I would that many justices have set in stone opinions. Such as the meaning of eminent domain. It should not drift in the wind because of an argument that increased tax revenue benefits a community in the same way that a new highway does.

The definition is not open to debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot (or a crook).

GD, I do not think that the majority of senators that voted against Alito, for example, did so because they thought there was a better person for the job. There is always better. They played politics with their votes just as they do with any number of other votes. The politics being played was pretty evident in their speeches posing as questions.

I'm gonna go ahead and guess you've got the wrong thread there.

Or perhaps she thinks Scalia misspoke and everyone else is laughing at our Supreme Court. Nah - wrong thread.

Maybe I'll go "bird hunting" in DC.

Yeah, I had a drunken moment there or something.

\

I don't know in my work place vernacular "living Documents" are those that we can change, amend, or revise in some fashion. The fact that our Constitution has an amendment process to me makes it a living document.

It beats settling our constitutional disputes through violent revolution and beheadings, though certainly more blasé

Exactly. The amendment process is what makes it living, not changing interpretations based on new arguments or the whim of a group of judges that think, suddenly, that the meaning of the words is somehow different than it was before.

In terms of the amendment process, I can agree with it being a "Living Document". But the way the term is tossed around normally, I would say that it is NOT a living document, and unless something within society changes majorly (such as periods when the amendments mentioned above have been passed), we can't have such a loose interpretation and attitude towards our "guiding light" -- the Constitution.

Um, Michael Moore is an entertainer. Scalia is on the Supreme Court. BIG difference.

Just sayin'...:rolleyes: