Re: Scalia On Judges Judging Morals
 

[ QUOTE ]
Leaving out things like eminient domain, the patriot act, and a million others (the court takign away our freedoms), I want to tackle your other questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me how the Patriot Act and eminent domaint are examples of the COurt taking away people's freedom. Last time I checked it was the New London zoning board that decided to take Kelo's house, not the Supreme Court. By your logic, every single law which the Court declines to hold unconstitutional is an example of the COurt taking away people's freedom.

Don't blame the Supreme Court for the Patriot Act, blame Congress.

Re: Scalia On Judges Judging Morals
 

[ QUOTE ]
But they shouldn't defer. The constitution says that they shouldn't defer. That's the whole point. The constitution says what the legislator can't do. Ignoring that is akin to writing something out of the constitution, which is just as bad as writing something in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not saying that the Court's decision is or is not bad from a Constitutional persepective. I am saying that no matter what the Court does, it does not limit people's freedom. It is always the legislature that is actually limiting people's freedom.

Re: Scalia On Judges Judging Morals
 

If congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, and the supreme court doesn't strike it down, they have evaded thier duty.

Take for instance Koremetsu. Congress passed a law putting all Japanese people into camps. It was unconstitutional. The court should have struck it down. Instead, they allowed it to become law.

Inaction is action. Not doing your job is a failure of teh court.

Re: Scalia On Judges Judging Morals
 

It's thier job to stop the legislator when something they do is unconstitutional. When you allow the legislator to make law that is unconstitutional simply because your personal political believes favor that law then you are evading your responsibility as an agent of the court.

Re: Scalia On Judges Judging Morals
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've never met someone with a serious objection to this method

[/ QUOTE ]

You must not get out much [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


I'm just curious where in the Constitution Scalia find the provision claiming that there should be an original intent interpretation of the document.

Not only do I think the concept itself is flawed, but its application is often flawed as well. You will often see decisions authored by Scalia hinge on a definition he found in a 19th century dictionary. That seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Re: Scalia On Judges Judging Morals
 

[ QUOTE ]
Roe v Wade is basically the court determining that a fetus isn't alive. If it is alive, then it is protected by homicide law like any other citizen. It would be rediculous if the court ruled that a 30 year old person wasn't in fact alive so murdering him is legal. On what grounds therefore does it determine what constitutes live?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is abundantly clear, is it not, that the original framers of the constitution did not consider a fetus a person? Roe v. Wade is just using original intent. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Scalia On Judges Judging Morals
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Supreme Court does whatever it wants, and nobovy can overrule them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that they can through legislation and/or the Amendment process.

Somebody has to have last word on Constitutional issues to lead to some semblance of order and certainty. If not the court, who do you think should have the last word?

Re: Scalia On Judges Judging Morals
 

There is nothing in the constitution about a fetus's status. Thusly, the court should not address it. It should leave it up the the legislator.

I know your just kidding around to avoid arguement.

Re: Scalia On Judges Judging Morals
 

Why is the concept itself flawed?

Re: Scalia On Judges Judging Morals
 

Being able to change the meaning of the constitution is immense power. Your basically giving these judges to power to rule on issues and they can only be overuled by the amendment process, which requires a super majority. So essentially, on any issue where the country is divided the court can rule as it pleases with almost no risk of being overturned. It would be akin to giving George Bush a life tenure and the ability to write law as he pleased, only to be overuled by a supermajority.

Such power can't just be thrown around as judges please. Champoning thier particular moral and political believes means that the supreme court becomes a political rather then a judicial office. They make law rather then interpret it. The problems arising from a lack of independent courts should be self evident.

In order to prevent this justices need a simple, clear, and well understood method by which they interpret law. Rather then focusing on the specific political outcome, citizens will view the process as fair and understandable. They will understand and respect the method by which justices reach thier decisions even if they disagree with the political implications.