PONCE, Puerto Rico (Feb. 14) – People who believe the Constitution would break if it didn’t change with society are “idiots,” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.
This is the level to which some conservatives have descended. Insults against groups of people who simply disagree isn’t criticism, it’s intolerance.Theists are not idiots — they are simply wrong. Scalia is not an idiot, he’s an ass.
It reminds me of what Hunter S. Thompson once noted about Nixon:
“When he looks out of his windows at the protesters, he doesn’t see dissidents, he sees criminals”.
Scalia is a pompous ass who single handedly gave the presidency away to Bush. Talk about your “activist judges”.
Alex.
These kind of things no longer surprise me.
sigh…..
alexgator1:
Wow. I didn’t know that was possible. So, if he really did do that, why don’t ya suppose he didn’t just make himself president?
jcc
Would have been too obvious. Besides, it’s not a “for life” position.
jcc,
Justice Antonin Scalia was the author of the opinion granting G.W. Bush the presidency so yes he did in effect hand the presidency to Bush. Talk about your judicial activism. This is the same bastard who also bemoans “the tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government” which “derives its moral authority from God” and is the “minister of God” with powers of “revenge” and to “execute wrath.”
If that doesn’t chill you then nothing will. Welcome to the brave new world envisioned in “The Handmaid’s Tale”.
Alex.
“He said that, according to his judicial philosophy, there can be no room for personal, political or religious beliefs.” from the Washington Times about Scalia’s comments before the Federalist Society in PR.
Scalia has stated a lot about his judicial philosophy and he obviously a total liar. He completely rejected his entire judicial philosophy when he stopped the constitutionally mandated democratic counting of ballots in the 2000 election and intentionally appointed the person who later gave a job to his son and to Rehnquist’s daugther.
After that case, I can not for the life of me understand why anyone would pay any attention to what this immoral, unethical, corrupt, cheap suit politician has to say on any issue but especially on judicial ethics.
Either you have free speech or you don’t. Either you’re allowed to be as reprehensible as possible or you’re not. Freedom of speech is the last best effort.
Heads or tails? You picked heads I’m sorry you’re wrong it was tails. God or no God? You picked God I’m sorry you’re an idiot.
If luck is involved it’s ok to be wrong, it says nothing about your intelligence. If reasoning is involved and the question can be correctly answered by a 2-yr old child and you pick wrong you’re an idiot in my opinion.
I admit to being an idiot in some topics, some would say many topics, but the question does god exist is a no brainer.
Is someone who believes the Earth is flat wrong or an idiot? IDIOT
Is someone who believes in myths wrong or an idiot? IDIOT
Im not going to mention names because the IDIOTS might get their feelings hurt.
What I want to know is,
Do so-called ‘constitutional originalists’ believe we should revive public flogging, or that african americans should indeed be considered less than human, or that women should not have the right to vote, or that none of us should be allowed to vote for our own state senators?
And if the constitution is not supposed to be amendable, then why does it stipulate a procedure for future amendments? (actually, it stipulates two such procedures, but only one of them has ever been used)
And why should it be non-ammendable? Do they consider it ‘divinely inspired,’ like the Bible? America the beautiful, America the… miracle?
Idiots.
r4d,
With the way religion and rapid patriotism seem to go hand-in-hand lately, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Hmm, might be a new religion in the making.
The framers of the Constitution included stipulations for amendments because they were intelligent enough to realize that societies do, indeed, change with time, and the Constitution would have to change to accommodate new ideas.
Scalia is an idiot AND an ass.
Crap. I meant “raBid patriotism”, like foam-at-the-mouth, not “rapid.”
As a foreigner, I’m starting to wonder what the requirements for a travel-visa to the U.S. is gonna look like soon…
Article Primus:
“You will not be allowed entry if you have never screwed over a member of an indigenous tribe, “screwed” being understood as both literal and figurative.”
Article Secondus:
“You will not be allowed entry lest you vigorously applaud the deterioration of the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty (Guantanamo).”.
And so on…
I could keep writing these draconian measures down, but what’s the use?
Once, such thoughts were merely considered “ultra-left-wing fear mongering”…
Now, they’re right-wing policy!
There is, indeed, no such thing as paranoia: It Is Always Worse Than You Think.
What is left but laughter, tears
and rebellion/resignation?
Peachfuzz…
Though I agree with what you say,
I am vehemently opposed to the way you use the word “patriotism”.
YOU sound a helluva lot more patriotic than someone who just parrots the official line.
It is people who, like you, dares to question an abominable administration, who are the REAL patriots.
People who merely accept anything passed down by propaganda and eagerly goose-steps, are the “traitors”.
Keep on poking the bastards in their eyes.
HMDK,
Last tiem I checked there were already some odd things in there. They asked if I was a member of the Nazi party in Germany…. If I was or had ever been a member of a communist party….. and my personal favourite, if I had committed acts of moral turpitude. Such a question is actually impossible to answer objectively. Subjectively I can honestly say no, but who knows what the US govt regards as moral turpitude?
HMDK:
I am put in mind of the words of Thoreau, who said:
“A very few ? as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men ? serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.”
In short, there are those who best serve the state by opposing it.
Hairless,
Thanks for your kind words.
Alas, there are just so many fanatics to deal with. Or at least those who make displays -all the bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc. And around here they’re usually also right-wing Christians. They don’t tolerate criticism of the U.S. well (but they’re getting more of it every day!) But you’re right, being a “bumper-sticker patriot” does not necessarily mean anything. That’s why I don’t have them. Maybe being “patriotic” and being a true “patriot” are actually two different things, and most people don’t realize it.
I wonder if “true patriots” are like “true Christians”?
reluctant,
Great Thoreau reference.
HEATHENZ SAID:
“Last tiem I checked there were already some odd things in there. They asked if I was a member of the Nazi party in Germany…. If I was or had ever been a member of a communist party….. and my personal favourite, if I had committed acts of moral turpitude. Such a question is actually impossible to answer objectively. Subjectively I can honestly say no, but who knows what the US govt regards as moral turpitude?
02/15/06 @ 14:54″.
Yeah! I remember those questions from when I visited New York years ago.
Which means they’re actually older than 9/11 and Das Fatherland Security.
Besides, such questions are assinine.
As if someone is going to say:
“Yeah, sure! ‘Course I’m a Nazi!”
They might as well have a check-box asking: Are You a Bad Guy?.
Idiocy prevails.
I thought that myself about the “moral turpitude” question.
Like someone is really going to write: “I am a torturer in my own country, in charge of gouging out eyes and cutting off hands.”
“Comment from: jcc [Member]
alexgator1:
Scalia is a pompous ass who single handedly gave the presidency away to Bush. Talk about your “activist judges”.
Wow. I didn’t know that was possible. So, if he really did do that, why don’t ya suppose he didn’t just make himself president?”
Because, jcc,
that even today, and even to vehement theorcratists, the U.S Constitution isn’t THAT prepared to roll over.
Peachy, exactly my point.
It’s laughably stupid.
I wonder what acts officially fall under the umbrella of “moral turpitude”? Moreover does the standard change over time?
When you think about it, it is rather an incidious clause. It can be used as a pretext to deport just about any visitor of immigrant.
“Tortured little kittens?” That’s moral turpitude!
“Cheated on you girlfriend in high school?” That’s now moral turpitude!
“Masturbated in private?” Deportation for you, you moral turpituder!
Where does it stop?
HeatheNZ… Where indeed!?!
The answer is that it probably won’t “stop”.
Once a society has slid so far down the slope, there’s little to do.
See, every time you utter the word “freedom” all the proponents will hear is: “treason”.
Like Bush sez: “Yoo ither a moohron hoo hate meh, or a moohroon hoo luvs meh!”.
Bullshit.
Nothing’s monochrome
lest you make a point of
interpreting it so.
Peach:
More likely, an “Information Extraction Spec_ialist.”
HMDK:
Well said.
Sadly , this could be a point in the visitor’s favour as I suspect the US has a growing need for experienced torturers.
HeateNZ… yeah… A job application
at the same time!
Two voices silenced with one form!
BONUS!
Just fer the increasingly worthless and frayed civilized record:
Anyone blaming me for rampant european anti-americanism will be promplty shipped to Guantanamo with no access to legal representation.
Nor will the Geneva convention apply.
Why?
Oh, because you’re disgusting and dangerous until proven guilty as an
acual enemy soldier.
The rule of law ought to also encompass those who MAKE them.
And they do, of course.
But mostly it’s a case of
“In name only”.
I have to say from the quote “Theists are not idiots — they are just wrong.”
Now, that is a major blanket statement because most of the theists I encounter are idiots, like this quote from one today “You aren’t part of any Athiest organization, because Atheists don’t exist.” Also, she said that to me in a room full of Atheists.
-J?r?me
I wish he would hit himself in the balls with his own gavel.
Hmm,
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
If you were a landed white male who owned slaves you got 3/5 of a vote for each man, woman and child slave you owned. It made for a nice way of upping your say in the electorial process.
That “one-man (err, one-person) one-vote” radical BS is the downfall of the Republic.
Scalia is absolutely correct – His friends would benefit if we refused to consider the Constitution an evolving document.
“I shot a man in Texas just to watch the jokes about me on TDS.” VP Cheney.
“It was open season on lawyers, wasn’t it?”
And, as we read more of the material it appears that VP Cheney exected a perfect 180 degree Pirouette in his hunting tutu and blasted a 6′2″ bright hunter-orange Quail….
pnuhn@gampac.org –
I tried to get onto your website, but not luck. Am I doing something wrong?
anybody have a source link?
pixel:
Whose website, exactly?
I think Scalia and Cheney should go hunting together again soon
You read “The Handmaid’s Tale”, Alex? Well done! A great book. Scary as hell.
pnuhn
thats exactly why we should pay attention
Unrelated musing…
The intricate workings of a watch, they explain, demands an intelligent watchmaker. And that, in turn, is analogous to nature: It?s ?design? demands and intelligent designer.
But the analogy has some loop holes.
I?ve seen nature procreate. I?ve yet to see two watches mating and giving birth to a litter of little clocks. Nature excels of it?s own volition. Watches have to be wound up. Constantly.
What’s more, one can observe a watchmaker making a watch. Likewise, one can observe the universe developing. When observing the creation of the watch, we see a watchmaker. When observing the development of the universe, we see no Watchmaker, only the universe itself.
Seems the watchmaker analogy doesn’t prove God’s existence, but disproves it.
Comment from: Peach63 [Member]
I thought that myself about the “moral turpitude” question.
Like someone is really going to write: “I am a torturer in my own country, in charge of gouging out eyes and cutting off hands.”
if you put that down you would be hired to work at gitmo
please let this right wing fundie die in 2008. in fact let roberts die too. = problem solved.
off topic but found this on wimp.com
its about a guy who is a theologian scholar who decided yo find out you wrote the bible
robear do really want eny one to die it almost sonds xtian to me lol
The Constitution – As written and intended
Scalia exposes his ‘originalist’ views of the Constitution. Only if I could have been there to hear the speech. For I also reject the ‘living, breathing’ document argument. Certainly there is a tremendous amount of flexibility …
Every time I see Scalia I am reminded of a charater from Looney Tunes. I am unsure what animal it was supposed to be, but it was a representation of Lou Costello as something gopher-like. He is one of two Justices that should not be on the court, the other being Ginsburg. Neither of them seem able to put aside personal and political beliefs to rule on the law. The other Justices, while hardly perfect, can and have done so.
rainbows4dinosaurs
No, originalists do not believe that. They believe that the C. means what it says, and that it should be read both as the text means and as the authors meant it, first by looking at the definition of the word use at the time they were written, and when that is not clear enough, what the authors wrote in other documents pertaining to it. They believe that the amendments are a part of it as well, and that they were used to correct errors and make changes needed for the conditions prevelent then.
I smell a straw man being set up.
Every originalist includes the amendments. The term originalist refers to how to read and interpret the text of the C. as it stands today with all amendments incorporated, not to the original un-amended text.
A straw man knock down, I was right. But originalists do consider it inspired, whether divinly or secularly. And if there is such a thing as a realist version of a miracle, the success of the revolution is it. It was the equivelent of Puerto Rico fighting and winning it’s freedom from todays U.S. and going on to become a preosperous and peaceful country.
The problem with considering the C. as living and bendable is that rules so flexible that they can be read any way current needs require are not rules. They become meaningless.
That is why the two amendment procedures were included. To make changes to account for things not thought of and changes in the world.
Every originalist I know thinks the amendment process has been used far too INFREQUNTLY, which has led to the current near meaningless state of the C.
As well, every originalist I know says just because something is Constitutional it is not necessarily advisable or good. At the same time, things that are advisable but unConstitutional should be authorised by amendment, not by the current sophistry of using the Commerce Clause to empower the Fed. Gov. to do virtually anything it wants to.
Read the C., where do you see authorization for probably 75% of what the feds are controlling right now?
Whether these actions are good or bad is not the issue, whether they are within the C. authority of the F.G. is. If they are good and needed they should be authorized by amendment, not by the political whim of the mere majority.
I list: Drug War/DEA, FDA, FCC, ATFE, Dept. of Education, Soc. Sec. Admin. HUD. Dozens of others.
If they are needed, they should be authorized by amendment.
That is what originalists believe.
I’ll tell ya what, I would far more prefer to play p0ker with an originalist than with someone that thinks rules are living and breathing bendable things. An originalist will always think that a full house beats a pair. A revisionist will say sure, but change the definition of full house every hand to suit himself.
I consider the Constitution, which is the set of rules for a government with the power to destroy us all, far more important than the rules for a little p0ker game. As such, they should be the rules least open to interpretation of all, precisely because that way we all know what the rules are and do not get blindsided by a change in the political winds.
Sooo….then these “originalists” are actually “originalists plus the modifications to the original that stuck, but only with the modifications that we deem acceptable, the rest of you can eat shit” originalists. Or as I like to think of it, modificationists.
It’s another empty political term, with no real meaning, other than to be divisive.
mxracer652,
I think your catch-phrase is far more elegant. I predict it is going to be a winner.
Well HNZ,
As you, RA, r4d, HMDK, and countless others have shown repeatedly, this is 100% grayscale, not black/white. I left Mr(s). Conservative Culture something along the same lines, I’ll see what (s)he has to say.
I tend to agree with Tom a little on this one. I don’t think ‘originalist’ is an empty term at all. Its meaning is easily contrasted against, say, a literalist interpretation of the C. The idea being that we try to interpret the C in the sense in which it was written. It is a very simple hermeneutic exercise (in principle). As far as the amendment process, I am not going to touch that part.
And who could deny the last bit about endorsing a clear interpretation of the rules it sets forth for government? As a philosophy major, I know how critical it is that the terms and rules of a text are set forth clearly for all parties, otherwise any discourse degrades into rubbish.
To try to pigeonhole Constitutional Originalism as an atttempt to strictly interpret or laud the very original document, and only the original itself, is absurd. I am not necessarily an originalist myself, but it is a legitimate approach to constitutional interpretation.
tomwright,
There has been a death in my family and I am a little preoccupied, so I will try to be brief.
Thank you for a very thorough and thought provoking response to my post. Let me assure you that it was not my intent to battle with straw men – it is obvious that I may be misunderstanding just what many ‘originalists’ mean by the term ‘originalism.’
As usual, there is much in your post that I find myself agreeing with. If the definition of originalism really is a discipline of looking at the historical context of the Constitution when assessing it’s meaning, sticking to that meaning, and requiring the amendment process whenever we feel it is time to improve/evolve the structure and principles of our government, then perhaps I too am an originalist.
But the problem here is that the constitution is much like the Bible in the way it is treated nowadays. Like the Bible, every single political faction claims the Constitution to be on their side. And as a testimony to the subjectivity of history, every political faction in this country can also point to some random quote of the so-called founding fathers to bolster their varying ideologies and constitutional interpretations. So, as mxracer suggested, it becomes easy for such terms as ‘originalism,’ ’strict constructionist,’ or whatever to be skewed and co-opted for many different and often mutually exclusive ends.
endNote: I just deleted the rest of this post because I’m really not able to get into a back and forth debate right now, so I’m just going to let it go. Perhaps some other time.
r4d:
I am terribly sorry to hear that. My condolences to you and your family.
has anyone else noticed the ironic nature of the statements by our “chosen one?”
he constantly complains about activist judges, yet he has shown nothing but support for an activist judge like scoundrel scalia…
on the other hand, he is probably the most “activist” president in our history…can i ask when doesn’t he act on instincty rather than the voice of the people.
man, i hate that guy.