the same scalia who rubber stamped the gop's coup d'etat of 2,000? this is precisely the sort of gop nazi who belongs in gitmo. in fact, the entire supreme court has become both antique, and far too supreme, has glossed our constitution surreal, and could not be less disinterested. is a neofascist instrument of the american rich hat needs to be crushed.
@mandowalt, justice scalia is saying that congress makes the laws. lets say congress made a law that enacts abortion, would he affirm that? i thought he affirmed that under originalism it should be prohibited, but natural law affirms enactment of abortion.
I'm not sure how to understand, then, Scalia's agreement with the core decision in Brown. After all, the Congress that drafted the Civil War Amendments turned around and segregated the D.C. public schools. So either the actions of past generations are not dispositive (past generations could have failed to live up to the meaning of their own standards) or Brown was incorrectly decided.
Many thanks for posting this enlightening discussion! I have always felt that Justice Scalia is a national treasure and an intellectual titan. I'm grateful for his presence and his influence. I find it worrisome indeed that the trend in too many of our institutions of higher learning is, in Justice Scalia's own words, "diversity in everything except in ideas."
Scalia keeps talking about the 'exceptions to the majority's will in the Bill of Rights' but I've also heard him say that the Gitlow v NY (I believe) decision is "probably wrong" and under originalist interpretation, the Bill of Rights only did apply to the states.Then how is the Bill of Rights an exception to the will of the majority if the state isn't bounded (according to originalist views of the incorporation doctrine) by the Bill of Rights and can take away free speech, property etc?
…what sense would it make for the Framers to include specific rights that they felt needed to be protected from the Federal Government, but allow all of the State governments to trample those rights at will? State Tyrants are tolerable, but Federal ones are not? If no Free Speech was allowed in any State, for example, would a Free Republic still exist? Extreme..yes, but not un realistic. Incorporation is an argument that should never have been made.
Justice Scalia is correct, an Ammendment that applies the Bill of Rights equally to the States would probably solve the issue. I do think that the Framers did intend for each right listed in the Bill of Rights to apply not only to the Federal Government, but to the States as well. If none of the Bill of Rights applied to the States, then a State could Nullify any Ammendent simply by taking a right away from their residents. Would Fed Law overrule 50 states that dont allow free speech?
@Iobi123 What do you mean by 'enacts' abortion? Do you mean require? I would think under Justice Scalia's view, since the Constitution is silent regarding abortion, Congress/the States could enact laws prohibiting abortion just as well as laws actually REQUIRING abortions… I think this would be the only consistent viewpoint…
You assume that it is the Constitution that sets all social, religious and political parameters, when in fact it is mostly statutory law that deals with those issues. If you want to change the "social and religious or political parameters" you need only persuade your fellow citizens to pass a law that will bring such a change about.
Equal Protection applies in certain circumstances. Homosexual marriage is not one of them. You can organize and put it to a vote. It is not for the judicial branch to legislate for the bench. It is very eassy if you take the time to learn how our system was designed. It was not created in a month. It took alot of effort. A civil union is the legal equivilent of marriage. Traditionally, marriage is between two individuals of the opposite sex.
I think you probably just misunderstand Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court as I once did. I used to believe that it was the job of a Justice to sit on the court and decide what laws are good,bad, just, unjust etc., but rather their proper role is to tell us what the law is, not what it should be.
Right because the bill of rights applies to indivduals except that pesky second one… Thos stupid fucking founders, why couldnt they get it right? And can tell me how many 'gun laws' exisisted before 1934? Youre 200 year argument is flawed.
in layman's terms:
1) you(the people) created a rule book to a game.
2) you give him the task of reading the rules back to you.
3) if u don't like what the book says, YOU can change the rules
4) but don't set the new rules in stone just yet.
i don't have any law qualifications… but that's what i got out of this…. am i wrong?
@wilthiswork Except they did not "turn around" and segregate the D.C. public schools. First, segregation was already in place before the passing of the 14th Amendment — instituted by an earlier Congress, and not the one that proposed the amendment. Second, the 14th Amendment applies to the states, and not to the District of Columbia, so what D.C. did is hardly relevant to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.
@italoirish888 The reason supreme court arguments aren't televised is because television makes court participants change their behavior. Your assertion that they conduct business behind closed doors is also incorrect. They issue rulings and opinions which are available for the public to read freely. Just because you don't want to read the opinions doesn't justify televising court proceedings.
the same scalia who rubber stamped the gop's coup d'etat of 2,000? this is precisely the sort of gop nazi who belongs in gitmo. in fact, the entire supreme court has become both antique, and far too supreme, has glossed our constitution surreal, and could not be less disinterested. is a neofascist instrument of the american rich hat needs to be crushed.
@mandowalt, justice scalia is saying that congress makes the laws. lets say congress made a law that enacts abortion, would he affirm that? i thought he affirmed that under originalism it should be prohibited, but natural law affirms enactment of abortion.
I'm not sure how to understand, then, Scalia's agreement with the core decision in Brown. After all, the Congress that drafted the Civil War Amendments turned around and segregated the D.C. public schools. So either the actions of past generations are not dispositive (past generations could have failed to live up to the meaning of their own standards) or Brown was incorrectly decided.
Many thanks for posting this enlightening discussion! I have always felt that Justice Scalia is a national treasure and an intellectual titan. I'm grateful for his presence and his influence. I find it worrisome indeed that the trend in too many of our institutions of higher learning is, in Justice Scalia's own words, "diversity in everything except in ideas."
Thumbs up if you came here from Robert Allison's history class.
I like what Scalia says, but he comes across as so arrogant and condescending.
Scalia keeps talking about the 'exceptions to the majority's will in the Bill of Rights' but I've also heard him say that the Gitlow v NY (I believe) decision is "probably wrong" and under originalist interpretation, the Bill of Rights only did apply to the states.Then how is the Bill of Rights an exception to the will of the majority if the state isn't bounded (according to originalist views of the incorporation doctrine) by the Bill of Rights and can take away free speech, property etc?
thank you
…what sense would it make for the Framers to include specific rights that they felt needed to be protected from the Federal Government, but allow all of the State governments to trample those rights at will? State Tyrants are tolerable, but Federal ones are not? If no Free Speech was allowed in any State, for example, would a Free Republic still exist? Extreme..yes, but not un realistic. Incorporation is an argument that should never have been made.
Excellent interview of a truly fascinating and intelligent man.
Justice Scalia is correct, an Ammendment that applies the Bill of Rights equally to the States would probably solve the issue. I do think that the Framers did intend for each right listed in the Bill of Rights to apply not only to the Federal Government, but to the States as well. If none of the Bill of Rights applied to the States, then a State could Nullify any Ammendent simply by taking a right away from their residents. Would Fed Law overrule 50 states that dont allow free speech?
@Iobi123 What do you mean by 'enacts' abortion? Do you mean require? I would think under Justice Scalia's view, since the Constitution is silent regarding abortion, Congress/the States could enact laws prohibiting abortion just as well as laws actually REQUIRING abortions… I think this would be the only consistent viewpoint…
You assume that it is the Constitution that sets all social, religious and political parameters, when in fact it is mostly statutory law that deals with those issues. If you want to change the "social and religious or political parameters" you need only persuade your fellow citizens to pass a law that will bring such a change about.
Equal Protection applies in certain circumstances. Homosexual marriage is not one of them. You can organize and put it to a vote. It is not for the judicial branch to legislate for the bench. It is very eassy if you take the time to learn how our system was designed. It was not created in a month. It took alot of effort. A civil union is the legal equivilent of marriage. Traditionally, marriage is between two individuals of the opposite sex.
I think you probably just misunderstand Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court as I once did. I used to believe that it was the job of a Justice to sit on the court and decide what laws are good,bad, just, unjust etc., but rather their proper role is to tell us what the law is, not what it should be.
Right because the bill of rights applies to indivduals except that pesky second one… Thos stupid fucking founders, why couldnt they get it right? And can tell me how many 'gun laws' exisisted before 1934? Youre 200 year argument is flawed.
in layman's terms:
1) you(the people) created a rule book to a game.
2) you give him the task of reading the rules back to you.
3) if u don't like what the book says, YOU can change the rules
4) but don't set the new rules in stone just yet.
i don't have any law qualifications… but that's what i got out of this…. am i wrong?
@wilthiswork Except they did not "turn around" and segregate the D.C. public schools. First, segregation was already in place before the passing of the 14th Amendment — instituted by an earlier Congress, and not the one that proposed the amendment. Second, the 14th Amendment applies to the states, and not to the District of Columbia, so what D.C. did is hardly relevant to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.
@italoirish888 The reason supreme court arguments aren't televised is because television makes court participants change their behavior. Your assertion that they conduct business behind closed doors is also incorrect. They issue rulings and opinions which are available for the public to read freely. Just because you don't want to read the opinions doesn't justify televising court proceedings.