Posted on 01/08/2010 3:11:40 PM PST by T Christopher
Justice Antonin Scalia made a public appearance Monday speaking to roughly 600 people at the First Baptist Church of Jackson, Mississippi. The event was sponsored by the Mississippi College School of Law and the Mission First Legal Aid Office. As is usually the case when Justice Scalia makes public appearances, he spoke largely off the cuff and provided yet another reminder why he’s the greatest Supreme Court Justice of this or any generation for that matter. He spoke about a number of topics including the citation of foreign law in American courts, the ever-increasing caseload of the Highest Court, and the burden that the increased size of legislation places on the Justices… among other issues and topics posed to him by the audience.
In speaking about the current composition of the Court he chose not to delve into the radical nominee sent forth by President Obama or those that preceded her; but instead chose to use the opportunity to speak about the nomination process as a whole. He told the crowd that there were essentially too many “judges” on the Supreme Court. Now in fairness, he wasn’t taking potshots at any of the current members or even their backgrounds. More accurately, he was referring to the recent preference for choosing nominees who are currently serving or have had a long history of serving as a judge at a different level of government....
(Excerpt) Read more at republicanredefined.com ...
agreed get rid of the liberals on the benches
His best friend on the court is Ginsberg so I doubt he wants the liberals to leave right now. She will leave soon but I doubt he is looking forward to the day.
I say add a farmer , an IT worker that got replaced with a H1B and a random FREEPer.
Scalia said the recent trend is “leading us toward the European system,” where many judges are bureaucrats.
. . .
“Your whole life you have done nothing but be a judge and you come to think the government is always right,”
Great article. Lots of good points. Hope more people find this and read it.
Scalia is a Commerce Claus New-Dealer and does not compare favorably either to Clarence Thomas or to pre-Prohibition jurisprudence (itself a term for anti-Constitutional court opinions.)
Which would you prefer, a judicial bench loaded with Ginsbergs or Scalias?
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.