Posted on 11/21/2004 12:08:57 AM PST by AM2000
Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid may support Scalia for Chief Justice (but not Clarence Thomas)
Riiiiiiight, so Arnie can be president. And then Terayyyyysa.
Scalia indicated that he's aware his opponents see him darkly, as someone who wants to curtail rights. But he said he'd have sided with the anti-segregationists in two landmark Supreme Court rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1878, and Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.The writer needs a fact checker. Plessy was decided in 1896.
Scalia is extremely sound on the law as written, but IMO he's a little bit too trusting of the whims of the majority. The Framers placed strict limits on what government could do, and made it tough to loosen those limits, with good reason.
-Eric
But they'd only be able to redefine it in states where they actually have a majority. Conservatives would be able to define it in the rest of the country.
It seems clear that the difficulty of ratifying Amendments has contributed to the rise of judicial activism, a very negative result.
And just who defines what "social justice" consists of sweetie pie? You? A wet behind the ears little twerp who hasn't experienced much of anything yet? No thanks. I don't want some judge to define for me either.
He talks one game, but I'm more than certain that when he votes, he votes my way.
Scalia is right on when he says things like abortion and gay rights shouldn't be ruled on by the supreme court because its not in the Constitution. It's a state issue.
"He said the only thing he'd change in the Constitution would be to make it easier to amend. "
I don't know what he's getting at with this. Seems to me that if it was easier to amend it would look like some kind of unrecognizable frankenstein monster in another hundred years.
Yes a very negative result but the difficulty in amending the constitution is not the culprit, it is the left who will have their way even at the cost of the constitution whom are to be indicted.
The constitiution is not just a document which ought to be saved for its own sake, or for history's sake but for my sake because I have an inherited stake in its pristine configuration. It expresses in a social contract, my rights, which I have inherited from the sacrifice, blood and sweat of my ancestors and to which I am entitled free of the swindling by the left which must have its way.
Agreed.
In other words, just throw it out?
I'm likely one of the few that believes our Constitution was Divinely inspired, and has served us quite well all these years. Leave it alone.
Oh yes, and I'll take a pass on judicial activism too.
Then our judges need to be reminded of their job descriptions. The provisions for ammending our Constitution were intended solely for very extraordinary circumstances, and certainly not intended to make it a "Living" document. Our Founding Fathers did not craft the Constitution to be flexible...they crafted it instead to guarantee our Rights in perpetuity. Any attempts to modernize the Constitution should be met with grave concern, for the stakes are unimaginably high. Every liberty we take for granted today could quickly become a memory.
Rule by referendum/popular will = Rule of the Sheeple.
Better to fight the judicial activism than to live with amendments that were too hastily passed.
Sounds good to me, hehe. Where is that map of red states vs blue states?
I am so glad our Founding Fathers had greater insight and fundamental patriotism.
If the Constitution were easier to change, etc., it would be 1000 pages in length by now as each passing whim came, got an amendment, went.
LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE, except for good cause. Whims are not good causes.
Just in the last few years, some suggested amendments have included:
==Allowing Presidents to run for more than 2 terms (specifically, so Bill Clinton could have run, but now that Bush is President, the libs aren't crying to allow a 3rd term).
==Allowing foreign born to run for the Presidency (Orin Hatch).
==Allowing illegals to vote (Orin Hatch needs to consider retirement).
==Doing away with the Electoral College and electing by popular vote (2000 when Al Gore got more popular votes) (but not in 2004 since George Bush got more popular votes).
Etc.----Whim changes are not good for America's future.
Yes, yes and yes. The underlying issue here is whether we have majoritarian rule or not. The elites have gradually won over the citizenry to believe that there is a masterful and elite way to change the common culture as well as its welfare by changing the interpretation of the law.
As far as the dangers to the Country, since when do the people's beliefs not deserve antagonism from the law?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.