Skip to comments.Scalia: Abortion, death penalty "easy" cases
Posted on 10/05/2012 2:37:34 PM PDT by markomalley
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
"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,"
Always liked Scalia, and I like him a little more than yesterday...
I could try to parody this.
“The Constitution means what I say it means” or something
or maybe not
Not interpreting the Constitution as the writers intended is like critiquing “Wuthering Heights” as a soap opera. Peer review full text only references, no wikipedia allowed.
Who changed the rules? :) Make an amendment to interpret it according to the time it was written.
The Constitution is what a one vote majority of nine justices say it is..folks can argue swear or whatever but that is the fact.
“Wuthering Heights” was boring. Soap Operas are boring. I can see how people would mistake them.
“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,”
This is a true patriot!
It's a viable option that rivals my "Just start impeaching" concept. The only trouble is the same across the board when we the great unwashed try to exercise our right to control Washington DC. They regard themselves as the all important 'we the people'.
They live together, party together, and hire domestic servants from a shared pool. They divide themselves as equally as possible to be seen as democrats and republicans for outward appearances.
One of the ideas I recall from Newt, was to disestablish the Ninth Circus. All lower courts exist at the pleasure of Congress and there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional if Congress expressed its disgust by sending the lot of them packing home and starting over.
Three Fl Supremes are up for retention votes this cycle and I'm not in retaining type of mood.
If we win Congress and the Presidency, I intend to weekly remind my fellow Freepers to spend less time ranting to the choir, and instead become a penpal, wanted or not, with
our congressional delegations.
We stomped on Bush over Amnesty, and if bolstered with more Tea Party Congressmen/Senators next month, there is no reason we cannot tidal wave them with demands for conservative reform.
The problem of course is evident even here in this thread. I saw it this morning before I went to work. Read it, had no time. Looked for it much later, while wolfing down my lunch I typed what I could.
It's odd when I can even find a thread hours later.
If nobody cares at FR, well that's just not good. If all the good conservatives are as busy as I am. Just trying to run a biz in this economy. Well honestly, I'm out of time again!
Wish they were all like Justice Scalia.
That is truly frightening considering who is getting put on the bench. And the oversight is supposed to be the Executive Branch and Congress? (gag)
If that is the case then the Supreme Court is not constrained by the Constitution. That is, the Court could decide a case that directly gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States (like, say, forbidding the States to uphold federal immigration law) and nothing can be done about it.
Indeed, if the Constitution is whatever the majority of Justices say it is, then they are a super-legislature and can make whatever laws they please (like Obamacare) and unmake legitimate laws enacted by the states (like what Roe v. Wade did to the states) regardless of any constraint.