Supreme Court Justice Scalia: "Im an originalist"

[mrplunkey]

He's on 60-Minutes talking about how we should actually stick to the constitution. I love the quote: "If someone wants a right to something not in the constitution, then use the democratic process and pass a law."

Damn this guy is good.

Now Ginsburg is telling us how the constitution should be read to "evolve" with changing times. She's even challenging who "We the people" are.

I wonder why the founders bothered to specify a process for changing it since she thinks its supposed to just evolve on its own. I wish they'd ask her that.

 

[itz486]

I think the contrary opinions and oppositional views are what makes the constitution a "living" document. Without this America would not be a "Free" country. Essentially, "Dissension is the keystone of democracy" (quote by an unknown)

 

[mrplunkey]

I think the contrary opinions and oppositional views are what makes the constitution a "living" document. Without this America would not be a "Free" country. Essentially, "Dissension is the keystone of democracy" (quoted by an unknown)

But the document itself shouldn't change unless its via amendment. His point was if the constitution is silent on something, then pass a law one way or another or amend the constitution itself.

He used flag burning as an example. He sided with the justices who said it is a legitimate form of free speech and expression, but admitted he'd personally have loved to throw the flag burners in jail.

 

[Stefka]

Excellent video if you like Scalia...

Justices Breyer and Scalia Converse on the Constitution | American Constitution Society

 

[Sean Scott]

Excellent video if you like Scalia...

Justices Breyer and Scalia Converse on the Constitution | American Constitution Society

Dont you all love Scalia, he is great.

 

[heatherrae]

But the document itself shouldn't change unless its via amendment. His point was if the constitution is silent on something, then pass a law one way or another or amend the constitution itself.

He used flag burning as an example. He sided with the justices who said it is a legitimate form of free speech and expression, but admitted he'd personally have loved to throw the flag burners in jail.

You can't go making a bunch of ridiculous amendments. Remember prohibition.

 

[heatherrae]

I missed the interview. I think that sometimes our legislature makes some pretty f'd up laws and the SC has to slap them on the wrist despite the lack of authority on the plain language of the Constitution. Does this overstep their bounds? Maybe. However, I would hate to see what a piece of shit nation we would be if left solely to some backwards reps we have in the legislature. The SC is the cream of the crop legal minds. Most of the legislature don't even read the laws that they pass and are so beholden to their financiers that they make some TERRIBLE decisions. On the other hand, our structure is what it is and we don't want the whims of the SC to override the will of the people.

I'm a fence rider here.

 

[Lestat]

I think that a lot of what the Supreme court does is subjective interpretation. Taking the rights guarenteed by the Constitution and applying them to very specific circumstances that were not even possible when the document was written. From that standpoint, the interpretation and application of the document does has to evolve.

As far as changing or amending it, you are absolutely right, there is a process in place for that and it is intentionally very difficult to change and I don't suggest we make it any easier.

 

[mrplunkey]

You can't go making a bunch of ridiculous amendments. Remember prohibition.

That was part of his point though. He said the constitution was silent on the specific burning of flags, so all he had was the first amendment to fall back upon. So in his example, he said if there was a specific law forbidding flag burning, then the supreme court could then look at upholding it or striking it down.

So there's really two lines of defense. First use the legislative process and pass laws (i.e. how 99%+) of things are supposed to work. Then, if a law blatantly violates the constitution but people still want it, use the constitutional amendment process.

He was just expressing frustration that the SC gets used to sometimes to "create" laws when he'd rather the legislature do their work first and let the SC be a check to make sure their laws don't violate the original document. I soooooo prefer that approach.

 

[mrplunkey]

He also talked about abortion. He thought hinging everything on the right to privacy was ridiculous. But then he hand-slapped the people who try to use the "rights of the unborn baby" as well. Using originalist thinking, he pointed-out that the constitution was clearly written for people "walking around" and didn't specifically confer any rights to the unborn. So his response was: "If you want the unborn to have rights, then pass a law and let us look at it."