Scalia Speaks out on Judges

[piasabird]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09....harvard.ap/index.html

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he believes "abstract moralizing" has led the American judicial system into a quagmire, and that matters such as abortion and assisted suicide are "too fundamental" to be resolved by judges.

"What I am questioning is the propriety, indeed the sanity, of having value-laden decisions such as these made for the entire society ... by judges," Scalia said on Tuesday during an appearance at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.


Interesting Article. A Supreme Court Judges discussing Whether the courts should decide in certain cases and go against the existing laws on the books.

 

[Gravity]

or against the desires of the nation.

Isn't that an Oligarchy? Rule by a few?

In some cases -- and in response to a question from the audience, he acknowledged Brown vs. Board of Education was one -- there is a societal benefit when a court rules against prevailing popular opinion, but generally speaking it is fundamentally bad for democracy, he said.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yup, it's not fair for "IMPARTIAL JUSTICES" to strictly apply the law to matters of morality that should be decided by bigots, emotionally, on gut reactions.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Is there any instance where one of these recent court rulings actually took away a personal liberty? These guys aren't making decisions for society, they are allowing society to make their own individual decisions. Isn't that the whole point of living in a free country?

 

[Vadatajs]

It's called the 9th amendment. Scalia makes me sick. He's only slightly better than the token Thomas (which really isn't saying much).

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
It's called the 9th amendment. Scalia makes me sick. He's only slightly better than the token Thomas (which really isn't saying much).

...watch you say about the next Supreme Justice of the United States.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
It's called the 9th amendment. Scalia makes me sick. He's only slightly better than the token Thomas (which really isn't saying much).

...watch you say about the next Supreme Justice of the United States.

Thomas?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yup, it's not fair for "IMPARTIAL JUSTICES" to strictly apply the law to matters of morality that should be decided by bigots, emotionally, on gut reactions.

As the justice states, there isn't a sufficient guiding principle for the justices to apply law to the cases mentioned. Any ruling they make on said issues is automatically a function of biases that they already hold - no one is truly impartial. All you're doing is letting the judges set their own biases over the biases of the people.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
It's called the 9th amendment. Scalia makes me sick. He's only slightly better than the token Thomas (which really isn't saying much).

...watch you say about the next Supreme Justice of the United States.

Is that a threat?

...and it Chief justice for future reference.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
It's called the 9th amendment. Scalia makes me sick. He's only slightly better than the token Thomas (which really isn't saying much).

...watch you say about the next Supreme Justice of the United States.

I assume you're referring to Scalia (I have a tough time imagining anyone seriously advancing the notion of Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice). Since he recently crapped in AG Ashcroft's punchbowl with the decision in Blakely v. Washington, I wouldn't bet on Justice Scalia as a Chief Justice nominee, regardless of President Bush's longstanding fondness for him.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yup, it's not fair for "IMPARTIAL JUSTICES" to strictly apply the law to matters of morality that should be decided by bigots, emotionally, on gut reactions.

As the justice states, there isn't a sufficient guiding principle for the justices to apply law to the cases mentioned. Any ruling they make on said issues is automatically a function of biases that they already hold - no one is truly impartial. All you're doing is letting the judges set their own biases over the biases of the people.

I know all about the nature of the vote for Bush over Gore in the 2000 election. I believe the Atlantic Monthly describes that political decision.

The problem we face is profoundly difficult because neither the people nor the courts really know much about the truth of man's dilemma.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
It's called the 9th amendment. Scalia makes me sick. He's only slightly better than the token Thomas (which really isn't saying much).

Thomas is a complete hack.

Scalia's opinions are at least interesting.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
It's called the 9th amendment. Scalia makes me sick. He's only slightly better than the token Thomas (which really isn't saying much).

...watch you say about the next Supreme Justice of the United States.

<pulp fiction>
English, motherfvcker, do you speak it?
</pulp fiction>