my emphasisJustice Scalia must resign
So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.
Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.
EJ Dionne at the Washington Post has a few words about Justice Antonin Scalia and his recent actions that appear to be in contrast with the concept of judicial impartiality
my emphasis
and it used to be the conservatives railing about "activist judges"
Earl Warren was never impeached, despite the public and political uproar against him. Neither shall Scalia be.
You want to read blog posts masquerading as judicial decisions, go back and read some of your own favorite justices' decisions with a grain of salt to dim your bias. There's been some gymnastic doozies.
I must admit that the dissent was poorly worded, but I also have to muse at the timing of this article. An opinion piece, attacking the character of a supreme court judge on the eve of a rather important ruling. That's not to say that Scalia was ever in any danger of siding with the administration in regards to the mandate, but it almost seems as if the author was launching a preemptive strike of sorts, to soften the blow of the law itself being struck down by chalking it up to extreme partisanship.
I don't doubt it's relevance to the Arizona case, just speculating that the article could have multiple motives. Nothing concrete, just shooting from the hip.I think the timing had more to do with post-Arizona SB1070 than it had to do with pre-Obamacare.
Do you believe that siding with the Constitution is what makes one an activist judge?EJ Dionne at the Washington Post has a few words about Justice Antonin Scalia and his recent actions that appear to be in contrast with the concept of judicial impartiality
my emphasis
and it used to be the conservatives railing about "activist judges"
Do you believe that siding with the Constitution is what makes one an activist judge?
EJD is a fool. He has been for a very long while.
Really? I do not. I have not for a very long time.I am quite sure all of the justices believe they are siding with the constitution.
What you are basically saying is that you don't have a problem with this guy because he happens to agree with you.
Really? I do not. I have not for a very long time.
Is the government constrained or unleashed. If constrained the rule is probably in line with the Constitution. If unleashed it most likely is not. Every time the government gets more power to rule over you and me we are less free.
True. Those who despise the Constitution as it limits government's power to dominate and rule us prefer a living Constitution. Which side do you find yourself on?All of this depends on which method one chooses to interpret the constitution. Originialist is only one method among many.
True. Those who despise the Constitution as it limits government's power to dominate and rule us prefer a living Constitution. Which side do you find yourself on?
As a Conservative I believe we are doomed if we do not go with original intent.
As a Progressive I suspect you believe the government should be able to do whatever it wants so long as it advances the statist agenda.
Yep. You are the living constitution kind of guy. Understood. A living pliant Constitution is not a Constitution at all and need not get in the way of your utopian dreams.I neither despise nor aggrandize it. It is a legal document that has shown some use in building a more stable and wealthy society. However, it is not perfect either. My stance is that the constitution was a major step forward from despotism and monarchy, but it does not represent the end goal (as there is no end goal or if there is one, its always changing with available technology)
Your suspicions are wrong. I tend to go issue by issue and am not wholly on any side of this debate.
Yep. You are the living constitution kind of guy. Understood. A living pliant Constitution is not a Constitution at all and need not get in the way of your utopian dreams.
I did. You answered. You do not accept the constitution as a limit to federal government power. You are a living constitution guy. What part do you think I have misunderstood?I have no utopian dreams. Human nature will always cause problems no matter what philosophy we follow.
Are you going to debate me or some person in your head?
If you are curious about my positions on things, the best thing to do is simply ask.
I did. You answered. You do not accept the constitution as a limit to federal government power. You are a living constitution guy. What part do you think I have misunderstood?
EJ Dionne at the Washington Post has a few words about Justice Antonin Scalia and his recent actions that appear to be in contrast with the concept of judicial impartiality
my emphasis
and it used to be the conservatives railing about "activist judges"
What makes you think that I don't think the constitution is a limit to federal power?
Here is a hint, I don't think federal power should be unlimited as that does not best serve the needs of society.
So you believe the Constitution limits the federal government, and particularly the Congress, to certain enumerated powers?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?