[The Drowning Witch]

I wish SC justices did more of these types of things.

[alessandrofiaschi]

I agree: SCALI CJ.

[alessandrofiaschi]

I agree: SCALIA CJ.

[The Drowning Witch]

And is it just me, or does Justice Breyer sound EEIRILY like Ben Stein?

[LauraleeBraswell]

Cspan 1 2 or 3

[NutCrackerBoy]

I haven't seen the C-SPAN program, but heard bites on Laura Ingraham's healthy radio addiction. I'm thrilled that this is being seen by the legions of political junkies that watch C-SPAN.

[drt1]

Scalia - "Some judges try to determine 'What is the best answer' while judges should be determining 'What does the Constitution say'" --- (I've paraphrased a lot.)

This statement, by itself, IS the differentiating factor between Lib/Activist judges and what are, IMO, "Real" judges.

Scalia also goes on to say that in their efforts to come up with the right answer (As opposed to the Constitutional accurate answer) it is wrong for them to consult with a narrow spectrum of thought and opinion (Which IMO they all too often do).

[drt1]

Breyer - "I read and I write - I'm just a Word Processor"

LOL You can say that again - problem is, in his case, there's a bug in the software.

[AJFavish]

You can evaluate for yourself how well Justice Scalia did when it really counted:

http://www.allanfavish.com/ajf_response_to_decision.htm

Regards,

Allan J. Favish
http://www.allanfavish.com

[Torie]

Interesting program. Alas the justices are talking past each other to some extent. There is nothing improper about consulting foreign sources, judicial or otherwise, to find lines of reasoning or issues, which may be applicable to resolving conundrums of American law, and giving credit to the line of reasoning that you embrace. What difference does it make if a line of reasoning is invented and offered up by an American lawyer in a brief, versus one done by some European justice? Nothing. It is not precedent.

The problem with the sodomy case, is that the moral judgments of foreign jurisdictions were deemed relevant, and judgments are not lines of reasoning. I suppose one could argue say with the death penalty, that what is deemed cruel and unusual is an evolving standard, rather than what were the morays at the time the Constitution was written, and then argue that what is currently deemed cruel and unusual should be based on an international standard rather than an American standard. The problem with the death penalty, is one is trying to apply some words that are inherently ambiguous, "cruel and unusual," which ARE in the Constitution.

The matter is complex. Where lines of reasoning end and judgments begin is not a bright line. There are often no neat little formlae available to apply in tough legal cases, which relieves one from hard thinking.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Speaking of Frank Zappa, I have done battle on the Discussion Board on http://www.zappa.com . It's hard work considering the preponderance of Socialists there.

In particular, with reference to this thread, in a discussion about why to elect Republicans despite their all being fire-breathing Christian fundamentalists, I advocated originalist interpretation on the Supreme Court. The DUmmies only argued that there's no such thing.

[Torie]

FYI

[Torie]

The program is available to watch anytime by going to cspan.org, and clicking on "Justices Scalia & Breyer Discussion on Foreign Courts' Impact".

[OldFriend]

One wonders if Breyer will ever again do such an appearance.

He came off as a complete lightweight proving he had no business being on the Court in the first place.

Scalia proved his brilliance and he deserves to be named Chief Justice.