Scalia Was "Furious" At Roberts Vote On Healthcare Law, Says Toobin Book

http://thehill.com/ ^ | September 18, 2012 | Sam Baker

[Biggirl]

Jeffrey Toobin's latest book portrays Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as increasingly cranky and partisan — and infuriated with Chief Justice John Roberts over the court's recent decisions on healthcare and immigration.

Toobin, who writes for The New Yorker and also covers the court for CNN, credits Scalia for a sea change in how both sides of the political spectrum think about the law. But he says the justice's bombast has become off-putting to more even-tempered colleagues.

[Olog-hai]

Those are “conservative” in what country?

[OneWingedShark]

I too was disappointed with Roberts decision, but I do admire his devotion to the Constitution ... in that the law was duly passed by a House, Senate and President ... that We the People voted into office.
In other words, Roberts hos put it up to We the People to cleanse the House, Senate and White House.

Between these alternatives [ordinary legislation altering the Constitution or not] there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

[...]

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions-a written constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

Maybury v. Madison

[OneWingedShark]

Those are “conservative” in what country?

In any country wherein they exist; that's why I said "given the dictionary-definition".

[Olog-hai]

The Founding Fathers would take issue with that point of view.

And what dictionary?

[OneWingedShark]

The Founding Fathers would take issue with that point of view.

Actually, they wouldn't. They did their best to limit government because they knew that power tends to corrupt; therefore by limiting the power of the state they limit the damage that corruption could wreak.

And what dictionary?

Dictionary.com.
con·serv·a·tive
adjective

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.

Though you'll see similar from merriam-webster, Webster's 1828, and Cambridge.

[Olog-hai]

And how does their POV translate to non-conservative?

[OneWingedShark]

And how does their POV translate to non-conservative?

Tell me? Is it 'conservative' to support the War on Drugs, or not? Consider that the War on Drugs is directly responsible for things like the militarization of the police, asset seizure prior to conviction, and warrant-less searches.

[Olog-hai]

You keep changing the subject, so I must conclude that you are a liberal, especially after citing statism and corruption as particularly “conservative” when they are not.

For the record, the “war on drugs” started in earnest with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act of 1934.

[longtermmemmory]

you are confusing bad laws with conservative principles.

asset seizures have been successfully challenged.

[OneWingedShark]

What are you talking about? The subject was the word ‘conservative’, wasn’t it?

[Olog-hai]

You’ve changed the subject you were presumably broaching about three times in a row. How are statism and corruption “conservative”? I say they are liberal.

[OneWingedShark]

you are confusing bad laws with conservative principles.

I'm trying to illustrate that "conservative principals" in practice means the exact opposite of the word 'conservative'.

asset seizures have been successfully challenged.

And some not.

[Olog-hai]

It’s still his job to interpret the laws by the measure of the Constitution.

[OneWingedShark]

How are statism and corruption “conservative”? I say they are liberal.

And I've answered: preserving the status quo, that is the dictionary definition of 'conservative'.

That you are using a different definition is irrelevant; the application of "conservative principals" necessitates a shocking change, and therefore is not, strictly speaking, conservative.

[Vision]

Me too. Still am.

[Olog-hai]

“Preserving the status quo” is not a definition of “conservative”. It does not even appear in the Dictionary.com definition; read it again.

Other definitions of “conservative” (i.e. other dictionaries) do not define it as “preserving the status quo” either, because to do so makes communism “conservative” after a fashion. Since that cannot be, then neither statism nor corruption are conservative, since neither can ever be moderate (a core definition of “conservative”).

[OneWingedShark]

“Preserving the status quo” is not a definition of “conservative”. It does not even appear in the Dictionary.com definition; read it again.

Other definitions of “conservative” (i.e. other dictionaries) do not define it as “preserving the status quo” either, because to do so makes communism “conservative” after a fashion. Since that cannot be, then neither statism nor corruption are conservative, since neither can ever be moderate (a core definition of “conservative”).

What about the word 'preservative' do you not understand? And just because I say "preserving the status quo" doesn't mean that's contrary to "disposed to preserve existing conditions." Or, since you are the one making the claim that these are actually different, please give an example.

[Olog-hai]

Your errors of omission certainly make your attempts at redefinition fail. I must conclude that you are not only calling statism and corruption by themselves “conservative” but also communism/socialism since it has been the status quo in China since 1947.

[OneWingedShark]

Your errors of omission certainly make your attempts at redefinition fail.

There is no attempt at redefinition on my part. "Disposed to preserve existing conditions" and "preservative" are both of the same idea as "preserving the status quo," to say otherwise is absurd.

I must conclude that you are not only calling statism and corruption by themselves “conservative” but also communism/socialism since it has been the status quo in China since 1947.

You have it exactly backwards; I'm saying that our government is corrupt and [disposed to] statism... and it is therefore that Obama's actions [and Bush's] have actually been rather conservative. {Where conservative means "to preserve existing conditions"/"preservative".}

That those aren't the ideals espoused by the founding fathers is, quite frankly, irrelevant; those ideals have been seriously erroded to continually give the state more power since long before I was even born. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) said that the government can control anything that impacts commerce; Gonzales v. Raich (2005) further elaborated this saying that even if there is no legitimate market for a substance, that the reasoning in Wicard still applies because otherwise would restrict federal powers; Kelo v. City of New London (2005) likewise put the final nail in the 5th Amendment's restrictions on Eminent Domain by holding that imaginary numbers [projections] for tax revenue increase justified the "public use" clause in the 5th Amendment for giving the land to a private developer [Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) and Berman v. Parker (1954) are cited by Kelo]; and indeed the fourth amendment means virtually nothing given: drunk-driving checkpoints, the TSA, no-knock warrants, SWAT raids; the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments are regularly ignored in courthouses across the land with their prohibitions on firearms [jurors must appear, under penalty of law, and they are disarmed despite not even being accused of a crime].

While these certainly aren't in the spirit of the founding fathers they nonetheless are far more the norm in my lifetime than the stories of freedom I hear from my grandparents and their peers. Did you know that they used to take guns to school? Never have I heard of that being allowed by schools in my lifetime; but hey, that's ok, because the authorities say it's bad, and if the authorities say it then it must be right! [Heavy sarcasm there, FYI.]

What about murdering the unborn? The Democrats are quite for it; but hey, so are the Republicans, given the complete and utter inaction toward repeal/overturn of Roe v Wade (which occurred before I was born). I mean come on, the Republican party had the Legislative and the Executive for most of Bush's term and can't be bothered to even put out a token effort?

Let's get back to guns; when was the last time you heard of a popular Republican say that we should repeal the GCA, or the NFA? Or, hey, did you know that the ATF has lost a case for exercising their regulatory power over new full-auto weapons because they don't allow them to be taxed? So, why aren't people using this ruling as precedent for new manufacture of full-auto weapons? Oh, that's right, it only counts if it's increasing the government's powers.

So, tell me, why should I be for preserv[ing] existing conditions, institutions, etc? Why should I want to conserve these injustices? Why should I consider these to be sufferable evils?

A limited government, an accountable government, a responsible government, a just government: all of these are vastly different than what we have. And, indeed, I doubt that the government has had aught but shadows of reputation for all of those for all of my life.

[Olog-hai]

When I say errors of omission, I mean exactly that.

disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

I do not know when you were born, but it sounds like it must have been long after the 1970s. Over a half-century of rapid change is certainly not the definition of preservation of conditions.