Scalia & Breyer testifying b4 Judiciary Committe

[PoliticalChic]

Originalists like Scalia are what I call "fair weather" originalists. They are rigid about their decisions when it supports their particular idealogical agenda, and not so much when the constitutional component of their decision doesn't.

The thing that bugs me about rabid originalists....like the GOP is trying to make everybody these days...is that many of the strict consitutionalists on this web site have no trouble collecting social security and recieving medicare benefits. Originalists and strict consitutionalists should be against SS and medicare, because it's example of the federal governnment exceeding the powers afforded by the constitution. But back on point....too many people these days have been told by conservative media that anything the government does is bad, and any deviation from the constitution and the first ten amendments is bad. It's just not that simple, and I'm dissapointed in people who let conservative media's GOP electioneering efforts put that simplistic poopoo into thier heads.

Horsefeathers.


See, first Breyer says start with the text as the primary source for interpretation...now he's going on with the 'living Constitution' nonsense.

Scalia is now explaining originalism based on the principles of the original text. He's speaking of the death penalty as the perfect example of the difference between originalism and the 'living' idea.

Wow....."horsefeathers"!.....kudos for not using profanity. It's so rare to see that from "conservatives" on this site.

I was also speaking in generalities regarding Scalia and originalism. I must apologize for weighing in before even taking a look at the link.....but I will because you seem uncharacteristically intelligent for a righty. jk

As far as originalsim is concerned....don't mistake me for an opponent of it. I'm just an opponent of idealogues in general, and even if Scalia makes a few objective constitutionally based decisions...there's more pandering to the GOP agenda from him in our future for sure.

I think we will agree in several important ways...the following is one:

1. Originalists begin with the belief that ours should be a government of laws, and not one of men, or of judges, and this book addresses that question of judicial philosophy.

2. Attorney-general Edwin Meese, III’s speech to the ABA, July 9, 1985, called for Jurisprudence of Original Intention, focusing on several themes. The first is the primacy of the rule of law. Thomas Paine said, “America has no monarch: Here the law is king.” Originalists believe that the written Constitution is our most fundamental law and that it binds us all. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.

a. There is no liberal or conservative meaning of the text of the Constitution, only a right meaning or a wrong meaning. Those who convert the Constitution into a license for judges to make policy instead of being a limit on the power of judges, pervert a document that is supposed to limit power into one that sanctions it.

I'm reading an excellent book of debates re: originalism, by Steven G. Calibresi, with a foreword by Scalia.


Second point of agreement...I never use profanity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I thought it was indicative of an originalist jurist when Scalia pointed out that the Court should always assume that laws are constitutional, thereby giving the benefit of the doubt to legislators having considered constitutionality.


This may not bode well for those who are depending on the SCOTUS throwing out ObamaCare. Remember McCain-Feingold.

 

[Sallow]

I thought it was indicative of an originalist jurist when Scalia pointed out that the Court should always assume that laws are constitutional, thereby giving the benefit of the doubt to legislators having considered constitutionality.


This may not bode well for those who are depending on the SCOTUS throwing out ObamaCare. Remember McCain-Feingold.

I sort of think the court will rule in Obama's favor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I thought it was indicative of an originalist jurist when Scalia pointed out that the Court should always assume that laws are constitutional, thereby giving the benefit of the doubt to legislators having considered constitutionality.


This may not bode well for those who are depending on the SCOTUS throwing out ObamaCare. Remember McCain-Feingold.

I sort of think the court will rule in Obama's favor.

The very best reason why the Republicans must win both the Senate and the White House, as dangerous as that excess could be.

 

[toxicmedia]

Horsefeathers.


See, first Breyer says start with the text as the primary source for interpretation...now he's going on with the 'living Constitution' nonsense.

Scalia is now explaining originalism based on the principles of the original text. He's speaking of the death penalty as the perfect example of the difference between originalism and the 'living' idea.

Wow....."horsefeathers"!.....kudos for not using profanity. It's so rare to see that from "conservatives" on this site.

I was also speaking in generalities regarding Scalia and originalism. I must apologize for weighing in before even taking a look at the link.....but I will because you seem uncharacteristically intelligent for a righty. jk

As far as originalsim is concerned....don't mistake me for an opponent of it. I'm just an opponent of idealogues in general, and even if Scalia makes a few objective constitutionally based decisions...there's more pandering to the GOP agenda from him in our future for sure.

I think we will agree in several important ways...the following is one:

1. Originalists begin with the belief that ours should be a government of laws, and not one of men, or of judges, and this book addresses that question of judicial philosophy.

2. Attorney-general Edwin Meese, III’s speech to the ABA, July 9, 1985, called for Jurisprudence of Original Intention, focusing on several themes. The first is the primacy of the rule of law. Thomas Paine said, “America has no monarch: Here the law is king.” Originalists believe that the written Constitution is our most fundamental law and that it binds us all. Justices who abandon the original meaning of the text of the Constitution invariably end up substituting their own political philosophies for those of the framers. Americans have to decide whether they wish a government of laws or one of judges.

a. There is no liberal or conservative meaning of the text of the Constitution, only a right meaning or a wrong meaning. Those who convert the Constitution into a license for judges to make policy instead of being a limit on the power of judges, pervert a document that is supposed to limit power into one that sanctions it.

I'm reading an excellent book of debates re: originalism, by Steven G. Calibresi, with a foreword by Scalia.


Second point of agreement...I never use profanity.

While I don't dissagree with any point in particular that you've listed above, I'd like to do a little check to see if we do in fact agree....I'm hoping we can take a more basic look at originalism when applied to the amndments.

Like the 1st.....and the stablishment clause.....IMO.......because congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of, and free exercize of religion....and it hasn't made any laws restricting school prayer, the teaching of religious courses in public schools, and the display of religious symbols on public property or buildings....any case brought before the supreme court regarding such matters, should uphold the rights of anyone to pray in school, say the pledge with God in it, teach ID or creationism, or display the ten commandments in a court house lobby...and consequently...they should defer to local or state laws.

Do you agree?