Skip to comments.
Scalia says judges shouldn't change Constitution
First Amendment Center ^
| 05/01/07
Posted on 05/02/2007 1:30:21 PM PDT by presidio9
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 next last
1
posted on
05/02/2007 1:30:24 PM PDT
by
presidio9
To: presidio9
Why is this even debatable?
2
posted on
05/02/2007 1:34:05 PM PDT
by
TSchmereL
("Rust but terrify.")
To: presidio9
But the left can’t get its agenda implemented through the representative branches of government... oh, what will they do?
3
posted on
05/02/2007 1:35:20 PM PDT
by
MrB
(You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
To: TSchmereL
Why is this even debatable? Because Ruth Ginsburg said so.
4
posted on
05/02/2007 1:36:48 PM PDT
by
presidio9
(Islam is as Islam does.)
To: presidio9
If you want new constitutional rights, then you need to amend the Constitution. One would think that this guy, of all people, would understand that new rights can't be created.
5
posted on
05/02/2007 1:41:23 PM PDT
by
DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
To: DuncanWaring
One would think that this guy, of all people, would understand that new rights can't be created. I'm with you. Universal Suffrage should cease immediately. Women elected Kerry, Gore, Clinton, and Dukakis.
6
posted on
05/02/2007 1:44:45 PM PDT
by
presidio9
(Islam is as Islam does.)
To: presidio9
Even Scalia has had some activist decisions. The most recent that comes to mind is the no-knock warrant one where he cited that we down't have to worry about cops because they are well trained now and respect our rights(boy are they ever out of touch with reality there) or the sobriety checkpoint one where they ruled that it did violate the 4th Amendment but that is is OK to do so because we have to do something about drunken driving.
He even ruled once that a dog searching around the outside of a car was not a search of the car, taxing logic itself to its limits.
Scalia can be an activist but hides under this strict constitutionalist mantra.
7
posted on
05/02/2007 1:44:56 PM PDT
by
microgood
To: TSchmereL
Why is this even debatable? Because people with unpopular ideas can't win that other way.
8
posted on
05/02/2007 1:45:16 PM PDT
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
To: DuncanWaring
This is even worse:
"If you want new rights, create them by statute."Government "creates" rights by statute? Wrong.
To: DuncanWaring
One would think that this guy, of all people, would understand that new rights can't be created.
Or that they don't need to be listed in the Constitution....
10
posted on
05/02/2007 1:55:44 PM PDT
by
highball
("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
To: Tailgunner Joe
Government "creates" rights by statute? Wrong.How can such an obviously intelligent man have so missed the point of the Ninth Amendment?
11
posted on
05/02/2007 2:00:21 PM PDT
by
highball
("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
To: presidio9
Universal Suffrage should cease immediately. Stop the suffraging!
12
posted on
05/02/2007 2:05:09 PM PDT
by
Dinsdale
To: presidio9
i stopped after if you want new rights amend the constitution...
i expect more from scalia... the constitution is not an enumeration of all our rights but a protection of all our rights, those that are not found within its pages are reserved to the people and or the states...
we are not limited to the only the rights in the BoR.
teeman
13
posted on
05/02/2007 2:05:44 PM PDT
by
teeman8r
( (optional, printed after your name on post):)
To: presidio9
The professorate, the bench and even the American people have all been seduced into believing in, and I hate the term, a living Constitution, he said. My argument whenever I run into a "living Constitution" believer is "Would you lease a car from a dealer who insisted that the lease contract was a 'living document' that could change on his whim?"
14
posted on
05/02/2007 2:07:10 PM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(Parker v. DC: the best court decision of the year.)
To: presidio9
Because Ruth Ginsburg said so. I caught a bit of an interview with Breyer on Fox (probably when his book came out) -- he was surprisingly (to me) forthright about his view that judges had the right and responsibility(!) to "adapt" the Constitution.
I didn't watch much of it . . . I couldn't!
15
posted on
05/02/2007 2:09:15 PM PDT
by
maryz
To: presidio9
Since the Constitution merely enumerates rights endowed to the People by their CREATOR...and a ‘Wall’ now separates the Constitution from any connection with the CREATOR...it seems that the “Constitution” was usurped some time ago (in the Sixties, starting with the activist Warren Court) and, really, is no longer applicable, meaningful, or even consequential to our lives today...
16
posted on
05/02/2007 2:13:54 PM PDT
by
O Neill
(Aye, Katie Scarlett, the ONLY thing that lasts is the land...)
To: KarlInOhio
Would you want to play poker with someone who stated that the rules were “living”?
If we have a “living” Constitution, we have no Constitution.
It’s a contract with an amendment process.
17
posted on
05/02/2007 2:15:03 PM PDT
by
MrB
(You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
To: presidio9
If you want new constitutional rights, then you need to amend the Constitution. Already done:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Bill of Rights almost didn't pass exactly because of the fear of attitudes like Scalia's. Let's listen to James Madison:
It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
Unfortunately, Madison's protections against Scalia's view in the 9th Amendment appear not to have worked.
To: KarlInOhio
"Would you lease a car from a dealer who insisted that the lease contract was a 'living document' that could change on his whim?"
Good point, but there is another side.
"If your father leased a car for you before you were born, would you want to be held to the lease terms if the only way to change the terms was by getting a super majority of your fellow citizens to agree with you?"
To: EdReform
20
posted on
05/02/2007 2:24:15 PM PDT
by
EdReform
(The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed *NRA*JPFO*SAF *GOA*SAS)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-65 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