(Chief?) Justice Scumbag Scalia prefers mob rule over the Constitution

[jefferson_dem]

Anyone else suspicious when these backwards-thinking, knuckle-draggin nutjobs argue that we should cast aside enduring constitutional ideals for the supposed "moral judgments" of "average people"?

From the NYT --

At the Federlist Society Convention last night, Scalia attacked what he said was an increasingly common practice of judges, both here and in Europe, to turn to their personal values in deciding cases. He assailed "unelected judges" whom he described as deciding issues like abortion and assisted suicide by pretending that they were making legal judgments.

"It is blindingly clear,'' he said, "that judges have no greater aptitude than the average person to determine moral issues."

Justice Scalia said he had been amused to receive, by nothing more than chance, a political mailing before Election Day from the Democratic strategist James Carville. The mailing asked, "Do you want Antonin Scalia as chief justice?''

Justice Scalia's listeners applauded loudly, making clear that indeed they did. But he seemed embarrassed.

<SNIP>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/13/politics/13federalist.html?oref=login

[wtmusic]

1. Unfortunately he's absolutely right

He needs to back up his own advice with actions.

[jefferson_dem]

3. Fuck that. He's dead wrong, in my opinion. When given the choice

between the judicial interpretion of constitutionally preserved values and the fleeing *moralist* impulses of the mob, i'll take the former every time.

[wtmusic]

5. He's agreeing with you

Read his statement again.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Howso? I wholeheartedly disagree with his comments - -

This, to me, is utter bullshit! ::

He assailed "unelected judges" whom he described as deciding issues like abortion and assisted suicide by pretending that they were making legal judgments.

"It is blindingly clear,'' he said, "that judges have no greater aptitude than the average person to determine moral issues."

:: i don't trust the rank-in-file public (i.e. the mob) to determine abortion policy and protect my privacy. Do you?

[gordianot]

6. The guy in the picture look familiar.

Could he be a clone?

[StopThief]

2. Scalia's belief is that. . . .

nobody's moral judgments have a place in judicial decision-making. That is why he wants to hold jusges to a strict interpretation of the actual written words in statutes and the Constitution.

[Warpy]

4. That would indeed be lovely

if the scumbag were at all consistent. However, when states enact laws he doesn't like, he's all for throwing his morality around to try to get them overturned.

[StopThief]

7. Could you perchance. . . .

cite me a case where Scalia voted to overturn a state law based on his morality? I'd love to read his opinion and how he justified it, because it would show him to be a hypocrite. Any example would do me just fine.

[Warpy]

9. His has been the minority opinion in several such cases

where clearer heads have prevailed. One case covered the assisted suicide law, I believe, right off the top of my head. Perhaps findlaw.com would assist you in finding more.

He hasn't been successful, not yet. However, should any moderate justice on the bench retire, he will be.

[StopThief]

11. Do you remember his basis for arguing . . .

that the assisted suicide law was unconstitutional?

[jefferson_dem]

12. For example, Scalia has consistently sought to overturn affirmative action

policies. In 2003, he protested that the Court would not review a set-aside program in Denver for minority groups. What happened to restraint? All of the sudden, judicial activism shoult be enforced, regardless of the "moral values" upon which the affirmative action policy was drafted.

There are many other examples, but that's the first to come to mind.

[StopThief]

13. What was his reasoning in the case?

Did he simply spout that affirmative action is immoral?

[jefferson_dem]

16. He couched his logic in legal technicalities, as they all do.

But we know that, based on HIS OWN moral compass, he takes a narrow view of the state's role in correcting racial inequalities. The real victims of affirmative action, Scalia believes, are those who have been in the historically privileged positions (i.e. white men).

[jefferson_dem]

8. This is a phony argument. Scalia is simply trying to justify enforcement

of his own moral vision by suggesting that those who don't agree with HIS interpretation of the Consitition are acting improperly.
Show me one justice who doesn't rely on the Constitution in issuing legal opinions. They ALL do. And they ALL see it through their own value-laden lens.

Of course, so-called strict interpretations fly out the window when it become politically expedient -- see Bush V. Gore.

[StopThief]

10. You're right.

Every Justice pays lip service to the Constitution in every opinion.

[Pepperbelly]

15. then he should follow his own advice ...

remember bush vs gore?

[deadparrot]

17. Scalia likes orgies, too. :)