"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
Well it's a good thing he can communicate his opinion to those of us living in the world today thanks to his fucking time machine.
Bama on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
Remind me who appointed Scalia to the supreme court.
Y'know, I knew the answer, but I was hoping that reality would snap and crack at the rage I feel over how stupid Justice Scalia is. It's sorta like "I wish I could hate you to death," only more along the lines of, "I wish I could hate history enough to alter it."
Wow. Scalia is an even bigger douchebag than I thought. I mean, seriously- does he honestly think that the Constitution should have been frozen in a block of inpenetratable mystic ice upon the last drop of ink- never to be added to or changed with the needs of society? Is he seriously stating that only a strict interpretation of what men wrote over 200 years ago is how we should govern our country- with no regard to situations that they could have never in a million years conceived?
Wow. Scalia is an even bigger douchebag than I thought. I mean, seriously- does he honestly think that the Constitution should have been frozen in a block of inpenetratable mystic ice upon the last drop of ink- never to be added to or changed with the needs of society? Is he seriously stating that only a strict interpretation of what men wrote over 200 years ago is how we should govern our country- with no regard to situations that they could have never in a million years conceived?
Is he that fucking stupid?
He seems to forget his "strict constructionist" mentality when it comes to rendering a verdict that conservatives like.
"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
Wow. Scalia is an even bigger douchebag than I thought. I mean, seriously- does he honestly think that the Constitution should have been frozen in a block of inpenetratable mystic ice upon the last drop of ink- never to be added to or changed with the needs of society? Is he seriously stating that only a strict interpretation of what men wrote over 200 years ago is how we should govern our country- with no regard to situations that they could have never in a million years conceived?
Is he that fucking stupid?
No, he's saying that as a bullshit reason that he will selectively ignore in order to further policies that Reagan would have liked.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
o_O
Bet he's a real gas at parties.
It's infinitely amendable. If it were simply a constraint, I wouldn't be able to vote.
Scalia cautioned against "inventing new rights nobody ever thought existed." Scalia said he advocates an "originalist" approach to the Constitution, warning against an "evolutionary" legal philosophy that he described as, "close your eyes and decide what you think is a good idea.''
Most of our greatest advances are the court basically inventing new rights for people or institutions. Marbury v. Madison for example. Another is the court cases that said the federal government and make it illegal to employ children.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, one of our Supreme Court Justices
In an appearance at the University of Arizona College of Law, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that if he were on the court in 1954, he would have dissented in the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision that ended school segregation based on race.
Appearing on stage with Justice Stephen Breyer, Scalia cautioned against "inventing new rights nobody ever thought existed." Scalia said he advocates an "originalist" approach to the Constitution, warning against an "evolutionary" legal philosophy that he described as, "close your eyes and decide what you think is a good idea.''
Phoenix's East Valley Tribune reported: Using his "originalist'' philosophy, Scalia said he likely would have dissented from the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared school segregation illegal and struck down the system of "separate but equal'' public schools. He said that decision, which overturned earlier precedent, was designed to provide an approach the majority liked better.
"I will stipulate that it will,'' Scalia said. But he said that doesn't make it right. "Kings can do some stuff, some good stuff, that a democratic society could never do,'' he continued.
"Hitler developed a wonderful automobile,'' Scalia said. "What does that prove?''
"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
"He specifically warned that those who approach the Constitution as Breyer suggests will not always find courts expanding the definition of individual liberties. He said a court that decides one day that something is cruel and unusual punishment could just as easily decide down the road to allow something that now is considered barbaric.
"It goes both ways,'' he said.
"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia continued. "And that's not what a constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
Scalia said those who do not share his "originalist'' philosophy are now deciding what the 14th Amendment of the Constitution means, the one that guarantees "equal protection of the laws'' to all citizens.
"Does it include same-sex marriage? A requirement for equal pay for equal work?'' he mused. Scalia said those who believe in an "evolutionary'' approach "close your eyes and decide what you think is a good idea.''
I also liked,
Scalia said even his 2001 decision outlawing the use of "thermal imaging'' equipment to let police peer through walls to see activity inside a house did not require him to use an evolutionary approach to the Constitution, even though such equipment did not exist in the 18th century.
"I did it by regarding what the framers would have thought about a technique that essentially intrudes into the house without the consent of the homeowners to find out what is going on in the house,'' Scalia said. "They clearly would have thought that was unlawful.''
He said there is a remedy for those who want different or broader rights: go to the Legislature. He said those bodies are free to decide whether abortion or homosexual activities should be legal.
These seem like solid legal opinions based on a solid legal philosophy.
That's an excellent point. Personally, I thought that the Alaska Wildlife Preserves wouldn't be enough to make up for the fact that that Texas is close to being tapped dry (barring a lot of investment in new infrastructure), and that the Gulf of Mexico will be controlled by the United States Navy.
Plus, think about it...Alaska? Less than 700,000 people right? A couple of battalions of Russian Marines, along with their tanks, BTRs, and food and *BAM*, it's the Autonomous Alaskan Oblast before you could say "Don't shoot, I'm Inuit" in Russian. Plus, even if they could remain independent, how would they even get the oil back to dur Hartland efficiently enough? Pipelines won't work.
Then again, when their roads turn to dust, it won't matter anyway.
I guess I can't complain about people having secessionist fetishes when I seem to have a fetish for them seceding and plummeting to hell while on fire.
This has basically been my reaction since secession threats became a thing. "You mean you'd voluntarily relieve me of the burden of treating you as a fellow citizen? The fuck are you waiting for?"
"Have fun as a sovereign country! It's all the risks of being an American and none of the nuclear weapons or billion dollar aircraft carriers!"
"But...but, if Lithuania can do it, so can we!"
Actually they'd be a pretty major nuclear power. Naval would depend if they got Virginia.
All the launch codes are in DC, the entire nerve center for intel and dod is in VA... and NoVA, you know, the liberal commie va.
If the Washington Government is willing resort to force to keep states from seceding based on technicalities in the constitution, I'd be shocked if they wouldn't do it over goddamn nuclear launch codes.
When the Ukranian SSR became the Republic of Ukraine, and then left, they didn't get to keep all those lovely supersonic strategic nuclear bombers. They went back to Moscow Government, or were willingly placed under their direct control. Texas and Alaska sure as hell aren't going to able to keep any missiles in silos. If they don't want civil war, they're going to have to give them up immediately.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, one of our Supreme Court Justices
In an appearance at the University of Arizona College of Law, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that if he were on the court in 1954, he would have dissented in the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision that ended school segregation based on race.
Appearing on stage with Justice Stephen Breyer, Scalia cautioned against "inventing new rights nobody ever thought existed." Scalia said he advocates an "originalist" approach to the Constitution, warning against an "evolutionary" legal philosophy that he described as, "close your eyes and decide what you think is a good idea.''
Phoenix's East Valley Tribune reported: Using his "originalist'' philosophy, Scalia said he likely would have dissented from the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared school segregation illegal and struck down the system of "separate but equal'' public schools. He said that decision, which overturned earlier precedent, was designed to provide an approach the majority liked better.
"I will stipulate that it will,'' Scalia said. But he said that doesn't make it right. "Kings can do some stuff, some good stuff, that a democratic society could never do,'' he continued.
"Hitler developed a wonderful automobile,'' Scalia said. "What does that prove?''
"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia said. "And that's not what a Constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
"He specifically warned that those who approach the Constitution as Breyer suggests will not always find courts expanding the definition of individual liberties. He said a court that decides one day that something is cruel and unusual punishment could just as easily decide down the road to allow something that now is considered barbaric.
"It goes both ways,'' he said.
"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia continued. "And that's not what a constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
Scalia said those who do not share his "originalist'' philosophy are now deciding what the 14th Amendment of the Constitution means, the one that guarantees "equal protection of the laws'' to all citizens.
"Does it include same-sex marriage? A requirement for equal pay for equal work?'' he mused. Scalia said those who believe in an "evolutionary'' approach "close your eyes and decide what you think is a good idea.''
I also liked,
Scalia said even his 2001 decision outlawing the use of "thermal imaging'' equipment to let police peer through walls to see activity inside a house did not require him to use an evolutionary approach to the Constitution, even though such equipment did not exist in the 18th century.
"I did it by regarding what the framers would have thought about a technique that essentially intrudes into the house without the consent of the homeowners to find out what is going on in the house,'' Scalia said. "They clearly would have thought that was unlawful.''
He said there is a remedy for those who want different or broader rights: go to the Legislature. He said those bodies are free to decide whether abortion or homosexual activities should be legal.
These seem like solid legal opinions based on a solid legal philosophy.
See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.
Original intent is just a completely ridiculous thing to reason based on, period.
Would the original founders have approved of alien and sedition acts that obviously violate the constitution? Well, OK, we can pass those now.
Would the founders approve of sentencing a man to hang for theft or sodomy? Well, OK, that is now constitutional and doesn't violate the cruel and unusual punishment part.
Would the founders approve and allow brutally killing and wiping out entire cultures for their land? They would? Well, alright!
See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.
He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.
An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
Intent to protect certain rights will inherently require the protection other rights. Just because the founding fathers weren't willing to take the rights closer to their logical conclusion doesn't mean we can't.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
The intention of the men who wrote the Constitution was to lay down a framework that future generations could use, because they knew that society changes, as does technology.
See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.
He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.
An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
1) How arrogant do you have to be to think you knew the intent of the framers? We use what we have and do our best.
2) Who cares? They were men like other men and pretty damn fallible. They had some fantastic ideas and some less than fantastic ideas. A strict originalist interpretation is flawed in this godhood myth it creates around the members of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
"[T]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."
It is Constitutional, in his twisted and selective philosophy, to execute an innocent man. It is, however, unconstitutional for an innocent man to pay for evidence to be tested which will exonerate him.
In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court said state authorities in Alaska did not violate the constitutional rights of a convicted rapist when they refused to allow him to test the DNA evidence in his case years after his conviction.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
The Founding Fathers wouldn't foresee the things we see as being issues that are unanswered. Either because it slipped their mind at the time or they maybe thought it was fucking obvious. I dunno. I'm just musing here. Where do I send my hate mail to regarding Scalia?
See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.
He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.
An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Slavery?
edit: dang that was a lot of posts that came in at the same time
Macera on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
"[T]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."
It is Constitutional, in his twisted and selective philosophy, to execute an innocent man. It is, however, unconstitutional for an innocent man to pay for evidence to be tested which will exonerate him.
In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court said state authorities in Alaska did not violate the constitutional rights of a convicted rapist when they refused to allow him to test the DNA evidence in his case years after his conviction.
See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.
He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.
An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Weren't there, like, 20 states when the Constitution was written? 20 states and 200k people? I think keeping the intentions of the framers in mind (or at least whatever we think they may be) is a good idea, but times change.
See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.
He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.
And then we had a Civil War and wrote the 14th Amendment. Should we be basing our 'original' views with regards to 18th century or 19th century politicians?
An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.
Only because the Court decided that the ideal of the law trumps the lettering of it. Which is not a very 'originalist' view to hold.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
The argument has merit. If there's a right that isn't in the original Constitution but that everyone agrees really ought to be protected, the Constitution can be amended to add that right.
What we're doing now is using the courts to protect rights that they were never actually given the legal authority to protect, but we're pretending that they do have that authority because those rights desperately need to be protected and the legislatures are failing to adequately do so. Ideally, Congress and the Senate would do their damn jobs, and the higher courts would spend most of their time napping until issues that are actually legally complex come up.
It's one of those cases (illegal immigration is another) where the current process is completely insane, but amending it would either be impossible or make the situation far worse.
See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.
He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.
An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Ok, so it's not worth the paper it's written on. Who cares. I could give a flying fuck what the framers wanted. I live now. They don't.
Posts
Yes, yes he did.
To be fair, it is the logical consequence of Scalia's stated philosophy. At least he's consistent.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
"Seriously, I work with this fucker guys. Imagine how much drinking I do."
You would think the others know better than to be caught in a room with Scalia and the press.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
Y'know, I knew the answer, but I was hoping that reality would snap and crack at the rage I feel over how stupid Justice Scalia is. It's sorta like "I wish I could hate you to death," only more along the lines of, "I wish I could hate history enough to alter it."
Except that he isn't.
All encompassing executive power is awesome if the executive is George Bush, as an example.
Is he that fucking stupid?
He seems to forget his "strict constructionist" mentality when it comes to rendering a verdict that conservatives like.
o_O
Bet he's a real gas at parties.
No, he's saying that as a bullshit reason that he will selectively ignore in order to further policies that Reagan would have liked.
It's infinitely amendable. If it were simply a constraint, I wouldn't be able to vote.
At least link the article.
Later in the article points out,
I also liked,
These seem like solid legal opinions based on a solid legal philosophy.
If the Washington Government is willing resort to force to keep states from seceding based on technicalities in the constitution, I'd be shocked if they wouldn't do it over goddamn nuclear launch codes.
When the Ukranian SSR became the Republic of Ukraine, and then left, they didn't get to keep all those lovely supersonic strategic nuclear bombers. They went back to Moscow Government, or were willingly placed under their direct control. Texas and Alaska sure as hell aren't going to able to keep any missiles in silos. If they don't want civil war, they're going to have to give them up immediately.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
See, all this stuff he is saying is bad, about the Constitution meaning what the people want it to mean, sounds great to me.
and even then he comes close
Would the original founders have approved of alien and sedition acts that obviously violate the constitution? Well, OK, we can pass those now.
Would the founders approve of sentencing a man to hang for theft or sodomy? Well, OK, that is now constitutional and doesn't violate the cruel and unusual punishment part.
Would the founders approve and allow brutally killing and wiping out entire cultures for their land? They would? Well, alright!
He is saying you can't be relativistic about the Constitution. It has to have an original intent. The Constitution wasn't framed to protect abortion rights or the rights of same sex couples and that's okay. It reserved those rights to the states to protect.
The constitution was written to outline what the government can't do to you.
An original view also doesn't negate changing technology. Illegal searches using thermal imaging cameras are still illegal searches.
If you throw out the intention of the framers then you throw out the legitimacy of the document. At that point it isn't worth the paper it is written on.
1) How arrogant do you have to be to think you knew the intent of the framers? We use what we have and do our best.
2) Who cares? They were men like other men and pretty damn fallible. They had some fantastic ideas and some less than fantastic ideas. A strict originalist interpretation is flawed in this godhood myth it creates around the members of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention.
It is Constitutional, in his twisted and selective philosophy, to execute an innocent man. It is, however, unconstitutional for an innocent man to pay for evidence to be tested which will exonerate him.
DA v Osborne
Slavery?
edit: dang that was a lot of posts that came in at the same time
moniker your post makes me die inside.
Edit - And just for the record, what the flippity fuck is wrong with Alaska and rape? It's like they always get it wrong!
Weren't there, like, 20 states when the Constitution was written? 20 states and 200k people? I think keeping the intentions of the framers in mind (or at least whatever we think they may be) is a good idea, but times change.
And then we had a Civil War and wrote the 14th Amendment. Should we be basing our 'original' views with regards to 18th century or 19th century politicians?
Only because the Court decided that the ideal of the law trumps the lettering of it. Which is not a very 'originalist' view to hold.
Which framers?
What we're doing now is using the courts to protect rights that they were never actually given the legal authority to protect, but we're pretending that they do have that authority because those rights desperately need to be protected and the legislatures are failing to adequately do so. Ideally, Congress and the Senate would do their damn jobs, and the higher courts would spend most of their time napping until issues that are actually legally complex come up.
It's one of those cases (illegal immigration is another) where the current process is completely insane, but amending it would either be impossible or make the situation far worse.
Ok, so it's not worth the paper it's written on. Who cares. I could give a flying fuck what the framers wanted. I live now. They don't.