Judge Scalia

[debrand]

Scalia opened his talk with a reference to the Holocaust, which happened to occur in a society that was, at the time, “the most advanced country in the world.†One of the many mistakes that Germany made in the 1930s was that judges began to interpret the law in ways that reflected “the spirit of the age.†When judges accept this sort of moral authority, as Scalia claims they’re doing now in the U.S., they get themselves and society into trouble.

This is the quote from the Huffington Post. The full length article is here:

http://www.aspentimes.com/news/7382102- ... iety-court

The Aspen Times explained that Scalia is

In other words, he sees the Constitution as a “static document†that means the same thing now as it did at the time of its creation

We no longer have slavery and women can vote. If he was deciding such issues today, does that mean there wouldn't be female suffrage or emancipation?

I'm curious about his views and his rational for them. It seems that if you hold the Constitution as unchanging then you end up with a society in which the majority could decide to remove rights from a minority. That would be unjust and seems to counter a lot of American ideas of fairness.

We understood in 1920 that the Equal Protection Clause meant today what it meant when it was adopted,†he said. “We did what the Constitution required — we adopted the 19th Amendment.â€

He is not against suffrage now but it is hard to believe that if he didn't have the evidence of history and held the same views in the 1920's that he would have voted to give women the right to vote.

“I accept, for the sake of argument, that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged,†he said, earning a few laughs from the Utah lawyers. “Rather, I am questioning the propriety, indeed the sanity, of having a value-laden decision such as that made for the entire society by unelected judges.

I understand he was joking but I don't get the connection between orgies and things like same sex marriage, abortion rights etc. No one is requiring heterosexuals to marry for their own good neither will women be forced to have an abortion. I don't see the connection between encouraging orgies and either of these issues.(which the article touched on)

[PennySycamore]

Scalia is batshit crazy and he's evil to boot!

[punkiepie]

What he is saying is that unelected federal judges should not make decisions for the entire country when it comes to "value-laden" law/statutes. Basically, he doesn't believe the federal government should legislate morality for the entire country. Those types of things are state concerns. He doesn't believe the Supreme Court has the authority to make those decisions. Scalia is a pretty hard core states' rightist and following the original intent of the Constitution. If you want to allow gay marriage to be recognized by the federal government, then make an amendment to the Constitution.

(Former law schooler, here!)

And no, I don't agree with Scalia at all, I just studied him a lot in school.

[wild little fox]

Pinkiepie,

Do you think the SCOTUS is overstepping its bounds in making law instead of interpreting it?

[punkiepie]

Pinkiepie,

Do you think the SCOTUS is overstepping its bounds in making law instead of interpreting it?

Well, the very nature of interpreting law is "making law." SCOTUS doesn't create anything new, per se, they just decide the validity of existing law and create a set of guideline for how those laws must be made/amended/thrown out/rewritten. It's easy to find fault with SCOTUS when they make a decision that affects you, which you don't like. But no, I don't think they're overstepping. Sometimes I think they don't step in enough.

[crazyforkate]

Scalia's a sack of shit. I have an unparalleled level of rage for him, for some reason, even if many people share his views. He should know better. He really should.

[wild little fox]

Well, the very nature of interpreting law is "making law." SCOTUS doesn't create anything new, per se, they just decide the validity of existing law and create a set of guideline for how those laws must be made/amended/thrown out/rewritten. It's easy to find fault with SCOTUS when they make a decision that affects you, which you don't like. But no, I don't think they're overstepping. Sometimes I think they don't step in enough.

What about the Citizen's United decision. Do you think they stepped out of bounds with it?

I'm asking because I really only have access to one opinion about what is going on at SCOTUS. I'm just curious :) One of the reasons I'm here is to learn from those who have a better education than I do. :)

[debrand]

What he is saying is that unelected federal judges should not make decisions for the entire country when it comes to "value-laden" law/statutes. Basically, he doesn't believe the federal government should legislate morality for the entire country. Those types of things are state concerns. He doesn't believe the Supreme Court has the authority to make those decisions. Scalia is a pretty hard core states' rightist and following the original intent of the Constitution. If you want to allow gay marriage to be recognized by the federal government, then make an amendment to the Constitution.

(Former law schooler, here!)

And no, I don't agree with Scalia at all, I just studied him a lot in school.

Thank you for the explanation. I've been trying to figure Scalia out. He's intelligent. I don't want to confuse my strong disagreement with him and interpret his views as irrational but some of his statements sound off.(sorry, I can't think of a nicer word). For example, what is an example of a law that SCOTUS would decide that isn't potentially 'value-laden'. Using his logic, would states still be allowed to decide if interracial marriage was allowed? And how does he decide if a judge is an activist judge? Couldn't the judge simply believe that the Constitution allows same sex marriage just like Scalia believes it doesn't?

Again, thank you for answering questions. I realize that you are just trying to explain it unpartially from Scalia's point of view.

The Aspen TImes said he got a standing ovation for his lecture/speech(can't remember which it was). Did the people agree with him that strongly or was the applause out of respect for his office?