Comments on: Scalia and the (supposedly) unchanging Constitution

By: Justin the bored, unemployed lawyer

Justin the bored, unemployed lawyer — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:52:47 +0000

I’ve spent entirely too much time watching Scalia speak and this is what I’ve come away with. He is an incredibly articulate and well read individual who hides behind semantics and frequently fits the facts to his truth. He is an intellectual narcissist with a propensity for ignoring his own doctrine of originalism when it does not suit his needs. Scalia is a prototypical nerd, very proud of the fact that he went K-12 without anything less than an A. However, to me all this proves is he clearly understands how to “game” the system and respond in a manner most acceptable to the instructor, that is he answers how the questioner wants hear it. Unfortunately as a narcissist, now that he is a Justice he uses this skill to create a response based on what he wants to hear.
If you want citable proof check out Barnett: Scalia’s Infidelity.

By: TM

TM — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:40:07 +0000

quick search of web we find the following:

As I suspected, Justice Scalia did not say he would have dissented in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The newspaper account is incorrect and took his remarks out of context. The author of the article, Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services, owes Justice Scalia an apology.

And I apologize for quoting this incorrect article in my original post.

Here is the video of the event:

At 23:45 Justice Scalia is clearly misquoted. He says that he stands with Justice Harlan, who dissented in Plessy v. Ferguson. He argues that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits racial discrimination.

By: TnGelding

TnGelding — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:14:02 +0000

Impeach!

By: Brianna Gold

Brianna Gold — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:26:40 +0000

Well, hell must have frozen over because I am about to defend Antonin Scalia — that being said, he was misquoted by a reporter about Brown and it has since been corrected.

In addition, the comment, wrong or right, was not made the other “night” as you reported, but rather at 11:30 in the morning. I watched the event live online and I’m surprised how much I have read from reporters is wrong, whether as simple as night or morning to how he would vote in Brown.

By: Number1ninja

Number1ninja — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:32:03 +0000

The scary thing is that Scalia is basically that tool Judge Napolitano that’s always braying on Fox News. If you’re a strict consittutionalist, you should recognize that the founders pretty much agreed that it was only supposed to last about twenty years. Then whoever was still alive was supposed to revisit the constitution and revise it. But if you think they’re gonna call another CC, HA!! They only believe in the myth of America, not the reality.

By: Len_RI

Len_RI — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:57:45 +0000

The “founder’s intentions” included slavery and no voting for women, so why on earth would I defer to them on a matter so important as the U.S. Constitution?

And, for “righty” and for the record, as far back as the founding of our fine nation the Supreme Court did in fact look to other jurisdictions (i.e. foreign) to help in applying the law. So there!

By: dbm

dbm — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:56:09 +0000

The 14th amendment DID outlaw segregated schools IF they were inherently unequal. It just took a long time to realize, based on experience, that they were inherently unequal.

By: Pokey

Pokey — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:30:37 +0000

Jay, You are arguing in circles now. You ORIGINALLY argued that Scalia couldn’t argue for application of the 14th Amendment to overturn legalized segregation because he rejects it’s applcation for voting rights and be consistent. They are entirely different matters. Also there is a difference between “voting rights” as you and he define them and the inconsistent treatment by the FL Supreme Court of votes that were ALREADY cast.

I know that may be too much to handle so don’t strain your brain thinking about it too long.

Your post is about as lame and strained a point as was your attempt to portray Scalia as an insincere Christian.

When is your next Palin post? I can’t wait…

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:27:20 +0000

Why would originalism require that Scalia reject Brown and endorse Plessy? It seems like you are arguing that because Plessy was the first case to address the issue, Scalia must endorse the first decision, Plessy. That’s silly, as originalism has nothing to do with agreeing/disagreeing with a Court’s first decision on the issue, and has everything to do with discerning what the Legislature meant (as opposed to intended) when it passed the written law or amendment.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:03:54 +0000

No, I’m not arguing that Plessy was right (nice try at slipping in the dagger though).

I’m arguing that if you judge Scalia by the originalist standards that he himself claims to champion, then yes, he is wrong on both Brown and Plessy.

Originalism requires that he reject Brown and endorse Plessy.