Tag Archives: Antonin Scalia

national news, political news

'Originalist' view is mistaken

Count me as among those who acknowledge that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is brilliant.

The man knows the law. Does he know the U.S. Constitution? Well, sure he does. He was selected by President Reagan in 1986 to interpret the nation’s founding document and he’s still on the job.

OK, I’ve acknowledged the obvious.

Now I wish to take issue with his view that the document isn’t a living one that should adapt to change in society.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/antonin-scalia-says-constitution-permits-court-to-favor-religion-over-non-religion/ar-BB75vV4

Scalia said recently that it’s OK for the courts to favor religion over non-religion. He said the founders were religious men who meant for God to play a role in government. He said the Constitution guarantees “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”

We’re fine, so far.

Then he said he prefers to look at the Constitution in its original form, as the drafters of it intended — in the 18th century.

He doesn’t like the “living Constitution” view, saying that only “idiots” believe such a thing.

Well.

Can’t the Constitution be adapted to the present day while preserving the principles laid out by the nation’s founders? Sure it can. The Second Amendment, the awkwardly written passage that guarantees the right to “keep and bear arms,” is an example.

Could the framers have envisioned the type of weaponry that has been developed since the Second Amendment was drafted and ratified? Could they have foreseen assault weapons that can kill, oh, 10 or so individuals in a matter of a few seconds? I’m betting they didn’t sit around and wonder: “All right, gentlemen, before we finalize this amendment, should we set aside a provision for the time when gang members will outgun the police on city streets teeming with drugs?” No, they couldn’t predict the future.

But the future has arrived and the “next future” is right around the corner. It’s left, then, for those who live in the here and now to wonder if the Constitution — as written — still is relevant to today’s circumstance.

It isn’t in some instances.

I still honor and respect Justice Scalia’s intellect and knowledge. I just dispute his interpretation of what he knows so well.

Uncategorized

Justice takes reader on wild ride

Just as I was thinking I had read all I needed to read about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s view of the foul political climate in Washington, D.C., I happened across the interview he gave to New York Magazine.

It’s strange, to say the least.

http://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/

I’m beginning to have some doubts about the justice, who’s been known to say some odd things from the bench and in his written opinions.

I’ve seen him interviewed before, such as on C-SPAN. He comes off as an engaging fellow. He’s not particularly stuffy and can dish out the sarcasm when the need arises. One interviewer asked him once about his opinion of a lower-court judge’s ruling that criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling on a particular subject. Scalia’s answer went something like this: “Just to be clear, our court reviews rulings handed down by his court … and not the other way around. Is that correct?”

Well, the interview is attached to this blog post. It’s lengthy. You’ll need some time to slog through it all. I won’t categorize his views as crazy. Just strange for someone who holds a lifetime job interpreting the U.S. Constitution.