You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Scalia Slams 'Living Constitution' Theory
2005-03-15
Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down the juvenile death penalty, calling it the latest example of politics on the court that has made judicial nominations an increasingly bitter process. In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty (search) based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said. "If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility." "Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.

Scalia, who has been mentioned as a possible chief justice nominee should Chief Justice William Rehnquist retire, outlined his judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution according to its text, as understood at the time it was adopted. Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process. "Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution," said Scalia, who was appointed to the court by President Reagan in 1986. He blamed Chief Justice Earl Warren, who presided from 1953-69 over a court that assaulted racial segregation and expanded individual rights against arbitrary government searches, for the increased political role of the Supreme Court, citing Warren's political background. Warren was governor of California and the Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948. "You have a chief justice who was a governor, a policy-maker, who approached the law with that frame of mind. Once you have a leader with that mentality, it's hard not to follow," Scalia said, in response to a question from the audience.

Scalia said increased politics on the court will create a bitter nomination fight for the next Supreme Court appointee, since judges are now more concerned with promoting their personal policy preferences rather than interpreting the law. "If we're picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a 'new' Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us," he said, explaining that's why senators increasingly probe nominees for their personal views on positions such as abortion. "When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless," Scalia said.
I think Chief Justice Scalia has a nice ring to it.
Posted by:Steve

#13  Judge Scalia came to my law school and gave a lecture. I got to hang out near him at the wine-and-cheese party after the speech. If you listen to him talk for five or ten minutes, two things become very apparent:

1. He thinks he's the smartest person in the room.

2. He's right.

I should point out that while the Judge has a great deal of self-confidence, he is not arrogant nor condescending. It was fun watching him debate a then-recent case with one of our law review editors--he was quite respectful toward the "brash young kid" and seemed to enjoy the chance to trade ideas.
Posted by: Mike   2005-03-15 8:57:39 PM  

#12   When Chief Justice John Marshall tried to force a national bank upon President Andrew Jackson, Jackson responded, "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

I thought that quote was with regard to the Supreme Court decision regarding the illegality of government siezure of Cherokee land in Georgia (which had gold on it).
Posted by: Ptah   2005-03-15 2:33:30 PM  

#11  Frank G is right: More spine, less whine.
Posted by: Secret Master   2005-03-15 1:32:09 PM  

#10  The Massachusetts Supreme Court considers the state constitution an "evolving paradigm", which they usually envoke when one of their decisions tucks it up the voters asses.
Posted by: tu3031   2005-03-15 12:48:26 PM  

#9  When Chief Justice John Marshall tried to force a national bank upon President Andrew Jackson, Jackson responded, "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Don't these judges realize that at some point people are going to say, "Enough!", and ignore them. Then we will have anarchy. That is not what we need.

Just yesterday, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled our proposition 22, the Marriage Definition referendum which was passed 61% to 39% in 2000 as unconstitutional. The case is on appeal, and will probably be overturned because the State Supreme court has mostly Wilson appointees...

These Black Robed Totalitarian Dictators don't get it, and eventually the unrestrained power thay have will be thier own downfall, and the downfall of us all...
Posted by: BigEd   2005-03-15 12:13:41 PM  

#8  Dr. Frist : Protect the constitution...

INVOKE THE NUCLEAR OPTION, NOW!
Posted by: BigEd   2005-03-15 12:00:49 PM  

#7  Snung - what it would take is the timely deaths of Ginsburg, Kennedy, et al, who invent law rather than interpreting it, and a rash of Republican backbone
Posted by: Frank G   2005-03-15 11:13:14 AM  

#6  Too late folks. Our elected officials have choosen to hide behind the robes of judges to get programs and cultural laws imposed upon the people. In doing so, the judical branch has assumed the power once held by the king. It will continue to assume more and more power and the other two branches can't stop it, the process is already compromised. The only hope is for us to follow the model of direct election of Senators made a hundred years ago and directly elect the Supremes. Nothing short of that will stop the shift of power to those who sit for life and are unaccountable to the governed.
Posted by: Snung Snuth2112   2005-03-15 11:09:11 AM  

#5  I heard sound bites of this on Laura Ingraham coming to work - probably one of the clearest minds on the supreme court ever. YES! He needs to be C.J.!!!!!!
Posted by: BigEd   2005-03-15 11:08:44 AM  

#4  As Walter E. Williams often says: "How would you like to play me poker, but let's have the rules be a 'living document'".

Scalia has got to be the next Chief.
Posted by: eLarson   2005-03-15 10:57:32 AM  

#3  Let's think in what the "living constitution" means. Quite simply that a mere judge can upturn a law who has been voted by the people through its representatives. Quite simply that a mere judge can derail a legal decision made by an elected president. Quite simply that a mere judge can change the Constitution in ways unintended by its creators, quite simply that we would be changing the beautifil first words "We, the people of the United States" in "We, the judges of the United States". Quite simply that we would have abandonned the principle of a governement from the people by the people for the people.
Posted by: JFM   2005-03-15 9:35:42 AM  

#2  He is absolutely right.

Congress has to do something about the Supreame Court and some of the lower advocacy courts (such as the 9th circus court). That is why our consitution has checks and balances.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-03-15 9:15:20 AM  

#1  Power brother! He gets it the democratic process! Chief Justice bound!
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-03-15 9:05:53 AM  

00:00