I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than Antonin Scalia.

The soft racism of low expectations.

I wish he would die already. and in the next month. that's a good question. lets say Romney wins, and a justice dies between November and the swearing in, who names the new justice?

WorldCitizen: And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

You can't hug your children with nuclear arms!



/check please

Brother_Mouzone: I wish he would die already. and in the next month. that's a good question. lets say Romney wins, and a justice dies between November and the swearing in, who names the new justice?

In the modern political world, it would most likely wait until a new person was in office.

Let's not miss this part which I may have a quibble with, but also contains a lot of truth.

FTFA:
As he has said many times before, the justice said the people should turn to their elected lawmakers, not judges, to advocate for abortion rights or an end to the death penalty. Or they should try to change the Constitution, although Scalia said the Constitution makes changing it too hard by requiring 38 states to ratify an amendment for it to take effect.

"It is very difficult to adopt a constitutional amendment," Scalia said. He once calculated that less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, residing in the 13 least populous states, could stop an amendment, he said.

WorldCitizen: edmo: So it doesn't prevent restrictions on abortion.
So it doesn't prevent restrictions on capital punishment.
So it doesn't prevent restrictions on homosexual sodomy. oops
So it doesn't prevent restrictions on restrictions on homosexual sodomy.

That's a pretty solid case there judge.Seems legit.

He's one of the people those Founders who were against a bill of rights feared. They feared some idiots would come along some day and say if a right wasn't included in the list, the idiots would think the Constitution didn't grant that right if it otherwise didn't list it has prohibited. Well, Scalia proved them right.

The Bill of Rights doees't grant rights to the citizens of this country. It limits the powers of the Federal Government.

The Constitution makes no mention of killing people and yet prevents the government from placing restrictions on owning weapon. Clearly, our Founding Fathers want us to shoot each other whenever and where ever.

Theaetetus: Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

I'd happily argue that.

Ambitwistor: You can't hug your children with nuclear arms!

[i50.tinypic.com image 467x348]

/check please

WorldCitizen: Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Because People in power are Stupid: By his own arguments the 2nd amendment only pertains to antiquated black powder rifles.

Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

I'd happily argue that.

We're dead as a species then. If every individual has the right to a biological weapon that an wipe out all of humanity, it will be used by one out of the 310,000,000 people in the US. It only takes one to end it all. Any of the crazed shooters who just want to take out as many people as possible we've had armed with a biological weapon is the end of it all. Constitution: not a suicide pact for all of humanity.

So you're arguing that we should explicitly disregard the Constitution, as we shouldn't be bound to "a suicide pact for all of humanity"? Perhaps so, but that wasn't the question you originally asked - whether the 2nd amendment protects the right of citizens to keep nuclear arms. Certainly it does.

Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment gives you no right to use those arms. Certainly using a biological weapon to end it all is mass-murder at a minimum. You're not arguing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to own handguns, for example, yet that doesn't mean that people have the right to shoot up a school. Clearly, the Constitution is not a "suicide pact" for victims of such shootings that needs to be disregarded, right?
Finally, if someone is going to use a biological weapon to wipe out all of humanity, do you think the existence or non-existence of a piece of paper is going to aid or hinder them either way? Like there's someone out there right now who would be setting off a nuke in L.A., but for the fact that the Supreme Court hasn't ...

People aren't ignoring the first half of the Second Amendment. It is clearly, obviously, and quite verifiably there for context. Saying it is for the right for you to bear arms as a part of a militia is ignoring context. Read the federalist papers and the multitude of quotes from the founding fathers that explicitly describe their thoughts on the importance of the individual ownership of arms.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"... the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ..."
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ... "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

Also easy cases? Deciding innocent people should be executed.

I think people need to give his arguments a little more credit. The Constitution was largely written over 200 years ago. Just because people's minds have changed about what individuals should have a right to do or not do doesn't mean that the meaning of the Constitution changes also. The idea that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution change over time means that we have nine unelected people with life tenure who get to decide how far common notions about privacy, sex, and family have changed and thus create laws that govern 300,000,000 people.

He is NOT saying that consensual sodomy and abortion should be illegal. What he is saying is that the Constitution doesn't require that these things be legal. And if people want them to be legal, then we have 50 little republics across this land in which the citizens of each republic can elect leaders who will draft laws that reflect what they want. The idea that the Supreme Court can just create new rights by fiat is both undemocratic and is anathema to local and state democracy (people don't get involved in state and local politics to protect their rights because they know that it's easier just to go through the courts). And maybe if there was more participate in state and local democracy--especially liberal participation--we'd have more people in place that would work to solve issues like police corruption and low-quality public schools. But because state and local governments have very little direct impact on our lives (in part because the Supreme Court has usurped many of their policy making functions), no on gets involved.

I'm not saying he's right (and we all know he's not consistent in applying his viewpoint). But I am saying that if people gave his point of view a little credit they might actually think about these issues and have better things to say in response.

WorldCitizen: He's one of the people those Founders who were against a bill of rights feared. They feared some idiots would come along some day and say if a right wasn't included in the list, the idiots would think the Constitution didn't grant that right if it otherwise didn't list it has prohibited. Well, Scalia proved them right.

THIS.

Aparantly hizzoner never got all the way down to Amendments 9 and 10. He can also twist the definition of words beyond all recognition.

Can't wait until this asshole drops dead. I just hope there's a Democrat in office when he does.

hartzdog: I think people need to give his arguments a little more credit. The Constitution was largely written over 200 years ago. Just because people's minds have changed about what individuals should have a right to do or not do doesn't mean that the meaning of the Constitution changes also. The idea that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution change over time means that we have nine unelected people with life tenure who get to decide how far common notions about privacy, sex, and family have changed and thus create laws that govern 300,000,000 people.

He is NOT saying that consensual sodomy and abortion should be illegal. What he is saying is that the Constitution doesn't require that these things be legal. And if people want them to be legal, then we have 50 little republics across this land in which the citizens of each republic can elect leaders who will draft laws that reflect what they want. The idea that the Supreme Court can just create new rights by fiat is both undemocratic and is anathema to local and state democracy (people don't get involved in state and local politics to protect their rights because they know that it's easier just to go through the courts). And maybe if there was more participate in state and local democracy--especially liberal participation--we'd have more people in place that would work to solve issues like police corruption and low-quality public schools. But because state and local governments have very little direct impact on our lives (in part because the Supreme Court has usurped many of their policy making functions), no on gets involved.

I'm not saying he's right (and we all know he's not consistent in applying his viewpoint). But I am saying that if people gave his point of view a little credit they might actually think about these issues and have better things to say in response.

But this common sense approach that you discuss above would not fit the liberal narrative that Scalia is a crazy lunatic who means to hurt everyone and is evil to the core.

WorldCitizen: Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

By the common definition at the time the 2A was written, "arms" are guns a single person can carry. Grenades (bombs you can carry) and cannon (guns you can't carry) were called "ordinance".

So the guy who rails against the concept of referring to legislative history and discussions of the potential meanings and impacts of bills on the floor of the House and Senate as "meaningless because it's not written into the actual text of the law" decides that it's up to him to interpret the true meaning of the writers of the Constitution based on ....... historical context?

He always was full of shiat, but his emperor's clothes are doing a poorer job of covering that than they used to.

hartzdog: What he is saying is that the Constitution doesn't require that these things be legal

And that is where he is wrong.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because it isn't an ENUMERATED right doesn't mean it isn't a PROTECTED right, Jackass.

Tell me again how someone gets a fair hearing before Scalia. Basically he's now on record as saying he's decided the case before he hears it. The Constitution was a great compromise. The Founding fathers, however you want to define them, were not all of one mind. many were on the cutting edge of philosophy at the time and who knows their positions on the issues of today in today's world. Oh that's right. Scalia knows.

Theaetetus: arms are just about anything.

+1

HotWingConspiracy: Yet another article of him openly declaring he decides verdicts prior to actually hearing cases, and nobody seems to care.

This...

MaudlinMutantMollusk: We need a Constitutional amendment ending lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court

I'm not sure this is such a great idea, but I could be convinced otherwise. Here are two reasons why I think it's bad; both related to after-service employment.

1. If they were term limited, they could be more easily swayed by corporations to rule in their favor due to backroom deals for future jobs. This is a problem in Congress now when someone leave to be CEO of a company or a big time lobbyist. I suppose it could be argue that corporations sway them anyway, but it could potentially be much worse.

2. On a similar note, where would they work, what would they do afterwards? I can't imagine they would go back to being a "regular" judge or lawyer; or whatever other profession they came from.

Ultimately, setting them up for life gives them free reign to make up their own mind and not be swayed by outside influence. There are example in the past (citation needed.jpg) of traditionally liberal/conservative justices moving towards the center or switching sides completely once they were on the high court.

Zeb Hesselgresser: I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than Antonin Scalia.

The soft racism of low expectations.

A pocket calculator with an alarm clock hooked up to it would reach a better conclusion than Antonin Scalia most of the time.

Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Things I believe in firmly regardless of whether or not the Constitution seems to support:

Right to free speech/thought.

Do you believe in an inalienable right to defame someone? If so, how is that consistent with:
Right to be free from physical or property harm

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names shall never hurt me...

Either you believe the constitution is a social contract, or you believe it's a license for an unelected elite to impose their vision of a just society on the rest of us.

If, like Scalia, you believe the constitution is a social contract, then you interpret it like a contract. You look to the intent of the people who framed and ratified that contract. And if you want to change the original understanding of the contract, then you go through the process spelled out in the contract for doing that.

Whether you think it is right or wrong, Scalia's position has the benefit of being principled. It is consistent with the long history of Anglo-American jurisprudence. It is based on an objective standard.

If, as most modern day liberals do, you believe the constitution is a license for an unelected elite to impose their vision of society on the rest of us, you have some problems.

First, that position has no principle behind it. If that unelected elite decide that it's ok to take your guns away, or to allow the police to search your house without a warrant, or to prohibit internet news sites, or that the people who post on such sites should be rounded up, put in concentration camps, and shot, what right do you have to complain?

Second, if you believe that the constitution is a social contract, what obliges you (other than the fear of the application of force) to pay the slightest attention to the pronouncements of the elite? The answer is quite simple: none.

Trollmitter,

Thats not what he said. He said that he reads the Constituion to mean what it meant to the people who wrote it.

Its actually very simple. There is a group of people in country who want to ditch the constitution because it gets in the of the way of "social justice " (aka communal redistribution) so they ridicule it; declare it obsolete, and try to undermine its language any way they cab.

Then there are people who read it according to its actual meaning like Scalia.

Gecko Gingrich: Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.

I know that I'm perhaps being a bit of a pedant, but even if one says that the "states" were created in 1776, there were 18 states that had removed sodomy laws by 1976, some as early as 1962, though some quickly reinstated them.

IIRC, sodomy laws also cover just about any sex act beyond missionary style with the lights off. Heterosexual oral sex is considered "sodomy" in some states.

Also, even if you are being a pedant, you're absolutely correct.

wisewerds: Whether you think it is right or wrong, Scalia's position has the benefit of being principled. It is consistent with the long history of Anglo-American jurisprudence. It is based on an objective standard.

So what part of the US Constitution grants citizens' rights to corporations and similar nebulous entities?

serial_crusher: The whole point of the 2nd amendment is that citizens can take up arms against the government if it becomes oppressive like the British or Republicans did, right?

No, not right. The opposite of right, in fact. One of the bigger motivations for the 2nd amendment was so that the people would be armed and readily available to put down an attempted overthrow of the government.

/I thought this was commonly understood.