Interesting piece. Thanks.
This is a real good start.
One of the men at my church is a well known attorney and overall brilliant guy. He was talking a few weeks ago about some case where he said he spent hours reviewing the law. He said it came down to one word.
The word was “may.” He said if the law read “Shall” he would have won his case, but since it said “may,” try as he might he was stuck.
I think that’s a good example of textualism.
“And if you can find clarity in the text that’s pretty much the end of the ballgame,” she continued. “Often texts are not clear, you have to look [farther].”
And the last sentence is very telling in that liberals will often reach their opinion by “looking farther” - IOW, loose interpretation of the laws to suit a political agenda.
The timing of his demise, during an administration deeply opposed to “textualism”, is ... interesting.
“textualist”
As in the Constitution means what it says?
“Textualist” as opposed to .....(???)
Hormones?
where was kagan when scalia was... er, found.
I wish she would have elaborated more, because I do not see this from the court. Of course, if she merely means interpreting STATUTES literally, then maybe she is right.
If she means the CONSTITUTION, then I disagree. Is there a transcript of her speech?
Yeah, right. The Constitution now says whatever the hell five out of nine Supreme Court Justices want it to say at any time.
“Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act.” – Alexander Hamilton
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” - Thomas Jefferson
Should they include "penumbras" which hint at the scope of the law? Or should they simply write down the words which people and judges can understand, now and in the future?
Seems somewhat sad to have to praise Scalia for doing that which should be so obvious.
The Law. Hmm-hmm.
I read somewhere that it Kagan was a personal friend of scalia’s. Maybe he has had some influence on her. Maybe we can hope
Breyer, Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor are often guilty of textual assault on America.
obama and it’s god meant Scalia’s murder for evil, but God made it into something good.
Contrary to what the late Justice Antonin Scalia allegedly said about law’s intention, Thomas Jefferson had put it this way.
"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808.
And all due respect to the family, friends and supporters of Justice Scalia, imo his alleged statement about textualism doesn’t compliment the legal principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
In fact, most people evidently don’t read laws for themselves, instead relying on word of mouth to learn about a law.
But consider that a MAJOR problem with learning a law by word of mouth is that the law gets distorted by rumor, hearsay and gossip.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Norman carried a gun openly in Florida and, despite having a valid concealed carry permit, was charged with a crime. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Norman is appealing to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will hopefully take the case and decide what the Second Amendment means when it says, "the right of the people to [...] bear arms shall not be infringed".
In prior decisions, the phrase "bear arms" has been discussed and some argued that it only referred to bearing arms in defense of the nation, or some such nonsense.
Wiser heads recognized that to "bear arms" means to carry them, including for purposes of self-defense. Bearing arms for purposes of defending the nation is a part of "bearing arms".
The question then becomes, what did the Founders mean when they ratified an amendment which protects bearing arms? Since the vast majority of people who were bearing arms at that time, whether for self-defense or defense of that nation, would have been carrying long guns, just how would it be possible that the founders intended the government to be able to outlaw the bearing of long guns by demanding that guns be carried concealed?
I don't see how Norman can be disappointed except for the possibility that the liberals will make it known that they care so little for the Constitution that they will discourage the Court from taking the case.
This is an important case for Kalifornia since it will address the prohibition against open carry and will also affect the "may issue" permitting process which is a legal abomination. How will it do that, you might ask?
The answer is that the legislators and the governor will rush to their desks to create a "shall issue" concealed carry law in order to encourage people who will be carrying openly to conceal their arms. I plan to be among such people.
Somehow I think “emanations and penumbras” will still drive the progressive-left on the court.