Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[bripat9643]

The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Do you suppose they will accept what this Supreme Court justices has to say?

Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism' | Fox News

During a speech in Atlanta Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday defended interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written and intended.

Scalia delivered a speech titled "Interpreting the Constitution: A View From the High Court," as part of a constitutional symposium hosted by the State Bar of Georgia. Originalism and trying to figure out precisely what the ratified document means is the only option, otherwise you're just telling judges to govern, Scalia argued.

"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."​

 

[rightwinger]

However, it's interpretation is

 

[natstew]

Scalia is right, and RIGHTWINGER, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!!

 

[JoeB131]

Scalia is right, and RIGHTWINGER, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!!

Scalia had no problem interpretting the constitution his own way in Heller or Citizen's United.

 

[rightwinger]

Society evolves

Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed

The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society

That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on

 

[Truthmatters]

then why can we ad to it as a nation?


remember the founders planned it that way?

 

[paperview]

Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself

 

[1751_Texan]

Scalia says we need to go back to original intent...what is missing from this equation?

Oringinal Intenders?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Do you suppose they will accept what this Supreme Court justices has to say?

Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism' | Fox News

During a speech in Atlanta Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday defended interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written and intended.

Scalia delivered a speech titled "Interpreting the Constitution: A View From the High Court," as part of a constitutional symposium hosted by the State Bar of Georgia. Originalism and trying to figure out precisely what the ratified document means is the only option, otherwise you're just telling judges to govern, Scalia argued.

"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."​

He gets one vote out of nine. No one is denying him his authority to interpret the Constitution any way he pleases.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself

I think the OP would blow a gasket if (s)he read Scalia's authoring of the decision in Employment Division v. Smith




>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

Hundreds of years of court decisions on the interpretation of the Constitution s a living organism

Scalia, if anyone, should understand his job

 

[bripat9643]

However, it's interpretation is

It's interpretation is a matter of opinion? It's interpretation is an assault on Constitutional government.

 

[paperview]

Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself

I think the OP would blow a gasket if (s)he read Scalia's authoring of the decision in Employment Division v. Smith




>>>>

Between you & me, I think the OP has long since proven any gaskets he may have are ones that are malfunctioning.

 

[paperview]

However, it's interpretation is

It's interpretation is a matter of opinion? It's interpretation is an assault on Constitutional government.

That's why they are called....

Opinions - Supreme Court of the United States

 

[bripat9643]

Hundreds of years of court decisions on the interpretation of the Constitution s a living organism

Scalia, if anyone, should understand his job

Your statement is meaningless. We already know the Supreme Court has stretched the meaning of the Constitution beyond recognition. The question being discussed is whether its correct to do so.

 

[bripat9643]

Wonder if the OP agrees with Scalia here: "There Is No Right to Secede" -Antonin hisself

I think the OP would blow a gasket if (s)he read Scalia's authoring of the decision in Employment Division v. Smith




>>>>

Between you & me, I think the OP has long since proven any gaskets he may have are ones that are malfunctioning.

You're a numskull without the slightest grasp of reality, so why would anyone care what you think?

 

[bripat9643]

The libturds are always saying that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Do you suppose they will accept what this Supreme Court justices has to say?

Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism' | Fox News

During a speech in Atlanta Friday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Friday defended interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written and intended.

Scalia delivered a speech titled "Interpreting the Constitution: A View From the High Court," as part of a constitutional symposium hosted by the State Bar of Georgia. Originalism and trying to figure out precisely what the ratified document means is the only option, otherwise you're just telling judges to govern, Scalia argued.

"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."​

He gets one vote out of nine. No one is denying him his authority to interpret the Constitution any way he pleases.

He's denying that he has that authority, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Scalia is right, and RIGHTWINGER, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!!

Scalia had no problem interpretting the constitution his own way in Heller or Citizen's United.

He interpreted the document correctly. The libturds having a hissy fit because they think the government can limit the First Amendment rights of private citizens are wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Society evolves

Lucky for us, we have a Constitution that is written broadly enough for each generation to apply it as needed

The Needs of a 21st century society differ from that of an 18th century society

That is why we have courts....even the one Scalia is on

The Constitution was not "written broadly." If you want to change what it says, it allows for amendments. the Supreme Court was not given the job of redefining what it says. Those redefinitions have nothing to do with any "needs of the 21st Century." They are simply the result of subversives attempting to implement their anti-American agenda.

 

[paperview]

Scalia is right, and RIGHTWINGER, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN!!

Scalia had no problem interpretting the constitution his own way in Heller or Citizen's United.

He interpreted the document correctly. The libturds having a hissy fit because they think the government can limit the First Amendment rights of private citizens are wrong.

...with all the confidence of the moth who says HELL YA!

and then dive bombs into the bug zapper.

Anthony Scalia, on government limiting rights of private citizens Because: First Amendment!

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.
On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

Also, too:

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

And, finally:


It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in;

but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.
LINK