Justice Scalia slams high court

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cal_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich_Olszewski said:
The Constitution can be made to mean whatever we want. One way to do it is via the Supreme Court, another way is via the amendment process. The end result either way can be something the authors didn’t intend at all. 🤷
Click to expand...
Please show me in the Constitution where it states the Supreme Court can make law.
 
buffalo said:
Please show me in the Constitution where it states the Supreme Court can make law.
Click to expand...
Court decisions have the force of law by their very nature. The Constitution is not 900 pages long to cover every situation or exigency that the nation must deal with. Both conservative and liberal courts over the years have considered themselves to be the final word on what the Constitution means and have freely interpreted it accordingly.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Court decisions have the force of law by their very nature. The Constitution is not 900 pages long to cover every situation or exigency that the nation must deal with. Both conservative and liberal courts over the years have considered themselves to be the final word on what the Constitution means and have freely interpreted it accordingly.
Click to expand...
Strict constructionists interpret the constitution as it was written not as they wish it was written.

So you think it is good to “freely” interpret according to the fads and whims of the times?
 
buffalo said:
Strict constructionists interpret the constitution as it was written not as they wish it was written.
Click to expand...
No one interprets the Constitution “as it was written.”
So you think it is good to “freely” interpret according to the fads and whims of the times?
Click to expand...
I am certain that the Supreme Court doesn’t take the 150 or so cases that they agree to hear each year and interpret them according to “whim” or “fad.” If you think that, you ought to read their decisions and see how “faddish” they are.
 
The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) and the 21st Amendment provide an example of how the process is supposed to work. Prohibition was ratified by enough states to be added to the Constitution. (Kansas, home of Carrie Nation, was the 28th State to ratify, although it was the first state to prohibit alcohol consumption in its state constitution.)

When the nation decided that Prohbition had been a mistake, the 21st Amendment was ratified, thereby repealing the 18th. (Kansas never did ratify the 21st Amendment!)

Today perhaps, the Court might simply have found in some penumbra of the constitution a prohibition on liquor, thereby skirting the whole process, and might later have found a right to liquor in another clause or penumbra.
 
JimG said:
The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) and the 21st Amendment provide an example of how the process is supposed to work. Prohibition was ratified by enough states to be added to the Constitution. (Kansas, home of Carrie Nation, was the 28th State to ratify, although it was the first state to prohibit alcohol consumption in its state constitution.)

When the nation decided that Prohbition had been a mistake, the 21st Amendment was ratified, thereby repealing the 18th. (Kansas never did ratify the 21st Amendment!)

Today perhaps, the Court might simply have found in some penumbra of the constitution a prohibition on liquor, thereby skirting the whole process, and might later have found a right to liquor in another clause or penumbra.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. As Prohibition came in by amendment, it was appropriate to abolish it by amendment.
 
I’m starting to wonder why leftists even bother pretending to care about the Constitution in the first place, if they think its words have no value. If they were honest with themselves they’d just come right out and say “just do whatever the courts tell you”.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
No one interprets the Constitution “as it was written.”

I am certain that the Supreme Court doesn’t take the 150 or so cases that they agree to hear each year and interpret them according to “whim” or “fad.” If you think that, you ought to read their decisions and see how “faddish” they are.
Click to expand...
SInce when? Gotta date? So your claim is that the intent of the framers need not be considered? Or are you illustrating how far we have strayed?

The subject of this thread is an example. How about the privacy ruling that opened the door to all today’s nonsense?
 
buffalo said:
SInce when? Gotta date? So your claim is that the intent of the framers need not be considered?
Click to expand...
The framers would hardly have a clue about the difficult subjects the Court handles every year and about how little the mentality of the 18th century is applicable to today’s rulings. How about the one where they blocked the ban on corporate political spending? How would the “framers” have ruled?
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
It’s a lot more efficient that way, and the Court is demonstrating that the Constitution is a living document and not a piece of paper being clutched in the hands of men dead for more than 200 years.

If that upsets Scalia so much, perhaps he ought to resign rather than be part of a Court he doesn’t approve of…
Click to expand...
Your comment is contemptible, Rich. I don't know which leftist demagogues you've admired throughout the years, but you seem to have utter disdain for those who wrote our Constitution. Our country is sinking rapidly, and you continue whistling. Voters such as you will leave our nation's families and laws in ruins. :stretcher: Rob
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
The framers would hardly have a clue about the difficult subjects the Court handles every year and about how little the mentality of the 18th century is applicable to today’s rulings. How about the one where they blocked the ban on corporate political spending? How would the “framers” have ruled?
Click to expand...
The framers did not intend for career politicians.
 
Nobody here is arguing that the world and our society should be unchanged since 1776. What strict constructionists are arguing is that when cultural changes occur that prompt the need for revisions to laws, those changes should be achieved via the democratic process, not the excercise of judicial power.

I tend to agree that the current legal system in our country that grants “personhood” for the purpose of rights to corporations is a grave mistake. But it is rooted in long precedent. IMO, we need to undertake a revision in which the “rights” of corporations are reduced compared to those of individual persons in order to reduce the potential for abuse and to eliminate the undue influence corporations have come to have on our political system.
 
manualman said:
Nobody here is arguing that the world and our society should be unchanged since 1776. What strict constructionists are arguing is that when cultural changes occur that prompt the need for revisions to laws, those changes should be achieved via the democratic process, not the excercise of judicial power.
Click to expand...
I think both legislative and judicial action, not one or the other, ought to change laws.

If it were not for Brown vs Bd. of Education, segregated schools might still be with us, as those were passed using the democratic process in various state legislatures. How about Loving vs. Virginia, which overthrew a legitimately and democratically passed Virginia law forbiding inter-racial marriage?

We might still be waiting for complete integration and civil rights if it were entirely up to state legislatures,
 
You really think the 1960’s era of federal civil rights legislation would not have passed without supportive judicial decisions? I’m not a history expert, but it seems to me that the federal legislative branch was rather involved in all that.
 
RACJ said:
Your comment is contemptible, Rich. I don’t know which leftist demagogues you’ve admired throughout the years, but you seem to have utter disdain for those who wrote our Constitution. Our country is sinking rapidly, and you continue whistling. Voters such as you will leave our nation’s families and laws in ruins. :stretcher: Rob
Click to expand...
You have your opinion of the Constitution, I have mine. You have your view of the direction in which our country is headed, I have mine. That’s fair enough.

But, I’d be more careful about implying that I’m contemptible.
 
manualman said:
You really think the 1960’s era of federal civil rights legislation would not have passed without supportive judicial decisions? I’m not a history expert, but it seems to me that the federal legislative branch was rather involved in all that.
Click to expand...
I don’t know where my post disappeared to, but I did post that it took both the Supreme Court and the Congress - both GOPers and Dems - to get those changes made. The Brown and Loving decisions came from the Supreme Court, civil rights laws from the Congress.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I don’t know where my post disappeared to, but I did post that it took both the Supreme Court and the Congress - both GOPers and Dems - to get those changes made. The Brown and Loving decisions came from the Supreme Court, civil rights laws from the Congress.
Click to expand...
So you are asserting that if not for the loose constructionist based rulings of the SC, we’d still live in a segregated America? The legislative branch would not have been able to get it done?

I disagree. I think we could have got there without eroding the checks and balances that historically were in place against SC tyranny.
 
manualman said:
So you are asserting that if not for the loose constructionist based rulings of the SC, we’d still live in a segregated America? The legislative branch would not have been able to get it done?
Click to expand...
Oh, eventually, but even if so, it would have taken a long time. Look at the resistance to integration among “we the people” back then.
I disagree. I think we could have got there without eroding the checks and balances that historically were in place against SC tyranny.
Click to expand...
We have different views of the role of the SC in our government, so your viewpoint is yours and mine is mine. I don’t expect that either one of us is going to change what we think about the matter, but it’s always good to know what the other side is thinking. Can’t say more than that, I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top