Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[kaz]

George Bush won the election in 2000 very likely because of the 5 -4 Supreme Court decision in his favor. One vote of one judge.

If one of those judges in the majority had left the Court a few years before, and been replaced by a Clinton nominee, it's entirely possible, all else being equal, that Gore would have won that election, after a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling in his favor.

Which decision would have been right? Which would have been wrong? Who's to say?

I imagine all of those who died on Sept. 11, all of those killed in the Iraq war as well as their loved ones, and those who lost limbs and suffer TBI's would decide the decision was poor, and would like Gore to have been POTUS. He might have listened when GWB did not and he might not have attacked and occupied Iraq.

Dude, Gore supported the invasion. Stop rewriting history.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Isn't the crux of this issue Marbury v. Madison? Does anyone think Saclia would vote to overturn this historic ruling?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Isn't the crux of this issue Marbury v. Madison? Does anyone think Saclia would vote to overturn this historic ruling?

Probably not but he'd likely say he doesn't agree with it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

George Bush won the election in 2000 very likely because of the 5 -4 Supreme Court decision in his favor. One vote of one judge.

If one of those judges in the majority had left the Court a few years before, and been replaced by a Clinton nominee, it's entirely possible, all else being equal, that Gore would have won that election, after a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling in his favor.

Which decision would have been right? Which would have been wrong? Who's to say?

I imagine all of those who died on Sept. 11, all of those killed in the Iraq war as well as their loved ones, and those who lost limbs and suffer TBI's would decide the decision was poor, and would like Gore to have been POTUS. He might have listened when GWB did not and he might not have attacked and occupied Iraq.

Dude, Gore supported the invasion. Stop rewriting history.

See, there is something wrong with you. You've build a straw man out of asbestos, that's bizarre. You see the word, "might", as in he might have listened to Richard Clark, and he might not have invaded Iraq. No history was revised, for that you need to read any post by PC or CrusaderFrank, both ministers of truth.

 

[kaz]

I imagine all of those who died on Sept. 11, all of those killed in the Iraq war as well as their loved ones, and those who lost limbs and suffer TBI's would decide the decision was poor, and would like Gore to have been POTUS. He might have listened when GWB did not and he might not have attacked and occupied Iraq.

Dude, Gore supported the invasion. Stop rewriting history.

See, there is something wrong with you. You've build a straw man out of asbestos, that's bizarre. You see the word, "might", as in he might have listened to Richard Clark, and he might not have invaded Iraq. No history was revised, for that you need to read any post by PC or CrusaderFrank, both ministers of truth.

Democrats were in the White House 8 of 9 years before the invasion started, and Democrats were all over the Senate intelligence committee. We are in agreement that we are against the invasion. Where we differ is that you look at two parties who did and said the same thing and believe one is pure as the driven snow and the other are devils. When they did and said exactly the same thing.

And there is something wrong with everyone who disagrees with you, that is what I pointed out in the first place. Only you see truth. Me for example, seeing two identical parties who do the same thing as the same. That's just messed up, isn't it?

 

[The T]

Dude, Gore supported the invasion. Stop rewriting history.

See, there is something wrong with you. You've build a straw man out of asbestos, that's bizarre. You see the word, "might", as in he might have listened to Richard Clark, and he might not have invaded Iraq. No history was revised, for that you need to read any post by PC or CrusaderFrank, both ministers of truth.

Democrats were in the White House 8 of 9 years before the invasion started, and Democrats were all over the Senate intelligence committee. We are in agreement that we are against the invasion. Where we differ is that you look at two parties who did and said the same thing and believe one is pure as the driven snow and the other are devils. When they did and said exactly the same thing.

And there is something wrong with everyone who disagrees with you, that is what I pointed out in the first place. Only you see truth. Me for example, seeing two identical parties who do the same thing as the same. That's just messed up, isn't it?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8"]Democrats before Iraq War started.... - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

The morons who think the Constitution is not a living document must then agree that the 2nd amendment was meant precisely and absolutely for military personnel only to bear arms, just as the amendment states.

Even Ronald Reagan agreed to as much.

Utterly idiotic.

Well no it's not.

Reagan supported an assault weapons ban.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...obama/did-reagan-support-assault-weapons-ban/

 

[Sallow]

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.
\
"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."​

It's sad the Founding Fathers and half of his fellow SCOTUS disagree with him.

Hmmm . . . . wrong, the founders do not disagree. Only the commie stooges on the Court disagree.

You can channel the dead now?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Isn't the crux of this issue Marbury v. Madison? Does anyone think Saclia would vote to overturn this historic ruling?

No. It's not. And he wouldn't.

The leftist remains utterly oblivious of the imperatives and pertinent distinctions. We might as well be talking to walls.

 

[bripat9643]

Notwithstanding the comment above, consider this:

Apply the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to the Supreme Court | CREDO Mobilize

And who will enforce that?

Gee, and I thought you thought you are an expert on the Constitution.

See:

Article II, Sec. 4; and Art. III, Sec. 1

You're most welcome, in my effort to educate the ignorant I'm pleased to assist you.

Congress can already impeach Supreme Court justices. How would an ethics code change anything?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dude, Gore supported the invasion. Stop rewriting history.

See, there is something wrong with you. You've build a straw man out of asbestos, that's bizarre. You see the word, "might", as in he might have listened to Richard Clark, and he might not have invaded Iraq. No history was revised, for that you need to read any post by PC or CrusaderFrank, both ministers of truth.

Democrats were in the White House 8 of 9 years before the invasion started, and Democrats were all over the Senate intelligence committee. We are in agreement that we are against the invasion. Where we differ is that you look at two parties who did and said the same thing and believe one is pure as the driven snow and the other are devils. When they did and said exactly the same thing.

And there is something wrong with everyone who disagrees with you, that is what I pointed out in the first place. Only you see truth. Me for example, seeing two identical parties who do the same thing as the same. That's just messed up, isn't it?

Wrong again. Look at the votes in the H. or Rep. and the Senate by party authorizing Bush to use force against Saddam.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Isn't the crux of this issue Marbury v. Madison? Does anyone think Saclia would vote to overturn this historic ruling?

Actually not.

Most on the right incorrectly perceive the ruling as the Supreme Court ‘inventing’ the doctrine of judicial review.

The fact is nothing could be further from the truth.

In Marbury the Court merely recognized and codified judicial review where citizens of the new Nation fully expected the courts to review the acts of Congress, and invalidate those found to be repugnant to the Constitution:

[J]udicial review was dramatically better established in the years before Marbury than previously recognized. While there has been a range of opinions about early judicial review, none of the modern commentators has grasped how common it was for courts to invalidate statutes. The most influential modern account asserts that there were five such decisions in state and federal courts in the critical period between the Constitution and Marbury.

The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the
institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine. Moreover, the fact that judicial review was exercised so frequently indicates that courts were not as reluctant to invalidate statutes[.]

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040&context=facpub

 

[kaz]

See, there is something wrong with you. You've build a straw man out of asbestos, that's bizarre. You see the word, "might", as in he might have listened to Richard Clark, and he might not have invaded Iraq. No history was revised, for that you need to read any post by PC or CrusaderFrank, both ministers of truth.

Democrats were in the White House 8 of 9 years before the invasion started, and Democrats were all over the Senate intelligence committee. We are in agreement that we are against the invasion. Where we differ is that you look at two parties who did and said the same thing and believe one is pure as the driven snow and the other are devils. When they did and said exactly the same thing.

And there is something wrong with everyone who disagrees with you, that is what I pointed out in the first place. Only you see truth. Me for example, seeing two identical parties who do the same thing as the same. That's just messed up, isn't it?

Wrong again. Look at the votes in the H. or Rep. and the Senate by party authorizing Bush to use force against Saddam.

Wrong again. None of the Democrats who voted against the invasion were saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs. They just didn't want to invade anyway. I am in favor of that position, but it's not what you've been arguing. You don't get to move the goal posts. If you want to argue we shouldn't have invaded without the lie that Democrats were lied to, then I'll be with you. I am not going to sit and let you spew the crap though that it was the Republicans when it was both of you.

 

[The T]

Isn't the crux of this issue Marbury v. Madison? Does anyone think Saclia would vote to overturn this historic ruling?

No. It's not. And he wouldn't.

The leftist remains utterly oblivious of the imperatives and pertinent distinctions. We might as well be talking to walls.

And the walls would give you a better answer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

then why can we ad to it as a nation?


remember the founders planned it that way?

Same reason you can add on to a house, which is ALSO not a "living organism". Because solid, finite, non-living structures can be built onto. They don't grow on their own.

You get dumber every time you breathe. It's just amazing to watch.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Implicitly, we do. Or, rather our ancestors did for us. None of this changes the nature of the argument. Do you really want to be held accountable for a contract that can change its meaning based on the agenda of whoever is interpreting it?

There's no way to prevent that, at least without overturning the entire system.

 

[dblack]

Implicitly, we do. Or, rather our ancestors did for us. None of this changes the nature of the argument. Do you really want to be held accountable for a contract that can change its meaning based on the agenda of whoever is interpreting it?

There's no way to prevent that, at least without overturning the entire system.

Well, rejecting "living document" doctrine is a start.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yep. As I said, the 'living document' argument isn't about whether interpretation should occur. It's vital that it does. That's what the Court is for. The argument is what the goal of that interpretation should be - shouldn't it be to accurately reflect the intent of those who ratified the Constitution and its amendments? The living document movement says, "no", the goal should be to adjust the meaning to suit our current values. And I'm saying that's bullshit. That's just a sleight-of-hand to avoid the amendment process. It renders the Constitution's power as a binding document moot.

To clarify, would you sign a 'living contract', where lawyers could later 'interpret' its meaning to something different than what you understood it to mean when you signed it??? I don't think any sane person would, but that's what the living document people are asking us to accept.

You get to vote for the president and your Senators. That is where your voice in the decision of who will be on the Supreme Court is heard.

Btw - this idea is really a fundamental problem with our current politics. The whole idea of the Constitution is to provide a stable grant of sovereignty that isn't up for constant modification. If every single election is a referendum on the foundational nature of our government, if every election risks nominating judges who are allowed to make radical 'living' changes to the meaning of the Constitution, well - then we're doomed to vicious political struggles with every single election.

Which, is what we've been seeing, isn't it?

Your wishes are dust unless you can propose a viable way to disallow judges from doing what you describe in the bolded.

 

[dblack]

You get to vote for the president and your Senators. That is where your voice in the decision of who will be on the Supreme Court is heard.

Btw - this idea is really a fundamental problem with our current politics. The whole idea of the Constitution is to provide a stable grant of sovereignty that isn't up for constant modification. If every single election is a referendum on the foundational nature of our government, if every election risks nominating judges who are allowed to make radical 'living' changes to the meaning of the Constitution, well - then we're doomed to vicious political struggles with every single election.

Which, is what we've been seeing, isn't it?

Your wishes are dust unless you can propose a viable way to disallow judges from doing what you describe in the bolded.

The first means available to us is to stop electing politicians who will nominate judges of this bent. Which means building consensus that changing the Constitution without real amendments is a bad idea.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Implicitly, we do. Or, rather our ancestors did for us. None of this changes the nature of the argument. Do you really want to be held accountable for a contract that can change its meaning based on the agenda of whoever is interpreting it?

There's no way to prevent that, at least without overturning the entire system.

Well, rejecting "living document" doctrine is a start.

You're going to force everyone to believe the radical rightwing agenda of a Justice Scalia?

lol, good luck with that.