the argument that it had meant this, in that context, since Roman times and so must still mean it.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the UK, at that time the body that heard final appeals from Canada, said, in 1930:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1984/vol1/html/1984scr1_0357.html

"The British North America Act {1867 constitution} planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits"

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2004/vol3/html/2004scr3_0698.html

Their Lordships do not conceive it to be the duty of this Board — it is certainly not their desire — to cut down the provisions of the {constitution} by a narrow and technical construction, but rather to give it a large and liberal interpretation ... . (emphasis by the SCC in quoting the passage)

That doctrine was applied by the Supreme Court of Canada (now the court of last resort, of course) in the reference regarding the validity of proposed legislation to recognize same-sex marriage.

A large and liberal, or progressive, interpretation ensures the continued relevance and, indeed, legitimacy of Canada’s constituting document. By way of progressive interpretation our Constitution succeeds in its ambitious enterprise, that of structuring the exercise of power by the organs of the state in times vastly different from those in which it was crafted. For instance, Parliament’s legislative competence in respect of telephones was recognized on the basis of its authority over interprovincial “undertakings” in s. 92(10)(a) even though the telephone had yet to be invented in 1867: ... (my emphasis)

... Lord Sankey L.C. acknowledged, at p. 134, that “several centuries ago” it would have been understood that “persons” should refer only to men. Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples. The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today.

I think the point about the legitimacy of a constitution is important. If it isn't interpreted in a way that meets the needs of today, it ceases to have legitimacy in the eyes of the people whose lives are governed by it.

What the "natural limits" of interpretation are is of couse subject to debate, but it is no more reasonable to say that they include only what might have occurred to a particular class of people a couple of centuries ago, or been agreed to by them, than it is to say that it includes anything anyone might want.

[Danmel]

33. Maybe he is a Rickey Henderson fan

Rickey talks like that too!

Anyone who dismisses 90% of the constitutional scholars in the country as "idiots" really is one himself.

[Hekate]

36. I guess it's bye-bye to those pesky Amendments, isn't it?

Woo-hoo Tony! Slavery returns! Women's suffrage not the intent of the Framers!

Christ on a trailer-hitch.

Hekate

[mim]

38. I suppose amendments don't count

because once an amendment is ratified it's part of the Constitution, and forever carries the original intent of the amenders

Remember the rationale in Bush v. Gore was the 14th Amendment, tho was that really what the Reconstruction Republicans had in mind?

[Yupster]

58. The Fourteenth Amednment

has been the most abused amendment ever written.

It was written for a clear purpose.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments all came out of the Civil War.

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery.
The Fourteenth Amendment made freed slaves citizens.
The Fifteenth Amendment gave freed slaves (males) the right to vote.

Just to make its purpose more clear, the 14th Amendment also made it illegal to pay off the Confederate War Debt and also banned former Confederate leaders from holding US government office.

So it's pretty clear why the Fourteenth Amendment was passed.

Since then it's been used for everything from creating a corporate person to making abortion a Constitutional right, both things that had nothing to do with why it was passed.

[midnight]

45. Which Amendments do you want to obey?

At election time, lets not worry about budgets. Lets just ask the candidates about the amendments. Then we can see which ones they like or don't like. Maybe its just the commandments they plan on using?

[Hosnon]

54. He's not referring to Amendments. nt

[mim]

39. Anyone want a notorious example of originalism?

How about Dred Scott v. Sandford? That said that Blacks, even free Blacks, couldn't be U.S. citizens, because (as the majority opinion went) the Framers didn't think that a Black person had any rights that a white man was bound to respect.

And to think that the religious right uses "Dred Scott" as a code term for abortion rights.

[Yupster]

59. Well that was cancelled by the

Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, though until they were passed, it was the law of the land.

[PurityOfEssence]

41. Clarence likes da massa

It am a good life, yessah.

Scalia is the worst kind of primitive monarchist. He characterizes the peril wrought by the concept of the permanent judge.

[depakid]

42. He's a sophist and a liar to boot.

The man has no integrity. Zero. None at all.

ANYONE who's a few of his "opinons" can see that he's just lying through his teeth. Right to everyone's faces.

He doesn't follow the so called "original intent" doctrine. Not at all.

The fact that the Dems ever confirmed him gave Nader ammunition for what he said about the "dimes worth of difference between the parties. Of course, if they decised to impeach the man for his utter lack of ethics- both for ex-parte contacts with litigants and his role in Bush v. Gore, then maybe they might redeem themselves.

[unkachuck]

44. yo, Tony....

....don't you have your rights wrong?....

"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"

....didn't you mean the right to have the Ten Commandments hanging in every classroom and the right to pack a machine gun on a subway?....

[tanyev]

47. Commentary from Lemony Snicket.

I just read The Penultimate Peril last night and got a big kick out of this part. If you don't know anything about these books, Sunny is a precocious toddler who only speaks in very short phrases.

"The verdict of the High Court was to take the expression literally," said the manager, "so everyone except the judges must cover their eyes before the trial can begin."

"Scalia," Sunny said. She meant something like, "It doesn't seem like the literal interpretation makes any sense," but her siblings did not think it wise to translate.

Sunny also made a Bush/Cheney slam in the last book. :)

[Hosnon]

53. Well he's not referring to the Amendments. He's talking about using

the original intent of the words used when written.

So if an Amendment was passed in 2000, two hundred years from now Scalia would advocate using the meaing it had in 2000, not 2200.

And I agree with him to an extent, but on a very narrow issue. I don't think the Constitution would snap if it didn't change.

However, I think it is just a better idea to have the words evolve with the rest of the country.

[thinkingwoman]

56. Thinkingwoman dismisses Scalia

He's a has been. He got passed over for Chief Justice and he's bitter. What a baby.

Suck it up Scalia. Put on your big boy briefs and wipe your chin. Now go sit on the most corrupt court in our nation's history and wait. By the time you die of old age (and natural causes) this country will have swung so far back to the left that people will openly laugh at you in the streets as you walk by.

Lot to look forward to isn't it?

[JudyM]

61. Originalism didn't prevent him from denying Floridians their vote in Bush

vs. Gore. isn't the right to vote more fundamental than the right of a (biased) Sec of State to arbitrarily rule that the vote count should stop?! Why don't people (and the press)sear Scalia's (and the others') asses when they claim this self-described high moral principle?

[tn-guy]

64. Correcting some errors

I'd like to correct an error in JudyM's post.

The Sec. of State in FL may well have been biased but she did not "arbitrarily rule" that the vote count should stop. If you will recall there was a FL Supreme Court order handed down which specified that she would accept updated vote tallies until a specified time. The FL Supreme Court, not the Sec. of State determined the time when vote counting would cease.

On a second point, an originalist would hold that the constitutional provision (Article II, Section 1) of "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof shall direct, a Number of Electors......" as meaning that the way the electors would be appointed would be according to provisions laid down by the state legislature. In as much as the legislature had clearly specified the manner of requesting and conducting recounts, any true originalist would be obliged to rule in a way that supported the properly enacted provisions of Florida election law.

[fasttense]

68. I would like to correct tn-guy

"In as much as the legislature had clearly specified the manner of requesting and conducting recounts, any true originalist would be obliged to rule in a way that supported the properly enacted provisions of Florida election law."

It was not clearly specified which is why it ended up in the courts to begin with.

When the dancing supremes selected the president in 2000 they clearly ignored the constitutional provision (Article II, Section 1) and then wrote that their decision could not be applied to other circumstances.

[tn-guy]

72. correcting an incorrect correction

The 2000 election did not wind up in the courts because Florida election law was unclear, it wound up in the courts because Candidates Gore and Bush both filed lawsuits. Gore filed his lawsuit because he wanted to win the election. Bush did the same.

The election www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request=IX#TitleIX is pretty clear if one bothers to read it. I'm unsure what provisions of Art. II, Sec. 1 the Supremes ignored. It seemed to me that if one was willing to set aside one's desired result the only outcome that was going to pass constitutional muster would be for the Florida ballots to be counted in accordance with Florida election law.

We can argue until the cows come home as to whether we like Florida law or not, but the fact is that the law was put in place well before the election and no one voiced any concerns until after the election was held. From reading the law it seems to me that Gore: 1) was entitled to ask for recounts in as many counties as he wished, 2) that there was a deadline for requesting such recounts, 3) that there was a deadline for completing such recounts, and 4) Florida law provides for what to do if and when the deadlines pass. From my recollection of the news stories and from recent reading of archived stories it seems to me that that is pretty much what happened. In other words, the electors from Florida were chosen, "in such Manner as the Legislature direct". One may bemoan the results but it is hard to make a case that the result was improperly (defined as following the process prescribed by law) arrived at.

[slide to the left]

63. he doesn't like it because

it seems too much like evolution...

survival of the fittest government, if things change asthe world changes then the creators must not have existed.

[Festivito]

65. .. in order to form a more perfect union ..

We FIRST establish justice.
Not, first, the rule of law.
Not, first, the literal nor original reading of law.
Justice. Indeed!
What a dufuss.

[Phx_Dem]

66. I guess it's Scalia that's the idiot

Romer V. Evans (1996) conservatives held that the Boy Scouts could discriminate because they have a "right of association". Funny that there is no mention of this in the constitution.

Boyle V. United Tech (1988) Father of a marine pilot tried to sue military contractor. Maj opinion authored by SCALIA, stated that Federal common law "provided for a military contractor's defense to tort actions" There is nothing in cont. law that supports this.

Teague V. Lane (1989) limited habues relief. Conservative majority cited "new rule" WTF?

I could go on:

Employment Division V. Smith (1990) Scalia invented the concept of "hybrid right"

New York V. United States (1992) and Prinze V. United States introduced the concept of "anti-commandeering"

And of course we cannot forget Clinton V. JOnes and Busg V. Gore

[baldguy]

69. The pray tell Mr Justice Scalia..

Where does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to appoint the President? How about the words or the concept of the "unitary executive"? And why is the concept of "one man, one vote" unconstitutional?





putz

[noonwitch]

71. Maybe it's time for Scalia to go hunting with his buddy again?

I know, lame joke at this point.