[TSchmereL]

Why is this even debatable?

[MrB]

But the left can’t get its agenda implemented through the representative branches of government... oh, what will they do?

[DuncanWaring]

“If you want new constitutional rights, then you need to amend the Constitution.”

One would think that this guy, of all people, would understand that new rights can't be created.

[microgood]

Even Scalia has had some activist decisions. The most recent that comes to mind is the no-knock warrant one where he cited that we down't have to worry about cops because they are well trained now and respect our rights(boy are they ever out of touch with reality there) or the sobriety checkpoint one where they ruled that it did violate the 4th Amendment but that is is OK to do so because we have to do something about drunken driving.

He even ruled once that a dog searching around the outside of a car was not a search of the car, taxing logic itself to its limits.

Scalia can be an activist but hides under this strict constitutionalist mantra.

[teeman8r]

i stopped after if you want new rights amend the constitution...

i expect more from scalia... the constitution is not an enumeration of all our rights but a protection of all our rights, those that are not found within its pages are reserved to the people and or the states...

we are not limited to the only the rights in the BoR.

teeman

[KarlInOhio]

“The professorate, the bench and even the American people have all been seduced into believing in, and I hate the term, ‘a living Constitution,’” he said.

My argument whenever I run into a "living Constitution" believer is "Would you lease a car from a dealer who insisted that the lease contract was a 'living document' that could change on his whim?"

[O Neill]

Since the Constitution merely enumerates rights endowed to the People by their CREATOR...and a ‘Wall’ now separates the Constitution from any connection with the CREATOR...it seems that the “Constitution” was usurped some time ago (in the Sixties, starting with the activist Warren Court) and, really, is no longer applicable, meaningful, or even consequential to our lives today...

[antiRepublicrat]

“If you want new constitutional rights, then you need to amend the Constitution.”

Already done:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Bill of Rights almost didn't pass exactly because of the fear of attitudes like Scalia's. Let's listen to James Madison:

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

Unfortunately, Madison's protections against Scalia's view in the 9th Amendment appear not to have worked.

[EdReform]

bookmark

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

I agree with justice Scalia completely, but, I must tell you, as I see my liberal counterparts destroying the nation with their rulings, it is hard for me to not fight back ruling in such a manner as to send the district back 100 years to the right.

[diverteach]

Uh HELLO !!! Shouldn’t? How about “judges CAN”T change the constitution”

[TomGuy]

Amen to that.

I trust that the Founding Fathers had a greater sense of national sovereignty and citizen rights than do the current self-interested, self-absorbed, self-serving elected and appointed.

The Constitution spells out the path to change. Not McCain’s CFR that tries to infringe legislatively to limit the First Amendment — in a way that benefits McCain and other incumbents by making certain free speech actions criminal offenses.

It is the responsibility of the citizenry to be ever vigilent and hold politicos' feet to the fire and maintain OUR rights as citizens. Too many politicos would gladly infringe on and erase those rights legislatively.

[SunkenCiv]

Ping!

[Shery]

“Mocking the idea that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment should be interpreted through “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” Scalia warned that the flexibility that some desire in interpreting the Constitution could have unintended consequences.”

That part of the statement, “mark the progress of a maturing society” is a real rub. Ours is a society that has returned to childishness and narcissism, not maturity. We seem to prefer slavery to sexual deviantism and irrational belief in the good ness of man than to the Truth!