Justice Scalia: Rival doctrine seeks rigidity

Justice Scalia: Rival doctrine seeks rigidity​

TUCSON, Ariz. – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says those who want modern-day legal interpretations to view the U.S. Constitution through contemporary lenses are seeking rigidity, not flexibility, in the country's justice system.

Scalia is well-known as a strict constructionist in his interpretation of the Constitution. He told a Tucson audience Monday that the rival approach favors sweeping judicial decrees to shape society "coast to coast" on issues such as abortion, rather than seeking to pass laws state by state.

Scalia appeared with fellow Justice Stephen Breyer to discuss how courts should apply the Constitution.

Breyer says interpretations should consider current circumstances because society has different values than it did in the 18th century on matters such as cruel and unusual punishment.

Justice Scalia: Rival doctrine seeks rigidity - Yahoo! News

=====================

I have no problem with a state passing anti abortion laws, that is their right as much as I disagree. I do not feel it is the feds responsibility to make it a law of the land.

.

If you've ever sat down and tried to read a Scalia decision you would see what an absolute fool he is.

Scalia decides what he wants to decide and then goes through the most convoluted reasoning in order to justify what he wanted to decide.

His clinging to the strict constructionist label is a joke.

I remember when I was in law school....I would start reading a case decision, get half way through, saying what the......, flip back to the beginning and practically ever time the author of the majority was Scalia.

What most Liberals Judges that like to legislate from the bench fail to understand is the Constitution was written and worded in such a way that subtle interpretations are all that are ever needed and that major reinterpretations are not possible and that is why amendments are possible but require more than just simple majority to pass.
Even people like Obama whom has been hailed as a Constitutional scholar fails to recognize this beauty of this document. It is written in such a way to protect the people from such outlandish and Nationally destructive ideas as redistribution of wealth that comes with Socialism/Communism.
In this story the use of Abortion is just an example of the attempts at sweeping judicial decrees to shape society that must not be allowed to take place.

Is the Constitution a perfect document. Hell no but it sets standards of treatment of citizens and allows them rights like no other in the history of the world. Those who oppose it and would make or force sweeping changes have twisted ideas of right and wrong and justice. They also fail to take into consideration that history shows that as wonderful as Socialism/Communism may seam to some they have always failed and in the process has cost millions of lives and destroyed Nations in those experiments, because men are involved and greed along with the fact that redistribution of wealth works only until the incentive to make more money do better is gone and playing field has been leveled because that level always goes down dramatically and continues down until the only thing left is nothing.
Our Constitution has never been even close to being equaled in it brilliance, scope, or importance. To tamper with it requires solemn consideration while keeping in mind the goals it was written in order to achieve, and that requires a complete understanding of the events and more that lead to it's creation including the Declaration of Independence another wonderfully important document.
Each and every American would do well to study the early history of our Nation and the reasons behind it's establishment and the goals and ideals the founding father had in mind even though they recognized that they were unable at the time to achieve all those ideals and establish a new nation that would one day be able to mature and grow into those ideals, which in the last 233 years we have done far and away more than any Nation or people in the history of man. Are we perfect? Hell no there are people who are held back still but mostly by those who claim to be on their side because they benefit from keeping them down because it keeps them in power.

Just Plain Jim said:

Scalia is well-known as a strict constructionist in his interpretation of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

This part made me laugh out loud. Comments like that usually come from people who have never read a Scalia opinion or are not aware of his complete voting record.

Scalia is a brilliant man when he wants to be, but he is by no means a strict constructionist, and he only believes in states rights when those rights agree with his own ideals. I find it odd that so many people cry "strict construction of the Constitution", yet they ignore the Equal Protection and Liberty Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

disneydude said:

If you've ever sat down and tried to read a Scalia decision you would see what an absolute fool he is.

Scalia decides what he wants to decide and then goes through the most convoluted reasoning in order to justify what he wanted to decide.

His clinging to the strict constructionist label is a joke.

I remember when I was in law school....I would start reading a case decision, get half way through, saying what the......, flip back to the beginning and practically ever time the author of the majority was Scalia.

Click to expand...

And I'd say the exact same thing about a Stevens opinion. Funny how personal politics can skew a person's perspective like that.

Scalia has certainly deviated from his principles in some cases (Raich), but don't act like that's exclusive to him.

disneydude said:

If you've ever sat down and tried to read a Scalia decision you would see what an absolute fool he is.

Scalia decides what he wants to decide and then goes through the most convoluted reasoning in order to justify what he wanted to decide.

His clinging to the strict constructionist label is a joke.

I remember when I was in law school....I would start reading a case decision, get half way through, saying what the......, flip back to the beginning and practically ever time the author of the majority was Scalia.

Click to expand...

Can you give us some examples of where you see this?

What is your opinion of Justice Thomas?

disneydude said:

If you've ever sat down and tried to read a Scalia decision you would see what an absolute fool he is.

Scalia decides what he wants to decide and then goes through the most convoluted reasoning in order to justify what he wanted to decide.

His clinging to the strict constructionist label is a joke.

I remember when I was in law school....I would start reading a case decision, get half way through, saying what the......, flip back to the beginning and practically ever time the author of the majority was Scalia.

Click to expand...

Seems I have gotten an earful over this at Yahoo Answers, that Scalia is anything but what he says.

What I liked is his belief that abortion is a state issue, not federal. And while I am very much pro choice, nevertheless, if a state wants to outlaw abortion, then outlaw it. The upside to that, if a woman wants to get an abortion she can simply go to another state. If the anti abortionists get their way it will be a national law, which will make it harder for a woman to get an abortion (and dangerous too) and will lock out the poor and lower middle class from safe procedures because the rest will be able to afford to go outside the country. The only way to make that portion of the abortion law to stick for the upper classes is to limit travel by pregnant women and have a pregnancy test of those of child baring age at the boarding gate. The black market in smuggling women to Canada will be huge.

.

disneydude said:

If you've ever sat down and tried to read a Scalia decision you would see what an absolute fool he is.

Scalia decides what he wants to decide and then goes through the most convoluted reasoning in order to justify what he wanted to decide.

His clinging to the strict constructionist label is a joke.

I remember when I was in law school....I would start reading a case decision, get half way through, saying what the......, flip back to the beginning and practically ever time the author of the majority was Scalia.

Click to expand...

So where is your debate to what he says on this topic? You want to discredit him, then argue against the premise, show how it isn't true. I believe it is true, the liberals want to interpret the Constitution anyway they feel like. Frankly I think liberals would like it better if there was no Constitution to interfere with their superior genius about how we should run the country. The Preamble to the liberal Constutition would read:

We the People of the United States, in Order to provide for the general Welfare, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Click to expand...

disneydude said:

. . .

I remember when I was in law school....I would start reading a case decision, get half way through, saying what the......, flip back to the beginning and practically ever time the author of the majority was Scalia.

Click to expand...

Perhaps if the opinions were published with pictures?

American said:

So where is your debate to what he says on this topic? You want to discredit him, then argue against the premise, show how it isn't true. I believe it is true, the liberals want to interpret the Constitution anyway they feel like. Frankly I think liberals would like it better if there was no Constitution to interfere with their superior genius about how we should run the country. The Preamble to the liberal Constutition would read:

Click to expand...

You added

We the People of the United States, in Order to provide for the general Welfare, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Click to expand...

No it would read:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Click to expand...

Calling liberals all of one thing is the same as calling conservatives all of one thing. While I think it is generally true that Rush's ditto heads are partisan to the chore because they like Rush's ideology, just as much as left talk radio generates, nevertheless, liberals are all over the map just as much as conservatives when it comes to politics and beliefs.

You are doing yourself as well as your stance a disservice and only alienating people that may consider what you have to say.

Try raising it up a notch.

.

Just Plain Jim said:

You added



No it would read:



Calling liberals all of one thing is the same as calling conservatives all of one thing. While I think it is generally true that Rush's ditto heads are partisan to the chore because they like Rush's ideology, just as much as left talk radio generates, nevertheless, liberals are all over the map just as much as conservatives when it comes to politics and beliefs.

You are doing yourself as well as your stance a disservice and only alienating people that may consider what you have to say.

Try raising it up a notch.

.

Click to expand...

You going to ask Disneydude to raise his argument up a notch?

American said:

You going to ask Disneydude to raise his argument up a notch?

Click to expand...

I answered him, go up the thread.
I found nothing wrong with what he said.
I don't know that much about Scalia. I only found the article interesting.
I'm all ears to what he is up too, but then again it is not one of my big priorities.

By the way, if Stalin was a liberal, then Hitler was a conservative.
They both don't fit.

MrVicchio said:

Can you give us some examples of where you see this?

What is your opinion of Justice Thomas?

Click to expand...

Another good point - Thomas is undoubtedly the most consistent of any of the Justices. Based on the above criticisms of Scalia, one would think that they would at least respect Thomas's principled stands, even if they disagreed with his conclusions. For the most part, I've found that that's not the case. That leads me to believe that it's something other than legal philosophies that leads many liberals to criticize Scalia and Thomas.

RightinNYC said:

Another good point - Thomas is undoubtedly the most consistent of any of the Justices. Based on the above criticisms of Scalia, one would think that they would at least respect Thomas's principled stands, even if they disagreed with his conclusions. For the most part, I've found that that's not the case. That leads me to believe that it's something other than legal philosophies that leads many liberals to criticize Scalia and Thomas.

Click to expand...

I disagree with the more Liberal Justices based on ideological grounds(big shock I know) but I don't try to couch this in anything more then what it is, a disagreement with their philosophical outlook on the Constitution. I have never called say, Ginsberg stupid, or attacked her personally. I think she's very wrong in much of what she believes, and find her decisions to be very dangerous at times...

I just find it very interesting that the two most solid conservatives are subjected to such vicious personal hate. I don't get it.

MrVicchio said:

I disagree with the more Liberal Justices based on ideological grounds(big shock I know) but I don't try to couch this in anything more then what it is, a disagreement with their philosophical outlook on the Constitution. I have never called say, Ginsberg stupid, or attacked her personally. I think she's very wrong in much of what she believes, and find her decisions to be very dangerous at times...

I just find it very interesting that the two most solid conservatives are subjected to such vicious personal hate. I don't get it.

Click to expand...

While I am sure you and I would disagree with most everything, I respect your opinion and will also point out that liberal justices get just as much grief from those kind of personal attacks.

These people did not rise to their positions by being stupid, nor did Pelosi, Obama, Bush I or II. They are all smart people, albeit, at times I had some real problems with Bush II's intelligence. I often thought of him as more of a puppet then a master.

.

Just Plain Jim said:

While I am sure you and I would disagree with most everything, I respect your opinion and will also point out that liberal justices get just as much grief from those kind of personal attacks.

These people did not rise to their positions by being stupid, nor did Pelosi, Obama, Bush I or II. They are all smart people, albeit, at times I had some real problems with Bush II's intelligence. I often thought of him as more of a puppet then a master.

.

Click to expand...

Bush was sly as a fox, and if I had to mark his GREAT shortcoming, aside public speaking... it was relying on "experts" too much. It wasn't he was stupid, that's just not true, it was he knew what he didn't know and trusted those around him that were supposed to know and went with their call. Thus leading him to the occasional panic moment which I write the bailouts as... panic.

Some call that puppet, I call it smart leadership. Doesn't make one immune to mistakes, however it is not a sign IMHO of weakness. Obama's great fault in my book is that he THINKS he knows what's best at all times, his arrogance is astounding.

MrVicchio said:

Bush was sly as a fox, and if I had to mark his GREAT shortcoming, aside public speaking... it was relying on "experts" too much. It wasn't he was stupid, that's just not true, it was he knew what he didn't know and trusted those around him that were supposed to know and went with their call. Thus leading him to the occasional panic moment which I write the bailouts as... panic.

Some call that puppet, I call it smart leadership. Doesn't make one immune to mistakes, however it is not a sign IMHO of weakness. Obama's great fault in my book is that he THINKS he knows what's best at all times, his arrogance is astounding.

Click to expand...

bush isn't stupid, but his narrow views of the world caused him to make stupid mistakes.
obama may be arrogant, but no more arrogant than bush.

MrVicchio said:

Bush was sly as a fox, and if I had to mark his GREAT shortcoming, aside public speaking... it was relying on "experts" too much. It wasn't he was stupid, that's just not true, it was he knew what he didn't know and trusted those around him that were supposed to know and went with their call. Thus leading him to the occasional panic moment which I write the bailouts as... panic.

Some call that puppet, I call it smart leadership. Doesn't make one immune to mistakes, however it is not a sign IMHO of weakness. Obama's great fault in my book is that he THINKS he knows what's best at all times, his arrogance is astounding.

Click to expand...

I would agree with most of this and I personally found Bush's public speaking refreshing. Why? He never sounded practiced...or telepromptered if you will. He spoke to me as my peers speak to me. He slashed the english language, tore up quotes, misspoke, said words in error......just as my comrades, friends, workmates, family, and contacts in business or in the community. He spoke genuinely..

You take Obama and the short cut snappy words clearly speaking at you not to you...who speaks like this? Anyone you know?

disneydude said:

If you've ever sat down and tried to read a Scalia decision you would see what an absolute fool he is.

Scalia decides what he wants to decide and then goes through the most convoluted reasoning in order to justify what he wanted to decide.

His clinging to the strict constructionist label is a joke.

I remember when I was in law school....I would start reading a case decision, get half way through, saying what the......, flip back to the beginning and practically ever time the author of the majority was Scalia.

Click to expand...

YOU went to law school? Was it right next to Dr. Nick's medical school?

Charles Martel said:

I would agree with most of this and I personally found Bush's public speaking refreshing. Why? He never sounded practiced...or telepromptered if you will. He spoke to me as my peers speak to me. He slashed the english language, tore up quotes, misspoke, said words in error......just as my comrades, friends, workmates, family, and contacts in business or in the community. He spoke genuinely..

You take Obama and the short cut snappy words clearly speaking at you not to you...who speaks like this? Anyone you know?

Click to expand...

I found nothing refreshing in his delivery or speech. To me he sounded dumb and simple minded, even if he was smart, he just sounded stupid. His turning our language into mincemeat made it that much worse.

The only person I know who butchers our language like Bush is a very smart dyslectic man who is my best friend back in the states. Don can rattle off sports memorabilia clear back to the 50's and is incredibly accurate. I certainly would not want him to be president, best friend yes, president no. One of the things I like about Don is he knows his limitations, I don't think Bush does.

On the other hand, a man I detest, Rush, I could listen to him for hours if it was not for what the content is.

Since I don't listen to the radio or watch TV I had no idea what Obama sounded like till well into the election cycle. It was refreshing when I finally heard, even if I disagreed with what he was saying at times, at least I could listen. I don't look at him as so much as a lecturer, but more as a leader. He just seems to have that kind of quality and I am not an Obama fan, I take exception to some of what he is doing. But you can't have everything in a leader and it certainly doesn't mean I trust him.

By the way, I'm an independent and I can not for the life of me figure out why the GOP picked such a divisive VP candidate, it is like they wanted to lose. If anyone sounds like a lecturer it is her. She reminded me of my control freak mother, bless her heart, but my mom and I rarely see eye to eye and it has everything to do with her delivery. She lectures, she doesn't lead, she just plain lectures, even to this day and I haven't lived at parents home for 40 years.

.

Ethereal said:

YOU went to law school? Was it right next to Dr. Nick's medical school?

Click to expand...

I assume Dr Nick is one of the people on this forum, which means that maybe you don't believe Disneydude went to law school? What would you base that on?

Just Plain Jim said:

I assume Dr Nick is one of the people on this forum, which means that maybe you don't believe Disneydude went to law school? What would you base that on?

Click to expand...

Nick Riviera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ethereal said:

Nick Riviera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

I assume you think disneydude is a quack (or an armchair lawyer). Again, what do you base that on?

Just Plain Jim said:

I assume you think disneydude is a quack (or an armchair lawyer). Again, what do you base that on?

Click to expand...

No. I was just being a dick head.

Just Plain Jim said:

Since I don't listen to the radio or watch TV I had no idea what Obama sounded like till well into the election cycle. It was refreshing when I finally heard, even if I disagreed with what he was saying at times, at least I could listen. I don't look at him as so much as a lecturer, but more as a leader. He just seems to have that kind of quality and I am not an Obama fan, I take exception to some of what he is doing.

Click to expand...

You should have listened to him when he didn't have access to a teleprompter. Completely incoherent. Without his speech writers and teleprompter, this man obviously knows almost nothing about our country, our laws or what people in America care about.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU"]YouTube- Obama lost without a teleprompter[/ame]

But you can't have everything in a leader and it certainly doesn't mean I trust him.

Click to expand...

If there is ONE person that you vote for that you should be able to trust, it should be your choice for President. The simple fact is that NOBODY knows much of anything about this man. All his records have been sealed including much of what he did and said as a state senator. There are major inconsistencies in his life story between what he claims in his books and what the available records show. He seems to have no problem making a stand, then changing that stand with the statement "I have been perfectly clear xxxxx" where he then takes the exact opposite position. Face it, he truly is the "Liar in Chief".

By the way, I'm an independent and I can not for the life of me figure out why the GOP picked such a divisive VP candidate, it is like they wanted to lose. If anyone sounds like a lecturer it is her. She reminded me of my control freak mother, bless her heart, but my mom and I rarely see eye to eye and it has everything to do with her delivery. She lectures, she doesn't lead, she just plain lectures, even to this day and I haven't lived at parents home for 40 years.

Click to expand...

And nominating the most left leaning member of congress for President and the 3rd most left leaning member of congress for VP was somehow NOT divisive?

Are you sure that Independent is the correct label for your views?