Stanley Fish, a Steamed Dumpling, and Antonin Scalia by John Cole| July 19, 20054:55 pm| 16 CommentsThis post is in: PoliticsFacebookTweetEmailAnd no, I am not making that up.
Look, ENOUGH about your sex fantasies, okay John?
Too bad Scalia’s only a follower of original intent and/or understanding when it’s convenient. Wanker.
Yes, Scalia missed the boat on Raich. But for the most part, he’s consistent.
CNN and WaPo are saying it’s Roberts.
And, um, Bush v. Gore, which is a decision decided strongly in the tradition of the Warren Court, and decidedly not originalist.
It was a shoddy piece of jurisprudence anyway, but definitely, definitely, definitely not originalist, to begin with.
The whole idea of “originalism” completely ignores the 9th amendment, anyway, which shows that the founders were well aware of the fact that, hey, wow, society can change.
And let’s not forget that Scalia is ethically challenged.
Hey, Sojourner, that’s a damning indictment of his legal philosophy. Man! You’d better turn down that intellectual candlepower before you burn the rest of us.
You don’t think ethics is a huge part of somebody’s legal philosophy?
Needless to say, I’m not worried about your intellectual candlepower.
Read the damn ABA Model Code of Judicial Ethics.
Then come back and try again.
You want to play that social contacts = recusal game, we can do that.
Justice Ginsburg, counsel to NOW and ACLU prior to appointment, must recuse from all civil rights cases in which ACLU and NOW file Amicus briefs. Moreover, her husband is a very successful tax, trusts & estates attorney – ergo she should recuse whenever tax or securities cases come before the Court, because her decisions could influence her husband’s income, and the wealth of her household.
You want to keep playing and we’ll talk about Breyer’s business interests? Or would you rather go by the standards set by the ABA, which Scalia did, in fact comply with?
And BTW, the discussion was about legal philosophy, not ethics. Changing the subject is a nifty debating trick, but it doesn’t win the original argument.
M. Scott Eiland
Don’t bother, Al. “Sojourner”‘s handle should have been a clue that it wasn’t worthwhile engaging he/she/it in conversation. Note the absence of “Truth.”
And which of those justices you mention received benefits from someone who had a current case pending in front of the court? Or is that okay only as long as it’s Repubs who do it?
Obviously Ginsburg is not a good example since she no longer receives any benefits from the ACLU and NOW. If Ginsburg’s husband was involved with a case in front of the court, I would expect her to recuse herself. Apparently you wouldn’t given your Scalia position.
I don’t know anything about Breyer’s business interests but I’m confident that if he ignored a conflict of interest, I certainly would have heard the screaming from the conservatives.
Clearly, Scalia’s opinions have been influenced by his political beliefs (e.g., Bush v. Gore) in a ruling totally inconsistent with his previous cases. So obviously he allows his politicaly philosophy to be influenced by partisan issues, which is an ethical problem as well.
But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised given the plummeting ethical standards of the Repubs.
Hmph…I don’t have an opinion yet. I’m still looking all those big words up in my dictionary. J/K
In a more roundabout, less intellectually verbose way, I’ve often thought that the way to “interpret” the Constitution was to understand what the words on the document meant to the authors, then extrapolate from there how to apply what they meant to our current times.
It seems to me that ANY document (the Bible, Magna Carta, Constitution, Art of War, etc…) written before our times needs to be read this way. Strictures from history don’t necessarily apply literally to our modern time. We have to apply the spirit of the document more than the literal translation, as some things just don’t apply to our times.
The farther we get away from the time period of the original documentation, the less we will have in common with the authors. Their inherent meaning needs to be applied to us, but their literal examples may no longer fit.
“Note the absence of “Truth.”
Let me guess. You’re a supporter of the lies for war, out the CIA operative party.
Great. Now my head hurts. All I could thinking about was the Signifying Monkey from Afro-American studies. Maybe I am textually challenged
I agree completely. My position on original intent/understanding is that they do not themselves form a complete school of constitutional interpretation, contrary to what many people think, since you can have the original intent and original understanding, let’s say, and still apply them differently. But they’re certainly important tools.
I’m still in the pragmatist school of constitutional interpretation, however.