Justice Antonin Scalia says his method of interpreting the Constitution makes some of the most hotly disputed issues that come before the Supreme Court among the easiest to resolve.
Scalia calls himself a "textualist" and, as he related to a few hundred people who came to buy his new book and hear him speak in Washington the other day, that means he applies the words in the Constitution as they were understood by the people who wrote and adopted them.
So Scalia parts company with former colleagues who have come to believe capital punishment is unconstitutional. The framers of the Constitution didn't think so and neither does he....
#1: "A legislature is thwarted when a judge refuses to apply its handiwork to an unforeseen situation that is encompassed by the statute’s aim but is not a good fit with its text. Ignoring the limitations of foresight, and also the fact that a statute is a collective product that often leaves many questions of interpretation to be answered by the courts because the legislators cannot agree on the answers, the textual originalist demands that the legislature think through myriad hypothetical scenarios and provide for all of them explicitly rather than rely on courts to be sensible."
Actually, private contracts can do just this very thing! The english language provdes us with sufficient flexibility in order to cast wide nets... who would've thunk it?
#2: "“Words don’t have intrinsic meanings; the significance of an expression depends on how the interpretive community alive at the time of the text’s adoption under-stood those words. The older the text, the more distant that interpretive community from our own. At some point the difference becomes so great that the meaning is no longer recoverable reliably.”
Aside, from the Phaistos disk, can you think of an actual example of this? BTW, I don't mean obsolescence
Jim Lincoln wrote: UPS, I just pointed out a remark that I thought was rather witty, but of course the trial of Chief Standing Bear in which an Indian was declared to be a human, done direct reference to any Constitutional Amendment. Scalia would probably be in agreement with the first Romish Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on who is human or not--be they Black or Native American. With Justices like Mr. Scalia I assume will need to 400 or 500 amendments to the Constitution, so all the "i's" will be dotted and all the "t's" crossed? excerpt from, The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia
Wouldn't it be a shame that we should all live under Law, knowing clearly what it means, rather than standing on edge, wondering how some Jacobin might manipulate it with sophistry...
Now, Mr. Lincoln, I started to read your "Rendering to Caesar" article. I'll probably have some questions for you on Monday (or later tonight); perhaps you'll be around to answer them?
Mike wrote: I could be wrong, but maybe Jim doesn't care for the amendment method of changing the Constitution. Maybe he prefers Obama's ignore and bypass method. But always remember Republican corruption.
I can believe that. As long as the ignore/bypass method is being done by somebody he likes, as opposed to someone like GW BUSH.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Maybe Jim should read the constitution, it does not condone slavery. The 3/5 rule was a blessing to black slaves. You have to think about the census...
This is my understanding as well, but previously I had wrongly assumed the South wanted blacks counted less when it was actually the North that DIDN'T want them counted so as to limit Southern population-based political clout.
UPS, I just pointed out a remark that I thought was rather witty, but of course the trial of Chief Standing Bear in which an Indian was declared to be a human, done direct reference to any Constitutional Amendment. Scalia would probably be in agreement with the first Romish Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on who is human or not--be they Black or Native American. With Justices like Mr. Scalia I assume will need to 400 or 500 amendments to the Constitution, so all the "i's" will be dotted and all the "t's" crossed?
Richard A. Posner wrote: ... Does an ordinance that says that “no person may bring a vehicle into the park” apply to an ambulance that enters the park to save a person’s life? For Scalia and Garner, the answer is yes. After all, an ambulance is a vehicle—any dictionary will tell you that....
Jim Lincoln wrote: ... If Constitutional interpretation was done as he wants, the Blacks would be back in slavery. .
Maybe Jim should read the constitution, it does not condone slavery. The 3/5 rule was a blessing to black slaves. You have to think about the census. When they ask how many people live at your place it includes ALL residents whether or not they are eligible to vote. The count of people determines how many representatives a state has in Congress. So, if they counted all the slaves as full people that would increase the number of pro-slavery Southerners as representatives in congress. That means slaves would help put in congress people who would more than likely write and vote for legislation to keep them enslaved, just because they shared the same soil. Black freeman were counted in full.
San Jose John wrote: This sounds like something Woopie Goldberg would say, and she did say something similar to John McCain 4 years ago when he appeared on The View. She emphasized the 3/5ths rule without considering the 13th and 14th Amendments. Sadly (if I remember correctly) McCain was caught flat-footed by her remark and was unable to counter as effectively as our dear brother Marty here just did.
I could be wrong, but maybe Jim doesn't care for the amendment method of changing the Constitution. Maybe he prefers Obama's ignore and bypass method. But always remember Republican corruption.
Jim Lincoln wrote: But getting back to Scalia, one person have a very succinct comment after the article. If Constitutional interpretation was done as he wants, the Blacks would be back in slavery.
This sounds like something Woopie Goldberg would say, and she did say something similar to John McCain 4 years ago when he appeared on The View. She emphasized the 3/5ths rule without considering the 13th and 14th Amendments. Sadly (if I remember correctly) McCain was caught flat-footed by her remark and was unable to counter as effectively as our dear brother Marty here just did.
Jim Lincoln wrote: But getting back to Scalia, one person have a very succinct comment after the article. If Constitutional interpretation was done as he wants, the Blacks would be back in slavery.
Actually they wouldn't because the Constitution was amended (just like every other contract on the planet earth) to add the 13th and 14th amendments.
Well Scalia won't, when it comes to religion, because he's a Catholic. The Romish church doesn't follow the Principles of Bible Interpretation.
But getting back to Scalia, one person have a very succinct comment after the article. If Constitutional interpretation was done as he wants, the Blacks would be back in slavery.
Apparently his Bishop has talked to him about capital punishment. The Romish Church rejects it. It believe rendering to Satan's church rather then Rendering To Caesar---A Biblical Perspective On Government. Considering so many Catholics support queer rights, because so many of their priests are queers, he may have to change his opinion about that too.
COMMENTS | 
