Posted on 10/05/2012 10:06:19 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Justice Antonin Scalia says his method of interpreting the Constitution makes some of the most hotly disputed issues that come before the Supreme Court among the easiest to resolve.
Scalia calls himself a ‘‘textualist’’ and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak in Washington the other day, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.
So Scalia parts company with former colleagues who have come to believe capital punishment is unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution didn’t think so and neither does he.
‘‘The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state,’’ Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.
He contrasted his style of interpretation with that of a colleague who tries to be true to the values of the Constitution as he applies them to a changing world. This imaginary justice goes home for dinner and tells his wife what a wonderful day he had, Scalia said.
This imaginary justice, Scalia continued, announces that it turns out ‘‘'the Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean.’ No kidding.’’
As he has said many times before, the justice said the people should turn to their elected lawmakers, not judges, to advocate for abortion rights or an end to the death penalty. Or they should try to change the Constitution, although Scalia said the Constitution makes changing it too hard by requiring 38 states to ratify an amendment for it to take effect.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
“Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state”
Actually, so was abortion. But liberals discovered a “right” in the living, breathing document which has taken away from many human beings the right to live and breathe.
But liberals discovered a “right”
Sure they did. In a pigs eye! They just decided among themselves to become the replacement for the one Moses worshiped. Since he has chosen not to speak to them, they had to take matters into their own hands.
Seems to me the "texctualist" Scalia gets it a lot more than "originalist" John Roberts and most of the "strict constructionists" (Harry Blackman, Lewis Powell, etc.) appointed by Nixon.
DING, DING, DING....
we have a winner....
You know how libs say that we got our Constitution from the Iroquois? Maybe they’re right......
http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/iro/parker/cohl017.htm
THE CODE OF HANDSOME LAKE
SECTION 4
“Now another word. It is sad. It is the fourth word. It is the way Yondwi’nias swa’yas. (”she cuts it off by abortion.”)
Now the Creator ordained that women should bear children.
Now a certain young married woman had children and suffered much. Now she is with child again and her mother wishing to prevent further sufferings designs to administer a medicine to cut off the child and to prevent forever other children from coming. So the mother makes the medicine and gives it. Now when she does this she forever cuts away her daughter’s string of children. Now it is because of such things that the Creator is sad. He created life to live and he wishes such evils to cease. He wishes those who employ such medicines to cease such practices forevermore. Now they must stop when they hear this message. Go and tell your people.’
So they said and he said. Eniaiehuk.”
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.