Skip to comments.
Scalia: 'Constitution Not Living Organism'
Newsmax ^
| April 14, 2005
| Carl Limbacher
Posted on 04/14/2005 3:03:45 PM PDT by winner3000
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
Judges who think that the constitution is a "living document" or who rely on foreign laws should be impeached as they are breaking their oath of office (they take an oath to defend the constitution). If US citizens think part of the constitution is no longer valid there is a way to democratically amend it. That power rests with the people and should not be arrogantly taken over by judges.
To: winner3000
How does he feel about diversity being a compelling state interest?
2
posted on
04/14/2005 3:05:56 PM PDT
by
econ_grad
To: winner3000
The genius of the FF is that amending the U.S. Constitution is a function solely given to the Legislative branch. The Judicial and Executive branches have no say whatsoever.
3
posted on
04/14/2005 3:07:16 PM PDT
by
Borges
To: winner3000
Scalia needs to be appointed Chief SCOTUS; Buzzy Ginsburg needs to be removed from the bench.
4
posted on
04/14/2005 3:08:06 PM PDT
by
brivette
To: winner3000
Are there any actual judicial impeachment proceedings in progress? What will it take to get the ball rolling. I think many Americans would be behind it.
5
posted on
04/14/2005 3:09:04 PM PDT
by
Jim W N
To: Jim 0216
There's no way that 2/3rds of the House would vote to impeach.
6
posted on
04/14/2005 3:09:54 PM PDT
by
Borges
To: winner3000
"My system is flexible," he added, and went on to cite examples of his flexibility. "If you want the death penalty, pass a law ... if you want abortion, pass a law ... if you want something, persuade other citizens and pass a law," he said, by implication taking issue with activist judges who use the bench to create new laws.
7
posted on
04/14/2005 3:11:31 PM PDT
by
TheDon
(Euthanasia is an atrocity.)
To: econ_grad
How does he feel about diversity being a compelling state interest? Scalia dissented in UMich case.
I imagine he was deeply offended by O'Connor's patently silly opinion.
8
posted on
04/14/2005 3:13:20 PM PDT
by
okie01
(A slavering moron and proud member of the lynch mob, cleaning the Augean stables of MSM since 1998.)
To: winner3000
And Living Document vs Originalist can be traced to two competing philosophical foundations:
materialism: Human Nature is malleable, people change and so should government. (this devolves to We can replace god with man, Fascism, and the ultimately genocide of the weak at the hands of the Elite).
Spiritualism: Human Nature is fixed, ie, the Constitution is just as relevant now as it was X many years ago. The group exists for the mutual benefit of Individuals, freedom, and spiritual fulfillment.
9
posted on
04/14/2005 3:14:11 PM PDT
by
Dead Dog
To: Borges
Unfortunately the Founding Fathers didn't think that the judiciary would ally itself with one of the major parties, effectively protecting the judges from impeachment (very difficult to get a 2/3 vote). However, the way the Democrats are going, they may yet reach that low point. Also, the more they lose the more activist the judges become. The more activist the judges the more disgusted the public becomes of the Democrat party. The consequence is more Republicans are voted to office and more Conservative new judges are appointed. Time would then redress the balance.
To: Jim 0216
"Are there any actual judicial impeachment proceedings in progress? What will it take to get the ball rolling. I think many Americans would be behind it."
It will take a couple of election cycles, unfortunately. FReegards....
11
posted on
04/14/2005 3:14:40 PM PDT
by
Arthur Wildfire! March
(<<<< Profile page streamlined, solely devoted Schiavo research)
To: Borges
What are the alternatives? (There's a record of a president in the early 1800's doing away with a certain number of judgeships, thereby essentially firing the judges.
12
posted on
04/14/2005 3:16:08 PM PDT
by
Jim W N
To: Jim 0216
BTW, a few years ago, people thought I was nuts when I called for impeachment. Earlier this year, Rehnquist pleaded that people stop calling for impeachment. We're making rapid headway.
13
posted on
04/14/2005 3:16:16 PM PDT
by
Arthur Wildfire! March
(<<<< Profile page streamlined, solely devoted Schiavo research)
To: Borges
There's no way that 2/3rds of the House would vote to impeach. I thought it only took 50% of the House. Removal by the Senate may be impossible, but I would think the House would have subpoena powers and could publicize anything it thought should be publicized.
14
posted on
04/14/2005 3:17:59 PM PDT
by
supercat
("Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold, she refuses to give up the ghost.")
To: winner3000
You could be right about the makeup of Congress in years to come but I still think it would be very hard to impeach a Judge for what amounts to an interpretation of the Constitution that we find disagreeable. Most of these decisions can be traced to 'Substantive Due Process' can't they? A legal philosophy Scalia doesn't believe but others do. Impeaching Judges for decisions opens a very ugly can of worms. The answer is to appoint good Judges.
15
posted on
04/14/2005 3:18:05 PM PDT
by
Borges
To: Jim 0216
Jefferson trying to remove Samuel Chase is regard as one of the low points of his Presidency.
16
posted on
04/14/2005 3:18:54 PM PDT
by
Borges
To: winner3000
Any idea what the justice's' oath of office states?
17
posted on
04/14/2005 3:20:10 PM PDT
by
canalabamian
(Diversity is not our strength...UNITY is.)
To: supercat
You could be right. Anyone?
18
posted on
04/14/2005 3:20:55 PM PDT
by
Borges
To: Borges
You need 2/3 to convict, but only a majority to impeach.
19
posted on
04/14/2005 3:21:40 PM PDT
by
buridan
To: winner3000
"Unfortunately the Founding Fathers didn't think that the judiciary would ally itself with one of the major parties, effectively protecting the judges from impeachment (very difficult to get a 2/3 vote). However, the way the Democrats are going, they may yet reach that low point."
Its amazing how naive the Founders were. They also did not think that a major party would put its own political interest in front of the people's interest during a time of war... but we have seen the Democrats do that too.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson