[onedoug]

The death penalty is immoral when those of wealth and/or celebrity are exempt from it,
as is the case here in the United States.

[gdani]

I often hear Scalia talking about a constitutional "right to privacy" (in non-abortion situations) yet I see no mention of such a right in the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps he believes more in the "living Constitution" idea then he cares to let on.

[spqrzilla9]

Justice Scalia demonstrates why his is among the finest legal minds in our country.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Scalia

[BOBTHENAILER]

if I subscribed to the conventional fallacy that the Constitution is a “living document”

Al Gore used those exact words during one of the debates with Bush. That, folks, is how scary it could have been. Al's feeling that the Constitution is a "living document", subject to the whims of interpretation (liberal) is way too dangerous for me.

[Tourist Guy]

>>>Capital cases are much different from the other life–and–death issues that my Court sometimes faces:
abortion, for example<<<

Hold on, there is a question of death with abortion?
We've been told it is just a blob of tissue.

/sarcasm

[apochromat]

Maybe ex-agent Hanssen should get a copy of this...

[Raymond Hendrix]

Thanks for posting this. It certainly answers some questions. Most nations believe in war when they are attacked so they do believe in the death penalty regardless of what they say. The state does indeed act (or is supposed to act) in the place of God. Therefore the state has the power to execute convicted criminals where the individual does not.

His ideas about democracy are also interesting and they ring true. We should not submit to mob rule and the constitution certainly should not be subject to the whims of the majority.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

it is no accident, I think, that the modern view that the death penalty is immoral is centered in the West. That has little to do with the fact that the West has a Christian tradition, and everything to do with the fact that the West is the home of democracy. Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post–Christian Europe, and has least support in the church–going United States.

Invocation of the Constitution by those who do not consider the text of it binding is hypocisy. They hope thereby to endue their ukase with the patina of legitimacy.

But their language-abusing "living Constitution" expression gives the game away; in truth they mean that the Constitution is dead.

When they say "Constitution" they mean, not an understanding adopted 200+ years ago, but their own will. It is folly to hear a liberal any other way than that--and it is folly to entrust such a person with authority over the enforcement of the law. Thanks be to God that we are past x42's reign of error; may we never have such another!

[dheretic]

What we need is a judicial panel that is constitutionally require to review any bill for constitutionality before it goes to the President, a balanced budget amendment and a constitutional rule which mandates that the name of the bill must reflect the content and that a bill can only address one subject (no omnibus bills anymore). Banning the addition of amendments would be nice too.

[bloggerjohn]

I keep seeing this Scalia "quote" all over the net. Can someone tell me if it's bogus netrumor or if not, what the source is? It seems kind of incredible so I figured the Dems made it up.

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia