Scalia On Judges Judging Morals

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
(
The Supreme Court never actively limits the rights of citizens. It only limits the power of the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the latest decision on eminent domain.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(
The Supreme Court never actively limits the rights of citizens. It only limits the power of the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the latest decision on eminent domain.

[/ QUOTE ]


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

The supreme court trumps Congress
The supreme court trumps the President
The supreme court trumps the people
The supreme court trumps the Constitution

[webmonarch]

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

The supreme court trumps Congress
The supreme court trumps the President
The supreme court trumps the people
The supreme court trumps the Constitution

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this thread was going so well before this.

Obviously, the Supreme Court trumps none of these. The SC simply interprets the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates how government entities act.

BGC, I don't know what you don't like about the SC right now anyway. Mostly conservatives.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
The SC simply interprets the Constitution, and the Constitution mandates how government entities act.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "interpret" you mean whatever they say becomes law. Aren't you aware of all that constitutional law that is not even mentioned in the constitution? Where did you think it came from?

So "interpret" means "make it say whatever you want."

When was the last time the President, Congress, or the Constitution won against a decision by the court?

Andrew Jackson was probably the last to person to beat the court, and he did it by ignoring them.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(
The Supreme Court never actively limits the rights of citizens. It only limits the power of the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the latest decision on eminent domain.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. The SC merely deferred to the legislatures and adminstrative bodies of the states.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]

That's not true. The SC merely deferred to the legislatures and adminstrative bodies of the states.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they struck down Roe vs Wade, would you say the same thing?

[lehighguy]

The question isn't so much original intent, but original meaning. After all, intent can be impossible to determine from a document. The recent campaign finance legislation is seen by some as intended to clean up the system and by others as an attempt to restrict the kinds of fundraising and campaining that tends to hurt incumbents. Was congresses's intent pure or malicious. You can't really tell. In fact, every legislator had a different intent when he/she voted yea or nea. Intent can't be devined.

In the absense of intent we look for original meaning. We look to historical texts to determine what the words and phrases used in that time meant. To further explain it we look at how the law was interpreted when it was first written (say the first 50 years). While this is not an exact science it can be done pretty well on a large variety of cases. For a good example see Thomas's dissent in Kelo vs New London this year.

It's not perfect, but it is certainly a more solid method of dealing with constitutional law then any others I've seen. Scalia is one of the few who I've actually seen apply a specific method in interpreting the constitution irregardless of the case involved. A lot of the other judges just seem like thier winging it.

I've never met someone with a serious objection to this method. Most objections boil down to one of two things:
1) That method won't result in my political objectives being achieved.
2) It doesn't make the constitution flexible enough.

Number 2 is the only serious one, and I think the amendment process has done a pretty good job. Most big changes like letting women vote were able to be added to the constitution. Hell, for a brief time you could convince people to ban booze.

[lehighguy]

The principle function is the restriction of the majority. The constitution is a list of things the government (majority of voters) are not allowed to do (to the minority).

[lehighguy]

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.

Is the court allowed to determine what laws we as a society are allowed to govern ourselves by if there is nothing said about it in the constitution. For instance In Atkins (2003) the court outlawed using the death penalty against people that were slightly mentally retarded. A reading of the case brings one to the obvious conclusion that the logic used will neccessitate and outlawing of the death penalty in general. Under what grounds does the court decide this?

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?

[lehighguy]

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.