General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJUSTICE SCALIA: My Decisions Are Sometimes 'Stupid And Even Cruel'
LAW & ORDER More: Federal Courts Supreme Court Constitution Justice Antonin Scalia
JUSTICE SCALIA: My Decisions Are Sometimes 'Stupid And Even Cruel'
When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke in Bozeman, Mont. earlier this week, he admitted his legal conclusions aren't always very nice, KXLH News reports.
But Scalia told a group of Republican lawmakers he interprets the Constitution strictly regardless of the results.
" Sometimes)I have to arrive at results that are stupid and even cruel," Scalia said.
If nine lawyers in a room discuss whether the Constitution allows abortion or sodomy, for example, the Constitution becomes an ever-evolving, even "living," document, Scalia said.
These decisions about social issues belong to Congress, the ultimate representation of the will of the people, according to Scalia.
Read more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-comments-on-the-constitution-2013-8?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)"These decisions about social issues belong to Congress, the ultimate representation of the will of the people, according to Scalia."
Arkana
(24,347 posts)like "the will of the people".
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Congress can make no laws that contradict the Constitution such as DOMA; and that is where the Court comes into being. No one would argue that DOMA is nothing except a Social issue.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)amendments come from?
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Especially one that deals with Social Issues. If you believe that I have some valuable shorefront land in Arizona for sale.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I think Scalia is a whiner.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)And we know who's money/perks 'activate' his decisions.
ProfessorGAC
(65,211 posts). . .guise in this bizarre intellectual construct those guys call "Originalism".
So, they claim it's strict and literal reading of the Constitution, but it requires that they know what the framers were THINKING when they wrote what they wrote.
So, it means they take it literally by interpreting what it means to be literal.
It's a completely fraudulent point of view, if only because it's self-contradictory.
Johonny
(20,890 posts)If you are stupid then you can be an activist judge and think you are a strict constitutionalists. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
Hayduke Bomgarte
(1,965 posts)But what the hey.A guy has to do what a guys bribed to do,Right?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Solly Mack
(90,787 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)written when the press was a manual flatbed printing press, communication was by semaphore or the Post Office, you crossed the ocean by sailing ship and land by literal horsepower. Guns were single shot and awkward, and assembly was difficult outside of your town. Inside your town, too, if the county was a rural farm area.
We've evolved, why not the Constitution to keep up?
He's absolutely right that social issues should be legislated, but he forgets that the courts are a protection from wrongheaded and overzealous legislation.
Paladin
(28,276 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)"I have to arrive at results.."
Riiiight
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)anyone homeeee? helloooo?
no_hypocrisy
(46,202 posts)He says there aren't any if it isn't explicitly in the Constitution, ignoring caselaw based on the Constitution.
And how about THIS interpretation: If it isn't BANNED in the Constitution, it must be recognized and implemented.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)Asshole.