Posted on 10/11/2018 11:17:13 PM PDT by knighthawk
Christopher Scalia: Lessons from the Kavanaugh chaos -- What my father, Justice Antonin Scalia, would have thought
I’ve frequently been asked in the past few weeks what my father, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, would think about the contentious battle just waged over Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the nation’s highest court.
Would he have been surprised by the heated debate, political maneuvers, protests, last-minute delays and uncorroborated allegations of sexual misconduct that we saw during now-Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation process?
Although I don’t think my father (or anyone) could have predicted the twists and turns of the past several weeks, I don’t think he would have been shocked by the no-holds-barred fight over a Supreme Court vacancy, either. He long ago warned Americans about the excessive intrusion of politics into the judicial appointment process. And he explained that a large share of the blame belongs to the justices themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
All that 'tell us what your father would think' - just to push this stupid idea? Unanimous decisions means NOTHING gets done - it take away the power coservatives have earned.
...if the Constitution is a living document, consider who ends up determining its new meaning: unelected judges with lifetime appointments – men and women who are intentionally protected from the will of voters at the ballot box.
Outstanding article. Thanks for posting. Very cogent and makes sense.
He, or rather his father, is absolutely correct. We label it activism from the bench. Mark Levin labels it judicial tyranny, and the problem stems from viewing the Constitution as a living document that changes with the changing morals, which is of course nonsense.
bookmark
Its a great article and he really understands what his father, a truly great man, was about
I disagree with one thing though. The confirmation process will always be contentious from now on. the libs want judges who put their own policy preferences before the constitution, They will never approve of anything else.
the left always cheats, always.
bmp
I don’t think Justice Scalia would be surprised. Sure miss him. He was a great intellect on the Court.
What is Christopher Scalia doing?
My son is named Christopher. It means “Christ-bringer.” :)
Very true.
I’m from Chicago and went to many Cubs games with my sister and father. My mom wasn’t really into sports. I’m just sad that my dad passed away a couple of months before the Cubs won the World Series. He would have been very very happy. :-)
“I disagree with one thing though. The confirmation process will always be contentious from now on. the libs want judges who put their own policy preferences before the constitution, They will never approve of anything else.”
Yes. If the court stays conservative for the next 20 years, and the left takes over all three branches at any point, we will be back to the court packing scandal of the New Deal and the capitulation of the Court, in response, to the living constitution theory.
Large portions of the new deal were held constitutional ONLY after Roosevelt threatened to expand the size of the Court and appoint a bunch of leftist judges.
A conservative court will be a dire threat to the progressive agenda today because most of it is unconstitutional. So the vicious battles will continue.
Ironically, Hamilton brought this on himself when his Federalist judges arrogated power to themselves that was not in the Constitution in McCullough v Maryland and Marbury v. Madison.
My eldest son is Christopher. “Bearer of Christ” is what I always understood it to mean.......and by God’s grace, our Christopher does just that.....
“The only alternative to states rights is to hand over sovereignty to the black robed deities of the court who disappear into their chambers and then tell us what orders we must obey, no matter how nonsensical or unpopular they may be.” John C Calhoun
“A freedom-loving people respectful of the rule of law may be expected to let lawyers decide what a constitutional text means; but they cannot be expected to let lawyers decide what a Constitution *ought* to say,” my father said.
Or as he put it in another speech, “no court can expect to remain immune from severe political pressure ... if it assumes the role of inventing solutions for social problems instead of merely applying those solutions prescribed in democratically adopted statutory or constitutional text.”
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.