Serious money could be made in a raffle to punch out this dirtbag.
Posted on 03/24/2010 1:22:45 PM PDT by presidio9
How is the U.S. constitution meant to be read by the judges who interpret it? As it was written and ratified back in the 1780s? Or are its words and phrases meant to change along with a society’s customs, mores and viewpoints?
It’s a debate that’s roiled the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court for years; a divide currently embodied in Justices Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer (pictured). Scalia’s an unapologetic “originalist,” while Breyer, author of a book called Active Liberty, tends to push for a more expansive reading of the Great Document.
On Tuesday, the duo talked about their interpretive differences down at the U.S. Supreme Court. In the words of this AP story, they “tried to explain why their differing views of judging so often lead them to opposite conclusions when the topic is abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or physician-assisted suicide.” Click here for the National Law Journal story, as well.
So what did they come up with? Well, mostly, from the sound of it, some good-natured ribbing. We love this exchange:
“I never heard that before and I certainly don’t agree with it,” Scalia said in response to one point from Breyer, according to the AP.
“If I did make an argument you hadn’t thought of before, I wish you’d think about it,” Breyer replied a few minutes later.
Breyer said his view of the Constitution allows the court “to better carry out that initial intent that this document will in fact govern a changing society as society changes over the course of centuries.”
Scalia, as he’s articulated many many times before, finds that whole notion, well,
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
“Almost as if he makes it up to get the outcome he wants.”
Bingo! and not even *almost*.
It would be tough for me (or you) to be an unbiased judge. At least we would have some moral authority and not whatever the left has.
Are we to go down to socialism because none of these eggheads will demand the birth cert.??? It doesn’t matter what else anyone thinks,, if the B.C. verifies that he was born in Kenya to unwed parents and the father was a British subject at the time, the games over, no runs, no hits, 1 BIG error.
So it means nothing, really. Or rather, it means what YOU say it means. Because society doesnt sit on the court, Justice Breyer, you do. And if the constitution has no meaning except what the court says it does in the moment, then it's you that really run things. You, an unelected and unaccountable judge. So basically he admits he considers himself our overlord. Great.
By the way, if the constitution is totally flexible and doesnt have any long term meaning, then precedent cannot exist. How can legal rulings made in the past last longer than the document itself? So assuming precedent does not exist in his world, how does Justice Breyer feel about the prior rulings that say basically we all work for the government because of the interstate commerce clause? I say "Oh that was in the 1930s! But this is the 21st century and now it means the government cannot meet unless the states all agree to convene it!" How's that work!?
I have wondered if it would be permitted for individual states to remove their ratification of amendments. And if the number of states to pull their approval of an amendment (the 16th perhaps) is three quarters of the whole could the amendment be repealed by that means rather than going through the federal government.
It would make for an interesting states rights battle.
What he is saying that just because our rights descend from God doesn’t mean God can’t change his mind.
...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
J. Scalia, concurring in Raich
Precedent seems to be that once an amendment is ratified, it’s forever. The “equal rights” amendment was not ratified by the requistite 3/4 of states within seven years of introduction and was “deemed” to have failed. The Constitution does not impose a time limit, but by tradition an proposed amendment has seven years to be approved by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states.
If we’re in a repealing mood, I could go for the XIXth, the source of most of our troubles.
Other than Abortion, I think I would make a fine judge. I’m pretty good at seeing what a law requires separate from what I want.
But if I were a judge, I could NEVER rule in favor of an abortion, no matter how many precedents I was ignoring.
Indeed. In fact, he is saying God = Steven Breyer.
Yeah, but could you sit on your hands with someone like Barry scolding you in a public forum? LOL!
There once were potent liberal voices (on policy matters) who disapproved of Roe and similar “make stuff up” cases, like the late Prof. Gerald Gunther. Sadly, that breed is all but extinct. Nearly all liberals in the legal field ALSO are of the Breyer “Make Stuff Up” mentality. The Constitution is whatever 5 Justices say it is, this week (to such people).
“The only legitimate mechanism for change in the Constitution is through the amendment process.”
Right on. And let’s make a clear amendment, now, that if Daddy is a Brit then you don’t qualify to be Prez!!!
I have always thought seizure of accounts and property by the IRS without going before a judge and getting a legal warrant is a violation of the 4th amendment protections and should be prohibited.
Serious money could be made in a raffle to punch out this dirtbag.
The only good news to come out of this health care fiasco is that Republicans in the Senate are now uniformly pissed off, and looking at being in control of their house in 2011. Given the the animosity Republicans have put up with in confirmations going back to Justice Thomas, I hope it’s safe to assume that Obama won’t be getting any more suspect appointments like Sotamayor or Breyer through if he needs to make one in the next three years.
Republicans better keep an eye on this clown (Goodwin Liu), who Obama is fast-tracking for the next Supreme Court opening:
Goodwin Liu: Obama’s Most Radical Judicial Nominee
bookmark
That’s just it: In getting healthcare, Obama threw away any chance of appointing any radical socialists like Liu to the SC. As far as I’m concerned, the left looked at it like: This is certainly going to hurt us in the short run, and maybe for the next couple of cycles, but Socialized Medicine is going to be the gift that keeps giving for the rest of eternity. Meanwhile, Obama is convinced that his own personal popularity will be enough for him to rise above it all.
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.