Scalia showing his respect for diverse opinion

[Ghoulish Delight]

http://www.nbc4.tv/politics/7046174/detail.html

I'll let his words do the talking.

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that."

[scaeagles]

Kind of like the people who wouldn't vote for the confirmation of Alito (or Roberts, for that matter) because they disagree with the way he views the Constitution? Does that show diversity? Not voting for someone qualified because they believe differently than you?

The word idiot is strong, and if that's your objection, then I can undertand that. I actually find that less objectionable than when someone like a Kennedy suggests that confirmation of Alito means that civil rights get turned back 50 years.

I am completely with Scalia in his sentiment on the living, breathing part. The way the Constitution lives and breathes is through the amendment process, which has served this country quite well, eliminating or changing some of the parts of the Constitution that were immoral (such as amendment XIII and XIX).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Not voting for someone because you disagree with them is a far cry from calling millions of Americans idiots.

I disagree with Saclia's views of the Constitution, but did not consider him an idiot because of that. Now, I'm not so sure.

[The Shadoe]

It is not a "living document".

I really don't like it when people start talking that talk because the Constitution was meant to set up a limited government. It's clear by reading the Constitution that it was meant to set up a limited government; the framers had a general mistrust of the government, and therefore went about to make a government that would preserve justice, but not wield too much power over the people.

Nowadays, people forget (or don't even know) that it was setup to be limited, and a good chunk of society expects that the GOVERNMENT should provide for them, at the expense of other people. If the Framers had wanted socialism they would have set it up that way. But that would've meant having a strong government.

You can't have it both ways. The more socialist the government becomes, the less freedom you have. Dependance on the government certainly does not expand your liberties.

I got into an argument about this with someone, and he was losing things to say and finally said "people don't want to help anyone anymore." Which, of course, is entirely false. My personal belief is that there are solutions outside of the government to solving social ills. Why should we give our freedoms away and steal money out of other people's pockets to accomplish something, which with creative thinking, can be solved in a different manner?

But I digress. The Constitution was set up with timeless qualities, and if we start trying to apply "modern ideals" to it, we'll lose sight of what makes our nation great!

To broaden your understanding of what the Constitution really ways, I recommend The Heritage Guide to the Constitution as it will definately clarify the Constitution and what it means. It goes over everything clause-by-clause.

"Man is not free unless government is limited... As government expands, liberty contracts."
-Ronald Reagan

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

It is not a "living document".

\

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

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm not even getting into the interpretation debate. That's not my point. I disagree with the millions of people who interpret the document differently than me, but that doesn't make them idiots. Scalia's comment was utterly narrowminded, and, honestly, idiotic. Among other things several other justices are among those he just branded "idiots". Hardly setting up an envirnment for productive discourse, is he?

[Alex]

You disagree with millions of people about various things without considering them idiots.

You also disagree with millions of people about things you think so obvious that they would have to be idiots to believe otherwise.

For Scalia, apparently, this is in that category. Need he put every idea into the same bucket as you? It's no biggie.

I believe that anybody who views the Bible as literal truth is, in at least one aspect, an idiot. Lots of other people disagree with my categorization and would think me an idiot for it. It's no biggie.

[The Shadoe]

That's politics.

Michelle Malkin wrote a book called "UNHINGED" in which she documents the horribly ignorant and offensive things the extreme Left says. It puts "the most tolerant party" myth in the trash can.

I find myself at conflict with the book. I found it entertaining, yet was also disgusted by what I read (including people who tried to run a Republican Senator off the road, the rioters who went and smashed cars and burned yards of Bush supporters, etc.)... Amused yet disgusted at the same time.

What are your feelings about Michael Moore who said that Americans were the stupidest people on earth? I think his saying that (over and over again to boot) is far more offensive than Scalia's statement. Plus, I don't think that most Americans think much (if anything) about our Constitution, so I highly doubt that he offended millions-and-millions of Americans.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I had respect for Scalia. While I disagree with much of his reasoning, I do end up agreeing with a good chunk of his decissions. However, this says to me that he gives zero weight to anything someone who disagrees with him on the Court says, and that concerns me.


And before you trot out my view that I would vote against Alito's nomination for said same reason, I'll argue that we're talking two different things. As a Senator voting for or against confirmation, it's your job to vote against them if you think they are the wrong person for the job. If that were simply a matter of "do they meet the qualifications", there would be no need for a confirmation process. Just throw the job opening up on Monster and take the first person whose resume matches. As in indiviudal voter, the question before a Senator is, "Is this person going to best serve America on the Court?" Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to vote against them if you think their interpretation of the Constitution is not good for America.

On the other hand, as an acting Justice, it's your job to work with the other 9 judges to decide cases. After hearing this, I have a hard time believing that Scalia listens to anyone and just says, "I'm right, you're wrong, piss off."

[Alex]

Well, on this particular issue he has shown himself as having a set-in-stone opinion. But considering he has been grappling with the living constitution issue for most of his professional life, how much openness can he (or any of the other justices) have for different conclusions than the one he has reached on what is the fundamental question of constitutional law. I doubt Ginsburg goes into each conference session saying "You know Antonin, this time you almost convinced me that rigid strict constructionism is the way to go."

He has spent 30 years looking at the question and decided that only retards could have reached a certain conclusion. I disagree with him, but I'm not upset by it. Also, having heard him speak in person before and having been surprised by his sarcastic wit, I doubt he literally thinks you're an idiot (at least not because of this issue; my sense is he thinks 99% of the people are idiots compared to him and he might be right).