Justice Antonin Scalia [merged]

[jackoroe]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

I'm not arguing the man's intelligence.

I am suggesting that it is inappropriate for one supreme court justice to be delivering a lecture on the constitution to another branch of government.

The SC is not there to help ensure that the legislature crafts a bill to suit the SC, particularly any one justice's opinion of what the constitution means.

The SC is there to be the final adjudicator of an issue.

Does this mean that in the future, Scalia or other SC justices can be called upon by the legislators to advise while legislation is being crafted?

I also agree that explaining the constitution to a bunch of political animals is a good thing. I just think there are much better ways to do it that don't begin to blur the roles of each branch of government realtive to the other.

I'm not seeing blurring of any lines. The job of SCOTUS to determine the Constitutionality of a given issue. It might be useful if incoming members of Congress understood the concept of limited government as the Constitution spells it out. I even doubt Scalia will go that far, but he should. And nobody is being forced to attend. Democrats are being welcomed, so there is no big secret plot being hatched. It's being done openly. It's no more egregious than the President lobbying members to pass legislation. There's no issue with the Executive and Legislative branches working together, so why would the court doing so be a problem?

In terms of crafting legislation, I doubt the court would have the time to give a stamp of approval to every law being considered. I haven't seen any suggestion that is even being considered. And yes, I would think it inappropriate.

But it would be useful to have an explanation contained in every law detailing what aspect of the Constitution allows for the Federal Government to act in the matter being considered.

 

[jackoroe]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

Scalia does not believe the 14th Amendment protects women against unequal treatment. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html It seems he is not a "strict constructionist," i.e., he does not believe the constitution should be interpreted as written. Rather, he is an "originalist," and believes the constitution should be interpreted by the intent of the drafters, rather than the ordinary meanings of the words.

This nonsense about the 14th Amendment is a perfect example. The 14th Amendment grants equal protection to "citizens." It doesn't specify male citizens, but that's what Scalia thinks the drafters intended, so that's why he believes it does not afford equal protection to women. Following his logic, he certainly would not believe it afforded equal protection to gay men (forget about lesbians), since the drafters never contemplated gay marriage or DOMA. Of course, I guess he might think it protects the rights of gay men to marry each other, but not lesbians. Utter nonsense. Scalia is all about a reactionary, result-driven jurisprudence.

If the 14th Amendment actually considered women as citizens , there would have been no need for the 19th Amendment. Citizenry is not only predicated upon where your born, but on your ability to hold office and to vote. Just as blacks were not full citizens until the passage of the 14th Amendment, women were not until passage of the 19th. The very existence of these two amendments, demonstrates that these two classes of individuals were not considered as citizens by the framers.

The argument about gay men not being included is simply a red herring. Gay men are still men and as such, were included as citizens from the very beginning. They may have been considered criminals in many jurisdictions, which would include the penalty of being "civilly dead" during incarceration, but they were still considered as citizens by the Constitution.

Scalia was spot on.

 

[palemale]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

If the 14th Amendment actually considered women as citizens , there would have been no need for the 19th Amendment. Citizenry is not only predicated upon where your born, but on your ability to hold office and to vote. Just as blacks were not full citizens until the passage of the 14th Amendment, women were not until passage of the 19th. The very existence of these two amendments, demonstrates that these two classes of individuals were not considered as citizens by the framers.

The argument about gay men not being included is simply a red herring. Gay men are still men and as such, were included as citizens from the very beginning. They may have been considered criminals in many jurisdictions, which would include the penalty of being "civilly dead" during incarceration, but they were still considered as citizens by the Constitution.

Scalia was spot on.

Sorry Jack, but Scalia was wrong. The question put to him was whether the courts have been wrong to apply the 14th amendment to prohibit discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Scalia said the following:

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/scalia-women-discrimination-constitution_n_803813.html

Thus, it was not an academic question, but rather whether the 14th Amendment provides the constitutional basis to prohibit discrimination based on gender. In light of the addition of the 19th amendment, the 14th amendment does prohibit gender discrimination. In the above quote, Scalia said that the Constitution does not prohibit gender discrimination. He didn't say that the 14th Amendment, when it originally was enacted, didn't prohibit gender discrimination. He said the Constitution (which includes both the 14th and 19th amendments) doesn't. That is incorrect.

You're assertion that citizenry is also predicated on one's ability to vote and hold office is also wrong. The first sentence of section 1 of the 14th amendment says the following:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

All that is required to be a citizen is to be born or naturalized in the United States. Children and teenagers under the age of 18 cannot vote, yet they are citizens.

 

[Ninja108]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

Scalia is Reagan's gift that keeps on giving.....

 

[rareboy]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

I'm not seeing blurring of any lines. The job of SCOTUS to determine the Constitutionality of a given issue. It might be useful if incoming members of Congress understood the concept of limited government as the Constitution spells it out. I even doubt Scalia will go that far, but he should. And nobody is being forced to attend. Democrats are being welcomed, so there is no big secret plot being hatched. It's being done openly. It's no more egregious than the President lobbying members to pass legislation. There's no issue with the Executive and Legislative branches working together, so why would the court doing so be a problem?

In terms of crafting legislation, I doubt the court would have the time to give a stamp of approval to every law being considered. I haven't seen any suggestion that is even being considered. And yes, I would think it inappropriate.

But it would be useful to have an explanation contained in every law detailing what aspect of the Constitution allows for the Federal Government to act in the matter being considered.

I think that from my perspective, the legislative and executive branches are elected lawmakers, whereas the SC needs to be seen as removed from influencing politics. Justices are not elected, but appointed. I see that as the difference, perhaps.

The moment that Justices begin to lobby lawmakers and try to influence legislation from their own personal bias, either liberal or conservative............the US will truly be in trouble.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

I think that from my perspective, the legislative and executive branches are elected lawmakers, whereas the SC needs to be seen as removed from influencing politics. Justices are not elected, but appointed. I see that as the difference, perhaps.

Not only that but the President is only in power for 4 years, possibly 8, whereas a SC justice is in for life. That's a HUGE difference right there. They don't have to answer to anyone to boot.

 

[IllgetyouHackman]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

I'm not seeing blurring of any lines. The job of SCOTUS to determine the Constitutionality of a given issue. It might be useful if incoming members of Congress understood the concept of limited government as the Constitution spells it out. I even doubt Scalia will go that far, but he should. And nobody is being forced to attend. Democrats are being welcomed, so there is no big secret plot being hatched. It's being done openly. It's no more egregious than the President lobbying members to pass legislation. There's no issue with the Executive and Legislative branches working together, so why would the court doing so be a problem?

In terms of crafting legislation, I doubt the court would have the time to give a stamp of approval to every law being considered. I haven't seen any suggestion that is even being considered. And yes, I would think it inappropriate.

But it would be useful to have an explanation contained in every law detailing what aspect of the Constitution allows for the Federal Government to act in the matter being considered.

You could also argue that you don't need the supreme court to do that, call the attorney General he can do that job just find, no need to bring in that peckerhead.

 

[chrisrobin]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

If I were a Congressman, I would feel grossly insulted. In order to graduate from the 8th grade, I was required to pass a test on the U.S. Constitution. Also, I hate being read to on any level. I could imagine being a physician and some asshole would demand to read the Hypocratic Oath to me. This drama is Michelle Bachmann's first step on her way to the White House (or so she thinks).

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

They should have asked a constitutional scholar or panel of scholars to address the members.

Yep. Jon Turley would have been a fair choice -- he pisses off liberals and conservatives both because he reads it the way it is instead of trying to twist it to some ideology. Rare man -- and would have made a better justice than the two bozos Obama picked, combined.

There is no one more intelligent on the court than Scalia. No on on the court has a better understanding of the Constitution than Scalia. Explaining the Constitution to the members of Congress is a great idea. Some of you whined about Beck and Bachman's bona fides when they offered to do so. You don't have that argument anymore.

So you think a man who has lied about scientific findings in his written opinions for the court has a good understanding of the Constitution?
He holds the opinion that if a right isn't enumerated, it doesn't exist. That's so anti-constitution the man shouldn't ever have even been a justice of the peace.

Does this mean that in the future, Scalia or other SC justices can be called upon by the legislators to advise while legislation is being crafted?

That's been done in the past. Sometimes an issue is clear-cut enough the question gets answered. And at points in the history of the Republic, justices have volunteered their opinions, unasked.

I also agree that explaining the constitution to a bunch of political animals is a good thing. I just think there are much better ways to do it that don't begin to blur the roles of each branch of government realtive to the other.

I don't see any blurring. Now, if they invited Scalia in to help craft some legislation, I'd worry.

Then why is he palling around with idiotic liars like Michele Bachmann?

We're known by the company we keep, after all.

He keeps his own company, and that's bad enough.

Now I suppose I'd better find cites for those times he lied in his written opinions. If anyone else feels like looking, the big ones I recall had to do with crime statistics, which he lied about in order to uphold oppressive police powers.

BTW, he's a reactionary by another measure as well: his positions have consistently betrayed that in the interest of justice it's fine to punish innocent people if that means we're catching more guilty ones -- which is 180 degrees opposite the principle held by the Founding Fathers, that it's better for a hundred guilty to walk free than one innocent to be punished. He's a member of the "protect us from THEM!" school of thinking, which means he doesn't care about rights, doesn't care about justice, he cares about exercising power to keep the "way of life" he cherishes, and results in lumping gays, pedophiles, rapists, arsonists, kidnappers, etc. into one murky ball called "THEM".

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

You're assertion that citizenry is also predicated on one's ability to vote and hold office is also wrong. The first sentence of section 1 of the 14th amendment says the following:


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

All that is required to be a citizen is to be born or naturalized in the United States. Children and teenagers under the age of 18 cannot vote, yet they are citizens.

Definitely. And early in the history of the Republic, there were conditions under which a man could be a citizen yet not vote, or be a citizen but not hold office -- and the latter remains true. Sometimes being a male 18 or over meant you were a citizen, but if you didn't own land you couldn't vote, or other times that

I think that from my perspective, the legislative and executive branches are elected lawmakers, whereas the SC needs to be seen as removed from influencing politics. Justices are not elected, but appointed. I see that as the difference, perhaps.

The moment that Justices begin to lobby lawmakers and try to influence legislation from their own personal bias, either liberal or conservative............the US will truly be in trouble.

Lobbying is different from delivering a lecture by invitation.

But the invitation should have been from the Speaker or Majority Leaders or both, to the Court as a whole, not from some faction to a favored justice.

You could also argue that you don't need the supreme court to do that, call the attorney General he can do that job just find, no need to bring in that peckerhead.

That just points up one of the problems with appointing people: you get political hacks. Reagan appointed political hacks, Bush appointed political hacks, Obama has appointed political hacks.

BTW, this is one reason no president should serve more than eight years: by the time he was done, FDR owned the Supreme Court. I shudder at the thought of any of our presidents since maybe JFK "owning" SCOTUS.


Note: it's established principle that it's the job of the Supreme Court to provide for the orderly development of federal law. If Congress or the President are seen aiming at something a solid majority of the Court (six or better) sees as unconstitutional, I think that under that principle they have a duty to step in, not only saving the government the waste of time, but more importantly to prevent the suffering of citizens under unjustice laws -- of which we have far too many, accumulated due to the fact that the Court isn't large enough to hear all cases, and because the only way to get rid of an unjust law is to get a court to strike it down (not that that procedure always works; Scalia loves upholding unjust laws).

 

[MoltenRock III]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

Uber-Christians love to treat the Constitution just as they do the bible.... that it's immutable, clear, and beyond question; that is just so long as their own personal view of the document isn't in question. The same people who love to laud various parts of the Constitution then run away from say the 14th or 17th amendments.

Additionally, just as with religion, when you get people to buy into your rhetoric their brains stop working, which is what we have today and it's dangerous.... it's a cult.

 

[palemale]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

Scalia thinks it's constitutional to execute people who are proven innocent after they received a fair trial finding them guilty.

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted de-fendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf

The man is a monster.

 

[Jack Springer]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

Uber-Christians love to treat the Constitution just as they do the bible.... that it's immutable, clear, and beyond question; that is just so long as their own personal view of the document isn't in question. The same people who love to laud various parts of the Constitution then run away from say the 14th or 17th amendments.

Additionally, just as with religion, when you get people to buy into your rhetoric their brains stop working, which is what we have today and it's dangerous.... it's a cult.

Sorry, Molten, typical elitist liberal response.

Your belief structure as a liberal has been formed to believe that everyone one who doesn't agree with you is just stupid and uninformed -- only liberals have the brains to create thoughts.

I'm all for members of Congress being more informed about he US Constitution -- bring the liberal justices too.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

I'm all for members of Congress being more informed about he US Constitution -- bring the liberal justices too.

The justices have better things to do. Bring in Jonathon Turley and others like him, once a week.

 

[Supersix]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

Additionally, just as with religion, when you get people to buy into your rhetoric their brains stop working, which is what we have today and it's dangerous.... it's a cult.

I love when leftists accuse the right of what the left always does, it never ceases to amaze me, the arrogance and hypocrisy. Examples are too numerous to mention, but I will name a few. Like "Don't touch my social security(God Forbid anyone try and reform it)", "tax cuts for the rich(businesses that employ people when they can afford to)", "DRACONIAN CUTS in social programs(reductions in rate of increase)", "This war is lost(Said by Harry Reid, then we won it, and really inspiring to hear the Senate Majority Leader say that to us, our military, and our allies and enemies)", "Power grab (anything a republican president does)", and, "Whore, radical, partial, inobjective, liar, whack job, reactionary, peckerhead", all of which could easily be applied to any leftist on the Supreme court, or anywhere else in politics or news media, for that matter.
What is so horrible about our representatives getting a lesson from a judge on the constitution? If it were Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg giving the lesson, you'd cheerfully ignore this whole issue. The reason a leftist wouldn't like any of this is because conservatives (tend to) respect the constitution, and the left hates it, thinks it's an outdated paper to be subversed and gotten around at any cost. What do you have to say to that??

 

[palemale]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

What do you have to say to that??

Your knowledge of history is woefully lacking. Have you ever heard of Richard Nixon, Joseph McCarthy, George "W" Bush, Dick Cheney (to name just a few, conservative Republicans who shit on the Constitution)?

 

[MoltenRock III]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

Your knowledge of history is woefully lacking. Have you ever heard of Richard Nixon, Joseph McCarthy, George "W" Bush, Dick Cheney (to name just a few, conservative Republicans who shit on the Constitution)?

He belched up nearly on command to demonstrate exactly what I meant about cherry picking their grievances with Constitutionality. It's why they are constantly denouncing "activist judges" only when those SC justices find against something they are for. The conservative wing of this court has been one of the most activist of any previous courts, but the cultists refuse to acknowledge that as "activist". It really is quite perverse.

 

[rareboy]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

Kuli wrote:

Yep. Jon Turley would have been a fair choice -- he pisses off liberals and conservatives both because he reads it the way it is instead of trying to twist it to some ideology. Rare man -- and would have made a better justice than the two bozos Obama picked, combined.

He's the guy I was trying to think of today.

 

[JB3]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

If I were a Congressman, I would feel grossly insulted. In order to graduate from the 8th grade, I was required to pass a test on the U.S. Constitution. Also, I hate being read to on any level. I could imagine being a physician and some asshole would demand to read the Hypocratic Oath to me. This drama is Michelle Bachmann's first step on her way to the White House (or so she thinks).

I wouldn't be worried about the incoming members, I'd force the older members to sit in on this. Some of them (on both sides) seem to forget all too quickly that this isn't their livelihood, it isn't 'their' house, its the people's house and the people's business. If they're insulted by a reminder about that, perhaps they need to find a different line of work.

 

[bike10]

Re: Justice Scalia shows his true colors

So typical of the "activits judges who gave us GWB in 2001.