Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 11/20/2008 9:18:33 AM PST by Daffynition
Judges who use foreign laws to interpret the U.S. Constitution are rewriting it rather than respecting its founders, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a roomful of judges and top lawyers in Houston on Monday night.
"I fear the courts' use of foreign law in interpreting the Constitution will continue at an accelerated pace," the 72-year-old conservative jurist said.
Scalia spoke at a $150-a-head steak and potatoes dinner sponsored by the local chapter of the Federal Bar Association and held at the Hyatt Regency Houston downtown. Before talking for about 30 minutes, the jurist autographed copies of a book he co-authored.
Scalia promised to be noncontroversial but frequently used the example of Lawrence v. Texas, a Houston case in which he disagreed with the majority that struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law. Scalia complained that foreign laws were cited in that case.
Scalia was typically evangelical in his advocacy of "originalism," or strictly adhering to what the Constitutional authors meant more than 200 years ago. He criticized those who see the Constitution as an evolving or "living document" that adapts to the times.
The 1986 Reagan appointee said he'll only become a believer in those who cite foreign law if they do it more universally, like in abortion cases where more countries prohibit it than don't. "The court has ignored foreign law in its abortion cases," he said.
Scalia said the founders of this country did not want us to emulate Europe.
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Hey, Scalia, you might wanna look at Bam-Bam’s birth cert., if the Constitution means so much to you.
The dissenting view from Arlen Spector: “If it’s not Scottish, it’s crap.”
Scalia.
The Man.
The only reason these guys put themselves through such pretzel logic contortions is because of the way they rule, and want to rule.
They look at each case as a way to “shape society” (instead of how the law applies to the case).
So, they take the case, decide what social outcome they want to occur based on their ruling, rule that way,
THEN SEARCH FOR JUSTIFICATION wherever they can find it.
Most court decisions these days involve what I call "legalistic back-filling" (from my civil engineering background). The judges go into the case knowing exactly how they intend to vote, then go about building a rationale for their decision. If there is no sound legal basis for their decision, they'll simply find more material to pile behind the retaining wall.
Justice C, worry not for yourself, you got enough money to relocate, sure at 72 under the “new rules” youll be forced into retirement. so that the new admin may take judiciary activisim to a new level, and I’m sure that you will shed a tear, when you see, first hand, the complete obamination of our constitution.
Mr. Justice Scalia, adopt me, I can cook preety good, I watched all of Giligans island episodes, and if Marry Ann is there you got me sold.
No! you hang in there brother, and dont let this fool replace you!!!!
Guts Brother Guts!
He doesn't have any more authority to do that than you or me!
Looks like these schools are bringing about their own decline.
But did you watch all of the made for TV movies?
what the hell are you babbling about?
The man is a genius and you probably aren’t fit to carry water for him.
May he live forever.
I pray Scalia lives to be 150 years old. What a giant.
The Ginsbergs, Souters and other freaks the Dems have put in office are not fit to wear the robes of a civil judge let alone one in SCOTUS.
The Constitution is, in effect, a sacred contract between the people and the government.
While some interpretations, like “cruel and unusual punishment” are clearly subject to some degree of contemporary thought, the bulk of the document, like the First and Second Amendment, reflects basic standards of government which are to be altered only through the amendment process.
If we allow the liberal justices the latitude to in effect make the Constitution mean anything they wish it to mean, the government has broken its contract with the people and the only solution to that is to resort to the principles layed out clearly in the Declaration of Independence.
Nah. 72 years old isn’t old for a judge in SCOTUS.
The REAL threat is Kennedy. He is a swing judge and much older than Scalia.
If the Obamanation replaces Souter or Ginsburg, who cares. No net change.
very interesting post, thanks
Snoozeburg, Souter and Kennedy are ememies of America if you ask me. I pray they all live more than 4 years from now.
There should be no modern American law that relies on any precedent from europe. Why don’t Americans realize that? (Rhetorical question)
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.