Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Politics He's In There For Life
Posted by Paul Constant on Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:32 PM
While earlier reports at the Huffington Post that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said he would have voted for segregation are false, Scalia still said some fascinating, evil stuff at the University of Arizona College of Law yesterday. He accused the more liberal justices on the court of "inventing new rights" and provided a peek into his hellish worldview:
"The only thing you can be sure of is the Constitution will mean whatever the American people want it to mean today,'' Scalia continued. "And that's not what a constitution is for. The whole purpose of a constitution is to constrain the desires of the current society.''
The Constitution is there to keep you from doing what you want to do. This fucker is going to live for forty years, isn't he?
Share via
2
Progress is for homos and libruls!!!
Take me back to 1787, when straight, white men had all the power!!!
Take me back to 1787, when straight, white men had all the power!!!
3
He's right though. The constitution should be the document that, for instance, constrains the desires of homophobic bigots to gaybash or prevent gay rights.
5
I think Scalia has confused the intention of our US forefathers with those of his Holy Catholic Church. Just goes to show that even very intelligent people can be blinded by their own prejudices.
6
His point is that a constitution's function is necessarily conservative, which is true.
He's still a douche.
He's still a douche.
7
Yeah it's kind of odd. I mean, sure, his job is to uphold the constitution.
But there are rules laid out in the document itself saying it can be changed and amended by the legislature.
But why reason with someone so silly, I guess.
But there are rules laid out in the document itself saying it can be changed and amended by the legislature.
But why reason with someone so silly, I guess.
8
yes, the Constitution should always be interpreted to reflect only the views of 18th Century, rich, white, slave-owning men...which is amusing when you consider that anyone named "Antonin Scalia" in 1788 would probably be working as a fruit peddler in the Bowery.
9
@3 I think that's only fair, since the constitution already constrains my desire to strip the homophobic bigots of their rights.
11
Whether you agree with him or not, Antonin Scalia is smarter than you or I will ever be. People attack him because of his abrasive mannerism, but if you read his opinions, his logical reasoning is sound. Agreeing with the conclusions, well that's another matter all together.
13
"inventing new rights"
like the right to "privacy" to kill your children.
oh yeah- it says it right here...
like the right to "privacy" to kill your children.
oh yeah- it says it right here...
14
#3 has it. He's putting it in a very socially-conservative way, but the point of the constitution -is- to constrain the whims of the majority. Which makes sense, when you remember that we call a majority getting its own way "mob rule," and it's generally not good for anyone in the minority.
Of course, the question is whether he'll remember that argument when he's ruling to constrain the rights of people that agree with him - but that's a different question. What he said here is right, even if he's a frightening force in the political landscape.
Of course, the question is whether he'll remember that argument when he's ruling to constrain the rights of people that agree with him - but that's a different question. What he said here is right, even if he's a frightening force in the political landscape.
16
I think Scalia might have a different view of the meaning of the statement of his that you highlighted than I would have, but the statement is correct in the sense that a constitution SHOULD constrain current popular thought from affecting peoples' fundamental rights, that is why the Framers made the basic rights in the US Constitution bold and broad. This of course means they are going to get 'interpreted' in later times and there is where the "desires" of "current society" will come into play. Unfortunately, this means someone is going to be happy and someone not since "current desires" are not universally held. Both sides interpret, despite the vocal denials on the conservative side and the liberals sometimes get far enough "ahead" of the "desires" of the people that there is a backlash in society. A rather messy dynamic but one that historically has proven progressive if often frustratingly slow paced. Still, the idea that constitutions should be very resistant to change with respect to fundamental rights is overall likely a very good thing.
19
somehow during editing of my comments a few statements on the importance of the ninth amendment in all this were lost. . If you're looking for the most damning indictment of the arrogance of the idea of strict construction you need do no more than read that one sentence of pure genius on the part of the Framers.
20
Replace society with government and he's right. The idea of a Constitution is to prevent the government at the moment from suppressing the rights of the people. What Scalia doesn't realize is that rights progress and expand and the Constitution along with them.
21
Scalia is right about this
"But there are rules laid out in the document itself saying it can be changed and amended by the legislature."
The "legislature" I assume you're referring to would be Congress, but they cannot amend it. A 2/3 vote of both houses can send it to the states for ratification, and 3/4 of them must also approve
"But there are rules laid out in the document itself saying it can be changed and amended by the legislature."
The "legislature" I assume you're referring to would be Congress, but they cannot amend it. A 2/3 vote of both houses can send it to the states for ratification, and 3/4 of them must also approve
22
Thank the Founding Fathers for putting in a mechanism to amend the document when necessary. Oh, and up yours, Fat Tony.
23
@9 exactly! Although unfortunately the judges are doing a piss-poor job of preventing bigot assholes from stripping away gay rights right now.
24
@1: You mean "not if there's a benevolent god." And evil god might keep him around for a dozen decades. Look around, if there is a God, do you think It is benevolent?
25
Huh. I could've sworn the point of a constitution was to set up a framework of government. I don't know what the hell this greaseball is bloviating about. I take it he's never read the Ninth Amendment.
And maybe he never said he would have voted for segregation, but what possible reason would he have had to vote against it? Brown doesn't remotely adhere to his brand of strict constructionism.
And maybe he never said he would have voted for segregation, but what possible reason would he have had to vote against it? Brown doesn't remotely adhere to his brand of strict constructionism.
26
@21 - no, there's also a Continental Congress that can be invoked which only requires a majority vote.
Man, it's like you guys have no idea what reactionaries the founding fathers (and their slave mistresses) were.
Man, it's like you guys have no idea what reactionaries the founding fathers (and their slave mistresses) were.
27
@12: The difference is, I can recognize my desire [to strip the homophobic bigots of their rights] as wrong (on some level) (I think) (though it's hard to remain convinced of that) and so I don't act on that. What I'd prefer to do is reason with you.
Also, I find it funny that you react so violently when someone threatens to take away your rights but then you're offended that others (the gays, in this case) react violently when you try to take away their rights. Gosh, I wonder why?
Also, I find it funny that you react so violently when someone threatens to take away your rights but then you're offended that others (the gays, in this case) react violently when you try to take away their rights. Gosh, I wonder why?
28
@16: What you said. Scalia's mostly right - the Constitution is meant to constrain government power, regardless of the current whims of society. I just don't see why denying government powers it never had in the first place constitutes "creating new rights."
Most Commented on Slog
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
The Green Police Super Bowl Commercial by Charles Mudede
-
Was This On Slog Yesterday? by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (28) RSS