(believes in a “living Constitution” that can change with the times. )
No. Scalia believes the Constitution can be changed using the specified mechanism, that would require the People of the United States and their lawmakers making the decision, Ruth believes it can be changed by the Supreme Court Justices’ decisions, even though she and all the Justices have vowed to protect the Constitution. It’s pretty obvious from this who is going outside the power specified for the Supreme Court.
I wouldn't describe her that way.
“living Constitution” that can change with the times.
They’re called “ammendments” you hideous witch.
they forgot...
1) she’s evil, he’s not.
2) she’s wrong all the time, he’s not.
3) she’s evil, he’s not.
4) she’s on the court because of affirmative action, he’s not.
5) she’s evil, he’s not.
just as a reminder why 1), 3), and 5) show up on my list:
It’s an important point that they are both from NYC and from the approximate same era.
The entire court is now like that.
Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Alito and Scalia are all from the same tri-state area in and around NYC. Breyer, Thomas, Roberts and Kennedy are from other parts of the country but none of them from the interior except that Roberts moved to Indiana during high school.
This means the Court has the outlook of the bi-coastal urban liberals ONLY.
Don’t even want to talk about the fact that none of them are Protestant. That would have appalled the Founders. But, let’s just work on what we can for the moment.
The Justices should each come from a Federal District Court region. That way they would at least be representative of legal norms in their respective areas.
And we wouldn’t be wondering why 2 members of the court can engage in biased behavior so outrageous that were they on a lower court they would not have any say in being recused: it would be near automatic.
First Amendment...Second Amendment...Fifth Amendment...Fourteenth Amendment...they can *all* be changed or even eliminated.
But,OTOH,phrases like "shall not be infringed" can only mean one thing to anyone with a 2nd grader's command of the English language."Interpreting" such phrases is where "living document" ends.
No bias there.
Clarence Darrow thought a combination of six Jews and six Irishmen was the ideal makeup for a jury. With that combination in the box he boasted that he could’ve gotten Judas off with a $5.00 fine. Obama thinks in a similar manner. Just give him a rubber stamp Supreme Court who will never vote against anything liberal and he’ll always be upheld. He knows that the three Jews on the court will never do anything, and I mean anything, that would stifle a loose construction of the law. The constitution is a living breathing malleable piece of paper that means anything they say it means. Ditto the wise Latina. Kennedy and Roberts are also getting fairly predictable. Those three self-loathing Jews knew what they were doing. This was a deliberate and willful assault on the Christian religion and the rule of law. They’ve turned the constitution and federalism into toilet paper. And of course this is popular with the most self-absorbed egocentric generation in the history of mankind. Immediate gratification is all that matters to them. Spoiled brats all and they’re in control. Obama is the one person personification of that segment of our society, a man of the times for the times with a Supreme Court that will virtually rubberstamp anything he wants. Liberals want monologue, not dialogue. They want unanimity of opinion. They want to silence discussion. Oh yeah, they preach diversity, but won’t allow it, especially on college campuses which were at one time citadels of academic freedom. I despise them all.
The author of this article most certainly did not read Justice Scalia dissenting opinion on the decision.