Posted on 04/27/2008 6:40:25 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday characterized himself as a social conservative and "a law-and-order guy" whose views do not impact his interpretation of the Constitution.
In an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes," Scalia addressed issues from abortion to flag-burning.
Were he to approach his job differently, Scalia said, he would adopt the position of abortion opponents who interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion.
But the authors of the Constitution did not write about abortion, so he does not support the approach favored by abortion opponents, said the justice, who is promoting a new book, "Making Your Case: The Art Of Persuading Judges.
Similarly, Scalia upholds a First Amendment right to flag burning, though he doesn't personally like the practice.
Scalia is known for his colorful writing style, especially in dissent. All his colleagues have been targets of his biting criticism, a subject that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg addressed on camera.
"As annoyed as you might be about his zinging dissent, he's so utterly charming, so amusing, so sometimes outrageous, you can't help but say I'm glad that he's my friend or he's my colleague," said Ginsburg.
Ginsburg said she takes Scalia's occasional criticism as a challenge to be met.
"How am I going to answer this in a way that's a real putdown?" Ginsburg said.
Stahl looked like a complete fool - As usual. Take away her smile and you are left with - Nothing!
Justice Antonin Scalia on Sunday characterized himself as a social conservative and “a law-and-order guy” whose views do not impact his interpretation of the Constitution.
::::::
Unlike the Socialists, Ginsberg et al. The law of the land is basically a WRITTEN LAW to be interpreted literally -— not with liberal bias and spin, to suit political agendas.
The socialists on the court do not see it that way, needless to say.
Probably the same way the town chess wiz would cream Kasparov, Ruth.
He's still a Queens guy and I am proud to claim a certain kinship as we share the same high school experience and Jesuit education.
“But he can also use his pen as a sword to attack the writings of his colleagues. For instance, he once called a Breyer decision ‘sheer applesauce.’”
I was surprised to learn that he and Ginsburg are such good friends. That photo of them on an elephant was hilarious.
I didn’t think Scalia looked that good. It seemed like some of his answers were “I’m right, that’s why.” Don’t know whether that was editing by 60 Minutes or that’s just the way he is on camera.
I understand he’s even taken her out shooting a few times...
“But the authors of the Constitution did not write about abortion,”
Dadgum. A Supreme Court Justice who actually has read the constitution. Amazing.
Maybe that will positively influence her vote in the Heller case. :)
When she brought up waterboarding being unconstitutional Scalia asked why it would be unconstitutional. she responded because it's cruel and unusual punishment. He said but it's not punishment. She sat there looking stupid, arguing with him as if he was the dense one, "Because they have a gun to their head and they're waterboarding them. That's not punishment?" (I expected to hear her add "DUH!!") and Scalia kept saying, no, it's not. And further more, I would have said "The Constitution doesn't apply to you if you're not an American citizen." He probably did but they edited it out.
I'm surprized 60 minutes would run a piece that reveals how STUPID their reporter really is.
Wow!
He really humiliated her didn’t he?
I might be a distant relative of Justice Scalia! My Mama met him when he came to the college at which she worked, and in speaking with him, mentioned that her Grandmother’s maiden name was Scalia. Then she found out his family was from the same Sicilian village as her Grandmother! She never got to find out anymore, but we thought that was cool!
IIRC, Ginsburg has written previous opinions supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms, as the Founders intended.
Scalia wants to sell books, plain and simple.
That was a great interview.
I think she came into the interview not wanting to like him but in the end she was charmed by his intelligence and his wit and actually admires him.
I too am surprised that 60 minutes didn’t do a hit piece on his but actually let him speak and show what an intelligent person is is.
I’m glad he is out writing and speaking. His view needs to get out to counter the “living breathing document” teachings.
so he does not support the approach favored by abortion opponents
murder is murder Judge!
Well, Umm...
Murder isn’t in the Constitution either.
It should be left to the states.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; and thus also they guarded against all abridgement by the US. of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, & retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this state, by a law passed on the general demand of it’s citizens, had already protected them, from all human restraint or interference: ..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozooSo given that Jefferson had noted that the states had reserved for themselves the power to reasonably limit free speech, for example, state laws prohibiting flag burning are not far-fetched, regardless if the states prohibited the feds from making such laws.
And if you buy the USSC's politically correct bluff that the 14th A. applied the BoR to the states, meaning that the 1st A. now prohibits certain state powers as well as federal, then guess again. In fact, let's hear it from John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5dSo whereas the federal government has no power to limit our 1st A. protections, the states do, regardless of politically correct interpretations of the 14th Amendment. However, USSC opinions dealing with state power issues indicate that judges must now balance 10th A. protected states powers with 14th A. personal federal protections."No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
"'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' It is only the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States that the clause relied on was intended to protect. A state may pass laws to regulate the privileges and immunities of its own citizens, provided that in so doing it does not abridge their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States." --Presser v. State of Illinois, 1886Again, regardless of the 14th A., I still see constitutional room for state laws which prohibit flag-burning, despite what Justice Scalia says about the so-called 1st A. right to burn flags."Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942. http://tinyurl.com/yvtqoy
Murder isn’t in the Constitution either.
It’s sad that Ginsburg believes that since We The People was not meant to include women or minorities that it somehow doesn’t apply to them now. In other words someone is interpreting the Constitution that believes it doesn’t apply to a majority of Americans.
Ping for later.
“...It doesn’t have to be in the Constitution to be opposed to it...”
As I am, as well as to abortion.
However, the issue is what the Constitution gives the Federal Government authority over, and what it gives to the States.
Fortunately, Scalia knows the Constitution, and the difference.
The Feds are taking jurisdiction over way too many areas of our lives where they have no business.
Sometimes, we like the results, and sometimes we don’t, but I agree with Scalia that we’re better off following the legal constitutional model.
Sometimes, we like the results, and sometimes we don’t, but I agree with Scalia that we’re better off following the legal constitutional model.
I have to agree with you on this. I must have been a little sleepy when I read that post.
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.