Least Favorite Supreme Court Justice

[A18]

He argues because a right was never guaranteed by the constitution that it is not a right people should have, while ignoring the fact that the constitution doesn't prevent people from having such rights either.

Lie. He says enact it instead of pretending it's in the document.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Originalism is about not introducing new principles into the document.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, no. It means Congress has specific, defined powers that can only be changed by constitutional amendment.

I doubt the founders foresaw a War with Iraq, but the Constitution certainly allows for it.

[Palefire]

He argues because a right was never guaranteed by the constitution that it is not a right people should have, while ignoring the fact that the constitution doesn't prevent people from having such rights either.

Lie. He says enact it instead of pretending it's in the document.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Originalism is about not introducing new principles into the document.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, no. It means Congress has specific, defined powers that can only be changed by constitutional amendment.

I doubt the founders foresaw a War with Iraq, but the Constitution certainly allows for it.

Let's use abortion as an example, shall we? Scalia maintains that the right to an abortion is not protected by the constitution, but the constitution doesn't address abortion at all. It is, in fact neutral on the issue. It does not entitle a fetus to any rights what so ever. So how does Scalia reach his opinion? Just that, he asserts his own opinion of right and wrong and wants to legislate from the bench. Scailia is just blowing a smoke screen to cover his activism. Lies......I think not.

I certainly never said "Originalism" was about adding new ideas to the constitution. I simply noted that it was a dangerous idea for this country to embrace because it ignores change.

I agree with you that there is a right way and wrong way to alter the constitution. But there are practical limits to that. You seem to believe that the constitution was designed to cover all aspects of our lives. That simply is not the case. There will always be new issues that need to be resolved that the constitution doesn't cover. These issues are usually brought to light in court. Are you suggesting that these cases should wait for a constitutional amendment? Or are you going to make the case that since the constitution doesn't specifically address a modern injustice that it should not be considered an injustice at all?

"Originalism" is a con job and a dangerous one at that.

[A18]

Let's use abortion as an example, shall we? Scalia maintains that the right to an abortion is not protected by the constitution, but the constitution doesn't address abortion at all. It is, in fact neutral on the issue. It does not entitle a fetus to any rights what so ever. So how does Scalia reach his opinion? Just that, he asserts his own opinion of right and wrong and wants to legislate from the bench. Scailia is just blowing a smoke screen to cover his activism. Lies......I think not.

It also does not deny them any rights whatsoever. This is for the states to decide. Scalia isn't trying to legislate from the bench; just the opposite, he's trying to allow the proper legislatures to decide the issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Change as in what you want the Constitution to say today? That's the definition of judicial activism. No, it has to be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning, or it has no meaning at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amending the Constitution is supposed to be hard.

Issues the Constitution doesn't cover are open for state legislation, or in the specific enumerated powers, the federal government.

[Palefire]

It also does not deny them any rights whatsoever. This is for the states to decide. Scalia isn't trying to legislate from the bench; just the opposite, he's trying to allow the proper legislatures to decide the issue.



Change as in what you want the Constitution to say today? That's the definition of judicial activism. No, it has to be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning, or it has no meaning at all.

You play the same shell game that Scalia plays. You argue that the constitution doesn't deny a fetus rights while arguing that it doesn't give women rights. I have noted the reverse to also be true. Abortion is not a constitutional issue, many things are not. I would further argue that it is not a government issue. The government has no business involving itself in such things. But, then I'm a small government kind of guy.

And again you resort to absolutism. Who defines the absolute intention of the writers of the constitution? The document certainly still has meaning if people interpret it differently than Scalia. I guess you disagree.

[A18]

It gives women rights, just like men. Abortion is not one of them. And no, the fact that the Constitution does not mention something, does not mean a state can't get involved. You want to eradicate public schools?

It's a judgement call. What's important is that you actually study the history of the text, and don't introduce a new principle.

[Palefire]

It gives women rights, just like men. Abortion is not one of them. And no, the fact that the Constitution does not mention something, does not mean a state can't get involved. You want to eradicate public schools?

It's a judgement call. What's important is that you actually study the history of the text, and don't introduce a new principle.

I doesn't mean the a state can not get involved, nor does it mean that the federal government can not get involved, nor does it mean that either should get involved. It simply means that it is not a constitutional issue. Nor are public schools - but I fail to see your connection between abortion and public schools outside of that.

New principles are introduced all the time by entities in the private sector that the government must either ignor or think about without the help of the constitution, because it doesn't provide any help for them.

I get it buddy. You like the results Scalia is trying to get with his shell game activism.

[A18]

That's Scalia's argument. That there is no right to an abortion - it is not a constitutional issue. Therefore, states can definitely outlaw it or keep it perfectly legal.

Just a minute ago you said that abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution, so therefore Scalia was wrong. You either are clueless as to Scalia's position, or have some very warped view of constitutional law.

Private entities do not introduce new principles into the Constitution.

lol. Originalism is not activism. It is the opposite. It is giving the Constitution the meaning it had when it was enacted.

I do happen to like the Constitution, yes. I noticed a lot of people on this board don't feel the same way. Regardless, a living, breathing Constitution is a dead Constitution.

[Palefire]

That's Scalia's argument. That there is no right to an abortion - it is not a constitutional issue. Therefore, states can definitely outlaw it or keep it perfectly legal.

Just a minute ago you said that abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution, so therefore Scalia was wrong. You either are clueless as to Scalia's position, or have some very warped view of constitutional law.

Private entities do not introduce new principles into the Constitution.

lol. Originalism is not activism. It is the opposite. It is giving the Constitution the meaning it had when it was enacted.

I do happen to like the Constitution, yes. I noticed a lot of people on this board don't feel the same way. Regardless, a living, breathing Constitution is a dead Constitution.

Now you are try to play shell games with my words. I guess I shouldn't be suprised. The fact that the right to have or not have an abortion isn't a constitutional issue doesn't mean that it isn't a legal issue. Scalia has argued that the constitution doesn't protect a womens right to have an abortion. I have simply noted that the constitution doesn't do many things - nor is it intended to do many things that some seem to wish it did. So - either you are playing games with my words or that fairly simple concept is to much for you to grasp. I think it's the former.

I believe I stated that new principles are introduced by the private sector all the time that the constititution provides no guidance for. Not that the private introduces new principles into the constitution. Do try and keep up, it would appear you are having a problem with that or that you are simply being arguementative for the sake of being arguementative.

Well I see you have bought the con about "Originalism". Scalia's brand of "Originalism" is more about trying to present his ideas as being what the founders intended than about being what the founder intended. Nuff said.

[A18]

Palefire, it is becoming increasingly clear that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. The Supreme Court can only strike down laws on the basis of unconstitutionality, not on the basis that they don't like them. Of course, they often do the latter, but they at least pretend to be doing the former.

There are all kinds of new concepts in the private sector, yes. What the hell does that have to with anything? The point is the private sector doesn't introduce anything new to the Constitution. The Constitution is a blueprint for government.

His opinions are based on the history of the Constitution. You have yet to give me an example of activism.

[Palefire]

Palefire, it is becoming increasingly clear that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. The Supreme Court can only strike down laws on the basis of unconstitutionality, not on the basis that they don't like them. Of course, they often do the latter, but they at least pretend to be doing the former.

There are all kinds of new concepts in the private sector, yes. What the hell does that have to with anything? The point is the private sector doesn't introduce anything new to the Constitution. The Constitution is a blueprint for government.

His opinions are based on the history of the Constitution. You have yet to give me an example of activism.

If it is your belief that Sacalia view of the constitution is the end all and be all, then I suppose I most appear clueless to you, the opposite might be true as well. Later.

[??????????]

A18 smacks down another one.

And for the record I'd say Kennedy & Souter are pretty terrible.

[phk]

Scalia and Thomas

[Hitchabrut]

Ginsberg