Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« This Week in The National Law Journal | Main | In D.C. Circuit, Judge Calls Use of Acronyms 'Painful' »

November 19, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e2017ee563cc54970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference At Federalist Society, Scalia Says He Doesn't 'Live or Die' for Bill of Rights Cases:

Comments

Isaac

Thank God these comments will not be providing a source for interpretation by textualism. Rather, they provide proof that without proper grammer, the use of textualism could be catastrophic.

ELois P. Clayton

I'm 'persuaded' to believe that judge Scalia, is on point, as to HOW laws are to be interpreted.
Judge Scalia, is a judge whom(when the dust is settled), will look at what has been accomplished(time served), the interruptions that interferred in positive progress(false reports that delayed forward movement), the witnesses that agree that an individual has progressed (positively) and make LOGIC, of it ALL and render a FAIR verdict!
I have believed in his analysis ALL of the years I have learned of his position and studied his analysis and I will continue to believe in his works!
NOTE: MERRY X-MAS, to judge Scalia and his family and to all others, in the U.S.Supreme Courts, who has the GUTS/MORALS as judge Scalia does!

jack molesworth

JDG, Mr. Scheinman,

What actions did Justices Scalia or Thomas take to "shame" the court?

Mr. Benen's April 2009 article he seems to treat Justice Thomas' comments about other Bills literally. It is clear from his comments this was not his intent. It is clear that he was not addressing the actual Bill of Rights, but American's heightened sense of entitlement and *perception* of rights.

For instance there is no Federal/State statue which requires U.S. citizens to vote, but only an assumed right, which is afforded protections via amendment (14th (Sec 2), 15th, 19th, 26th) and by Act 1965 Voting Rights). So, what is the act of voting? Well, it could be seen as an assumed non-binding Obligation, obviously necessary in order to preserve the constitution. It's also a protected act (a.k.a Right). But Right is a little steep to me because by definition a Right is an entitlement. You are entitled, owed. If you are owed something, but are still forced to take actions to receive ownership, I think it's less a Right and more a protected opportunity or action.

This is comparable, in my opinion to an implied (but not explicit) Right of Civil Disobedience (in the case that a law is not good for society)

Also, there is nothing said about Justice Scalia in the article. What links them together in shame, as you say?

Edward Armstrong

I think Obama should pay attention to what Justice Scalia says about separation of powers and stop ruling by executive orders written by his less than brilliant legal advisors.

Avon

I think it's interesting that Scalia seems not to insist on his own canons of interpretation (of the Constitution, or of anything) as being the only correct canons.

Rather, he says "Canons are clues to the meaning of the text," and the task for judges is to decide "which clues are the most persuasive."

So he seems to say that any Justice who's persuaded is just as correct as Scalia himself, regardless of which canons she or he is persuaded of!

This seems tantalizingly close to a fatal flaw in Scalia's approach to judging. But another explanation is possible: maybe he's just blowing smoke when he writes in high dudgeon, and in fact he accepts other Justices' judgment as to what's a persuasive canon just as readily as he accepts other Justices' friendship, love of opera, and/or off-the-bench goodwill.

Avon

I think it's interesting that Scalia seems not to insist on his own canons of interpretation (of the Constitution, or of anything) as being the only correct canons.

Rather, he says "Canons are clues to the meaning of the text," and the task for judges is to decide "which clues are the most persuasive."

So he seems to say that any Justice who's persuaded is just as correct as Scalia himself, regardless of which canons he's persuaded of!

This seems tantalizingly close to a fatal flaw in Scalia's approach to judging. But another explanation is possible: maybe he's just blowing smoke when he writes in high dudgeon, and in fact he accepts other Justices' judgment as to what's a persuasive canon just as readily as he accepts other Justices' friendship, love of opera, and/or off-the-bench goodwill.

stan scheinman

First Alito, now Scalia demeaning and undermining the authority and universal acceptance of an institution intended to be the greatest bastion of the Rule of Law above partisan political prejudice.
Oh. Perhaps God will ride us of these evil men

Daniel

Scalia is in the mold of Thomas who thinks we have "too many rights."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_04/017725.php

Scalia and Thomas are both "a Shame to the Court."

Scott Neuman

I can't wait till Scalia comes across LaVergne vs Bryson 12-1171 - The suit seeks to have the Supreme Court force Congress to Recognize that the final and last amendment thought to be unratified from the Bill of Rights is in fact ratified. The 1st amendment or Article the First as it's known was thought to have missed being ratified by one state. That state was believed to have said no to the "Apportionment Amendment". In 2011, Noted Attorney and Constitutional Scholar found Connecticuts YES vote misfiled in the Connecticut archives. Having a certified copy of the YES vote in this hands, he is attempting to let Scalia and the rest of the Justices know that 80% of the states at 15 states voted YES for this amendment. At 80%, we have an automatically ratifing amendment to the Constitution. If you need more information, http://www.boldtruth.com clearly shows the timeline for this amendment being ratified and why we should follow this amendment now!

Melvin Reed

One would think that operation of a just legal system rests on the shoulders of the Bill of Rights... Shouldn't one...let alone a Supreme Court Justice unless that Justice harbored an internal prejudice against one group or another? Just a thought. With regard to the 'structure of law' requiring the scrutiny he mentioned, that's what produce the Bill of Rights...right?

JDG

Scalia and Thomas are the joke of the Supreme Court and should not long ago serve their stated purpose. Scalia is a Shame to the Court!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements